H5934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. 

Speaker, many of my Democratic colleagues today have criticized Republicans in Congress as do-nothings, but 

my own view is a little different. 

It is certainly true that the Nation 

has real needs. Economists tell us that 

legislation held hostage here would 

create millions of jobs and put many 

Americans back to work. Instead of addressing those needs, Congress is just 

dysfunctional. 

But considering what Republicans in 

Congress want to do, it is a great blessing that Congress has done next to 

nothing. They have repeatedly voted to 

repeal health care reform—33 times according to one count—as if denying 

health insurance for preexisting conditions would put Americans back to 

work. 

They have voted to gut or eliminate 

the funding for Wall Street reform— 

putting us right back where we were 5 

years ago with the Bush administration policies that created the painful 

downturn that we are now in—and at 

least 55 times voted to restrict women’s reproductive rights and access to 

affordable health care, which included 

repeated attempts to eliminate funding 

for Planned Parenthood. It is hard to 

see that as a job creation agenda. 

Mr. Speaker, better to do nothing 

than what they want to do. 

f 

CUT TAXES FOR AVERAGE AMERICANS AND REBUILD OUR INFRASTRUCTURE 

(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and 

was given permission to address the 

House for 1 minute and to revise and 

extend his remarks.) 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to cut taxes for Americans, average Americans, the middle 

class and rebuild our infrastructure. 

Unfortunately, after wasting the last 

2 years and after spending the entire 

month of August at home without 

making even the slightest effort to fix 

the Nation’s economy, the Tea Party 

Republicans plan to adjourn next week 

for another 6 weeks after being here for 

8 days. Instead of going on vacation, 

why don’t we fix the Nation’s business? 

Why don’t we handle the business that 

we have to take care of? 

We act like petulant children around 

here. These Tea Party Republicans 

stick to their obstinate demand to cut 

taxes for millionaires and turn Medicare into a voucher program. We can’t 

afford to continue to handle our business like this. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for 

Congress to get to work. I think we 

should stay here and not leave for another 6 weeks, leaving the Nation’s 

business hanging. 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 6213, NO MORE 

SOLYNDRAS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 

RULES 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 

call up House Resolution 779 and ask 

for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 779 

Resolved, That at any time after the 

adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, 

pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 

the House resolved into the Committee of 

the Whole House on the state of the Union 

for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6213) to 

limit further taxpayer exposure from the 

loan guarantee program established under 

title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 

not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the 

five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment 

in the nature of a substitute recommended 

by the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 

consider as an original bill for the purpose of 

amendment under the five-minute rule an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute 

consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 112-31. That amendment in the nature 

of a substitute shall be considered as read. 

All points of order against that amendment 

in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 

amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except 

those printed in the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 

such amendment may be offered only in the 

order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, 

shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject 

to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 

demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 

points of order against such amendments are 

waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 

the bill for amendment the Committee shall 

rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. 

Any Member may demand a separate vote in 

the House on any amendment adopted in the 

Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute 

made in order as original text. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on 

the bill and amendments thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except 

one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time on 

the legislative day of September 20, 2012, or 

September 21, 2012, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 

rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 

hour. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the 

purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, 

my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 

MCGOVERN), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 

time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask 

unanimous consent that all Members 

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House 

Resolution 779 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 

6213. This rule provides for the discussion and opportunities for Members of 

the minority and the majority to participate in this debate. 

I rise today in support of this rule 

and the underlying bill. The underlying 

legislation ensures that all American 

taxpayers will never again be forced to 

pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this administration’s politically motivated risky bets. 

H.R. 6213 draws on the lessons 

learned from the failed Department of 

Energy Loan Guarantee Program, 

which invested $535 million into a solar 

energy company named Solyndra. Unfortunately, Solyndra went bankrupt, 

leaving hardworking Americans with a 

check for over half a billion dollars. 

Solyndra has become synonymous 

with the Obama administration’s reckless spending programs that have done 

nothing to create the jobs our country 

so desperately needs, nor those that 

had been promised by the President of 

the United States and the Democratic 

Party. Despite warnings that the company was unsustainable and would 

surely fail, the administration was 

blinded by their political agenda and 

committed over half a billion dollars in 

taxpayer dollars to a privately held 

company. 

In fact, during a 2011 restructuring of 

the loan, the administration placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when 

it came to reimbursement in the event 

of bankruptcy. Given these practices, 

it’s no wonder that our current President has created budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion each year he has 

served as President. 

In addition to ensuring that the Federal Government does not throw taxpayer dollars after the investments, 

H.R. 6213 also highlights the need of 

the Federal Government to stop propping up failed companies which cannot 

support themselves in the open market. The Federal Government should 

not guarantee hundreds of millions of 

dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to 

companies that do not have a business 

model that supports sufficient private 

investment. The administration should 

not pretend to be a venture capitalist 

with taxpayers’ money. 

In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, Congressman ED

WHITFIELD, chairman of the Energy and 

Commerce Subcommittee on Energy 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5935 

and Power, testified that the DOE loan 

guarantee programs spent $15 billion, 

but only created 1,175 jobs. 

b 1230 

That means that each job created 

cost taxpayers $12.8 million. These statistics demonstrate what House Republicans have been saying for years—this 

country cannot tax and spend its way 

to prosperity. Instead, we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing over-regulation and promoting 

pro-growth policies, including tax policies that do not push jobs overseas, 

that create a better free enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also 

careers for Americans. And they should 

be designed to incentivize private investment, which is known, Mr. Speaker, as the free enterprise system. 

Ultimately, the No More Solyndras 

Act puts an end to an ineffective government program, protects taxpayers 

from financing the administration’s 

wish list of projects, and establishes 

necessary oversight to hold executive 

branch officials accountable for their 

actions. 

I encourage my colleagues to vote 

‘‘yes’’ on the rule and ‘‘yes’’ on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I want to thank the 

gentleman from Texas, my friend Mr. 

SESSIONS, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

(Mr. MCGOVERN asked and was 

given permission to revise and extend 

his remarks.) 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

in opposition to this structured rule. 

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have 

brought up yet another closed process 

in what was supposed to be a more 

open and democratic House. After 2 

years of broken promises, we shouldn’t 

be surprised by this action. And we 

shouldn’t be surprised that the Republicans are bringing up this overtly political bill just 55 days before election. 

H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, 

is just political theater. It’s a bill 

that’s going nowhere. We know the 

Senate won’t consider it. The only 

thing it does is give the Republicans 

another talking point to use on the 

campaign trail. 

My friends on the other side of the 

aisle are trying to make it seem like 

there was a big conspiracy to inappropriately give money to Solyndra, a 

company that was trying to manufacture solar panels here in the United 

States. They claim that there was a political effort to award Solyndra funds 

in an improper, and possibly illegal, 

way. And in doing so, they are attacking a Department of Energy loan guarantee program that allows private investors to invest billions of dollars in 

order to create thousands of jobs here 

in America. 

The Republican response to a company that went bankrupt after receiving Federal loans—a company that was 

manufacturing alternative-energy 

products here in the United States— 

was to begin investigations that turned 

into political witch hunts. And those 

investigations appear to have led us to 

this point by consideration of this bill 

that purports to end the loan guarantee program altogether. Of course, 

the reality is that those investigations 

have really been used as ammunition 

on the campaign trail. 

But what the Republicans claim 

they’re doing today and what they’re 

really doing are two different things. 

They say that they’re eliminating the 

loan guarantee program, getting rid of 

it completely. But what this bill really 

does is bar the Department of Energy 

from considering new applications submitted after December 31, 2011. That 

leaves $34 billion in the pipeline for applications for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program that were 

submitted before December 31, 2011. 

And there’s no deadline on when these 

applications must be approved. 

Not only that, but most of the available loan guarantee funding is for fossil 

fuel and nuclear projects. That’s right, 

Republicans are claiming to end this 

loan guarantee program but are still 

allowing it to spend tens of billions of 

dollars. And they are still picking and 

choosing the winners and losers by putting an artificial end date on the application submissions. The result will be 

billions more in loan guarantees for 

projects dealing with nuclear and fossil 

fuels like coal and oil and much less for 

wind, solar, and hydro projects. 

America should be about innovation, 

about creating new things. We’re the 

country that put a man on the Moon. 

We’re the country that created the car, 

airplane, and iPad. We should be fostering, not stifling, innovation, especially in energy like wind, solar, and 

hydro. Yet the Republican leadership is 

showing, once again, that political victory is more important than American 

success; that winning this election is 

more important than fostering American manufacturing and leadership in 

areas like alternative energy. 

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how this Republican leadership likes to talk the talk but not walk 

the walk. In this case, they say they 

don’t like the loan guarantee program, 

but they want their own pet industries 

to be able to use it. It’s another example of how their rhetoric doesn’t match 

up with their actions. 

But we’ve seen this hypocrisy for 

years now. This is the same Republican 

Party that opposed the stimulus plan, 

but requested and touted funding from 

that same stimulus plan. In fact, Republican Members in this House have 

requested loan guarantees for businesses they support, including those in 

the nuclear industry; but they oppose 

this program for alternative-energy 

businesses that want to manufacture in 

America. And this is the flip-flopping 

that kind of makes my head spin. 

It’s clear that my Republican friends 

don’t let the facts get in the way of 

their political argument. It’s a fact 

that this loan guarantee program is a 

success. For example, this loan program has ultimately supported 40 

projects that help keep 60,000 people 

employed during this economic downturn alone. It’s also a fact that the 

Solyndra bankruptcy represented a 

fraction of the entire loan guarantee 

program. In fact, loans and loan guarantee programs only cost taxpayers 94 

cents for every $100 invested. That’s a 

pretty good return on investment. 

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Republicans that Congress needs a robust 

oversight program that examines the 

executive branch and ensures that they 

are not overstepping their bounds. It’s 

ironic that these Republicans are conducting a vigorous oversight plan of 

President Obama, but simply looked 

the other way when it came to the 

oversight of the Bush administration. 

But there’s oversight and then 

there’s overreach. Republicans looked 

into this issue, they held hearings, and 

conducted an investigation. And despite their claims of political manipulation, there is simply no evidence of 

such manipulation. Don’t take my 

word for it. Bloomberg Business Week 

reported that there was ‘‘no evidence of 

wrongdoing.’’ And The Washington 

Post reported: ‘‘The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the 

Solyndra loan to benefit political contractors.’’ 

Mr. Speaker, we all know what this 

is. This is an election year stunt, political theater that is more appropriate 

for the campaign trail rather than the 

House of Representatives. It’s a bill 

that supporters claim will do something that it simply will not do. And 

this closed process is, once again, 

breaking Speaker BOEHNER’s promise 

of a more open House. 

This is a bad bill, it’s a bad rule, and 

I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ on 

the bill and the underlying bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to 

close with one observation. We have 

just returned from a recess. If the 

rumor mill is true, we will only be in 

session for 8 days before the election. 

I’m hearing that we’re going to probably give away the first week in October. And given the fact that we’re here 

such a short time, one would think 

that this would be an opportunity to 

come together and to pass legislation 

that both sides can agree on—legislation that might, in fact, help stimulate 

economic growth; might, in fact, help 

put people back to work; might address 

some of the real challenges that the 

American people are facing. We don’t 

have to agree on everything to agree 

on something. And that something we 

agree on, we ought to able to come together and pass it. 

Yet what we’re doing during these 8 

days is debating hot-button issues and 

bills that are going nowhere. This is a 

hot-button issue. They will be debating 

another hot-button issue later. Hot 

button, hot button, hot button. Never 

any legislation that has any real meaning in the lives of the American people. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5936 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

Bring the President’s jobs bill to the 

floor. Let us have that debate. Let us 

be able to have a vote on whether or 

not we ought to invest in our economy 

and invest in our people. My Republican friends are squandering this opportunity. I think one thing is clear, 

and I think it’s evident by the low esteem that the Congress is now held in 

by the American people: the American 

people want us to work on their behalf. 

And I understand the lust in this place 

for political power and winning elections and winning elections. I used to 

think that good government was good 

politics. 

But what we are doing here for these 

8 days, with the exception of passing a 

continuing resolution, which is kicking 

the can down the road on a whole 

bunch of other budgetary issues, what 

we’re doing these 8 days is nothing 

meaningful, nothing that matters to 

anybody. And I just think that that’s a 

sad commentary on the leadership of 

this House. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

b 1240 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I know that our Democrat friends 

think it’s absolutely nothing to lose 

half a billion dollars that a government 

made a decision on. But what they 

really don’t like is when we bring that 

up, when we say part of the job of being 

a Member of Congress as a policy body 

is to look at the mistakes that were 

made. We certainly have looked at mistakes that Republicans and Democrats, 

administrations and others, have made. 

But to ignore an issue would be a mistake. 

This is not just Solyndra. It was the 

process of a political agenda that did 

not, could not pass the smell test and 

even make it out in the real world. It 

was a political agenda that was so 

wanted by an administration that they 

gave lots of money, not just half a billion here, but to other companies. 

You know, today’s legislation certainly highlights Solyndra as a failure 

in the DOE, Department of Energy’s 

loan program, but it should be mentioned that there were other companies, not just Solyndra. 

It’s really a political process that 

said, Let’s go do this thing whether it 

makes sense or not, whether it makes 

money. The companies went bankrupt. 

Part of this comes from you’ve got a 

lot of people in the administration that 

wouldn’t even recognize a business plan 

if they saw one. They do recognize taxpayer dollars, plenty of those that were 

made available by this excessive spending. But accountability is now what 

Democrats don’t like when we’re saying let’s look at what happened, what 

materialized. 

So Solyndra is not just a one-time or 

one-company failure of an otherwise 

what would be called a successful program. It’s not. This simply became the 

poster child, and we believe that we 

shouldn’t repeat this failure. We believe we should effectively talk about 

it on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should take some bit 

of time. We’re not here beating anybody up. You never even heard me 

mention names behind the administration or who made these decisions or 

who pushed it. We’re not trying to do 

that. 

We’re simply trying to say that we 

believe half a billion dollars, and a review of that, should become available 

in the light of day, to not just Members 

of Congress; but we should vote on it 

and say we drew a conclusion with 

some issues. 

So we believe any objective evaluation of the facts reveals some issues of 

Federal dollars of a plan that should be 

stopped, has stopped, but that we 

should at least tell what the results 

were. That’s what we’re doing here 

today. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you 

know what, one of the things that 

Speaker BOEHNER promised was a more 

open House and this would be a place 

where we could actually deliberate and 

various points of view would be heard. 

I want to now yield 3 minutes to the 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. GREEN), the 

ranking member of the Energy and 

Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy whose amendment 

was not made in order, so he will not 

have an opportunity to debate it here 

on the floor. 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank 

you for the time. 

Mr. Speaker, Members, the original 

law that this bill amends today was actually created, the loan program, was 

in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed 

by a Republican Congress and signed 

by a Republican President. The law 

does need to have minor reforms, but 

this bill goes way too far. 

The majority had the opportunity in 

our committee of Energy and Commerce to work in a bipartisan fashion 

to actually fix the problems with the 

loan guarantee program. I offered an 

amendment to the Rules Committee 

that had been supported by Republicans in our committee, but not a majority of the Republicans, to fix the 

problems with the program and find 

middle ground that would be suitable 

to both Democrats and Republicans 

alike. 

But the majority chose a different 

path. They decided to forge ahead with 

a partisan messaging bill that stands 

no chance of becoming law even when 

it passes the House today. So despite 

the name, this bill will not prevent another Solyndra. It’s the worst of election-year politics. 

We had a chance to work together, 

something the American people want 

to see; and one of the things we were 

sent here to do was fix a broken program. Instead, we’re playing more politics one more time. 

The bill is bad policy. It doesn’t do 

what conservatives want to do, so the 

Heritage Foundation opposes it. It 

doesn’t do what the liberals want to do. 

It eliminates a well-balanced, bipartisan agreement struck years ago, so it 

isn’t what moderates want to do. It’s 

legislating without accountability. 

The majority doesn’t care that it’s 

bad policy because it will never become 

law. 

Instead, I urge my colleagues to find 

the bipartisanship. Let’s take this opportunity to fix the problem that we 

see and craft a bipartisan bill. This is a 

chance to show our country that Congress can do things. 

One of the reasons Congress has a 10 

percent approval rating is we’re not 

legislating. We’re messaging. This is 

probably the worst example of it. We’re 

talking past each other. This is a 

chance to show our country that Congress can do things. Instead, this partisan circus helps confirm the belief 

that Congress is broken, and it’s working against the interest of the American people. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the rule and 

support a bipartisan effort to really 

make sure there are no more 

Solyndras. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I would like to go to the report. Let’s 

see what the report out of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee said. I am 

quoting what would be on page 5: 

However, the Bush administration did not 

approve any loan guarantees under the program. This was due partly to the fact that 

the DOE office implementing the program 

was slow in being set up, and that program 

funding only became available in 2007. But 

even after the Bush DOE had the program up 

and running, it ran into difficulties finding 

applicants whose energy projects are meritorious. 

In other words, they could not find 

somebody who is asking for the loan 

who could present a good business plan 

of not just profit and loss, but where it 

would fit in the marketplace to even be 

considered successful. This is the reason why the Bush administration and 

Republicans did not do that because 

they could see failure in the marketplace written all over it even as early 

as 2007. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me 

again repeat for my colleagues what 

Bloomberg Business Week reported, 

and I quote again: ‘‘There was no evidence of any wrongdoing.’’ The Washington Post reported: ‘‘The records do 

not establish that anyone pressured 

the Energy Department to approve the 

Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors. 

I mean, you know, it’s clear what’s 

going on here. 

Again, bringing this bill, a bill that’s 

going nowhere—we heard about the 

bridges to nowhere; this is the legislation to nowhere—I think is bad enough, 

but then bringing it up under a closed 

process. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

the distinguished ranking member on 

the Committee on Natural Resources, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5937 

had three amendments. All three of 

them were denied by the Rules Committee, including a Buy America provision. What a radical idea that we 

should make it in America and we 

should buy it in America. That radical 

amendment was denied by the Rules 

Committee. It’s hard to believe. 

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the 

gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 

MARKEY). 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the 

history of this whole program, it was 

started for the nuclear industry. Pete 

Domenici, 2005. Why? Because there 

hadn’t been a new nuclear power plant 

built in 30 years out in the free market 

so they needed the Federal Government to come in and prop it up on 

crutches. That’s the only way it would 

work. 

So when President Obama took over, 

he said, Well, maybe we should do 

something for solar as well. Of course, 

the coal industry, the oil industry, the 

nuclear industry, they recoiled in fear 

that there would actually be competition in the marketplace. When one 

solar company got in trouble, the Republicans pounced on solar. They 

pounced on wind. They pounced. That’s 

why, by the way, the Republicans are 

going to allow the wind tax breaks to 

expire this year, but they’re going to 

keep all of the oil tax breaks on the 

books. 

So here we are today and they have 

something called the No More 

Solyndras Act. Ah. Except for the $88 

billion that they’re going to grandfather in in terms of the application 

date that they have selected. 

b 1250 

So, who qualifies for that? Well, $76.5 

billion would be the nuclear industry, 

$11.9 billion would be the coal industry. 

Ah, I get it now. It’s not the No More 

Solyndras Act; it’s the ‘‘Only $88.4 Billion More for Nuclear and Coal No 

More Solyndras Act of 2012.’’ It’s just 

the same kind of tilted playing field 

that the Republicans have always had. 

Nuclear, oil, coal, great. Wind and 

solar finally getting going—12,000 new 

megawatts of wind installed in the 

United States this year; 3,200 

megawatts of solar installed in the 

United States this year—that puts the 

fear of the marketplace in the coal and 

the nuclear and the oil industry brain. 

So that’s why we’re out here with this 

‘‘kill solar and save nuclear and coal’’ 

with this incredible amount of money. 

Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I had an amendment 

that I requested the Rules Committee 

put in place, and that is that if your 

company last year lost $540 million or 

more, you could not qualify for a loan 

guarantee. Remember, Solyndra lost 

$538 million, so I picked $540 million. 

And if your company is on the verge of 

being delisted by the New York Stock 

Exchange and has already reached junk 

bond status with S&P’s and Moody’s, 

come on, you cannot qualify. I mean, 

come on. We’re not having Federal taxpayer money go to companies on the 

verge of being delisted and that have 

already reached junk bond status. 

They all voted ‘‘no’’ in the committee. When I had my amendment put 

up before the Rules Committee, they 

rejected it. Now, why did they reject 

it? Because the United States Enrichment Corporation lost $540 million last 

year; it’s on the verge of being delisted 

on the stock exchange; it’s reached 

junk bond status; but yet nuclear will 

qualify. So I said, well, we can’t invest 

in that kind of a company. 

As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the same thing is true for 

buying American. If we’re going to 

have these loan guarantees, let’s at 

least make sure that they are American jobs. They wouldn’t put that 

amendment in order as well. 

This whole issue here is basically one 

of this favored oil-above-all agenda, 

not all of the above—not when you say 

tax breaks for oil companies continue 

and wind companies die; not when you 

have loan guarantees that continue on 

for nuclear and coal, but not for wind, 

not for solar. It’s just so transparent. 

It’s just arithmetic, ladies and gentlemen. Solyndra loses 538, the Enrichment Corporation—nuclear—loses 540. 

The arithmetic is pretty simple: They 

both should not qualify. But not these 

guys, no, no. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute. 

Mr. MARKEY. Not these guys, oh, 

no—no, no, no, because it’s not marketplace. There’s no rhyme or reason 

to it until you start to think about 

what has always been their agenda. 

That has always been the fossil fuel industry agenda. 

I would abolish the entire program. 

You want to abolish this program? 

Abolish it. Put the vote out here, I’ll 

vote for it. Get rid of the loan guarantee program, then let solar and wind 

and nuclear and coal and oil all compete in the free marketplace for private capital investment. You want to 

know what that would do? It would put 

the fear of Adam Smith in the heart of 

the nuclear industry because they 

would receive no private investment, 

none. It takes the Federal Government 

providing a crutch. So it then requires 

the Republican Party to take away the 

loan guarantees for the competition. 

Well, they’re giving the loan guarantees, Federal taxpayer loan guarantees, 

to industries that otherwise could not 

get any money in the private sector. 

The United States Enrichment Corporation can’t get any private sector 

investment. Nuclear power industry, 

this loan guarantee program—two for 

$8 billion for a program that is already 

$1 billion over the two Vogtle plants in 

Georgia. The whole thing is bad arithmetic for the American taxpayer. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we’re 

now well into the political extremism 

that we see many times that exhibits 

itself not just here on the floor of the 

House of Representatives but really all 

across this country—those people that 

want gasoline to rise substantially because they really don’t like gasoline. 

They really don’t like the underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. Whether it’s natural 

gas, they attack natural gas. If it’s nuclear—which is a non-emitting source 

of pollution—they attack that. This 

crowd that really doesn’t like free enterprise and what I believe is the heartland of this country, manufacturing, 

which has really taken off as a result 

of effective use of natural resources in 

this country through natural gas and 

the availability of nuclear power and 

the availability of oil, which fuels our 

cars to where we can use the resources 

that were given us effectively. 

What they want to do is they want to 

tax these industries higher so that 

prices go up, so that consumers have to 

pay a lot more money. What they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the 

electricity that we need is the cleanest 

and the best here in America. The way 

these are produced are American jobs. 

The way they’re consumed is about 

American jobs. The way that consumers pay for them and pay for these 

advantages is American jobs. And here 

we’re looking at how half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money was put 

into an effort that not only not ever 

got off the ground, it quickly went into 

bankruptcy because it did not meet the 

marketplace challenges. 

I’m not opposed to competition; I 

think we stand for competition. But 

don’t push a narrow environmentalist 

policy, go to the White House, go to 

the Department of Energy and try and 

fund these on taxpayer dollars only to 

see that, whoops, we made a mistake, 

and then act like, whoops, we don’t 

want anybody to know. 

All we’re trying to suggest today is 

that Republicans do believe in American jobs. We do believe in American 

industry. We do believe in the energy 

industry. We believe in effective use of 

resources because we’re trying to keep 

jobs here. Their narrow, political, environmentalist policy is what will diminish American jobs, it will diminish our 

ability to effectively use the resources 

that we have in this country, and it 

will put us in a circumstance—for instance, with the Keystone pipeline— 

where we could use energy from a 

friendly neighbor to fuel American 

needs at a good price and avoid what 

may happen if we get into a circumstance overseas in the Middle East 

where we would be held hostage, held 

hostage by those that have the energy 

that we need, when we could be having 

it not only close to home, but in our 

own home, energy made in America. 

So, Republicans, look, all we’re trying to say is a half a billion dollars 

that was wasted, somebody ought to 

recognize that we shouldn’t be doing 

that. That’s what Republicans are 

doing here today. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5938 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me 

just respond by saying when the Republicans talk about jobs, I don’t know 

whether to laugh or cry. Let me go 

back to what we were talking about 

earlier with Mr. MARKEY. 

Mr. MARKEY had an amendment—let 

me read it. It would prevent guarantees 

from being granted unless the applicant certifies that at least 75 percent of 

materials and components required for 

construction, manufacturing, or operations are produced in the United 

States of America. Any facility at 

which construction, manufacturing, or 

operations are to be carried out must 

also be located in the United States of 

America. This amendment is not even 

allowed to be debated on this House 

floor. The Republicans in the Rules 

Committee said: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 

So, if we’re going to be talking about 

jobs, I mean, maybe we’re here about 

different jobs. I’m talking about jobs in 

America; maybe my friends are talking 

about creating more jobs overseas. We 

need more jobs here. And if you’re serious about that, why wouldn’t you allow 

that amendment to be brought up and 

debated on the House floor? 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 

minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 

(Mr. KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. This bill ought to be 

renamed the ‘‘No More Solyndras, But 

More Money for Nuclear White Elephants Loan Program.’’ 

My friends on the other side of the 

aisle like to talk about the free enterprise system, but I’m sure that you’re 

aware that Wall Street won’t invest in 

nuclear power. The nukes can’t get 

money from the free enterprise system, 

so they want government to bail them 

out. 

This bill claims to reduce wasteful 

spending on energy projects, but it’s 

actually an attack on renewable energy. The real effect is laid bare by the 

effective date of the bill, which grandfathers the worst of the worst of the 

worst energy boondoggles. 

b 1300 

Specifically, it allows nuclear power 

loan guarantee projects to proceed, 

even though some create exposure for 

the Federal Government of about 15 

times the exposure created by 

Solyndra—and these programs, these 

nuclear loan programs, are more likely 

to fail. 

One of the biggest loan guarantees 

for nuclear, not even necessary. This is 

not my assessment. It’s the assessment 

of Kevin Marsh, the President of South 

Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 

which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said, on a call to 

analysts and investors: 

We’re confident in our ability to finance this project without a loan guarantee. It could be in the $8 to $10 billion range. 

So the conflict here is, generally, 

Wall Street isn’t investing. But you get 

a group of investors that think they 

can, but are they leveraging against 

the hope of government involvement? I 

don’t know. 

Truth is nuclear power plants are 

simply not viable without massive government subsidies, which eclipse subsidies for renewable energies by orders 

of magnitude. 

The Congressional Budget Office has 

had this to say about nuclear loan 

guarantees: 

The CBO considers the risk of default on 

such loan guarantees to be very high—well 

above 50 percent. 

Dale Klein, former Chairman of the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, cautioned that nuclear plants will not 

move off the blackboard and into construction, not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is 

today. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute. 

Mr. KUCINICH. An article opposing 

the bill, by Autumn Hanna and Henry 

Sokolski in the National Review Online, states: 

The total number of projects this bill 

grandfathers isn’t publicly available. Par for 

the course with this highly secretive program. We know it’s a lot. Our research 

points to nearly 100 projects that claim to 

have applied. 

If this was really about being fiscally 

responsible with taxpayers’ money, 

we’d be targeting the projects that 

have the highest probability of failing 

and carry the highest price tag and 

preclude them. But the bill does the opposite. 

What we should be doing is continuing our efforts to invest in renewables, understanding some of them may 

not work, but that’s the future. It’s 

cleaner. It’s safety. It protects the 

globe. That’s where the jobs of tomorrow are. 

We have to stop China from eating 

our lunch on these alternative energy 

projects. We have to reclaim this for 

America. Bring the jobs here. Create 

the jobs here. 

The money’s there. Don’t go giving it 

to nuclear. Nuclear is dead in the water 

unless government tries to resurrect it 

by giving away billions of dollars in 

taxpayers’ money that will never be recovered. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think 

it’s very obvious that what Republicans are trying to do is to keep American jobs. We’re trying to utilize the 

free enterprise system, the natural resources that we have in America— 

clean natural gas, the abundance of 

other power that we have, including 

coal, including nuclear—opportunities 

to keep America strong and keep jobs 

here, and that’s why we’re really opposed to the loan guarantees and the 

things which might take on additional 

debt and risk by the government. But, 

more importantly, if it can’t be funded 

within the free enterprise system, then 

it can’t stand on its own. 

Mr. Speaker, at this time I’d like to 

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 

California (Mr. MCCLINTOCK), one of my 

colleagues. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill ends the title 

XVII loan guarantees that produced 

Solyndra and so many other alternate 

energy scams that cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars while the 

politically connected perpetrators of 

these scams walked away wealthy men 

and women. But this measure does still 

put taxpayers on the hook to loan out 

billions of dollars more to at least 50 

additional shady, alternate energy 

schemes that had been submitted under 

the same title prior to January 1. So 

there will be more Solyndras under 

this bill. 

I’d offered an amendment to pull the 

plug on the applications, but I was 

told, Don’t bother; the Rules Committee won’t allow the amendment to 

be brought to the floor. 

So I support the bill, but I do agree 

with my friend from Ohio that the 

title, ‘‘No More Solyndras Act,’’ is a 

bit misleading. I would suggest an alternative, the ‘‘50 More Solyndras and 

Then We’ll Stop Wasting Your Money, 

Really, We Promise, Act.’’ 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want 

to thank the gentleman who just spoke 

for pointing out how bad this rule is. 

He’s on the other side of the aisle, and 

even though I disagree with the amendment he had, he ought to have been 

able to offer it to the floor. I hope that 

he will join with us in opposing this 

rule because I don’t think his leadership will get the message if he rewards 

bad behavior by giving them a vote. 

At this point, I would like to yield 3 

minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FATTAH). 

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. 

I’m opposed to the rule, I’m opposed 

to the bill, but I’m really opposed to 

the thinking behind this. 

This is like a Back to the Future or 

the Flat Earth Society or something. I 

don’t know how we would have a space 

program if one failure stopped the 

whole show. I don’t know how—we 

would never. I mean, Michael Jordan 

was kicked off his high school basketball team, but he eventually learned 

how to put the ball in the basket. 

The notion that, as the greatest Nation on Earth, we’re going to cede to 

others alternative energy programs, 

that somehow we’re unwilling to go 

through what is necessary to be successful in this field, doesn’t make any 

sense. 

Now, President Bush signed this into 

law. It’s a great program. In fact, 

James Rogers, who’s the CEO of Duke 

Energy, said just a few days ago that, 

in terms of energy, America is so much 

better off because of this administration’s all-of-the-above strategy. For 

the first time in 30 years, we’ve got nuclear plants that have been licensed. 

We have natural gas. We’ve got oil. We 

have renewables. 

I’ve supported these loan guarantee 

programs. And like any loan program, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5939 

you might have some loans that perform and some loans that don’t perform. The vast majority of these loans 

perform very, very well, and America is 

better off for it. 

I was at the Israeli Embassy last 

night speaking to a group of scientists. 

They’ve been so far ahead of us on renewable energy it’s a shame. We have 

seen what Germany’s done on wind. 

This party that is in the majority 

here, that wants to do away with the 

wind energy credit, I don’t know what 

the notion here is that somehow we, as 

a country, are not prepared to pay the 

price for progress. We have not won 

every battle in wars that we’ve been in, 

but we’ve won the war. 

And so this a company in which 

things, the numbers didn’t add up for 

us. It’s like one of our rockets or satellites not performing properly. But 

the head of NASA says that we’re not 

in a business in which we cannot take 

risks. We have to take risks. And when 

it comes to energy, our country has to 

be prepared to take risks. 

Now, it was Albert Einstein who said 

we cannot use the same level of thinking to solve problems that we used to 

create these problems. 

This country and our status as the 

leading Nation in the world requires us 

to take risks. And if this majority is so 

unimpressed with the ability of Americans and Americans to innovate and to 

compete in the renewable sector like 

others around the world who are also 

getting help from their governments, 

that is unfortunate. But, for me, I believe that America has to take risks. 

We’re going to lose, we’re going to win, 

but at the end of the day, as we learn 

and go forward, it will allow us to continue to be number one. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time, I have no additional speakers and 

reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time. 

We ought to have a debate in this 

Chamber on energy, on an energy policy, whether or not we should invest in 

innovation, whether or not we should 

invest in renewable, green, clean energy. I believe we should. 

My friends on the other side believe 

not just in the status quo, they believe 

in going backwards. They believe in investing, not in new technologies, but in 

the old technologies. 

b 1310 

But we should have that debate here. 

This bill really is not that debate, because this bill is a political stunt. It is 

not anything real. It is not anything 

that is going anywhere. This is just 

politics as usual, and that’s what 

makes this so frustrating. 

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to end where 

I began in my opening, which is to say 

we’re only here for a few days. I mean, 

I’ve never been part of a Congress that 

has worked less than this Congress and 

that has produced less than this Congress. Today’s Roll Call has a great 

piece: ‘‘Congress on Pace to be the 

Least Productive.’’ Is that what my 

friends on the other side of the aisle 

are aspiring to—to be known as the 

least productive Congress? 

We’re back for these few days. We 

ought to do something meaningful for 

the American people. We ought to be 

debating a jobs bill. We ought to bring 

the President’s jobs bill to the floor. If 

you don’t want to vote for it, vote 

against it, but at least we’d be doing 

something of substance. We ought to be 

extending tax breaks for middle-income Americans. Why would you leave 

town without making sure that middleincome Americans continue to get 

their tax breaks? 

We ought to have a responsible farm 

bill passed and signed into law. As 

we’re running out of time, we’re told 

that’s probably not going to happen at 

all. We ought to be talking about legislation that will actually strengthen 

this country, that will help improve 

the quality of education and give more 

access to education for our young people. 

We are doing none of those things. 

We are squandering this opportunity. 

With the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is tantamount to kicking the can down the 

road, these 8 days that we have been 

back in session have been useless. They 

have just been about politics. That is 

why the American people are so sick 

and tired of this Congress. That is why 

the approval rating is so low. They 

want us to come to Washington to legislate and deliberate on issues that will 

make a positive difference in their 

lives. Instead, what we have is the 

same old, same old—politics as usual. 

There has to be some common ground 

between Republicans and Democrats on 

energy. Let’s find that common ground 

and move forward. Enough with the political stunts. It is time to start doing 

the people’s business, and this is not it. 

So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this, again, restrictive rule that denies a multitude of 

amendments, including an amendment 

that would make sure the jobs that we 

are talking about are in America. Buy 

American. What is so wrong with even 

debating that? We’re not even given 

that opportunity. So vote against this 

restrictive rule, and vote against the 

underlying bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see 

that today’s legislation answers the 

question. It ends the debate about 

Solyndra. Taxpayers know the committee did its work. It held a Rules 

Committee hearing. Half a billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We’re not 

down here jumping up and down. We 

haven’t even raised our voices. We simply said that we think that a better 

process could have taken place, and 

they’re arguing we never should have 

even had this on the floor—that we 

don’t need any feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they 

know. 

We lost half a billion dollars by one 

company. At least two others had the 

same outcome where they did not 

produce anything. They went belly 

up—bankrupt. We just think that the 

administration—government—is really 

not in the business and shouldn’t be in 

the business—despite what we’ve 

heard—of pushing the envelope. Let’s 

go out and invest whether it makes 

sense or not. 

Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it’s a bad 

proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the government 

did the right thing, that this administration did the right thing. I think that 

the facts of the case say that half a billion dollars in a process that didn’t 

work—we need to hear the feedback, 

and we need to close the books on it. 

The rule is here to do exactly that—to 

place on the floor the opportunity for 

us to debate now the facts of the case, 

which is exactly what will happen. 

I yield back the balance of my time, 

and I move the previous question on 

the resolution. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on 

that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

f 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 

117, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2013; AND 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 6365, NATIONAL SECURITY AND JOB PROTECTION ACT 

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 

call up House Resolution 778 and ask 

for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: 

H. RES. 778 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this 

resolution it shall be in order to consider in 

the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 117) 

making continuing appropriations for fiscal 

year 2013, and for other purposes. All points 

of order against consideration of the joint 

resolution are waived. The joint resolution 

shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 

be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 

passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution 

it shall be in order to consider in the House 

the bill (H.R. 6365) to amend the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 

of 1985 to replace the sequester established 

by the Budget Control Act of 2011. All points 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE