```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6004-H6012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         NO MORE SOLYNDRAS ACT

                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 6213.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 779 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6213.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0912

                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6213) to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee 
program established under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
with Mr. Bishop of Utah in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I care about America's energy future, and I certainly 
care about America's fiscal future as well. For those two reasons, I 
would urge every one of us here to vote ``yes'' on the No More 
Solyndras Act.
  On the energy front, I continue to advocate concrete measures towards 
achieving North American energy independence. That includes approving 
the Keystone XL pipeline, it includes increasing conventional and 
renewable

[[Page H6005]]

energy production from Federal lands, and eliminating unnecessary EPA 
red tape on coal and other fossil fuels. These and other pro-energy 
measures are part of the all-of-the-above energy agenda that has been 
championed by the Energy and Commerce Committee here in the House.
  But support for this agenda also requires us to pull the plug on 
existing programs that simply aren't working. And the Department of 
Energy's title XVII loan guarantee program is simply not advancing the 
ball on an all-of-the-above energy goal. The No More Solyndras Act, 
this bill, phases out this costly, ineffective and, frankly, very 
mismanaged program.

  Our extensive investigation of Solyndra uncovered a story worse than 
anyone could have imagined. It is amazing to me that the administration 
gave a half-billion dollar loan guarantee to a company that its own 
experts predicted would fail, a company so dysfunctional that it burned 
through this giant handout and went bankrupt in 2 years. Even worse, 
when it became clear to the administration that Solyndra was in 
trouble, it chose to double down on the risky bet, gambling even more 
taxpayer dollars with a desperate loan restructuring instead of trying 
to cut its losses and move on.
  Solyndra is the most visible but far from the only example of title 
XVII failures. In fact, it is hard to point to a single loan guarantee 
success under this program. Developing new energy sources and 
technologies is an important part of our all-of-the-above approach, but 
it is clear that this loan guarantee program is ineffective at best, 
and counterproductive at worst.
  Further, I'm stunned by the cavalier manner in which the 
administration squandered all of these taxpayer dollars, yet says it 
has no regrets, no apologies about its handling of the program and 
continues to declare it an ``enormous success.'' If the administration 
can't learn anything about irresponsible spending from Solyndra, is it 
any wonder that we are running still a trillion-dollar annual deficit 
and just saw the national debt eclipse the $16 trillion figure. Burning 
money is one source of energy that the country doesn't need. That's why 
this bill prevents any costly repeats of Solyndra by prohibiting any 
new loan guarantees and subjecting pending ones to very stringent 
safeguards.
  What's most disturbing about this unprecedented spending is that it 
is not necessary to secure a brighter future. The private sector is 
more than willing to step in and provide the necessary cash and energy 
if only we would let them. What we need is a Keystone economy, not a 
Solyndra economy. What we need is a privately funded investment, not 
taxpayer-funded boondoggles.
  The goal of the North American energy independence plan certainly is 
in reach, as well as millions of new jobs that would certainly go with 
it, but we aren't going to get there through title XVII Department of 
Energy loan guarantees--no, we're not.
  This investigation uncovered a problem, and now we have a thoughtful 
bill to fix it so that it cannot happen again. The next step is for the 
House to pass this bill and hopefully get the Senate to take it up as 
well. We need to pass the No More Solyndras Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During my time in Congress, one important lesson that I've learned is 
that good oversight results in good legislation, and biased and 
partisan oversight results in biased and partisan legislation. The No 
More Solyndras Act is a good example of that rule. It's bad legislation 
born of part biased and partisan oversight.
  The Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, on which I sit as 
ranking member, investigated the Solyndra loan in excruciating detail, 
but after 18 months, 300,000 pages of documents, 14 interviews with key 
officials, five hearings, and three subpoenas, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have failed to prove any of their inflammatory 
accusations that they've leveled at the administration. Instead, they 
simply repeat one unproven allegation after another, trying to score 
political points, ignoring key exculpatory evidence, and making 
misleading accusations about the Solyndra loan based on cherry-picked 
evidence.
  Now, the loan guarantee program was actually developed in 2005 as 
part of the Energy Policy Act by the Bush administration. It was 
developed with the thought that as we look at development of domestic 
energy sources like oil and gas, we should also look at development of 
alternative energy sources like wind and solar. So this program was 
passed by a Republican Congress, with a Republican President in the 
White House, in order to do such a thing.
  It's important to note that the Solyndra loan, the first application 
was made under the Bush administration. It was then funded under the 
Obama administration. What happened was, once this loan was thoroughly 
vetted by the career employees at the Department of Energy and funded, 
the market conditions changed. China decided to flood the market with 
cheap solar panels, causing Solyndra's business model to change.
  Now, the career employees--many of whom had been there under a 
Republican and Democratic administration at the Department of Energy--
had a decision to make: they could walk away from $500 million of U.S. 
taxpayer money or they could try to restructure the loan in the hope of 
recovering that money, and that was the decision that they made. The 
facts simply do not support the over-the-top allegations that there was 
anything wrong with this decision.
  Now, let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, my job is not to defend the 
administration. If something improper occurred on this loan, I would 
want to know about it, and I would want to expose it. But what the 
evidence showed is that the career officials and the Bush and Obama 
administration appointees who worked on the loan told our investigators 
that political considerations played no role in the decisions on 
Solyndra.

                              {time}  0920

  They told us that there was no improper pressure to rush key 
decisions on the loan, to approve the loan, or to change the terms of 
the loan. Each and every one of these officials confirm that there were 
no corners cut in the process and that decisions were made purely on 
the merits.
  As David Frantz, a career civil servant who has served as Director of 
the loan guarantee program since 2007 under the Bush administration, 
said:

        . . . through the whole history of the program, from its 
     inception to today, it has not been driven by any political 
     considerations whatsoever.

  But the Republicans ignored the evidence before the committee and 
they repeatedly made insinuations that were simply not correct. For 
example, my Subcommittee Chairman Stearns claimed that the committee's 
investigation:

        . . . reveals a startlingly cozy relationship between 
     wealthy donors and the President's confidants, especially in 
     matters related to Solyndra.

  But this statement is exactly the opposite of what the committee 
found. Chairman Stearns was referring to unproven allegations of White 
House political favoritism on behalf of the Solyndra investor George 
Kaiser, a supporter of President Obama.
  But the committee interviewed two key White House decisionmakers, Adi 
Kumar and Heather Zichal, about their interaction with Mr. Kaiser. The 
committee learned that at the time the Solyndra loan was being 
reviewed, neither of these officials had any knowledge of Mr. Kaiser's 
support for the President, nor did they have any role in the 
substantive decisions about the loan. These are the key officials 
Republicans claimed were at the center of the White House's improper 
activities, and yet they had no knowledge of Mr. Kaiser's political 
support and no involvement in the decisions on the loan.
  These facts directly contradict the allegations that we've been 
seeing repeatedly in the press for these many months, and they 
contradict the findings in the bill that we're debating today. That's 
why I have an amendment which will come up in a few minutes to strip 
some of the inaccurate findings out of the bill. These facts don't seem 
to matter to my friends on the other side of the aisle, though.
  Throughout the investigation, Democrats urged the chairman to take a 
different path. We asked for responsible oversight that could actually 
shed light on why this company failed and

[[Page H6006]]

what legislation might be needed to advance our energy security and our 
domestic clean energy sector.
  Despite our requests, Republicans refused to hold hearings on the 
competitive challenges U.S. manufacturers face in the global clean 
energy market. They refused to seek testimony from the largest private 
equity investors in Solyndra to understand why the company attracted so 
much private capital, and they refused to invite DOE witnesses to take 
a serious look at the legal and financial rationale behind the 
subordination of the government position in the Solyndra loan.
  This was not a fair, complete, or effective investigation. It sure 
was long, though. But the result, the legislation before us, is also 
not fair, complete, or effective.
  The bill does nothing to advance our Nation's energy security or to 
save taxpayer money. It ignores the benefits of the DOE loan programs: 
300 million gallons of gasoline saved, the world's largest solar 
plants, the Nation's first electric vehicle manufacturing facilities, 
and tens of billions of dollars in private investment dollars off the 
sidelines and into the American economy.
  The legislation does allow DOE to award $34 billion in future loan 
guarantees, but it prohibits the DOE from considering any new 
applications. Refusing to allow DOE to even consider cutting-edge 
applications is not the way to advance innovative energy technologies 
in this country. And the legislation also ties DOE's hands in the event 
a loan recipient needs additional capital, removing an important and 
legal refinancing tool that the DOE and independent observers agree can 
help save and protect taxpayer funds.
  It's clear this legislation is a political exercise. It does nothing 
but attempt to keep the word ``Solyndra'' in the news and to give a 
platform to repeat these accusations. And it's a shame, because what we 
should be doing today is working together, in a bipartisan way, to find 
a complete energy policy that will help us, for national defense and 
for economic reasons, become independent from foreign oil and create 
new, clean energy that's domestically based.
  It's disappointing legislation, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I 
urge Members to vote ``no''.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to the Chairman of the 
Oversight Subcommittee, let me yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to 
respond.
  While it's true that the program was signed into law by President 
Bush in '05, I would note that the Bush administration did not issue a 
single loan guarantee, in large part because it struggled to identify 
any company whose energy products were both meritorious and yet unable 
to secure private financing. So, further, Bush's OMB actually reviewed 
this project, the Solyndra loan guarantee application, but it rejected 
it in January of 2009 in the waning days because of the concerns over 
the long-term viability of the project.
  Now, this administration would go ahead with over $15 billion in loan 
guarantees through 2011. Solyndra, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, they've 
all gone bankrupt. And I'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg, 
which was why we moved ahead with this legislation.
  Without our action, without the action of our committee, there was 
strong belief, in fact, that this administration was going to go ahead 
yet with hundreds of millions of dollars more for Solyndra. That's not 
the answer to this thing. That's not how to save it.
  Our role at Energy and Commerce, we had a very aggressive chairman, 
Cliff Stearns, the chairman of the Oversight Investigation 
Subcommittee. He led the investigation. He identified the many faults, 
and now we've come back with corrective legislation to make sure that 
it doesn't happen again. That's our role.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), 
the very able chairman of the Oversight Investigation Subcommittee.
  Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman. And let me say that 
we are here this morning because the Oversight Committee, under the 
leadership of Mr. Upton, and myself as chair were able to define the 
problems.
  Now, on that side of the aisle, they obviously are going to defend 
the administration. But you can't defend an administration that lost 
$535 million, and they did so in a way that violated the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.
  Now, the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, indicated that nothing was done 
wrong. I think if she looks carefully at the evidence, obviously, a lot 
was done wrong because the Energy Policy Act said you cannot 
subordinate taxpayers' money to the two hedge funds which they did in 
the case of the Solyndra loan.
  And also, I think when you look at the evidence, you'll see that 
there's wholly mismanagement by the administration and the Department 
of Energy. And actually, there were so many warning signs that, in the 
end, this loan should have never gone forward. And these warnings came 
from the administration.
  So, my colleagues, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6213, the No More 
Solyndras Act, which I am proud to join with Chairman Upton in 
sponsoring. And as mentioned, this is a culmination of 18 months of 
thorough investigation by our Subcommittee on Oversight and on 
Investigations.
  Solyndra, as many of you know, was a California-based solar panel 
manufacturer that not only went bankrupt, but was also raided by the 
FBI a week later, and ultimately lost almost a half a billion dollars.
  Now, my colleagues, this bill was systematically put together 
carefully. It will phase out the Department of Energy's grossly 
mismanaged loan guarantee program by simply stopping DOE from issuing 
any loan guarantees for applications submitted after December 31, 2011. 
But, for those applications submitted prior to the December 2011 cut-
off date, the legislation allows them to remain eligible to receive a 
guarantee but subjects them to tougher, tougher scrutiny, and provides 
taxpayers strong new protections, including--let me outline these four 
basic protections.

                              {time}  0930

  (1) forbidding the subordination of U.S. taxpayers' dollars at any 
time to private investors;
  (2) requiring the Department of Energy to submit to Congress a 
transparency report that details the specifics of any new loan program 
that is going to be guaranteed by our taxpayers;
  (3) requiring the Department of Energy to first consult with Treasury 
prior to any restructuring of a guarantee; and
  (4) holding DOE officials accountable for their actions by imposing 
penalties on them for failing to follow the law.
  Certainly, the folks on this side of the aisle would agree, that if 
we have continued subordination and if these people do it in violation 
of this act, there should be some accountability.
  As many of you know, Solyndra was the first recipient, as Mr. Upton 
mentioned, of a DOE loan guarantee under title XVII of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. It also holds the dubious title as the first 
stimulus-backed recipient of a DOE loan guarantee to actually go 
bankrupt just 2 years after the loan closed and 6 months after DOE 
restructured the loan. So it didn't take long for these folks to end up 
in bankruptcy. And when they were out of cash, the Obama administration 
doubled down on their bad debt.
  Now, why would the administration double down on their bad debt? I 
think we'll go into that further as we get into this debate.
  They attempted to restructure Solyndra's loan and subordinate the 
interest of the taxpayer to two very, very wealthy and well-connected 
investors, all but ensuring taxpayers will never, ever see a dime.
  Other DOE loan recipients have also struggled. Three of the first 
five companies which received loan guarantees issued by DOE's Loan 
Guarantee Program--Solyndra, Beacon, Abound Solar--have all filed for 
bankruptcy, losing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will 
never, ever be recovered. Two other companies are struggling, my 
colleagues. Nevada Geothermal has substantial debt and no positive cash 
flow, and First Wind had to withdraw their planned IPO and also has 
substantial debt.
  So, on behalf of the American taxpayers, we had a duty to figure out 
what went wrong with the Solyndra

[[Page H6007]]

loan guarantee and whether the Loan Guarantee Program was properly 
managed. I think, as we go into this debate, we will show that it was 
not well managed.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. As pointed out by Chairman Upton, the investigation was 
methodical; it was systematic; it was thorough; and it was over an 18-
month period. It took us almost 8 months after we issued a subpoena in 
November to try to even get the administration to respond.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee requested, received and reviewed 
documents from every executive branch agency that was connected to 
Solyndra, and it interviewed more than a dozen administration officials 
who played key roles in the loan guarantee. The committee has also 
reviewed documents produced by Solyndra's investors, as well as by 
DOE's independent consultant and legal adviser.
  As the committee's investigation revealed, the Obama administration 
put Solyndra's loan on a fast track for political reasons despite 
repeated red flags and warnings in 2009 from the Office of Management 
and Budget and DOE officials about the company's financial condition 
and, actually, about the market for the product they were trying to 
sell, which was that they couldn't do it. It's clear that DOE failed to 
adequately monitor the loan guarantee, blindly writing check after 
check to Solyndra as the company hemorrhaged cash throughout 2010.
  When the warnings came to fruition and Solyndra was out of cash in 
the autumn of 2010, the Obama administration doubled down on its bad 
bet, restructuring Solyndra's loan in early 2011 and putting wealthy 
investors at the front of the line, ahead of taxpayers, which was a 
clear violation of the Energy Policy Act. Right up to the bankruptcy 
filing, my colleagues, the administration was willing to take 
extraordinary measures to keep Solyndra afloat for political reasons 
and ensure that the first loan, which was their poster child, would not 
be a failure.
  The investigation also showed that DOE failed to consult with the 
Treasury Department, which was part of the law and which they should 
have done as required by the Energy Policy Act, prior to issuing a 
conditional commitment to Solyndra, and that Treasury didn't even play 
a role in reviewing the restructuring, which was also a violation of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  The No More Solyndras Act will stop that, and it will correct this by 
ensuring that Treasury is actively involved in the loan process to 
protect taxpayers. This investigation and this No More Solyndras Act 
are great examples of how congressional oversight should work. Our 
investigation uncovered a problem, and this legislation will fix it.
  In closing, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, in particular, Todd Harrison, Karen 
Christian, Alan Slobodin, John Stone and Carl Anderson and my 
Legislative Director, James Thomas, for their dedication and hard work 
during this investigation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  I also ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), control the rest 
of the time on this side of the aisle.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will control 
the time.
  Mr. RUSH. First of all, I want to commend Mr. Waxman and thank him 
for leading us on the subcommittee in such a profound and effective 
way, leading the minority on the subcommittee and also on the full 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this is much to-do about nothing. As a matter of fact, 
I would strongly urge the members of this committee and the members of 
the majority side of the committee to get on their feet and apologize 
to the American people for this waste of time, energy, and resources 
because this piece of legislation that we have before us is legislation 
that doesn't solve any of the American people's problems, that doesn't 
acknowledge any of their concerns, and that certainly doesn't speak to 
the pain that they are suffering day to day, moment by moment, week by 
week as we stand here posturing solely for a few political points in 
the November election.
  I would ask the Members of this body to refer to comments made just 
about 30 days ago in USA Today. It was an article dated August 15, 
2012, entitled, ``This Congress could be least productive since 1947.''
  The authors analyzed records of the U.S. House's Clerk's Office and 
determined that, in 2012, a measly 2 percent of the close to 4,000 
bills introduced by Members of the 112th Congress became law--that 2 
percent of 4,000 bills actually became law. We are not proud of these 
figures. I want to quote from this article:

       These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-
     2012, the least productive 2-year gathering on Capitol Hill 
     since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress, 
     which President Truman called the ``do-nothing Congress'' in 
     1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.

  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It's another charade, another empty 
gesture, another misguided approach, another insensitive response to 
the pain and the plight of the problems of the American people. Here we 
go again. On this floor today is another prime example for the American 
people of why this has been the least effective Congress in over 60 
years.
  After taking the last 6 weeks off, we come back into session here in 
Washington, D.C., for a pathetic 8 days total in the month of 
September. And what are we doing? Instead of working on bipartisan 
legislation to create jobs and put Americans back to work, my 
Republican colleagues--you men and women on the other side--come back 
here to Washington and bring to this floor yet one more ill-conceived, 
unwanted, and unnecessary messaging bill, its only purpose being to 
gather some political advantages over the Obama administration.

                              {time}  0940

  Shame on you. We need to apologize to the American people. This no-
more-innovation bill is not a serious piece of legislation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. My Republican colleagues, you know full well that this bill 
would never become law. It would die before it even gets to the front 
door of the Senate. Yet here we are in front of the cameras hoping to 
score more political points before we head into this fall election.
  As the ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which is 
where this horrendous excuse for legislation originated, I must 
confess, unfortunately, that the subcommittee and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee as a whole have certainly contributed to the do-
nothing, accomplished-nothing label for this 112th Congress. With over 
30 hearings and over a dozen subcommittee and full committee hearings 
on bills that have originated from the Energy and Power Subcommittee, 
Congress has enacted one piece of legislation. We've had 30 hearings 
and one piece of legislation, and that is part of our record.
  While this would be a sad and pitiful record at any time, it is even 
more egregious when you look at all of the extreme weather events that 
have occurred in this past year and is a reminder of why the work of 
the Energy and Power Subcommittee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and this Congress overall is so necessary and so important.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. This past summer, two-thirds of the country experienced 
severe drought, causing crops to wither and spurring the earliest corn 
harvest in 25 years. At the same time, the water levels in four of the 
five Great Lakes has plummeted due to high evaporation rates and 
insufficient rainfall.
  While America burns, House Republicans twiddle their thumbs and have 
brought messaging bills to the floor of the Congress instead of working 
in a bipartisan fashion to address the real issues facing the American 
people.
  It is past time for this Congress, it is past time for my Republican 
colleagues

[[Page H6008]]

to get serious with the business of governing and not just voting on 
political posturing legislation to express their displeasure over 
President Obama.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record an 
exchange of letters between the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2012.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 
     6213, the No More Solyndras Act. This legislation was 
     referred initially to both the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 
     H.R. 6213 was marked up by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce on July 31, 2012.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives in an 
     expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further 
     consideration of this bill in Committee. This, of course, 
     being conditional on our mutual understanding that language 
     negotiated with the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
     will be included in this or any similar legislation 
     considered on the House floor. However, agreeing to waive 
     consideration of this bill should not be construed as 
     waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
       Additionally, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology expressly reserves its authority to seek the 
     appointment of conferees during any House-Senate conference 
     that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I 
     ask for your commitment to support any request by the 
     Committee for conferees on H.R. 6213 as well as any similar 
     or related legislation.
       I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be 
     included in the report on H.R. 6213 and also be placed in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph M. Hall,
       Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
       Enclosure.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,

                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                               Washington, DC, September 10, 2012.
     Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hall: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 6213, the ``No More Solyndras Act.'' As you noted, there 
     are provisions of the bill that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
     Technology.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 6213, 
     and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology with respect to 
     the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation, for which you 
     will have my support.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the report on H.R. 6213 and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of H.R. 6213 on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. 
Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
committee for yielding to me.
  I want to respond to my Democratic colleague from Illinois who just 
spoke, my Democratic colleague who is the ranking member of a 
subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Power.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, he used all of his allotted time plus 
additional time to talk and rail about a do-nothing Congress. I want to 
remind the gentleman and I want to remind all of my colleagues that 
this bill, this No More Solyndras Act that we are bringing to the House 
floor today, comes from another subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, a 
subcommittee of which the gentleman from Illinois is not a member. That 
subcommittee, as you all know, is the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigation.
  The gentleman made some points in regard to the public looking at us 
as a do-nothing Congress, and in many ways that's true. Not a lot has 
been done, and not a lot has been accomplished. But it sounds like he 
is suggesting that we members of the Oversight and Investigation 
Committee of Energy and Commerce, or, for that matter, any subcommittee 
on oversight and investigation of any standing committee of the House 
of Representatives, should sit back and do nothing because it's an 
election year.
  Colleagues, it's an election year every 2 years. It's a Presidential 
election year every 4 years. We have our work to do.
  I feel very compelled to stand here before you today and compliment, 
in the highest way, the chairman of this Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigation of Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives, a 
distinguished Member with well over 20 years of service. You all know 
that he'll be retiring from this body after this year. I am so proud to 
be on that committee, to work with him, to have an opportunity to see 
how he handled this 18-month investigation of this Solyndra loan 
program through the Department of Energy, and how flawed that it was, 
and how diligent he was in trying to get the information necessary to 
connect the dots. Yes, even, indeed, issuing subpoenas to get the 
information. I am proud of the overall chairman of the committee, Fred 
Upton, the gentleman from Michigan, in regard to being very careful and 
deliberate and working with the other side of the aisle, not making a 
rush to judgment, but a very careful and planned investigation to 
finally get to where we are today. And I'm extremely proud of the work 
of the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. The bottom line, my colleagues, is we have 
work to do. If we're members of Oversight and Investigation, we have 
got to ferret out waste, fraud, abuse, corruption. Any program of the 
Federal Government that takes money from we, the taxpayer, whether it's 
a loan or a grant or whatever, we have to investigate, to look, to make 
sure that these programs are being done in the right way and not for 
political purposes. To promote an industry? Yes. But to make sure that 
this applicant is reasonable, that due diligence has occurred, that 
they have a good business plan, that they're not burning cash, and that 
we're not putting good money after bad. In this case, Mr. Chairman, it 
was $550 million. This is just one of three failed programs. Abound is 
another one. Beacon Power is another one. That is three out of the 
first four. There was something wrong in River City.
  We're altogether correct and right in ending this program. That is 
why I stand here today, and I encourage each and every Member on both 
sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the No More Solyndras Act.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from California, and I compliment 
the gentleman from California on his fight on this issue because we're 
right down to something, which is one of the greatest political frauds 
of all time being perpetrated here on the House floor. It is a monument 
to the political cynicism of the Republican Party that we have such a 
bill out here on the floor today. It is a tribute to the control that 
the fossil fuel and nuclear industry now has over the Republican Party. 
We have a bill out here on the House floor which purports to make sure 
that the program which gave loans to Solyndra is ended.

                              {time}  0950

  The name of the bill is No More Solyndras, meaning no more Federal 
loans to these speculative energy projects, which could ultimately wind 
up taking money out of the pockets of American taxpayers. That's what 
they say they are doing. No more Solyndras, meaning end that program. 
But what does their bill do?
  Well, their bill says no more Solyndras, but it should be amended to 
say the only $88.4 billion more for nuclear and coal no more Solyndras 
act of 2012, because what the Republicans do is that they grandfather 
in all of these applications, $75.6 billion for nuclear, $11.9 billion 
for coal, 88.4 billion for nuclear and coal.

[[Page H6009]]

  Now, it will be one thing if they were saying, ah, but we have made a 
determination that the solar industry, the wind industry--that's risky. 
But the nuclear industry, oh, that's just the safest industry ever--
except for one thing. When this program was put on the books in 2005, 
it was Pete Domenici from New Mexico who put the program on the books 
in order to provide a crutch for the nuclear industry. Then when the 
Bush administration was even apprehensive about giving out any loans, 
the Republicans then began to pressure the Bush administration to give 
out loans to the nuclear industry, which it did not want to d0.
  Senator Domenici actually put a hold on former Congressman Nussle 
even being named to the head of the OMB until he promised he was going 
to give out loans to the nuclear industry. That's the history of this 
program: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.
  The last year the Republicans were in control of the House and the 
Senate, what did they do? Well, in the loan guarantee program, they 
left in $32 billion for nuclear and coal and cut out the $17 billion in 
loan guarantees for wind and solar. Get the picture? Nuclear, coal--
they like it. Wind and solar--they hate it.
  To be more clear about it, the nuclear and the coal industry hate it 
because wind and solar are taking off across this country: 12,000 new 
megawatts of wind this year; 3,200 new megawatts of solar this year. It 
is taking off as these other two industries are going down. This level 
playing field was just too much, too much for the Republicans.
  Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so quickly that he would qualify 
for a new energy tax break under the Republican program. That's how 
crazy all of this is.
  Get to the bottom line. I made an amendment in the committee. I said, 
okay, Solyndra lost $535 million. You can see the crocodile tears how 
concerned they are about this loan guarantee program. So I said okay, 
no energy loan guarantee recipient who lost more than $540 million last 
year is eligible for a loan guarantee.
  Now, what I was talking about, the United States Enrichment 
Corporation, a nuclear company that last year and this year has been 
put on the warning list to be delisted from the New York Stock 
Exchange, which S&P and Moody's have dropped down to junk bond status, 
and the Republicans are saying they are so concerned about the 
standards.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. Here is a company basically teetering on the brink of 
bankruptcy, with the Federal Government already having given it, that 
company, an additional $1 billion from Federal taxpayers to keep it 
afloat. The Republicans all voted ``no.'' We're not going to set up any 
standards. We're not going to have any rules. When the Southern Company 
wanted $8 billion for two nuclear power plants, even though it's $1 
billion over cost already, the Republicans say no problem, it's 
nuclear.
  So this is a pretty clear line here. It's an all-out assault on solar 
and wind, all-out. It's been going on for a year and a half. This is 
the next installment; it's all about the future.
  They're locked into the past, the Republican Party, that old way that 
has failed. As this new marketplace has opened up, they are doing 
everything they can to undermine that new future of solar and wind 
while tilting the playing field so that nuclear and coal continue to 
qualify for Federal taxpayer subsidies.
  Vote ``no'' on this only $88.4 billion dollars more for nuclear and 
fossil no more Solyndras act.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just say that although it's true that DOE has $34 billion in 
loan guarantee authority remaining, DOE is actually capped at $22 
billion for nuclear projects, so the argument that this act creates a 
loophole that would allow up to $100 billion in new nuclear projects is 
simply not right, and the projects that are in the application 
pipeline--remember those remain in the pipeline through December of 
last year--they are not limited to nuclear. In fact, there are only six 
active nuclear-related applications in that queue. The other 40-plus 
include solar, biomass, wind, a whole number of things.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, today's 
vote culminates a nearly 2-year investigation into how the 
administration has mismanaged the Department of Energy's loan guarantee 
program, allowing the loss of $535 million in the interest of gaining a 
political win on solar energy.
  Emails and documents show that the White House and political 
appointees at the Department of Energy had a heavy hand in pushing the 
Solyndra application forward despite multiple misgivings, misgivings 
from the credit committee at the Department of Energy, both in 
President Bush's administration before and career staff at the Office 
of Management and Budget and the Department of Treasury.
  Moreover, when it was clear that by rushing the Solyndra application 
it actually could result in a very embarrassing bankruptcy for the 
President, the Department of Energy pushed for a questionable legal 
move that actually subordinated the taxpayer interests below that of 
private equity interests, a move that we have now seen will result in 
the complete annihilation of the $535 million from the perspective of 
the taxpayer.
  But one of the glaring issues that the investigative committee 
uncovered was that because no penalties existed in the 2005 loan 
guarantee authorization, officials at the Department of Energy had 
nothing to fear in actually breaking the law as it was written by our 
committee and passed by this Congress.
  Indeed, the Department of Energy intentionally hid its head in the 
sand refusing to consult with either Department of Energy or Department 
of Justice for an outside reading on whether subordination could be a 
legitimate option. Instead, Department of Energy stopped an outside law 
firm's analysis, created a tortured memo justifying what they had 
already decided they would do, that is, place taxpayer dollars below 
the interests of private equity.
  For this reason, I welcomed the opportunity to work with Chairman 
Upton and Chairman Stearns to add explicit language to provide for 
penalties for those officials who violate the terms of the 
authorization which created the loan guarantee program. It is time that 
those in the agency that dole out millions of dollars and choose to 
ignore the law be held accountable.
  Indeed, the public understands this concept very well. Any employee 
in the private sector who ignores their boss's instructions and loses 
millions of dollars in company money is going to face immediate 
sanctions, including losing their job. No one has lost their job over 
Solyndra.
  Public employees should be no different from private employees. This 
is an important bill. Today's vote will be a win for every citizen 
concerned about good government and our fiscal future. It's time to end 
failed government programs that are driving us over a fiscal cliff. 
This is a major step in the right direction.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the dean of the House, 
the chairman emeritus of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise, first, to salute the gentleman from Florida and to express to 
him my affection and respect and good wishes as he leaves the Congress, 
and also to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Upton.
  I would observe, however, if anybody were to put a monument like this 
to me, I would bend this cane of mine over his head. This is perhaps 
one of the sorriest things I have seen done. It is like the mule: it 
has neither pride of parentage nor hope of posterity. It isn't going 
anywhere. It accomplishes precisely nothing. It has a series of 
findings which are totally unrelated to facts and don't mean anything 
and don't help us with the problems before us. It is a piece of 
legislation which was adopted by this Congress with the

[[Page H6010]]

full support of all of my Republican friends over there who are now 
shying away from their parentage of the basic legislation.
  I say to my Luddite friends: This is not going to accomplish 
anything. I would point out to you it isn't going to pass the Senate. 
It isn't going to be signed by the President. It doesn't address any of 
the problems that are before us. It grandfathers everybody in and says 
there will be nothing new.
  But what does it really do? It hurts our efforts to see to it that we 
are able to remain competitive in high-tech, new energy undertakings, 
which are the hope and the future of this country. That's what it does. 
That's why, if I were on that side of the aisle, I would have a red 
face.
  And I would point out that this proposal was backed by my Republican 
friends, led by Mr. Barton, supported by my dear friend, Mr. Upton, and 
all of my good Republican friends. All of a sudden they find that 
Solyndra has lost money and has gone bankrupt. Why? Because the Chinese 
knocked the bottom out of the market for solar panels. Why? A 
governmental economy has killed another American industry.
  The future of this country is to compete in high-tech jobs in the new 
kind of undertakings where we can whip the world. But there is a major 
capital problem for those companies, and they will not prosper and this 
country will not prosper unless we provide mechanisms to see to it that 
they can do the things they did.
  The Oversight and Investigations Committee has had no end of hearings 
on it and has thrown subpoenas around like popcorn at a circus, but 
they haven't found anything. And the committee has brought forward this 
miserable, hopeless piece of legislation in the expectation that it's 
going to do something, and that something is, of course, to try to help 
my Republicans with their election campaign.
  Now, this is a laudable thing if you're a Republican. But if you're 
an American, this is not helping our country and this is not benefiting 
anybody. What the result of this legislation is is more wasted time on 
the floor of the House.
  What my Republican colleagues won't admit to you is this is the 
sorriest session of the Congress in history. I think it outranks the 
do-nothing 80th Congress, and that was a session where we accomplished 
precisely nothing in this great body.
  I would observe to my dear friends that if you want to do something, 
let's get down to dealing with jobs. Let's get down to dealing with the 
economy. Let's work to see to it that we address our foreign policy 
questions and the problems that the United States faces. Let's complete 
a budget. Not a thing of that is done. I heard that this particular 
session of this Congress has done 60 bills. When I walk over, I always 
ask my staff, ``Which post offices are we naming today?'' That's what 
we have done.
  If you're looking for a record of accomplishment, look in the Senate, 
which is the cave in the winds which usually does very little. But they 
are putting us to shame because they are, in fact, legislating while we 
are over here dithering around with a nonsensical piece of legislation 
that accomplishes nothing except to try to vindicate a failed 
investigation where subpoenas were thrown around like rice at a 
wedding.
  I say it is time for us to buckle down if we're going to go on here 
with some pride in our faces and with our heads held up. Let's go out 
on a piece of legislation that accomplishes something. This 
accomplishes nothing except to make a few people who couldn't do their 
job feel good.
  So my counsel to the House is: Let's vote this nonsense down. Let's 
decide that we're going to do something right around here for a change, 
even though it's late in the session.
  Mr. Chairman, why are we spending time on this deplorable piece of 
legislation when we should be doing the work of the people? We should 
be passing bipartisan legislation to continue our economic recovery and 
create jobs for the unemployed. This is no more than a sorry attempt to 
stick it in the eye of our president when really what we are doing is 
sticking it to the American worker.
  For this entire Congress, the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee has piddled unsuccessfully, call it an investigation of 
the Solyndra loan. As members of this body know, I am a strong 
proponent of fighting government waste and corruption through vigorous 
oversight regardless of what Administration is in charge. However, time 
and time again, this investigation refused to focus on the issues at 
hand and instead engaged in a political witch hunt in an attempt to 
embarrass this Administration. A witch hunt is not what this country 
needs; what we need are investments in innovative technologies and 
sources of energy so America does not fall further behind countries 
such as China, Korea, Germany, and others who are subsidizing 
innovative energy technology. We must take charge in innovation and 
this investigation and the bill before us fails to do either.
  The end result of this investigation is a bill that does nothing more 
than to stifle innovation, prevent job creation, and subverts a program 
that was created through bipartisan legislation and signed into law by 
a Republican president. We have underinvested in energy for decades and 
commercial deployment, with U.S. investments, will actually make our 
companies more competitive in the global market. By freezing this loan 
program, Republicans will only stifle another opportunity to put our 
economy back on the right path and create new jobs.
  I, along with all of the chairmen of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, the Speaker, and the Majority Leader worked in a bipartisan 
way in 2005 to create this loan program that would invest in our 
economy and our workforce. The legislation and the loan program were 
then signed into law by a Republican president. The investigation 
uncovered no undue political influence from the White House. What has 
changed the mind of the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and Republican 
leadership to undo that bipartisan cooperation?
  We cannot simply be the House of ``no.'' We can and we must do better 
for the sake of our country. I must ask my Republican colleagues, is 
your priority this Congress to build partisan talking points or build a 
stronger American economy that can compete in the global economy of the 
21st century? I hope it is the latter because I know I was elected to 
do the work of the people and I hope my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will start doing the same.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from California has 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. I would say to the dean of the House of Representatives, 
I appreciate sincerely his compliments and his kind words about me. The 
words he used by calling us Luddites, of course, refers to the 19th 
century textile workers who objected to the machinery being used.
  I would really say to Mr. Dingell that he is Luddite because you 
folks are objecting to letting the free market work. Just because other 
countries subsidize their energy sector to diversify their portfolios 
doesn't mean that we should, too. In fact, you saw the editorial 
recently in The Wall Street Journal how the Chinese subsidize, and now 
all their solar panel companies are going bankrupt, too.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky, (Mr. Whitfield), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee.

                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. The Chair would take the opportunity to remind all Members 
to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. First, I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee and the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Mr. Stearns, for 
the great effort they did over the last year-and-a-half of bringing the 
facts of these loan programs to the Congress and to the American 
people. I'm also personally glad that we have the opportunity to talk 
about this issue today because transparency is vitally important, I 
believe, for the American people.
  This legislation applies to two loan guarantee programs at the 
Department of Energy, section 1703 loans and section 1705 loans. The 
1703 program was adopted in 2005. Most of us in here voted for it. 
President Bush was in the White House at that time, but no loan 
guarantees were issued under President Bush under that program. The 
second program was 1705, which was part of President Obama's stimulus 
package.
  Now, I believe that the President made a mistake, and maybe it was 
deliberate, maybe it wasn't, but I don't think that he ever had a sound 
policy

[[Page H6011]]

to help stimulate the economy in America. I believe that his stimulus 
program, particularly this loan guarantee program, he was using that as 
an opportunity to push an agenda to move America into green energy 
before America was able to go to green energy.
  And he loaned $538 million to Solyndra, a company of which Mr. George 
Kaiser, one of the President's major political donors, was a part 
owner. That company went bankrupt. And not only did it go bankrupt, but 
the bankruptcy's terms were such that the venture capitalist, the 
private capitalist, Mr. Kaiser, and others would get their money back 
before the taxpayers did. And so this 1705 program and the 1703 
program, in my view, put the government in as a venture capitalist in 
risky projects.

                              {time}  1010

  We know they're risky because Solyndra's already bankrupt, Abound 
Solar is bankrupt, Beacon Power is bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal has no 
positive cash flow, First Wind has withdrawn its IPO and is having 
significant financial problems.
  So the President was not really developing a sound policy to 
stimulate the economy. He was providing money to risky ventures to push 
America into green energy before the technology was really available.
  So this legislation simply puts an end to the program.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I would be the first to say that there's still 
$34 billion left. We have 50 companies that have presented applications 
to the Department of Energy. They've spent a lot of money. So to just 
cut it off right now would be basically unfair. I would like to end it 
right now. But it would be unfair.
  But let me just finish with this note.
  The Department of Energy's own Web site said that because of these 
loan guarantee programs, 1,175 new jobs were created in America in 
green energy. Guess what? Each job cost $12.8 million. Now, if you're a 
hardworking taxpayer out there, I don't think you want your taxpayer 
dollars going to risky ventures in which private capitalists get their 
money back before anyone else does and for every job created it costs 
$12.8 million.
  Let's pass this legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
the State of California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, the No More Solyndras Act is just the 
latest scheme by the majority party to distract from the real issues 
that affect our economy and to attack America's clean energy 
investments and future.
  While Solyndra did not achieve its goals, other projects did, and 
they have made great investments in clean energy infrastructure and job 
creation.
  Not every investment works out, as the private sector well knows. One 
failure is not a valid reason to condemn the entire DOE loan guarantee 
program, a program created in a bipartisan manner to further our energy 
independence and spur economic growth. In fact, an independent report 
by Herb Allison earlier this year confirms that the program actually 
holds less risk than originally envisioned when Congress first created 
and funded the program.
  American companies are fighting an uphill battle against foreign 
countries that aggressively subsidize their clean energy industries. 
Last year, China and Germany both heavily invested in their clean 
energy future. We cannot and should not depend on foreign-made clean 
energy technologies.
  In order to remain competitive in the global marketplace, the Federal 
Government must continue to play an active role in encouraging and 
promoting investment in clean energy technologies. Not only does this 
support help spur innovation, but the loan guarantee program has 
already generated $40 billion of direct private investment in the U.S. 
economy and is supporting 60,000 direct jobs in American clean energy 
industries.
  My home district of Sacramento, California, is home to nearly 14,000 
clean technology jobs and houses more than 230 clean technology 
companies. These are small business owners who understand the need for 
Federal investment to help level the playing field at home and in the 
global marketplace. These companies hold the promise of making us the 
world leader in clean energy technology while simultaneously creating 
good-paying jobs, lowering energy prices, and preserving and protecting 
our environment.
  This partisan bill would take us backwards in this pursuit, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank Chairman Upton for his leadership on the 
Solyndra investigation, and I also thank Chairman Stearns for the great 
work that you did to really, no pun intended, bring this issue to 
light, the work that has happened over the past year with Solyndra.
  Last week was the 1-year anniversary of Solyndra's chapter 11 
bankruptcy filing, an anniversary that was by no means met with ticker 
tape parades around the country.
  I've held 74 town meetings in my district. At each one, people talk 
about responsibility, the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
watch how our dollars are being spent to make sure that Federal 
taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.
  Then they talk about Solyndra. They don't talk about Solyndra and 
say, you know, you should have kept giving them money. Why didn't those 
people keep giving Solyndra money? They talk about how did it happen in 
the first place. How did a committee that said ``no'' then come back 
and say ``yes''? How did a committee succumb to political pressure to 
put on a press conference for the Vice President so they could have 
great celebrations about spending a trillion dollars more in our 
stimulus bill?
  If people on the floor are so excited about Solyndra, why aren't they 
investing their money into it? But instead, they're putting their hope 
into a government program so that government program can take the risk, 
and in fact it did. It took the bankruptcy.
  Well, the sun has set on the Solyndra scandal, and it's a good thing, 
too, because the American people are tired of waste and abuse and 
fraud, and that's exactly what happened here.
  The fact is half a billion dollars in taxpayer money is gone, and I 
can't believe hearing the debate today that defends Solyndra, that 
defends the abuse of taxpayer dollars that says we should have done 
more. We shouldn't have done more. We shouldn't have done it at all. 
The fact that this company had a credit rating that they knew they were 
in trouble. The Department of Energy's oversight failed.
  I support this bill. Let's protect the taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not serious legislation. It's a political bill. 
In fact, much of the bill is composed of inaccurate and misleading 
congressional findings. The bill repeats baseless and unproven 
allegations of wrongdoing that are not supported by the whole 18-month 
investigation of the Solyndra loan guarantee.
  There is no fraud. There is no wrongdoing. There is a loss of money 
because this was a loan guarantee for a new way to deal with solar 
energy, and it was not successful when the Chinese dropped the price of 
their solar energy panel, which meant that Solyndra could not compete 
successfully.
  In an attempt to invent a scandal, House Republicans have spent the 
last year and a half lambasting the whole loan guarantee program. They 
ignore the successes of that loan guarantee program.
  The successes, and you'd never know it from the Republican rhetoric, 
are DOE programs that are expected to support nearly 60,000 jobs and 
save nearly 300 million gallons of gasoline per year by supporting six 
power generation projects that are now complete, nine projects that are 
sending power to the electric grid, one of the world's largest wind 
farms in Oregon, one of the largest concentrated solar generation 
projects in California, one of the largest photovoltaic solar power 
plants in Arizona. So they concentrate, the Republicans do, on a 
failure.
  Now, when you have risky projects, because they are new ways to have 
alternative energy sources, you're not always going to have a success. 
That's

[[Page H6012]]

why these projects need government loan guarantees.
  Now, the Republicans say, this is so terrible. We should never have 
had this program to start with. They're not going to allow another 
Solyndra. But they don't end the program. If you wanted to terminate 
the loan guarantee program, this bill's not for you.

                              {time}  1020

  Despite their rhetoric, this bill does not end, phase out, or defund 
the loan guarantee program. Under this legislation, the Department of 
Energy can use its existing authority, up to $34 billion in additional 
loan guarantees, in the years to come without any limit. The only limit 
they have is that no new applicants can come in and ask for funds, only 
those applicants that have had their applications submitted by the end 
of last year.
  The gentleman from Kentucky said, well, that's only fair. But why is 
that fair? This is supposed to be a program that's going to invest in 
clean energy to enhance our international competitiveness and address 
the challenges of energy security and climate change. Instead, this 
bill prevents new, innovative projects from competing for loan 
guarantees. And, as Mr. Markey from Massachusetts pointed out, most of 
those that are pending now are nuclear projects, so they create a 
winners list of about 50 projects that would be eligible for loan 
guarantees.
  If you wanted to end the loan project, the whole loan legislation, 
just do it. But they don't do it. That's why Taxpayers for Common Sense 
opposes the bill. The Heritage Foundation, National Taxpayers Union, 
the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all conservative groups--have 
raised serious concerns about this legislation.
  The whole point of a loan guarantee program is supposed to be to 
support innovative technologies, and we need to support innovative 
technologies or other countries will be way ahead of us in the 
development of these technologies. The market will not fund these 
technologies because they are not proven yet, and that's why we need 
government backing for them.
  This bill doesn't move us forward on clean energy in this country. We 
shouldn't create a list of winners and then ignore all of the other 
potential clean energy projects. We do not have time, Mr. Chairman, for 
phony political messaging bills. We have real problems to solve.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  We should be spending this time extending the tax credits for wind 
power. That would save tens of thousands of clean energy jobs. We 
should be spending this time developing responsible policies to reduce 
carbon emissions that are contributing to the record droughts, 
wildfires, storms, and floods that have been linked to climate change. 
But this bill is just more of the same: more political rhetoric, more 
bad policy, but no real solutions to the problems we face. We should 
reject this flawed legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Gardner) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________
```