H6012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

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. 

b 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. 

f 

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Ms. 

Curtis, one of its clerks, announced 

that the Senate has passed a bill and 

agreed to a joint resolution of the following titles in which the concurrence 

of the House is requested: 

S. 3552. An act to reauthorize the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

The message also announced that the 

Senate agreed to S.J. Res. 44, joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to the State and Province Emergency Management Assistance 

Memorandom of Understanding. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Committee will resume its sitting. 

f 

NO MORE SOLYNDRAS ACT 

The Committee resumed its sitting. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I’d just 

remind my friend from California that 

the Department of Justice tells us that 

there is still an active criminal investigation as to the Solyndra matter. 

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 

from Kansas (Mr. POMPEO), a member 

of the committee. 

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to come down to support this piece 

of legislation. It’s important to America and to the taxpayers to protect 

them. I want to thank Chairman 

STEARNS and Chairman UPTON for letting me participate in this important 

investigation. 

Just yesterday, two facts that I 

think support us completely in passing 

this legislation. Yesterday, that conservative jewel, The New York Times, 

reported that Mr. Spinner, who was 

critical to pushing this loan guarantee 

through when the Obama administration was inclined to reject it but kept 

pushing and whose wife was counsel to 

the company, was reported by The New 

York Times to be the number 10 bundler for this administration. 

Also yesterday, we had a hearing in 

which we saw that America has the opportunity to become energy independent within the next decade if the 

Federal Government will just get out 

of the way and stop picking winners 

and losers as we have done with these 

Department of Energy loan guarantees 

for far too long. I’m confident that we 

can move away from this program. I’d 

urge all of my colleagues to support it. 

The conservative groups of the American Conservative Union, AFP, Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action, 

Let Freedom Ring, and the National 

Taxpayers Union have all submitted 

letters in support of this legislation. 

It’s time to end this loan guarantee 

program, and we should do it today. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I 

inquire how much time each side has 

on the debate? 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

California has 9 minutes remaining. 

The gentleman from Michigan has 163⁄4

minutes remaining. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, at this 

point, I will yield 3 minutes to the 

chairman of the Science Committee, 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. HALL). 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I, of 

course, rise in support of H.R. 6213. 

This bill makes more important 

changes to better protect taxpayer 

funds spent under the Department of 

Energy’s title XVII loan guarantee authority. I thank Chairman UPTON for 

his good work and his committee. 

The Science, Space, and Technology 

Committee has jurisdiction over the 

commercial application of energy technology. One purpose of the title XVII 

loan guarantee program is to move energy technologies from research and 

development to commercial application. As part of our oversight responsibility for this program, we examined it 

on numerous occasions, including earlier this year as part of a hearing in 

which we received testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The poster 

child for this poor judgment is 

Solyndra, which President Obama famously touted as a ‘‘true engine of economic growth’’ for the United States. 

Most Americans are familiar with 

Solyndra’s story, in which the Department of Energy gambled half a billion 

taxpayer dollars to support a failing 

solar company whose leading investors, 

I’m sorry to say, were major fundraisers and supporters of our President. 

Less well known is that the DOE made 

25 other gambles under the program’s 

section 1705 authority, staking a total 

of approximately $16 billion of American taxpayer money on what they call 

green energy companies with risky 

business models similar to that of 

Solyndra. I am also sorry to say that 

many of these companies also have ties 

to the current administration through 

investors that are major donors, 

bundlers, and advocates. 

If more of these companies fail, the 

Department of Energy made clear that 

it could restructure loan agreements in 

the same manner that it handled 

Solyndra, placing political supporters 

and private investors at the front of 

the line while leaving taxpayers holding the bag. This legislation would absolutely prevent that from happening 

again by requiring that taxpayer dollars are not subordinate to private finance should more bankruptcies result 

from this program. 

Further, the bill seeks to limit taxpayer risk by prohibiting DOE from 

making new loan guarantee awards for 

projects from applications submitted 

after December 31, 2011. 

These are necessary fixes to a troubled program, and I urge Members to 

support the underlying legislation. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6013 

I appreciate the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for working with the 

Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology to further improve the bill 

in advance of it being brought to the 

floor. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I 

inquire through the Chair how many 

speakers there are on the other side of 

the aisle? 

Mr. UPTON. We have two speakers 

that are here, and we’ve got a couple 

that are in the queue that may or may 

not make it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve 

my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 

minutes to the gentlelady, my good 

friend from North Carolina (Ms. FOXX). 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman 

UPTON, for yielding me time and bringing this important bill to the floor. 

Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration has failed the American people 

by squandering half a billion of our 

hard-earned tax dollars on costly, 

unproven projects. This legislation 

puts the brakes on the Obama administration’s habit of trying to play the 

role of venture capitalist with the taxpayers’ money. 

We need to stop the inept largesse of 

Big Government bureaucrats that 

prompted Solyndra’s ex-CEO, Chris 

Gronet, to write that ‘‘The Bank of 

Washington continues to help us.’’ 

That outrageous statement serves as a 

shining example of the disregard 

Solyndra had for American taxpayers 

and the fact that they believed our 

government would let them get away 

with it. 

This legislation is needed to protect 

against the politically charged, reckless spending binges that stream from 

this administration. The record-breaking spending and historical deficits 

that will burden future generations 

courtesy of this administration need to 

end in order to strengthen our economy and build for a brighter future. 

We need an all-of-the-above energy 

policy to achieve energy security, but 

it needs to be a responsible plan, a plan 

that keeps our fiscal priorities in order 

and provides free market solutions 

without unnecessary, job-killing government burdens. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

legislation. 

b 1030 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 

minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DUNCAN). 

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. 

Chairman, I rise in strong support of 

this legislation. I first want to commend Chairman UPTON and especially 

my longtime friend, Chairman 

STEARNS, for bringing this important 

legislation to the floor this morning. 

Mr. Chairman, I have read and heard 

for many years that almost 80 percent 

of small businesses fail within the first 

5 years. Thousands of small businesses, 

many thousands, have failed over the 

last 10 or 20 years. Many of those would 

have made it if government had given 

them $100,000. Most of them would have 

succeeded or survived if the government had given them $1 million. 

The government gave Solyndra $535 

million, over half a billion dollars, and 

yet, they squandered it and failed, as 

we’ve heard today, in about 2 years. 

What a ridiculous scandal this is. And 

I’m grateful to Chairman STEARNS for 

shedding so much light on this. And 

yet, unfortunately, it’s only the tip of 

a very big iceberg. 

Our friends on the other side frequently attack the oil industry on 

their subsidies; yet no industry in this 

Nation has received nearly as many 

subsidies, loans, or tax breaks as has 

the solar energy over the years. And 

yet the solar energy provides, even 

after all of these massive subsidies and 

loans and tax breaks, a little less than 

one percent of our total energy. 

The government should not be picking winners and losers. I have nothing 

against solar energy if it can stand on 

its own feet, but it certainly cannot do 

so at this time. And so I rise in strong 

support for this legislation. 

But I rise mainly to commend Chairman STEARNS, with whom I’ve served 

for so many years. Unfortunately, he 

will not be returning in the next Congress, and I think this is a tremendous 

loss for this Nation. I’ve worked with 

him on many things. I have not seen 

any Member or known any Member of 

this Congress who has been more conscientious, who has worked harder, and 

who has tried to study legislation any 

more than he has. And I want to especially commend him. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

I want to point out, as I speak under 

our time, that the way I heard the last 

speaker, he can’t be accurate in his 

statement that we have spent more 

money on wind and solar than any 

other source of energy. When you look 

at the tax breaks that the oil companies have been getting for year after 

year after year, we spend far more 

money through the tax system for the 

oil industry than we are for wind and 

solar. 

In 2005, the Congress adopted the 

loan guarantee program—2005. That 

was when President Bush was president. And this loan guarantee program 

was supposed to be there to help energy 

projects. Most of the loan guarantees 

people were thinking about at that 

time were the nuclear energy loans to 

help those projects. 

When President Obama took office, 

he wanted to accomplish two goals. He 

wanted us to move in a different direction to level the playing field, not just 

put more money in the hands of the oil 

and coal companies, but to give an incentive for the state-of-the-art projects 

in the area of wind and solar and other 

renewable sources of energy so that we 

could have a more diverse portfolio of 

sources of energy so that we wouldn’t 

have all of our eggs in the basket of the 

oil and coal industries, and especially 

in the area of oil where we’re so dependent on other countries to give us 

that oil. We’re so dependent on oil that 

we’re adding to the greenhouse gas 

emissions that cause climate change. 

So, in the stimulus bill, in 2009, 

President Obama wanted to use this 

loan guarantee program and enhance it 

to move in a different direction in the 

energy area. But he also wanted to create new jobs. That was what the stimulus bill was all about, creating jobs 

for people right away. 

Let me point out that the projects 

being built as a result of this legislation, are state-of-the-art, 

groundbreaking projects that would 

not be built without this program. And 

I want to give a good example. 

The Ivanpah concentrated solar 

power facility is being completed in 

the California desert. It will be the 

largest facility of its kind in the world. 

When complete, it will have three, 450- 

foot towers that collect solar energy 

from tens of thousands of mirrors 

called heliostats. In a matter of 

months, this facility will begin sending 

clean, renewable power to the electric 

grid. It is an amazing achievement. 

The Republicans keep saying that 

this whole program has created just 

1,100 jobs. And then they take that 

1,100, and they talk about how much 

money has been spent, and then they 

say it’s X number of dollars per job. 

But this one project puts the lie to 

that statement because it’s employing 

not 1,100, but 2,100 construction workers. 

Don’t construction worker jobs 

count? We need more of them. 

As a CEO who invested $300 million 

in the project put it: 

This project never would have happened 

without the Federal Government’s support. 

There’s just no private sector financing for a 

cutting-edge technology project. There are 

other solar thermal projects out there, but 

none of this magnitude, and this would be 

considered first of a kind in the financing 

world. 

Now, let’s look at this jobs claim 

that the Republicans have been throwing around. They talk about how this is 

not creating jobs, but they’re ignoring 

13,000 construction jobs, pretending 

that providing a loan to a company is 

the same thing as just spending the 

money. And then we lose it forever. 

But, you know, these are loans. They 

don’t take into consideration the fact 

that loans get paid back, and most of 

the money has been used for successful 

programs. They are working on absurd 

assumptions. 

Independent experts reviewing the 

loan portfolio have made it clear that 

DOE is likely to be repaid the vast majority of the funds it has loaned out. So 

I support the loan guarantee program. 

I don’t support this bill because I 

don’t think we ought to end it. But this 

bill does not end the loan guarantee 

program. It continues it for 30-something billion dollars—$34 billion. $34 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6014 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

billion. They want to continue the program because they will then have a 

choice, through this program, to fund 

those solar energy projects and other 

projects that already have applications. But they won’t be able to consider anything else that might produce 

new breakthroughs, might produce 

more jobs, might produce the future for 

this country in the energy area, which 

is the future for our economy. 

So I just want people to understand: 

this is all a sham. The Republicans are 

just trying to put out propaganda using 

Solyndra. They’ve been dancing on the 

grave of Solyndra for so long. Enough 

is enough. Our country needs to move 

forward in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 

minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 

(Mr. LATHAM). 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman 

for the opportunity to speak today. 

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 

support for H.R. 6213, the No More 

Solyndras Act. I’m proud to be an 

original cosponsor of this bill, which 

will protect American taxpayers from 

losses under failed, unaccountable Federal loan guarantee programs. 

The bill will end the controversial 

loan program created in the failed 

stimulus bill, under which the Obama 

administration provided an ill-advised 

$535 million loan guarantee to the solar 

company Solyndra, which subsequently 

went bankrupt. 

The legislation would also enforce 

new accountability standards for applications that have already been accepted under the program. 

b 1040 

I understand the desire to do something to help American businesses succeed, but allowing freewheeling, government-knows-best bureaucrats to put 

billions of taxpayer dollars at risk with 

no accountability is not the way to do 

it. 

Let’s be clear, Mr. Chairman. The 

government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. It’s 

time to end wasteful government 

spending, to protect taxpayer dollars, 

and to empower the private sector over 

government. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I might 

just say we are prepared to close. If the 

gentleman from California is going to 

be the final speaker and is prepared to 

close, we can get to the amendments. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I have another speaker. 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

California should be made aware that 

he has 3 minutes total remaining in his 

time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. GENE GREEN), 

a very important member of our committee. 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank 

our ranking member for allowing me to 

speak. 

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee’s 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I have been involved in the 

investigation of the Solyndra loan for 

several months. 

During the investigation, I learned 

that the Department of Energy made a 

mistake, and I join my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle in expressing my 

frustration that such a mistake could 

have happened. I was angered even 

more to find out that the taxpayers’ investment would be paid back after the 

investments of outside investors. I believed we explicitly outlawed this in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Department of Energy did what other administrations have done—they went 

lawyer shopping to find a legal opinion 

that allowed them to do what they 

wanted. 

This shouldn’t have happened. Early 

on, it appeared the best way to make 

sure there would be no more Solyndras 

was to close this loophole, something I 

believed there would have been bipartisan support to do. Instead, my Republican friends—smelling blood in the 

water—decided to take a different approach. They are pursuing more political theater, virtually ensuring that 

the loan guarantee program will continue to be broken. Worse yet, the bill 

doesn’t even accomplish what they 

want to do, so their allies, like the Heritage Foundation, oppose it. 

When we go home this weekend, we 

will once again be confronted with 

frustrated constituents who will be 

asking us, Why can’t you work together in Washington? After seeing 

this bill pass on a mostly party-line 

vote, what are we supposed to tell 

them—that we were faced with the opportunity to cut government waste, to 

close a loophole and to protect the interest of the taxpayers but that we 

didn’t do it? 

We are passing a bill that will never 

become law. The problems we identified in the Solyndra investigation will 

continue to exist, and we will be leaving our constituents on the hook for 

future Solyndras. I urge my colleagues 

to vote against the bill. It is bad policy 

and undoes a bipartisan compromise 

from 2005. Instead, let’s work together 

to find common ground and pass a bill 

that will fix the problems without the 

politics. 

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. UPTON. How much time do I 

have remaining on this side? 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Michigan has 9 minutes remaining. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

the balance of the time that I control 

to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 

STEARNS). 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman and my 

colleagues, in a recent editorial by The 

Wall Street Journal, dated September 

11, 2012, entitled, ‘‘China’s Solyndra 

Economy,’’ the owner of a solar panel 

company in China was unable to repay 

$3 billion in a bank loan that was guaranteed for his solar panel company. Do 

you know what happened? He leaped 

from a sixth floor building because he 

couldn’t repay it. 

This editorial outlines an unfailing 

description of all of these different 

solar panel companies in China that 

could not repay their loan guarantees. 

In fact, this summer, the New York 

Stock Exchange-listed company LDK 

Solar, which is the world’s second largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, 

defaulted on $95 million owed to over 20 

suppliers. The company lost $600 million in just the fourth quarter of 2011 

and another $200 million in the first 

quarter of 2012, and it has already shed 

10,000 jobs. 

It goes on in this article to point out 

that the Chinese are doing the wrong 

thing—they’re picking winners and losers—and these people who are losing 

are the people who can’t pay back their 

loan guarantees. Some people in Washington seem to feel that we should 

compete with China. We have this 

China envy. In fact, this is what the 

President said: 

I will not cede the wind or solar or battery 

industry to China because we refuse to make 

the same commitment here. 

Now, given what this editorial says 

and what happened in China, I would 

think the President of the United 

States would have to rethink his position. So many in Washington have developed this serious case of China envy, 

seeing it as an exemplar case of how to 

run an economy. In fact, the Chinese, 

the Beijing mandarins, are no better at 

picking winners and losers, and are 

just as prone to blowing money as we 

are here in the United States with 

these beltway boondoggles. So, if people are concerned about this program 

and don’t think this legislation is necessary, just take a few moments to 

read this editorial, which outlines the 

problems with solar panels in China. 

I would say to my distinguished 

ranking member from Colorado (Ms. 

DEGETTE) that she and I both know the 

mission of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is to extirpate—to 

root out—waste, fraud, and abuse. If it 

happens anywhere, we should step forward, and that’s what we did in the 

Solyndra investigation. We attempted 

to understand what the problem was in 

order to come to grips with what happened. It took us 18 months. It took us 

almost 8 months to get back the emails 

from our subpoenas back in November. 

We were systematic, and we tried to do 

it without a huge amount of political 

rhetoric, and I think we accomplished 

that. The ultimate result of this investigation is the No More Solyndras Act, 

H.R. 6213. What this bill does is to basically answer some fundamental questions, and it takes the lessons that we 

learned from this investigation and 

puts them into this bill. 

I reach out to my Democrat colleagues on this. The gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. GENE GREEN) was on the 

floor just recently, and he indicated he 

also agreed with us about the subordination. If I understood what he said, he 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6015 

said it was wrong for the administration to subordinate in violation of the 

law. In fact, I thought I’d take a few 

moments and, perhaps, actually read 

what the law says in dealing with subordination. It’s section 1702, Terms and 

Conditions, in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005. These are the exact words that, I 

believe, Mr. GREEN, Democrat from 

Texas, agrees with, that the administration should not have subordinated 

taxpayer money. 

In the paragraph dealing with subordination—these are the exact words, 

and I’ll read this carefully—‘‘the obligation shall be subject to the condition 

that the obligation is not subordinate 

to other financing.’’ That seems crystal clear. Yet, the Department of Energy, after talking to lawyers outside 

of the DOE who indicated they couldn’t 

subordinate, still parsed the legal language so that they could. 

It’s very disturbing—and I say this 

honestly—that David Frantz, the executive director of the loan guarantee 

program, under oath, said he wanted to 

continue to subordinate loan guarantees. Now, that’s an absolute fact— 

under oath. The DOE still has a senior 

loan officer who wants to subordinate. 

So how in the world could we not pass 

this legislation and allow the DOE to 

continue to subordinate and push taxpayers behind—what?—hedge funds? 

What financial instruments are they 

going to allow them to subordinate to? 

He wouldn’t elucidate. 

So the bottom line here is that the 

administration still wants to subordinate. That’s why I tell everybody on 

the Democrats’ side that you have to— 

and should—vote for this bill because, 

in the end, you’re going to support 

David Frantz, the executive director of 

the loan guarantee program, who 

wants to continue to subordinate. 

Now, here are the key lessons 

learned—and I’m going to do a colloquy 

with myself, Mr. Chairman. I think 

they’ll answer the questions the way I 

want, but I’ll answer them the right 

way. 

b 1050 

Did the administration ignore several 

red flags raised by the Department of 

Energy and OMB about Solyndra’s financial condition in the market for 

products? Yes. 

Did the Department of Energy fail to 

consult with Treasury prior to issuing 

a conditional commitment to Solyndra 

as required by the Energy Policy Act of 

2005? Yes. 

Did the administration’s desire to 

highlight the stimulus result in DOE 

pushing the Solyndra loan guarantee 

out the door? Yes. 

Did the Department of Energy fail to 

adequately monitor the loan guarantee 

as Solyndra’s financial condition simply deteriorated in 2010? Absolutely, 

yes. 

Did the DOE subordinate its interest 

in the loan guarantee to two Solyndra 

investors, which was contrary to the 

Energy Policy Act prohibition on subordination? Absolutely, yes. 

Did Treasury play any role in reviewing the restructuring when DOE was 

moving forward on Solyndra? The answer to that is ‘‘no.’’ Definitely no. 

They did not. In fact, numerous times 

through email, Treasury showed that 

they wanted to consult with DOE. 

Did DOE consult with the Department of Justice about the subordination? You would think if they were 

going to parse the legal language on 

something that was in violation of the 

Energy Policy Act, section 1702, Terms 

and Conditions, you’d think they would 

go to the Department of Justice and 

say, ‘‘What do you think of our parsed 

language?’’ No, they didn’t. They decided not to consult with Justice. 

In the end, the items that I mention, 

the key lessons I learned from this investigation show demonstratively that 

this bill is absolutely required. Each of 

the seven areas I outlined and gave you 

definitive answers, each of these answers is included in this bill. And based 

upon what we see in China and what we 

see happening in the solar industry, we 

should not risk taxpayers’ loans for 

any more of these loan guarantees if 

it’s going to endanger taxpayers’ 

money. 

I’ll just conclude by again reminding 

my colleagues of the mismanagement 

and the poor executive oversight by 

Secretary Chu back in 2011. He said, 

‘‘We are confident we can repay the 

loans.’’ He was wrong, and that’s why 

this bill is needed. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 

2012] 

CHINA’S SOLYNDRA ECONOMY

(By Patrick Chovanec) 

On Aug. 3, the owner of Chengxing Solar 

Company leapt from the sixth floor of his office building in Jinhua, China. Li Fei killed 

himself after his company was unable to 

repay a $3 million bank loan it had guaranteed for another Chinese solar company that 

defaulted. One local financial newspaper 

called Li’s suicide ‘‘a sign of the imminent 

collapse facing the Chinese photovoltaic industry’’ due to overcapacity and mounting 

debts. 

President Barack Obama has held up China’s investments in green energy and highspeed rail as examples of the kind of stateled industrial policy that America should be 

emulating. The real lesson is precisely the 

opposite. State subsidies have spawned dozens of Chinese Solyndras that are now on the 

verge of collapse. 

Unveiled in 2010, Beijing’s 12th Five-Year 

Plan identified solar and wind power and 

electric automobiles as ‘‘strategic emerging 

industries’’ that would receive substantial 

state support. Investors piled into the favored sectors, confident the government’s 

backing would guarantee success. Barely two 

years later, all three industries are in dire 

straits. 

This summer, the NYSE-listed LDK Solar, 

the world’s second largest polysilicon solar 

wafer producer, defaulted on $95 billion owed 

to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $589 

million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $185 million in the first quarter of 2012, 

and has shed nearly 10,000 jobs. The government in LDK’s home province of Jiangxi 

scrambled to pledge $315 million in public 

bailout funds, terrified that any further defaults could pull down hundreds of local companies. 

Chinese solar companies blame many of 

their woes on the antidumping tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. and Europe. The 

real problem, however, is rampant overinvestment driven largely by subsidies. 

Since 2010, the price of polysilicon wafers 

used to make solar cells has dropped 73%, according to Maxim Group, while the price of 

solar cells has fallen 68% and the price of 

solar modules 57%. At these prices, even lowcost Chinese producers are finding it impossible to break even. 

Wind power is seeing similar overcapacity. 

China’s top wind turbine manufacturers, 

Goldwind and Sinovel, saw their earnings 

plummet by 83% and 96% respectively in the 

first half of 2012, year-on-year. Domestic 

wind farm operators Huaneng and Datang 

saw profits plunge 63% and 76%, respectively, 

due to low capacity utilization. China’s national electricity regulator, SERC, reported 

that 53% of the wind power generated in 

Inner Mongolia province in the first half of 

this year was wasted. One analyst told China 

Securities Journal that ‘‘40–50% of wind 

power projects are left idle,’’ with many not 

even connected to the grid. 

A few years ago, Shenzhen-based BYD 

(short for ‘‘Build Your Dreams’’) was a media 

darling that brought in Warren Buffett as an 

investor. It was going to make China the 

dominant player in electric automobiles. Despite gorging on green energy subsidies, BYD 

sold barely 8,000 hybrids and 400 fully electric cars last year, while hemorrhaging cash 

on an ill-fated solar venture. Company profits for the first half of 2012 plunged 94% yearon-year. 

China’s high-speed rail ambitions put the 

Ministry of Railways so deeply in debt that 

by the end of last year it was forced to halt 

all construction and ask Beijing for a $126 

billion bailout. Central authorities agreed to 

give it $31.5 billion to pay its state-owned 

suppliers and avoid an outright default, and 

had to issue a blanket guarantee on its bonds 

to help it raise more. While a handful of 

high-traffic lines, such as the Shanghai-Beijing route, have some prospect of breaking 

even, Prof. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong 

University compared the rest of the network 

to ‘‘a 160-story luxury hotel where only 11 

stories are used and the occupancy rate of 

those floors is below 50%.’’ 

China’s Railway Ministry racked up $1.4 

billion in losses for the first six months of 

this year, and an internal audit has uncovered dangerous defects due to lax construction on 12 new lines, which will have to be 

repaired at the cost of billions more. Minister Liu Zhijun, the architect of China’s 

high-speed rail system, was fired in February 

2011 and will soon be prosecuted on corruption charges that reportedly include embezzling some $120 million. One of his lieutenants, the deputy chief engineer, is alleged to 

have funneled $2.8 billion into an offshore 

bank account. 

Many in Washington have developed a serious case of China-envy, seeing it as an exemplar of how to run an economy. In fact, Beijing’s mandarins are no better at picking 

winners, and just as prone to blow money on 

boondoggles, as their Beltway counterparts. 

In his State of the Union address earlier 

this year, President Obama declared, ‘‘I will 

not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China. . . because we refuse to make 

the same commitment here.’’ Given what’s 

really happening in China, he may want to 

think again. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, here we go 

again! Republicans have spent 18 months and 

millions of taxpayer dollars looking into the 

Obama Administration’s energy loan guarantee to Solyndra. The Oversight Subcommittee has held 7 hearings on Solyndra in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

2011. And now they propose another AntiObama bill, based not on facts but on politics. 

These are the facts: 

The energy loan program was created 

under the Bush administration, and President 

Bush’s Department of Energy invited Solyndra 

to fully apply for a loan guarantee. 

Solyndra was praised as a successful, innovative company both before and after it received the loan guarantee. 

Solyndra was just one of 30 companies in a 

portfolio that was expected to support more 

than 60,000 jobs. 

After more than a year of costly investigations, House Republicans have ‘‘turned up no 

evidence of wrong doing.’’ 

President Obama’s investment in clean energy is paying off, creating jobs around the 

country. 

Despite these facts, the Republicans are determined to waste taxpayers’ money on bad 

bills that will set bad precedents. No one has 

refuted that there are needed improvements to 

the program. Independent findings have stated 

that DOE is already implementing recommendations to improve the program. Introducing legislation like the ‘‘No More Solyndra 

Act’’ is unnecessary and it not only penalizes 

potentially good programs because of one bad 

incident, it can kill the kind of innovation in energy that we need. This is especially true for 

districts like mine with one of the highest if not 

the highest energy costs at 45 cents per kilowatt. We need the innovation that the DOE 

program provides and this bill would kill. 

It is important that the federal government 

play a prominent role in promoting energy efficiency. This bill which restricts the ability of 

the Department of Energy to provide competitive loan guarantees to alternative energy 

businesses to support innovation is not a solution to challenges DOE has had with the energy loan guarantee but another attack on the 

administration. These loan guarantees are important to the development of a strong clean 

energy industry and jobs it would create. 

I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this bill. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chair, today, I am voting 

in favor of H.R. 6213. First and foremost, the 

American taxpayer should not take a backseat 

to venture capitalists. This bill ensures that 

any loan default falls first on the company’s investors and remaining assets instead of on 

the taxpayer. 

The Department of Energy’s loan guarantee 

program needs better oversight to protect taxpayers from the financial risks of emerging 

technologies in a competitive and volatile energy market. 

I am also concerned that the loan guarantee 

program, which was created under the Bush 

administration in 2005, heavily favors thermal 

industries—including coal. This money would 

be better spent on innovative, cutting-edge 

technologies that will reduce our reliance on 

fossil fuels, cut greenhouse gases responsible 

for global warming, and make the United 

States more energy independent. 

Limited federal dollars should go to creating 

high-wage, high-tech jobs that can’t be exported—they should not be used to subsidize 

the largest energy companies that have benefited from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and decades of federal support. 

That’s why I am also voting for Representative WAXMAN’s amendment. H.R. 6213 allows 

DOE to use its existing authority to award $34 

billion in loan guarantees to projects on the 

Republican-deemed ‘‘winners’ list.’’ This is a 

list of 50 or so applications that were submitted to DOE prior to the end of 2011. More 

than three-quarters of the applications are 

from the nuclear and coal industries. 

By voting in favor of Representative WAXMAN’s amendment, I support allowing DOE to 

consider new applications until the remaining 

loan guarantee dollars are exhausted. This will 

create a level playing field for all technologies 

including renewables like wind, solar, and biomass. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6213, the ‘‘No More Solyndras 

Act.’’ This hyper-partisan legislation would prevent Department of Energy loan guarantees 

for the most promising energy technologies 

and commit our country to the technologies of 

the past. 

American renewable energy is thriving, with 

many success stories demonstrating the value 

of continuing the Loan Guarantee Program. 

One example is Prologis, a company that 

received a partial loan guarantee of $1.4 billion through the 1705 program to complete 

Project Amp, an effort to install solar panels at 

750 buildings across the country which will 

add reliable energy to our electric grid. The 

project will employ more than 1,000 workers 

nationwide, including in my home state of Illinois, and have the capacity to power 90,000 

homes once completed. 

Another promising example is First Solar, an 

Arizona-based company that has partnered 

with leading private investors—including Berkshire Hathaway—to finance and build a 290– 

MW solar power plant. That project is supported by a DOE loan guarantee and will soon 

be providing clean, renewable electricity for 

the taxpayers who helped fund it. 

All told, the DOE’s existing loan guarantees 

will put 60,000 Americans to work and will prevent millions of tons of CO2 from being emitted into our air. H.R. 6213 could prevent the 

next Prologis or First Solar from taking off, 

and it would put our country at an incredible 

disadvantage compared to China, Germany, 

and a number of other countries that are making substantial investments in clean energy. 

Solyndra has been used as a red herring to 

attack DOE loan guarantees and thus undermine America’s commitment to clean energy. 

But H.R. 6213 would not end the DOE Loan 

Guarantee Program. It would restrict DOE 

loan guarantees to proposals submitted before 

2012. That would not save taxpayers a dime, 

but it would prevent the most promising technological advances from receiving consideration for DOE loan guarantees. 

There is of course a trade-off in investing in 

nascent technologies. Sometimes it won’t work 

out. But as the demand for energy rises, 

emerging technologies in the United States 

will need our support to compete with China, 

whose solar industry received $30 billion in 

government subsidies in 2010. Because of the 

Loan Guarantee Programs, U.S. investment in 

clean energy edged China last year, but if we 

abandon our commitment to investment in the 

most promising renewable energy technologies, we will again fall behind. That would 

be a reckless and irreversible decision. 

We owe it to the next generation to foster 

the investment that will make American energy 

production the envy of the world over the next 

century. We will not accomplish that goal by 

clinging to the technologies of the past. We 

must dedicate ourselves to the goal of energy 

independence, which is impossible without our 

support of emerging energy technologies. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, the bill before the 

House is not a serious effort at legislating. Instead, once again, the Republican Majority is 

using Floor time to try and score political 

points. 

Let’s be honest about what’s going on here. 

The legislation should include a disclaimer: 

‘‘This bill supports the partisan, political interests of House Republicans, who approve this 

message.’’ 

Seldom has the nation faced such a backlog 

of serious problems, yet the Republican Leadership squanders time on political messaging 

bills like this one. 

Double standard. Every year the taxpayers 

shell out $4 billion in unjustified subsidies to 

the Big 5 oil companies. Two years ago, BP’s 

Deep Water Horizon well spilled millions of 

barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Do Republicans come to the Floor with a ‘‘No More 

BP Spills’’ bill? Do they take away the unjustified subsidies to Big Oil? No. 

Two years ago in my home state of Michigan, the Embridge oil pipeline spilled 800,000 

gallons of heavy crude and fouled the Kalamazoo River. Do House Republicans come to 

the Floor with a ‘‘No More Embridge Pipeline 

Spills’’ bill? No. Instead they work to rush 

through the permitting on the Keystone pipeline. 

Hypocrisy. Republicans like to decry clean 

energy grants and loan guarantee programs 

when many House Republicans, including several Committee Chairmen and their party’s 

nominee for vice president, have themselves 

written to the Obama Administration to express support for taxpayer support for projects 

that benefit companies in their states. 

Let’s be clear. The bill before the House is 

not about improving U.S. energy policy or creating jobs. 

Instead of wasting time on a bill that will 

never become law, we need to invest in renewable energy, and take the steps necessary 

to allow United States companies to compete 

with those in China and other nations to supply the world’s growing demand for wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced batteries. 

We should renew and expand the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit that 

supports American-made clean energy manufacturing. By any measure, 48C was wildly 

successful. Republicans should join us in extending it. 

We should also renew without delay the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, which 

has spurred clean, renewable, domesticallyproduced wind energy across the country— 

and the jobs that go with it. American jobs are 

on the line here. 37,000 jobs will be lost next 

year if the credit is allowed to expire. 

It is time for congressional Republicans to 

stop their political games and get to work on 

legislation to spur investment, expand clean 

energy manufacturing, and put Americans 

back to work. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise 

today in support of H.R. 6213, the No More 

Solyndras Act, as I believe it serves as a critical step in correcting the glaring missteps of 

the Department of Energy’s failed loan guarantee program. Through a lack of due diligence, and apparent political pressure, the 

Obama Administration risked tax dollars in 

companies whose failures should have been 

foreseeable. Congress must learn from these 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6017 

mistakes and ensure that future tax dollars are 

not wasted. 

I am greatly troubled that several of the initial recipients of the section 1705 loan guarantee program have declared bankruptcy. The 

most high profile of these was Solyndra, the 

California solar company that received $535 

million in loan guarantees, but DOE also bet 

wrong by supporting Beacon Power, Ener 1, 

and Abound Solar. After Solyndra’s failure, 

Congress investigated how DOE was awarding its money. We found that DOE ignored obvious deficiencies in these companies’ business structures and rushed much of the decision making process in the name of political 

expedience. To put it bluntly, DOE attempted 

to pick winners and losers and it failed miserably. 

When news of this reckless use of tax dollars became public, my constituents were 

rightfully outraged. In a time of record debt, 

DOE’s gambling with tax dollars on shaky 

companies is indefensible. The American people expect more from their government. However, in an apparent disregard for its history of 

failures, DOE is insisting that it will continue to 

consider loan guarantees, putting millions 

more tax dollars at risk. 

The No More Solyndras Act takes the necessary steps to protect the American taxpayer. 

By sunsetting DOE’s loan guarantee authority, 

we are shielding taxpayers from future losses 

associated with these risky loans. Further, 

greater transparency and ensuring no subordination of tax dollars are important to providing 

taxpayer protection. While I would like for 

more aggressive legislation that would end the 

loan guarantee program altogether, I believe 

the No More Solyndras Act is needed to begin 

correcting the flaws of the DOE program. 

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired. 

Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be 

considered for amendment under the 5- 

minute rule. 

In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be in 

order to consider as an original bill for 

the purpose of amendment under the 5- 

minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 

text of Rules Committee Print 112–31. 

That amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be considered as read. 

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows: 

H.R. 6213 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No More 

Solyndras Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress makes the following findings: 

(1) President Obama took office amidst a weak 

economy and high unemployment, yet he remained committed to advancing an expansive 

‘‘green jobs’’ agenda that received substantial 

funding with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly 

known as the stimulus package. 

(2) The stimulus package allocated $90 billion 

to various green energy programs, and related 

appropriations provided $47 billion for loan 

guarantees authorized under title XVII of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et 

seq.). 

(3) Such title XVII authorized the Secretary of 

Energy to issue loan guarantees for projects 

that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or 

greenhouse gases and employ new or significantly improved technologies compared with 

commercial technologies in service at the time 

the guarantee is issued. 

(4) Loan guarantees issued under such title 

XVII were required to provide a reasonable 

prospect of repayment and were expressly required to be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing. 

(5) The stimulus package expanded such title 

XVII by adding section 1705 to include projects 

that use commercial technology for renewable 

energy systems, electric power transmission systems, and leading-edge biofuels projects and by 

appropriating $6,000,000,000 in funding to pay 

the credit subsidy costs for section 1705 loan 

guarantees for projects that commence construction no later than September 30, 2011. 

(6) The Department of Energy, since the enactment of the stimulus package, has issued 

loan guarantees under such title XVII for 28 

projects totaling $15,100,000,000 under the section 1705 program, and, according to the Government Accountability Office, issued conditional loan guarantees for four projects totaling 

$4,400,000,000 under the section 1705 program 

and four projects totaling $10,600,000,000 under 

the section 1703 program. 

(7) Three of the first five companies that received section 1705 loan guarantees for their 

projects, Solyndra, Inc., Beacon Power Corporation, and Abound Solar, Inc., have declared 

bankruptcy. 

(8) The bankruptcy of the first section 1705 

loan guarantee recipient, Solyndra, Inc., could 

result in a loss to taxpayers of over $530,000,000. 

(9) The investigation of the Solyndra loan 

guarantee by the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce has demonstrated that the review in 

2009 of the Solyndra application by the Department of Energy and the Office of Management 

and Budget was driven by politics and ideology 

and divorced from economic reality where the 

Department of Energy ignored concerns about 

the company’s financial condition and market 

for its products. 

(10) Despite an express provision in such title 

XVII prohibiting subordination of the United 

States taxpayers’ financial interest, the Department of Energy restructured the Solyndra loan 

guarantee in February 2011, resulting in the 

taxpayers losing priority to Solyndra’s investors 

in the event of a default. 

(11) The Inspector General of the Department 

of the Treasury concluded that it was unclear 

whether the Department of Energy’s consultation requirement with the Secretary of the 

Treasury on the Solyndra loan guarantee was 

met; that the consultation that did occur was 

rushed with the Department of the Treasury expressing that ‘‘the train really has left the station on this deal’’; and that no documentation 

was retained as to how the Department of the 

Treasury’s serious concerns with the loan guarantee were addressed. 

(12) The Government Accountability Office 

concluded that the Department of Energy Loan 

Guarantee Program under title XVII has treated 

applicants inconsistently; that the Department 

of Energy did not follow its own process for reviewing applications and documenting its analysis and decisions, increasing the likelihood of 

taxpayer exposure to financial risk from a default; and that the Department of Energy’s absence of adequate documentation made it difficult for the Department to defend its decisions 

on loan guarantees as sound and fair. 

(13) A memorandum prepared for the President dated October 25, 2010, from Carol Browner, Ron Klain, and Larry Summers, principal 

advisors to the President, noted the risk presented by loan guarantee projects because most 

of the projects had little ‘‘skin in the game’’ 

from private investors. 

(14) A January 2012 report conducted at the 

request of the Chief of Staff to the President 

concluded that the portfolio of projects the Department of Energy included in the loan program were higher risk investments that private 

capital markets do not generally invest in. 

(15) The Department of Energy’s section 1705 

program has expired but the Department of Energy has announced that it will continue to consider applications for loan guarantees under the 

section 1703 program. 

(16) The Department of Energy has approximately $34,000,000,000 in remaining lending authority to issue new loan guarantees under the 

section 1703 program. 

SEC. 3. SUNSET. 

(a) NO NEW APPLICATIONS.—The Secretary of 

Energy shall not issue any new loan guarantee 

pursuant to title XVII of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.) for any application submitted to the Department of Energy 

after December 31, 2011. 

(b) PENDING APPLICATIONS.—With respect to 

any application submitted pursuant to section 

1703 or 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 before December 31, 2011: 

(1) No guarantee shall be made until the Secretary of the Treasury has provided to the Secretary of Energy a written analysis of the financial terms and conditions of the proposed loan 

guarantee, pursuant to section 1702(a) of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(a)). 

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit the written analysis required under paragraph (1) to the Secretary of Energy not later 

than 30 days after receiving the proposal from 

the Secretary of Energy. 

(3) Before making a guarantee under such 

title XVII, the Secretary of Energy shall take 

into consideration the written analysis made by 

the Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph 

(1). 

(4) If the Secretary of Energy makes a guarantee that is not consistent with the written 

analysis provided by the Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph (1), not later than 30 days 

after making such guarantee the Secretary of 

Energy shall transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources of the Senate a written 

explanation of any material inconsistencies. 

(c) TRANSPARENCY.— 

(1) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 60 

days after making a guarantee as provided in 

subsection (b), the Secretary of Energy shall 

transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

of the Senate a report that includes information 

regarding— 

(A) the review and decisionmaking process 

utilized by the Secretary in making the guarantee; 

(B) the terms of the guarantee; 

(C) the recipient; and 

(D) the technology and project for which the 

loan guarantee will be used. 

(2) PROTECTING CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.—A report under paragraph (1) shall 

provide all relevant information, but the Secretary shall take all necessary steps to protect 

confidential business information with respect 

to the recipient of the loan guarantee and the 

technology used. 

SEC. 4. RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN GUARANTEES. 

With respect to any restructuring of the terms 

of a loan guarantee issued pursuant to title 

XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding any restructuring of the terms and conditions of the loan 

guarantee, including any deviations from the financial terms of the loan guarantee. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6018 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

SEC. 5. RESTATING THE PROHIBITION ON SUBORDINATION. 

Section 1702(d)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(d)(3)) is amended by striking ‘‘is not subordinate’’ and inserting ‘‘, including any reorganization, restructuring, or 

termination thereof, shall not at any time be 

subordinate’’. 

SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND CIVIL 

PENALTIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Any Federal official who is 

responsible for the issuance of a loan guarantee 

under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 in a manner that violates the requirements 

of such title or of this Act shall be— 

(1) subject to appropriate administrative discipline provided for under title 5 of the United 

States Code, or any other applicable Federal 

law, including, when circumstances warrant, 

suspension from duty without pay or removal 

from office; and 

(2) personally liable for a civil penalty in an 

amount of at least $10,000 but not more than 

$50,000 for each violation. 

(b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, 

the term ‘‘Federal official’’ means— 

(1) an individual serving in a position in level 

I, II, III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as 

provided in subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 

5, United States Code; and 

(2) an individual serving in a Senior Executive 

Service position, as provided in subchapter II of 

chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code. 

SEC. 7. GAO STUDY OF FEDERAL SUBSIDIES IN 

ENERGY MARKETS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General 

shall conduct a study of the Federal subsidies in 

energy markets provided from fiscal year 2003 

through fiscal year 2012. 

(b) FOCUS.—The study required under subsection (a) shall have particular focus on Federal subsidies in energy markets provided in 

support of— 

(1) electricity production, transmission, and 

consumption; 

(2) transportation fuels and infrastructure; 

(3) energy-related research and development; 

and 

(4) facilities that manufacture energy-related 

components. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

General shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 

that describes the results of the study conducted 

under subsection (a), including an identification 

and quantification of— 

(1) costs to the United States Treasury; 

(2) impacts on United States energy security; 

(3) impacts on electricity prices, including any 

potential negative pricing impact on wholesale 

electricity markets; 

(4) impacts on transportation fuel prices; 

(5) impacts on private energy-related industries not benefitting from Federal subsidies in 

energy markets; 

(6) any Federal subsidies in energy markets 

that are provided to foreign persons or corporations; and 

(7) subsidies and direct financial interest any 

of the 15 foreign countries with the largest gross 

domestic product are providing to support energy markets in their respective countries. 

(d) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, 

the term ‘‘Federal subsidies’’ means Federal 

grants, direct loans, loan guarantees, and tax 

credits, and other programmatic activities targeted at energy markets and related sectors, relating to specific energy technologies. 

The CHAIR. No amendment to that 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 

printed in House Report 112–668. Each 

such amendment may be offered only 

in the order printed in the report, by a 

Member designated in the report, shall 

be considered read, shall be debatable 

for the time specified in the report, 

equally divided and controlled by the 

proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of 

the question. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. DEGETTE

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 

House Report 112–668. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have 

an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate 

the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 2, after line 21, insert the following 

new paragraph: 

(6) The Department of Energy estimates 

that projects funded under the title XVII 

program are expected to create 60,000 jobs. 

Page 3, lines 13 through 21, amend paragraph (9) to read as follows: 

(9) An investigation by the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 

House of Representatives determined that 

the Solyndra loan determination was based 

on the best professional judgment of career 

Department of Energy and Office of Management and Budget officials, without political 

or ideological interference from Obama Administration political appointees or career 

officials. 

Page 3, lines 22 through 24, strike ‘‘Despite 

an express’’ and all that follows through ‘‘financial interest,’’ and insert ‘‘Title XVII 

provides that taxpayer interests cannot be 

subordinated in the origination of a loan, but 

does not state whether subordination is allowed during restructuring of a loan. The Department of Energy General Counsel determined that in such cases subordination was 

allowed under the law, and’’. 

Page 4, after line 14, insert the following 

new paragraph: 

(12) Department of the Treasury officials 

testified before the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Power of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of Representatives 

on October 14, 2011, and stated that their 

consultation on the Solyndra loan guarantee 

was not rushed. In interviews conducted by 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of Representatives, 

Office of Management and Budget officials 

indicated that their review of the Solyndra 

loan, and the review of Department of Energy officials, was thorough, complete, and 

fair, and based on reasonable economic assumptions about the company’s future. 

Page 5, line 12, insert ‘‘This report found 

that the portfolio of projects under title 

XVII was strong, performing within the risk 

confines established by the Congress, and 

would cost the Government $2,000,000,000 less 

than initially expected.’’ after ‘‘generally invest in.’’. 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, sadly, 

this deeply flawed legislation we are 

considering today is the result of a political investigation, not a fact-based 

investigation. The majority has ignored the benefits of the DOE loan program and has consistently ignored evidence uncovered in the investigation 

that contradicts their predetermined 

view of events. All you have to do is 

look at the six pages of partisan findings at the beginning of the bill as 

proof that this is really just a witch 

hunt. 

What my amendment does is it at 

least attempts to fix the most egregious parts of the false and misleading 

legislative findings so that at least the 

record will attempt to be clear and 

honest. 

The first findings I deal with in my 

amendment are these findings in paragraph 9 that say: 

The review in 2009 of the Solyndra application by the Department of Energy and OMB 

was ‘‘driven by politics and ideology, and divorced from economic reality where the Department of Energy ignored concerns about 

the company’s financial condition and market for its products.’’ 

That is so blatantly partisan. Our 

committee’s oversight work found that 

the Solyndra loan determination was 

based on thorough, unbiased, and fair 

analysis of DOE and OMB officials 

without political or ideological influence from Obama administration political appointees or from career officials. 

These findings also ignore the fact 

that each and every one of the 20 witnesses we questioned in interviews and 

in hearings told us unequivocally there 

was no political influence on this loan 

guarantee, that no corners were cut in 

the review, and that all decisions were 

made purely on the merits. Shame on 

the majority for just putting this blatantly false allegation in these findings. 

Mr. Chairman, there are also other 

findings in the legislation that are inaccurate and should be removed. The 

findings state that the DOE acted illegally in subordinating the Solyndra 

loan, and Chairman STEARNS talked 

quite a bit about this in his closing remarks on the substance of the bill. But 

when looking at the facts, this is simply not the case. What the law says is 

in the initial granting of the loan guarantee, the government position shall 

not be subordinated, but DOE’s general 

counsel carefully analyzed the law and 

determined that subordination in the 

restructuring would be allowed legally. 

This opinion was supported by others 

in the administration, and by outside 

experts consulted as part of the committee investigation. 

Chairman STEARNS talks about talking to independent lawyers who said 

that the subordination was not legal. 

Sadly, he refused to call any of those 

lawyers to testify before our committee. Furthermore, he refused to call 

the lawyers at the Department of Energy or DOJ who had said subordination was legal, despite repeated requests by myself and Chairman WAXMAN that they should come in. 

Here’s my question: If subordination 

was already illegal as the majority 

claims, why are we considering legislation that makes it illegal? Why doesn’t 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6019 

the Department of Justice just go and 

prosecute these people? It just doesn’t 

make sense. That’s why my amendment also replaces the misleading findings about subordination with an honest set of facts. 

Mr. Chairman, the findings also ignore the important successes of title 

XVII and the ATVM loan programs. In 

total, the DOE loan programs are creating 60,000 jobs and saving nearly 300 

million gallons of gasoline a year. The 

title XVII and ATVM programs have 

supported six power generation 

projects that are already complete and 

nine projects that are sending power to 

the electricity grid. The program is 

funding one of the world’s largest wind 

farms; the world’s largest concentrated 

solar generation project; the world’s 

largest photovoltaic solar power plant, 

as we heard from Mr. WAXMAN; and the 

Nation’s first two all-electric vehicle 

manufacturing facilities. The programs 

have allowed private investors to come 

off the sidelines to invest tens of billions of dollars and create thousands of 

jobs. 

Now, several of my friends on the 

other side of the aisle, including Chairman STEARNS, and my dear friend from 

Kentucky (Mr. WHITFIELD), said we 

should just cede leadership in this to 

other countries. If other countries like 

China are investing money, well, too 

bad for us; we should cede the leadership in solar to them. 

I do not think this is the right place 

for the U.S. to go. For that reason, I 

believe my amendment should be 

adopted. Let’s have the findings of fact 

be accurate. Vote ‘‘yes’’ on the 

DeGette amendment. 

With that, I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise 

in opposition to the amendment. 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there 

are three components to her amendment. The first one is so surprising 

that she would make this claim that 

the title XVII program created 60,000 

new jobs. Of course, if you go to the 

Department of Energy’s own Web site 

and you add up the actual number of 

the permanent jobs in that program, 

the number is 1,174, according to DOE’s 

own Web site. 

b 1100 

How could she possibly come down 

here and say 60,000 jobs because she includes the ATVM program, which is 

not part of title XVII, the Advanced 

Technology Vehicle Program. 

First of all, anybody that votes for 

her amendment supports voting for 

something that is patently false, patently wrong. 

The second portion of her amendment is based upon the fact that she 

thinks that the decision to loan 

Solyndra taxpayer money was based 

upon personal judgment. But throughout all of the emails we received, we 

show, whether it was OMB or Department of Treasury or even the Department of Energy, they all showed that 

this program was not going to make it. 

Then the last portion of her amendment, which is really the heart, I 

think, of what her amendment is trying to do, she is saying that the counsel for the Department of Energy determined it was satisfactory to subordinate taxpayers. This is contrary to 

what I read earlier, Mr. Chairman, 

which clearly shows it’s in violation of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. You cannot subordinate taxpayers. 

In fact, even while they were doing 

this—I want to read you an email between OMB staff regarding Solyndra 

and this shows the optics of the whole 

thing. This email is between OMB staff 

regarding Solyndra: 

While the company may avoid default with restructuring—vis-&-vis subordination—there’s also a good chance 

it will not. At that point additional 

funds will have been put at risk. Recoveries may be lower and questions will 

be asked. 

So, the bottom line is even after they 

parsed the language illegally, it was 

clear from the OMB that they weren’t 

going to make it. So the Department of 

Energy’s legal analysis was a post 

facto to try to subordinate to make 

this survive for political reasons. 

Why did they want to make Solyndra 

succeed? Because it was a poster child. 

It was the one that the President has 

touted, Vice President BIDEN touted. 

They went out there and said we have 

to make this continue to work, all the 

while the subordination was illegal. 

Now, OMB’s Treasury staff believed 

the DOE had stretched the language of 

the Energy Policy Act beyond the limits when it agreed to subordinate it. 

The email I read to you and also further emails I could elicit, which we 

don’t have time for, will show that 

OMB and Treasury believed that the 

Department of Energy was wrong in 

parsing the language to do this. DOE 

made a questionable, tortured determination of the law in order to justify 

a decision they had already made. 

We want to stop that. That’s why 

this No More Solyndras bill is required. 

They say that the Treasury consultation was not rushed. 

The Treasury Department’s own inspector general found that the consultation was rushed, and the cause 

was a press release that DOE wanted to 

issue to tout the Solyndra loan guarantee. We don’t want that to happen 

again. Treasury wasn’t brought in; a 

collapse of the credit committee and 

credit review board that had approved 

the conditional amendment. Treasury 

was given 1 day to review the deal, subordination of $535 million. Treasury 

own’s emails that were produced to the 

committee said that the staff felt 

jammed. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the long and 

short of it is when you look at the 

DeGette amendment, it’s clear that 

this has been repudiated by the 18- 

month investigation. It shows the information that she has in here is incorrect, is patently wrong. 

I would say in conclusion to all my 

colleagues who are listening, subordination of taxpayers’ money should 

stop. If we don’t pass this bill, David 

Frantz, senior loan officer at the Department of Energy, will continue to 

subordinate. 

If you believe in subordination, then 

you vote against this bill. But if you 

believe the taxpayers should be protected and taxpayers should not be put 

at risk, and if they are at risk, they 

should have the first opportunity to 

get their money back in a bankruptcy, 

then you should vote for our bill, No 

More Solyndras, and you should vote 

against the DeGette amendment. 

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much 

time I have remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 10 seconds remaining. 

Mr. STEARNS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIR. The question is on the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE). 

The question was taken; and the 

Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of 

rule XVIII, further proceedings on the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be postponed. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 

House Report 112–668. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have 

an amendment at the desk. 

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate 

the amendment. 

The text of the amendment is as follows: 

Page 5, line 23, through page 6, line 2, 

strike subsection (a) (and redesignate the 

subsequent subsections accordingly). 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, House 

Republicans have repeatedly claimed 

that this bill will terminate the Loan 

Guarantee Program. No more 

Solyndras, no more loan guarantees, 

but that’s not true. 

Let’s be clear. This bill does not terminate the Loan Guarantee Program. 

It doesn’t phase it out, it doesn’t end 

it, it doesn’t sunset it, it leaves it in 

place. It allows the Department of Energy to use its existing authority to 

issue $34 billion in new loan guarantees. 

DOE could issue those loans tomorrow, they can do it next year, they can 

do it 20 years from now. This bill creates no end date for this program. 

After lambasting this Bush-era program for more than a year, House Republicans are leaving it in place to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6020 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

issue tens of billions of dollars more in 

loan guarantees, and that’s a fact. 

Here’s what the Republican bill actually does. It arbitrarily picks winners 

and losers by prohibiting DOE from 

considering any application for a loan 

guarantee submitted after December 

31, 2011. When you say those are the 

only guarantees that can be considered, it creates winners, and anything 

else is a loser, because it can’t even be 

considered. 

There are 50 projects that are eligible 

for loan guarantees. Everyone else, no 

matter how groundbreaking or promising the technology, loses. 

Under the Republican bill, we’re still 

going to have a loan guarantee program issuing tens of billions of dollars 

of guarantees. The only question is 

whether the latest technologies can be 

considered. 

Under the Republican bill, no breakthrough technologies can be looked at 

to compete with the older technologies 

that submitted applications by the end 

of September 2011. 

That makes no sense. Does anyone 

believe that there are no new ideas out 

there that would be worth considering 

in the years to come? Of course not. 

Let’s allow the best projects to compete for the funding. 

Now, one of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said, well, it’s 

only fair to let those applications that 

are pending be considered. Why is it 

only fair? We don’t owe them any 

money. We don’t owe them a loan guarantee. 

If you wanted to end the loan guarantee program, you should end the loan 

guarantee program. What is unfair is 

to say that those are the only ones 

that can be considered. 

Renewable energy is a critical part 

what we need to reduce our carbon pollution and prevent unchecked climate 

change and the disasters that come 

with it. Breakthroughs in renewable 

energy are occurring on a steady basis. 

These breakthroughs promise greater 

efficiency at lower prices, and yet this 

legislation walks away from technological breakthroughs in renewable energy by prohibiting DOE from even 

considering them. 

Suppose the technological breakthrough is not in renewables. Suppose 

the application is for a coal plant with 

carbon capture and storage. What a 

breakthrough that would be? Coal 

could be continued to be used without 

further concern about harm to the environment. Coal is ubiquitous. It’s already available, and we could use it 

without harm. 

Yet, a loan guarantee for such a possible technology would not be able to 

be considered. Suppose it was for a 

next-generation nuclear plant, and 

they wanted to submit an application. 

They can’t under the Republican bill. 

b 1110 

So my amendment eliminates the arbitrary provision that prevents DOE 

from considering any application submitted after 2011. It keeps all the other 

provisions of the bill, even ones I disagree with; but it would ensure the 

DOE can use its remaining funds to 

provide loan guarantees to the best, 

most innovative energy projects. 

I want to be clear. My amendment 

does not increase or decrease the 

amount of loan guarantees that can be 

awarded under this program. If my 

amendment fails, DOE will still have 

$34 billion to award in loan guarantees, 

should it choose to. If my amendment 

passes, it will still be the same amount 

of money. 

I urge support for the amendment. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise 

in opposition to the amendment. 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, this 

amendment would allow the title XVII 

loan guarantee program to go on, continue indefinitely. The committee’s 18- 

month investigation made one thing, I 

think, absolutely clear: the title XVII 

loan guarantee program must be eliminated. The No More Solyndras Act accomplishes this goal. It’s wholly supported by the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee and by the full 

committee. We support an all-of-theabove national energy policy that embraces a diverse range of traditional 

and alternative energy resources, but 

we don’t support the Federal Government playing venture capitalist with 

taxpayer money. 

The gentleman from California mentions innovation. I would submit to 

him that the iPhone, the iPad, and the 

iPod all came without the government 

picking winners and losers. The government has a role in fostering the development of new energy technologies, 

but primarily through research and development. The committee’s investigation made clear that the government 

should not be in the business of picking 

winners and losers. And like the editorial that I put into the RECORD earlier from The Wall Street Journal, 

China is in the same fix as we are, and 

a lot of their solar panel companies are 

going bankrupt. The government needs 

to get out of the loan guarantee business altogether, and that’s why we 

need to pass this bill. 

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 

MURPHY). 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. White 

House adviser Larry Summers said it 

best. When one of Solyndra’s own investors was astonished to learn his 

startup firm qualified for this massive 

DOE earmark, Summers replied the 

government is a ‘‘crappy venture capitalist.’’ Nearly 3 years later and $1 billion in losses to taxpayers later, isn’t 

it clear the Department of Energy loan 

program has failed? 

Many of us want our country to implement a comprehensive, successful 

energy-independence strategy that uses 

clean coal, nuclear, clean natural gas, 

and other sources. That’s why Chairman UPTON’s bill included an amendment I authored to have the GAO examine the kind of subsidies and assistance foreign governments give to their 

energy companies. But after an 18- 

month investigation by the committee, 

the truth is the current loan program, 

as it stands, cannot be salvaged. We 

found that the loopholes created in this 

program by thwarting the letter and 

spirit of the law have shaken its foundation. 

Solyndra was rushed, reckless, and 

political. It was rushed because the entire stimulus loan program was built to 

get money out the door quickly. The 

law originally said they had to pay it 

back, complete the projects, and the 

taxpayers had to be paid back first. 

These taxpayer safety nets were removed. Second, it was reckless. Officials at OMB, DOE, Treasury, and outside investment professionals all 

warned that Solyndra was doomed to 

fail. Even Solyndra employees questioned its longevity. Finally, it was political. Campaign bundler George Kaiser made 16 visits to the White House 

about Solyndra. This committee uncovered emails between Kaiser and 

White House officials on Solyndra. 

There were internal deliberations 

about how the White House could mask 

the bad news of Solyndra’s bankruptcy. 

Those are the facts. It’s time to turn 

out the lights on Solyndra and this 

DOE loan guarantee program. I urge a 

‘‘no’’ vote on the amendment and support for the bill. 

Mr. STEARNS. How much time do I 

have remaining? 

The CHAIR. The gentleman from 

Florida has 2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. STEARNS. In an ideal world, the 

government would never really have 

gone down this road to create these 

loan guarantee programs in the first 

place. I think all of us realize that. 

While eliminating the program outright is admittedly appealing, and I 

think a lot of us on this side of the 

aisle want to do that, we must be 

mindful of the fact that applicants in 

the queue have already invested significant time and financial resources 

towards simply securing their loan 

guarantee, and they have really narrowed their financing options also in 

reliance of the existence of this program. 

So the question would be, when we 

thought about this: Is it fair to change 

the rules in the middle of the game? 

We’re the United States Government. 

We hear all the time that the government changes the rules. We should be 

striving to reduce risk caused by the 

Federal Government, not create it. 

That’s why I said in my statement here 

that we have to be mindful of the fact 

so many applicants have already committed themselves and put their time 

in. 

But I think we can learn from this 

Solyndra debacle. And based upon this 

amendment by Mr. WAXMAN, I think we 

realize that in the end that the No 

More Solyndras Act tackles all the 

points that he’s concerned about. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6021 

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on 

the Waxman amendment, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIR. The question is on the 

amendment offered by the gentleman 

from California (Mr. WAXMAN). 

The question was taken; and the 

Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, I demand a 

recorded vote. 

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of 

rule XVIII, further proceedings on the 

amendment offered by the gentleman 

from California will be postponed. 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of 

rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in 

House Report 112–668 on which further 

proceedings were postponed, in the following order: 

Amendment No. 1 by Ms. DEGETTE of 

Colorado. 

Amendment No. 2 by Mr. WAXMAN of 

California. 

The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes 

the minimum time for any electronic 

vote after the first vote in this series. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MS. DEGETTE

The CHAIR. The unfinished business 

is the demand for a recorded vote on 

the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DEGETTE) 

on which further proceedings were 

postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been 

demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 169, noes 238, 

not voting 22, as follows: 

[Roll No. 581] 

AYES—169 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Owens 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—238 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Hochul 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jones 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—22 

Ackerman 

Akin 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Coble 

Gutierrez 

Heinrich 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

LaTourette 

Mack 

Poe (TX) 

Reyes 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Speier 

Sullivan 

Towns 

b 1139 

Messrs. CAMPBELL and WEBSTER 

changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’ 

Messrs. SHULER and OWENS 

changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 OFFERED BY MR. WAXMAN

The CHAIR. The unfinished business 

is the demand for a recorded vote on 

the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. WAXMAN) 

on which further proceedings were 

postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. 

The Clerk will redesignate the 

amendment. 

The Clerk redesignated the amendment. 

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been 

demanded. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 170, noes 231, 

not voting 28, as follows: 

[Roll No. 582] 

AYES—170 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bilbray 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Lamborn 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Neal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6022 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—231 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Goodlatte 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Hochul 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Walz (MN) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOT VOTING—28 

Ackerman 

Akin 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Coble 

Gerlach 

Gohmert 

Gutierrez 

Heinrich 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Mack 

Napolitano 

Peterson 

Poe (TX) 

Reyes 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Speier 

Sullivan 

Towns 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR

The CHAIR (during the vote). There 

is 1 minute remaining. 

b 1143 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The CHAIR. The question is on the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises. 

Accordingly, the Committee rose; 

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 

WOMACK) having assumed the chair, 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state 

of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 

the bill (H.R. 6213) to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title 

XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

and, pursuant to House Resolution 779, 

he reported the bill back to the House 

with an amendment adopted in the 

Committee of the Whole. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 

the rule, the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the engrossment and 

third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a 

motion to recommit at the desk. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the 

bill in its current form. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Markey moves to recommit the bill 

H.R. 6213 to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce with instructions to report the 

same back to the House forthwith with the 

following amendments: 

Page 7, after line 6, insert the following 

new paragraph: 

(5) BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENT TO CREATE

JOBS.— No guarantee shall be made pursuant 

to an application unless the applicant certifies to the Secretary of Energy that— 

(A) at least 75 percent of the materials and 

components required for construction, manufacturing, or operations to be carried out 

under the part of the project for which the 

guarantee is applicable will be produced in 

the United States, unless the Secretary has 

waived the applicability of this subparagraph 

based on a determination that it is not feasible to source specific components domestically; and 

(B) any project for which the guarantee is 

applicable will be located in the United 

States. 

At the end of the bill, add the following 

new subsection: 

SEC. 8. CREATING AMERICAN JOBS WITH THE 

WIND ENERGY PRODUCTION TAX 

CREDIT. 

Section 3(a) shall only have the force and 

effect of law for such period of time as the 

credit allowed under section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is in effect for facilities described in subsection (d)(1) of such 

section 45. 

b 1150 

Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). 

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 

to dispense with the reading of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 

motion. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of this motion to level the 

playing field for wind energy and for 

the guarantee of American jobs coming 

out of this No More Solyndras Act. 

This is the final amendment to this 

bill. It will not kill the bill. It will not 

send the bill back to committee. If 

adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. 

My motion will ensure that we will 

only give tens of billions of dollars 

worth of loan guarantees that are authorized under this No More Solyndras 

Act as long as we will also avoid raising taxes on the wind industry by $4 

billion a year, which is what is going to 

happen if we allow the production tax 

credit to expire at the end of this year. 

What is already happening in the 

wind industry? Well, ladies and gentlemen, the wind industry says that we 

are going to lose 40,000 jobs next year 

in the wind industry. What has already 

happened in the last 2 months? Jobs 

are already being lost in this country 

because the Republicans are allowing 

the production tax credit for wind to 

expire even as they authorize these 

tens of billions of dollars of new 

projects for nuclear, for coal. We’re not 

saying that wind should be treated separately, specially. All we want is equal 

treatment for wind—equal treatment. 

What’s happening in Iowa? Last 

month, Clipper Wind Company lost 174 

jobs in Iowa—gone. Last week, 

Gamesa, with 165 jobs in Pennsylvania—gone. This past Tuesday, Molded Fiber Glass in South Dakota, with 

92 jobs in the wind industry—gone. By 

this time next year, 40,000 jobs in the 

wind industry—gone. There are 1,700 

jobs already gone, and we are on our 

way to 40,000 jobs lost in the wind industry. That’s part one of this amendment. 

What is the second part of the 

amendment? The second part says, if 

the Republicans are going to authorize 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 14, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6023 

these tens of billions of loan guarantees in this No More Solyndras Act, 

then 75 percent of all of the equipment 

made under these loan guarantees is to 

be made here in America and with 

American workers making that equipment under their bill. If we are going 

to be doing this, make it in America, 

and 75 percent of all the equipment 

should come from our country. 

Why is this amendment even necessary? Well, when the Ryan budget 

came out here on the House floor in 

February of 2011, one month after they 

took over, the Ryan budget cut clean 

energy by 90 percent. What happened in 

April out here on the House floor? 

They cut wind and solar by $17 billion 

and kept in all of the money for nuclear and coal. That’s not a level playing field. That’s going after wind. 

That’s going after solar. In this bill, 

what do they do? Basically, what they 

say is they can keep in $88.5 billion for 

nuclear and for coal loan guarantees, 

but for wind and solar, we’re sorry. 

What we are saying in this amendment is let’s have a level playing field. 

Let’s make sure that wind is given the 

opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. Let’s not tilt the playing field so 

that wind is a guaranteed loser in 

Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in 

States all across this country which 

are right now facing a 40,000 job loss. 

That’s what this is all about. Don’t 

give $4 billion a year to the oil industry and say that it can’t be touched 

and at the same time cut $4 billion 

from the wind industry, which is an industry that created 12,000 new 

megawatts of electricity in our country this year. 

So this amendment is very simple. It 

says keep the $4 billion for the wind industry so that we don’t lose 40,000 wind 

jobs in the next 6 months in State after 

State after State in our country— 

States that are already beginning to 

see those losses—and let’s make sure 

that 75 percent of all of the equipment 

that’s made under this loan guarantee 

program is made by American workers 

here in the United States. Vote ‘‘yes’’ 

for this recommittal motion. Make it 

here in America. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the 

time in opposition to the motion to recommit. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. UPTON. I will be brief. 

I would just note that the projects 

contemplated under title XVII aren’t 

your usual run-of-the-mill, brick and 

mortar construction projects. Usually, 

they are advanced energy projects that 

require highly specialized equipment, 

complex components, and they aren’t 

always available domestically. Extending the wind tax credit will be, in fact, 

part of the larger debate that the 

House will have as we look at all of the 

expiring tax provisions, and I certainly 

look for Mr. MARKEY’s support as we 

look to extend all of those later on, 

particularly for his good folks in the 

State of Massachusetts. 

This has been a very long and extensive investigation, and I will tell you 

that CLIFF STEARNS, the chairman of 

our Oversight Subcommittee, has done 

a very good job as we have tried to get 

to the very bottom of this mess. It is 

our job—that of every one of us here— 

to look wherever we can to find fraud 

and abuse and mismanagement in any 

Federal program, to identify it, and 

then come back and fix it so that it 

cannot happen again. No more 

Solyndras. That’s what this bill does. 

It is a credit to the investigatory team 

and to Mr. STEARNS’ leadership. We 

need to defeat this motion to recommit 

and pass the bill. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion to recommit. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand 

a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 

will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum 

time for any electronic vote on the 

question of passage. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 175, noes 234, 

not voting 20, as follows: 

[Roll No. 583] 

AYES—175 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Boren 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Critz 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Garamendi 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Higgins 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kissell 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McNerney 

Meeks 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz (MN) 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOES—234 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bass (NH) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Dold 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gibson 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Graves (MO) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Hochul 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

LoBiondo 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Polis 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6024 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 14, 2012 

NOT VOTING—20 

Ackerman 

Akin 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Coble 

Goodlatte 

Heinrich 

Herger 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

LaTourette 

Mack 

Poe (TX) 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Speier 

Towns 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. 

b 1212 

Messrs. CONYERS and MEEKS 

changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’ 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand 

a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 

5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 245, noes 161, 

not voting 23, as follows: 

[Roll No. 584] 

AYES—245 

Adams 

Aderholt 

Alexander 

Amash 

Amodei 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barletta 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Benishek 

Berg 

Biggert 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (UT) 

Black 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Brooks 

Buchanan 

Bucshon 

Buerkle 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Canseco 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chabot 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Cravaack 

Crawford 

Crenshaw 

Critz 

Culberson 

DeFazio 

Denham 

Dent 

DesJarlais 

Diaz-Balart 

Donnelly (IN) 

Dreier 

Duffy 

Duncan (SC) 

Duncan (TN) 

Ellmers 

Emerson 

Farenthold 

Fincher 

Fitzpatrick 

Flake 

Fleischmann 

Fleming 

Flores 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Gallegly 

Garamendi 

Gardner 

Garrett 

Gerlach 

Gibbs 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gosar 

Gowdy 

Granger 

Graves (GA) 

Griffin (AR) 

Griffith (VA) 

Grimm 

Guinta 

Guthrie 

Hall 

Hanna 

Harper 

Harris 

Hartzler 

Hastings (WA) 

Hayworth 

Heck 

Hensarling 

Herrera Beutler 

Hochul 

Huelskamp 

Huizenga (MI) 

Hultgren 

Hunter 

Hurt 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson (OH) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan 

Kelly 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kinzinger (IL) 

Kissell 

Kline 

Labrador 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Landry 

Lankford 

Latham 

Latta 

Lewis (CA) 

Lipinski 

LoBiondo 

Loebsack 

Long 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marino 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McHenry 

McIntyre 

McKeon 

McKinley 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

McNerney 

Meehan 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Miller, Gary 

Mulvaney 

Murphy (PA) 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Noem 

Nugent 

Nunes 

Nunnelee 

Olson 

Owens 

Palazzo 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pearce 

Pence 

Peterson 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Pompeo 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Quayle 

Rahall 

Reed 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Renacci 

Ribble 

Rigell 

Rivera 

Roby 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rokita 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Ross (FL) 

Royce 

Runyan 

Scalise 

Schilling 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Schweikert 

Scott (SC) 

Scott, Austin 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Southerland 

Stearns 

Stivers 

Stutzman 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Tipton 

Turner (NY) 

Turner (OH) 

Upton 

Walberg 

Walden 

Walsh (IL) 

Walz (MN) 

Webster 

West 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Womack 

Woodall 

Yoder 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

Young (IN) 

NOES—161 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barber 

Bass (CA) 

Bass (NH) 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bilbray 

Bishop (NY) 

Bonamici 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown (FL) 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chu 

Cicilline 

Clarke (MI) 

Clarke (NY) 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Deutch 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Dold 

Doyle 

Edwards 

Ellison 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gibson 

Gonzalez 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hahn 

Hanabusa 

Hastings (FL) 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Israel 

Jackson Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Kaptur 

Keating 

Kildee 

Kind 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Moore 

Moran 

Murphy (CT) 

Nadler 

Napolitano 

Neal 

Olver 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Peters 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis 

Price (NC) 

Quigley 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Richmond 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (VA) 

Scott, David 

Serrano 

Sewell 

Sherman 

Sires 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Stark 

Sutton 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Tonko 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watt 

Waxman 

Welch 

Wilson (FL) 

Woolsey 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—23 

Ackerman 

Akin 

Blackburn 

Blumenauer 

Broun (GA) 

Coble 

Goodlatte 

Graves (MO) 

Heinrich 

Herger 

Higgins 

Jackson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Jones 

LaTourette 

Mack 

Meeks 

Poe (TX) 

Ross (AR) 

Ryan (WI) 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Speier 

Towns 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining. 

b 1219 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated for: 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on 

rollcall No. 584, I was inadvertently detained. 

Had I been present, I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Stated against: 

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chair, earlier today I 

missed rollcall vote 584, on final passage of 

H.R. 6213. Had I been present, I would have 

voted ‘‘no.’’ 

f 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 

Nos. 583 and 584, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 

voted ‘‘no’’ on the Motion to Recommit and 

‘‘aye’’ on final passage of H.R. 6213. 

f 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION 

Mr. ROSS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, on 

Thursday, September 13th, 2012 and Friday, 

September 14th, I was not present for rollcall 

votes 572–584. 

Had I been present for rollcall 572, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 573, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 574, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 575, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 576, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 577, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 578, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 579, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 580, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 581, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 582, I would 

have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 583, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

Had I been present for rollcall 584, I would 

have voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

f 

PESTICIDE REGISTRATION IMPROVEMENT EXTENSION ACT OF 

2012 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (S. 3552) to reauthorize the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act, and ask for its 

immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

NUGENT). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE