September 13, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5929 

began its operations on July 26, 1775, 

and Ben Franklin was appointed the 

first Postmaster General. That’s a long 

time ago. 

It has a legal obligation to serve everyone, regardless of geography, and at 

a uniform cost with uniform services. 

And it has exclusive access to boxes 

that are marked ‘‘U.S. Postal’’ or ‘‘U.S. 

Post Office.’’ And it also competes with 

private package delivery services. 

In 2006, Congress forced the United 

States Postal Service to pre-fund 100 

percent of retiree insurance premiums. 

No other company, public or private, is 

forced to comply with such an unnecessary and destructive policy. 

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans 

cited declining mail volumes and a 

growing labor force as the primary reasons why the 2006 legislation was necessary. Yet 2005, 2006, and 2007 were the 

highest volume years in U.S. Postal 

Service history. In fact, 2006 was the 

highest volume year ever. 

Mr. Speaker, the real motivation behind the 2006 legislation was to break 

the back of a public sector union and 

privatize the mailing industry. Why 

else would Congress alter an entity 

that hasn’t taken a dime of United 

States taxpayers’ money in 30 years? 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Postal Service 

was self-supporting since 1971, using 

postage sales to fund operations. The 

Postal Service was so profitable that it 

returned money to the Treasury every 

single year, while providing free services to the visually impaired and persons overseas. 

If the Postal Service was a private 

corporation, or if it had been a private 

corporation at that time, my colleagues across the aisle would have 

hailed it as the model of economic success and sung its praises from sea to 

shining sea. 

Since the pre-funding mandate of 

2006, however, the Postal Service has 

nearly crumbled under the weight of 

its pension costs. How does an organization that had robust profits for 30 

years, leading up to the 2006 legislation, suddenly start running deficits 

and lose $25 billion between 2007 and 

2011? 

How did the U.S. Postal Service go 

from no debt in 2006 to over $13 billion 

in debt today? 

Many of my colleagues on the other 

side have well-connected friends who 

advocate for Postal Service privatization. I’m here to connect the dots for 

the American people. 

Instead of wasting time today, this 

do-nothing Congress should vote to 

stop the damage inflicted upon the 

United States Postal Service by passing H.R. 1351. This bipartisan postal reform bill protects the hardworking employees of the Postal Service. 

The U.S. Postal Service was not in 

danger of becoming insolvent until 

Congress decided to meddle in its affairs. It’s hypocritically inconsistent 

for my friends on the other side of the 

aisle to talk about government being 

the problem, while they don’t acknowledge that they created a big problem 

for the post office. It is hypocritical. 

Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service already missed a $5.5 billion payment in 

August. Congress must act before the 

post office defaults on another payment later this month. Instead of 

scheduling political votes that highlight our differences, let’s stop the 

madness and do what is in the best interest of the American people, the 

economy, and communities across the 

Nation. 

The Postal Service employs 700,000 of 

our fellow citizens, over 17,000 of whom 

are from my State of Georgia. 

b 1040 

One-third are military veterans who 

deliver 212 billion pieces of mail to over 

144 million locations. This is the middle class that’s doing this. If privatization advocates like the Koch brothers 

get their wish, the Postal Service will 

slowly be destroyed, causing good jobs 

to be lost and allowing companies to 

raise prices of delivery. Taking action 

to strengthen the Postal Service’s finances is not just good for the letter 

carriers and postmasters; it’s also good 

for business. There is $1.3 trillion in 

mailing industry proceeds out there 

that support 7 million private sector 

jobs. The time to act, ladies and gentlemen, is now. 

f 

HUNGER STRIKE UNDERWAY BY 

PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVISTS IN 

CUBA 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Florida (Mr. DIAZ-BALART) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, 

just 90 miles away from the coast of 

the United States there exists a murderous, terrorist regime on the island 

of Cuba. It is a regime that harbors terrorists, that funds terrorism, that has 

even held an American hostage since 

the summer of ’09, and that denies all 

basic human rights to its people. 

Currently, 26 pro-democracy activists, it has been reported, have initiated a hunger strike. It started with 

Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez on 

September 7 of 2012 in order to protest 

the brutal oppression by the Castro 

thugs against the Cuban people and 

against the political prisoners, and it 

has now been joined, as I said, by another 25. 

You’re not going to see that on the 

front pages of the newspapers. These 

are individuals who, for some reason, 

the press will not cover. The only thing 

you’ll see about the Castro regime is, 

frankly, the beauty of the beaches and 

the island and the fact that they have 

old cars—such a quaint thing. It’s not 

quaint when your human rights are 

violated and when you are forced to 

drive 50-year-old automobiles—if 

you’re lucky to even get one of those. 

Since these individuals, these heroes, 

are for some reason being denied the 

coverage that they deserve, I come to 

the floor to mention who they are— 

these heroes that we have to support, 

that we have to defend, and that we 

can never forget. So I am going to read 

their names. 

I mentioned Jorge Luis Garcia Perez 

Antunez. Jorge Vazquez Chaviano, 

Arturo Conde Zamora, Yerandi Martinez Rodriguez, Orlando Almenares 

Reyes, Luis Enrique Ponce Sanchez, 

Roberley Villalobos Torres, Israel Robert Isaac, Yuniel Alvarez Garcia, Luis 

Enrique Santos Caballero, Yosmel Martinez Corcho, Alberto Reyes Morales, 

Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello—by the 

way, who is a very well-known pro-democracy leader of Cuba and whose 

health is, frankly, in poor shape—Omar 

Pedroso Suarez, Yadira Rodriguez 

Bombino, Ibis Maria Rodriguez Gonzalez, Fermin Zamora Vazquez, 

Yasmani Nicle Abad, Leonardo Cancio 

Santana, Pedro Fernandez Vega Cortes, 

Arcelio Lopez Rojas, Misahel Valdes 

Diaz, and Jorge Luis Recio Arias. 

These heroes, these pro-democracy 

activists and heroes, have stood up and 

are standing up to the Castro dictatorship with whatever they have, including their health and their bodies. They 

need our prayers. They need our support. They need our solidarity at this 

pivotal time in their struggle for 

Cuba’s freedom. 

Mr. Speaker, may God protect these 

brave heroes. May the international 

community demonstrate the solidarity 

that they deserve—and yes, we here in 

the United States Congress and in this 

country must continue to work to do 

what we can to help them and others 

achieve their final day of freedom. 

f 

THE FUTURE LEADERSHIP OF 

CONGRESS AND THE COUNTRY 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Vermont (Mr. WELCH) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the American people are going to make a decision on November 6 about the future 

leadership of this Congress and this 

country, and they face, as they do 

every 4 years, two fundamental questions. The first: Who can be in charge 

of the cash register? Who will best 

manage the economy? The second: Who 

will be a firm hand in protecting America’s foreign policy interests? If we 

look at the past 2 years with this Republican-led Congress, which has accomplished nothing and, in fact, has 

done damage, the question on who is 

best in charge of the cash register is 

quite clear. 

The Ryan budget that was passed by 

this House and that stalled in the Senate would actually increase the debt. 

The whole point, supposedly, of the Republican agenda coming into Congress 

was to lower the debt. The budget they 

passed would increase it by $6 trillion. 

Why is that? Well, first of all, many of 

the proponents of this budget are the 

folks who voted for policies that actually exploded the debt: the war in Iraq 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5930 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 13, 2012 

on the credit card; nation-building in 

Afghanistan on the credit card; the 

prescription drug program unpaid for 

on the credit card. Those policies 

played a very big role in getting us 

into the debt that we have. 

Then the Ryan budget, which is supposedly the blueprint to reduce the 

debt, increases it by $6 trillion in 10 

years. Why? Because it increases those 

Bush tax cuts that were never paid for 

and would lower their Republican Presidential candidate’s effective tax rate 

to 1 percent. Secondly, it vastly increases Pentagon spending beyond 

what even the Pentagon is asking for. 

Even though it then imposes savage 

cuts on domestic discretionary spending—making it really difficult to do 

scientific research, to help our kids go 

to college—the net result is a $6 trillion increase in the debt. 

On foreign policy, no responsibility is 

so vested in one person—the President 

of the United States—when guiding 

American foreign policy. It needs a 

firm hand, a calm voice, a person who 

thinks before he speaks, who aims before he fires. The recent tragedy of losing our ambassador and three other 

brave civil servants from the State Department is an indication that the Republican Presidential candidate lacks 

the temperament to do that job. 

Why is it that in the first statement 

that he made after the loss of four 

American lives he descended into what 

essentially was tactical politics—arguing about the wording of a communique from the American Embassy in 

Egypt? Is it really the case that we in 

America cannot defend the right of free 

speech and promote religious tolerance? 

We need a President—and have a 

President—who is thoughtful, who is 

firm, who can act with conviction and 

clarity, and does it in a sober way that 

is going to defend and promote American political and foreign policy 

interests. 

f 

NO MORE SOLYNDRAS ACT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Florida (Mr. STEARNS) for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker and my 

colleagues, later today, we will begin 

debate on the rule for H.R. 6213, the No 

More Solyndras Act, which, along with 

my chairman, FRED UPTON of Michigan, I am proud to sponsor. This legislation is a culmination of an intensive 

and thorough 18-month investigation 

by the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations, which I chair, and will 

fix the problems we have uncovered. 

Specifically, the No More Solyndras 

Act will phase out the Department of 

Energy’s grossly mismanaged loan 

guarantee program by prohibiting DOE 

from issuing any loan guarantees for 

applications submitted after December 

31, 2011, and it will provide taxpayers 

strong, new protection for any pending 

participants in this program. 

b 1050 

The bill provides greater loan guarantee transparency by requiring the 

DOE to report to Congress on the decisionmaking process, and, of course, the 

details of the loan. The bill also prohibits DOE from restructuring the 

terms of any guarantee and forbids the 

subordination of United States taxpayers’ dollars at any time to private 

investors and holds the Department of 

Energy officials accountable for their 

actions by imposing penalties by failing to follow this law. 

As many of you know, Solyndra was 

the first recipient of a DOE loan guarantee from title XVII of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 and, frankly, was the 

poster child for President Obama’s 

stimulus-driven green economy. It was 

also the first stimulus-backed recipient 

of a DOE loan guarantee to file for 

bankruptcy just 2 years after the loan 

closed, and 6 months after DOE restructured the loan and subordinated 

taxpayers’ interest to two wealthy and 

well-connected investors, all but ensuring taxpayers won’t see a dime. 

Other DOE loan recipients have also 

struggled. Three of the first five companies which received loan guarantees 

issued by the DOE Loan Guarantee program—Solyndra, Beacon, and Abound 

Solar—have all filed for bankruptcy, 

losing hundreds of millions of dollars of 

taxpayers’ money that will never, ever 

be recovered. The other two companies 

are struggling, also. Nevada Geothermal has substantial debts and no 

positive cash flow, and First Wind had 

to withdraw their planned IPO and also 

has substantial debt to boot. 

On behalf of the American taxpayers, 

we had a duty to figure out what went 

wrong with Solyndra, the loan guarantee, and whether the loan guarantee 

program was properly managed. The 

Solyndra investigation has been thorough and methodical. The Energy and 

Commerce Committee requested and 

received and reviewed documents from 

every executive branch agency connected to Solyndra, and interviewed 

more than a dozen administration officials who played key roles in the loan 

guarantee program. The committee has 

also reviewed documents produced by 

the Solyndra investors, as well as 

DOE’s independent consultant and 

their legal advisers. 

As the committee’s investigation revealed, the Obama administration put 

Solyndra’s loan on the 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 in the market for 

Solyndra’s product. Were they viable? 

It is clear that DOE failed to adequately monitor the loan guarantee, 

blindly writing checks to Solyndra as 

the company hemorrhaged cash 

throughout the year 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 debt and 

bad bet, restructuring Solyndra’s loan 

in early 2011 and putting wealthy investors at the front of the line in front 

of taxpayers, which is a clear violation 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Right 

up to the bankruptcy filing, the administration was willing to take extraordinary measures to keep Solyndra 

afloat for political reasons and ensure 

that the first loan guarantee was not 

going to be a failure. 

The investigation also showed that 

the DOE failed to consult with the 

Treasury Department as simply required by the Energy Policy Act prior 

to issuing a conditional commitment 

to Solyndra and that Treasury didn’t 

even play a role in simply reviewing 

the restructuring. The No More 

Solyndras Act will correct this by ensuring that Treasury is actively involved in the loan process to protect 

our taxpayers. 

Mr. Speaker, the Solyndra investigation and the No More Solyndras Act 

are a great example of how congressional oversight should work. We asked 

the tough questions, collected all the 

facts, identified the problem, and now 

we’re offering good legislation. 

I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras 

Act, to ensure that the mistakes and 

misguided decisions that occurred 

never, ever happen again. 

f 

IN CELEBRATION OF BILL KLING 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Florida (Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. 

Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of a 

beloved member of our south Florida 

veterans community, William ‘‘Bill’’ 

Kling, who passed away on August 6 at 

the age of 84. 

Bill was a devoted husband and father; and he is survived by his two children, Marsha Mittentag and Steven 

Kling. My thoughts and prayers go out 

to them, to Bill’s extended family, and 

to all of his friends and colleagues who 

share in mourning this loss. 

Bill was a member of our Greatest 

Generation of Americans who served 

our Nation as a radar technician for 

the Navy during World War II. But 

Bill’s service to our Nation was far 

from over when he returned from war. 

In fact, it was just beginning. 

Bill Kling became a national leader 

and one of the strongest advocates for 

our Nation’s veterans. He was dedicated to helping generations of veterans as they returned to civilian life. 

He worked tirelessly to make sure our 

veterans were getting the benefits they 

deserved—from education under the GI 

Bill to quality health care through our 

VA system. 

I’m sure my Florida colleagues will 

agree that Bill was a force to be reckoned with, ever brightening our congressional doorways, pushing the urgency of the issue at hand. I know we 

are grateful for the remarkable legacy 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE