years. the of the one lasted seven years -- the other one lasted five years. the other one lasted seven years. i have shoes. host: i apologize, but we're just about out of time, and because to talk about the effects of health spending, let's close with this chart. guest: the third component of this report was looking at health insurance and the uninsured rate of people without health insurance, and you can see the on insurance review the uninsured rate -- the uninsured rate was down could be uninsured rate in the blow is only 9.4%, and not statistically -- in the blue is only 9.4%, and not statistically different. for children, they're uninsured rate has fallen, where for all people it has gone up. guest: the reason health insurance is included is because it has an impact on pocketbooks.

if you do not have health insurance, you have to pay for all of that yourself or you do not get the care that you need. if you're not well, where do not work, it all works together. host: the census has many more details and health insurance, including where you get it from, and how it varies by household income and race and hispanic origin. would not have time for that. thank you for being here this morning. that is it for our friday morning. down to the house of representatives live. the chaplain: and our humility, may you be our strength and our mortality, may you be our source of eternal life. may people of every party and nation unite together in their human frailt -- fraility.

we are one people united in serving you and in loving your brothers and sisters. our prayer today is small. our voice is weak. we trust that you incline your ear and you will hear this simple prayer. we thank you. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on tuesday, the 11th anniversary of september 11, 2001, there was a cowardly, murderous terrorist attack at the american consulate in benghazi, libya. our embassy was breached in cairo, egypt, with the flag being desecrated. unfortunately, the president's failed has reduced the army to the smallest size since 1929, reducing the navy to the smallest fleet since 1916 and reducing the air force to the smallest size since it was created. this endangers our national security and puts american families and our allies at

risk. additionally, the president supports sequestration, has done nothing to halt the defense budget cuts which will limit the capabilities of our armed forces while destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs. american families deserve better. to continue to promote democracy and peace, we must implement president ronald reagan's approach of providing peace through strength. the bias of the coordinated disinformation of the liberal media is a disgrace to journalism. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to implore my colleagues on the other side to put aside politics and get to work on behalf of the american people. just 66 bills have been signed into law this year, the fewest

in 60 years. and although there have been two noted congressional historians who have said we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the republican party, they go on to say, today, thanks to the g.o.p., compromise has gone out the window in washington. despite this reality, we have to get some important work done for those who sent us here. republicans continue to choose politics over policy and ignoring critical legislation which requires our attention. after returning from a five-week recess, the house republican leadership has scheduled only five days in session in september. despite this growing list of important challenges facing our country. while we voted 33 times to repeal the affordable care act and pass a budget that ends the guarantee of medicare, the work that remains is extending tax cuts for the middle class, comprehensive jobs legislation like the make it in america agenda, re-authorizing the violence against women act, postal reform and a big

balanced plan to reduce the deficit. i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let's get to work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to payton bill who is moving on from my staff after two years of service to the citizens of georgia's 12th district. payton became highly recommended after graduating from rhodes college and interning with the senate. he was quickly appointed, become my point man on veterans' affairs issues. his hard work was rewarded with more work and he went on to become legislative secretary. he married the former kate parker this july and enrolling in the university of georgia law school this fall. i know he will handle this with humor, dedication. payton, you have the appreciation of many great constituents and this proud

congressman. thank you for a job well done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, san diegoans are very sad today because they learned yesterday that two of the libya victims were from the san diego area, as we know they were killed at the consulate in benghazi, they were killed protecting fellow americans. mrs. davis: they are ambassador chris stevens and sean smith. the two victims from san diego, one is tyrone woods and the other, glen daugherty. in talking about mr. d mbings aughe -- -- daugherty, at the training and the dedication, you have to. that is what drives these guys.

and also the country would be in much better shape. we need to have people keep doing what we're doing because he really believed in freedom and he really believed in the united states. as we know, these are two highly decorated seals who left the community of seals and serving with the consulate there and the state department in libya. we certainly celebrate their life and we mourn their death. i want to recognize their family and let them know that our thoughts and our prayers are with them. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized, without objection. mr. cummings: our right to vote is one of the many guaranteed

by our constitution. every election -- every election cycle millions of americans fail to exercise that right often because they don't realize the importance of doing so. on september 17, we will celebrate the 225th anniversary of the signing of our nation's constitution. to mark that momentus anniversary this week, i introduced the constitution and citizenship day act of 2012, h.r. 6390. the bill would support expanded education about our constitution by enabling high school students to organize special events to mark constitution and citizenship day. our young people should be given every opportunity to learn what our democracy means and to partake in it. the congress is the living embodiment of our constitution's provisions and i invite all members on both sides of the aisle to join me in co-sponsoring this legislation to ensure that future generations understand their rights, duties and

responsibilities and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday i met a young entrepreneur who owns a manufacturing business headquartered in metro detroit. in spite of his success, he faces one major challenge, he can't hire enough people with the skills necessary to rebuild the products that could be sold around the world. so that's why i ask this house, this congress to stay in session to do our work so we can train our people, especially our young people for the jobs that exist in this country that are going unfilled. train them with the skills that they need to sell and rebuild the best products that can be sold worldwide.

this is how we can create more jobs in our economy and make the united states an even stronger contributor to our world. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6213. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the house resolution 779 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6213. the chair appoints the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6213 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to limit further taxpayer exposure from loan guarantee program under title 17 of the energy policy act of 2005. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read for the first time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette, will each control 45 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: so recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i care about america's energy future, and i certainly care about america's fiscal future as well. and for those who reasons, i would urge every one of us here to vote yes on the no more solyndras act. on the energy front, i continue to advocate concrete measures

towards achieving north american energy independence. that includes improving the keystone x.l. pipeline, it includes increasing conventional and renewable energy production from federal lands and eliminating unnecessary e.p.a. red tape on coal and other fossil fuels. these and other pro-energy measures are part of the all-of-the-above energy agenda that has been championed by the energy and commerce committee here in the house. but support for this agenda also requires us to pull the plug on existing programs that simply aren't working. and the department of energy's title 17 loan guarantee program is simply not advancing the ball on an all-of-the-above energy goal. the no more solyndras act, this bill phases out this costly, ineffective and frankly very mismanaged program. the investigation of solyndra uncovered a story worse than

anyone could have imagined. it is amazing to me that the administration gave a half billion dollar loan guarantee to a company that its own experts predicted would fail. a company so dysfunctional that it burned through this giant handout and went bankrupt in two years. even worse, when it became clear to the administration that solyndra was in trouble, it chose to double down on the risky bet, gambling even more taxpayer dollars with a desperate loan restructuring instead of trying to cut its losses and move on. solyndra is the most visible but far from the only example of title 17 failures. in fact, it is hard to point to a single loan guarantee success under this program. developing new energy sources and technology is an important part of our all-of-the-above approach. but it is clear that this loan guarantee program is so

ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. further, i'm stunned by the cavalier manner in which the administration squandered all of these tax dollars, yet, says it has no regrets, no apologies about its handling of the program and continues to declare it a, quote, enormous success. if the administration can't learn anything about irresponsible spending from solyndra, is it any wonder that we are running still a trillion dollar annual deficit and just saw the national debt eclipse the $16 trillion figure? burning money is one source of energy that the country doesn't need. that's why this bill prevents any costly repeats of solyndra by prohibiting, prohibiting any new loan guarantees and subjecting pending ones to very stringent safeguards. . what's most disturbing is that

it is not necessary to secure a wetter future. the private sector is more than willing to step in and provide the necessary cash, the energy, if only we let them. what we need is a keystone economy, not a solyndra economy. what we need is a privately funded investment, not taxpayer funded boondoggles. the goals of the north american energy plan is certainly within reach, as well as millions of new jobs that would certainly go with it, but we aren't going to get there in title 17 department of energy loan guarantees. no we're not. this investigation uncovered a problem and now we have a thoughtful bill to fix it. so that it cannot happen again. the next step is for the house to pass this bill, hopefully get the senate to take it up as well, we need to pass a no more solyndras act. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from colorado.

ms. degette: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, during my time in congress one important lesson that i have learned -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. one important lesson that i have learned is that good oversight results in good legislation. and bias and partisan oversight results in bias and partisan legislation. the no more solyndras act is a good example of that rule. it's bad legislation borne of biased and partisan oversight. the oversight investigation subcommittee on which i sit as ranking member investigated the solyndra loan in excruciating detail, but after 18 months, 300,000 pages of documents, 14 interviews with key officials, five hearings, and three subpoenas, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to prove any of their inflammatory accusations that they have leveled at the administration. instead, they simply repeat one

unproven allegation after another, time to score political points, ignoring key expull patory evidence, and making misleading accusations about the solyndra loan based on cherry picked evidence. now, the loan guarantee program was actually developed in 2005 as part of the energy policy act by the bush administration. and it was developed with the thought that as we look at development of domestic energy sources, like oil and gas, we should also look at development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar. and so this program was passed by a republican congress with a republican president in the white house in order to do such a thing. it's important to note that the solyndra loan, the first application was made under the bush administration. it was then funded upped the obama administration. -- under the obama

administration. what happened was once this loan was thoroughly vetted by the career employees at the department of energy, and funded, the market conditions changed. china decided to flood the market with cheap solar panels, causing solyndra's business model to change. now, the career employees, many of whom had been there under republican and democratic administrations, at the department of energy had a decision to make. they could walk away from $500 million of u.s. taxpayer money, or they could try to restructure the loan in the hope of recovering that money. and that was the decision that they made. the facts simply do not support the over-the-top allegations that there was anything wrong with this decision. now, let me be clear, mr. chairman. my job is not to defend the administration. if something improper occurred,

i would want to know about it and i would want to expose it. but what the evidence showed is that the career officials and the bush and obama administration appointees who worked on their own told our investigators that political considerations played no role in the decisions on solyndra. they told us that there was no improper pressure to rush key decisions on the loan, to approve the loan, or change the terms of the loan. each and every one of these officials confirmed that there were no corners cut in the process and that decisions were made purely on the merits. as david france, a career civil servant who had served as director of the loan guarantee program since 2007, under the bush administration, said, quote, through the whole history of the program, from its inception to today, it has not been driven by any political considerations whatsoever. but the republicans ignored the

evidence before the committee and they repeatedly made insinuations that were simply not correct. for example, my chairman, subcommittee chairman stearns, claimed that the committee's investigation reveals a startlingly cozy relationship between wealthy dopors and the president's confidants, especially in matters related to solyndra. but this statement is exactly the opposite as what the committee found. chairman stearns was referring to unproven allegations of white house political favoritism on behalf of the solyndra investor george keyser, a supporter of president obama. but the committee interviewed two key white house decisionmakers about their interaction with mr. keyser. the committee learned that at the time the solyndra run was being reviewed, neither of these officials had any knowledge of mr. keyser's support for the president, nor did they have any role in the substantive

decisions about the law. these are the key officials republicans claimed were at the center of the white house's improper activities. and yet they had no knowledge of mr. keyser's political support and no involvement in the decisions on the loan. these facts directly contradict the allegations that we have been seeing repeatedly in the press for these many months. and they contradict the findings in the bill that we are debating today. that's why i have an amendment which will come up in a few minutes to strip some of the inaccurate findings out of the bill. these facts don't seem to matter to my freppeds on the other side of the aisle, though -- friends on the other side of the aisle, though. throughout the investigation democrats urged the chairman to take a different path. we asked for responsible oversight that could actually shed light on why this company failed and what legislation might be needed to advance our energy security and our domestic clean energy sector. despite our request, republicans

refused to hold hearings on the competitive challenges u.s. manufacturers in the global clean energy market. they refused to seek testimony from the largest private equity investors in solyndra to understand why the company attracted so much private capital. and they refused to invite d.o.e. witnesses to take a serious look at the legal and financial rationale behind the subordination of the government position in the solyndra loan. this was not a fair, complete, or effective investigation. it sure was long, though, but the result? the legislation before us is also not fair, complete, or effective. the bill does not to advance our nation's energy security or to save taxpayer money. it ignores the benefits of the d.o.e. loan programs. 300 million gallons of gasoline saved. the largest, world's largest solar plans, the nation's first

electric vehicle manufacturing facilities, and tens of billions of dollars in private investment dollars off the sidelines and into the american economy. the legislation does allow d.o.e. to award $34 billion in future loan guarantees, but it prohibits the d.o.e. from considering any new applications. refusing to allow d.o.e. to even consider cutting-edge applications is not the way to have innovative energy technologies in this country. and the legislation also ties d.o.e.'s hands in the event a loan recipient needs additional capital, removing an important and legal refinancing tool that the d.o.e. and independent observers agree can help save and protect taxpayer funds. it's clear this legislation is a political exercise. it does nothing but keep -- attempt to keep the word solyndra in the news and to give

a platform to repeat these accusations and it's a shame, because what we should be doing today is working together in a bipartisan way to find a complete energy policy that will help us for national defense and for economic reasons become independent from foreign oil and create new, clean energy that's domestically based. it's disappointing legislation and for that reason, mr. chairman, i urge members to vote no and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, before i yield to the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, let me yield myself a minute and a half. while it's true that this -- just to respond. while it's true the program was signed into law by president bush in 2005, i would note that the bush administration did not issue a single loan guarantee. in large part because it struggled to identify any company whose energy products

were both meritorious and yet unable to secure private financing. so further bush's o.m.b. reviewed this project, the solyndra loan guarantee application, but it rejected it in january of 2009, in the waning days because of the concerns over the long-term viability of the project. now, this administration would if ahead with over $15 billion in loan guarantees through 2011, solyndra, beacon power they have all gone bankrupt, and i'm afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg which is why we moved ahead with this legislation. without our action, without the action of our committee, there is strong belief in fact that this administration was going to go ahead yet with hundreds of millions of dollars more for solyndra. that's not the answer to this thing. that's not how to save it. our role at energy and commerce,

we had a very aggressive chairman, cliff stearns, chairman of the oversight investigation subcommittee, he led the investigation, he identified the many faults and now we have come back with corrected legislation to make sure it doesn't happen again. that's our role. and with that i yield five minutes to the very abled chairman of the oversight investigation subcommittee, cliff stearns, the gentleman from florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. stearns: i thank the distinguished chairman. let me say that we are here this morning because the oversight committee under the leadership of mr. upton and myself as chair were able to define the problems . on that side of the aisle obviously they are going to defend the administration, but you can't defend an administration that lost $535 million. and they did so in a way that violated the energy policies act of 2005.

now, the ranking member, ms. degette, indicated nothing was done wrong. i think if she looks carefully at the evidence obviously a lot was done wrong because the energy policy act said you cannot subordinate taxpayers' money to the two hedge funds they did. and also i think when you look at the evidence, you'll see that there's wholly mismanagement by the administration and the department of energy and actually there were so many warning signs that in the end this should never have gone forward, and this came from the administration. so, my colleagues, i rise in strong support of h.r. 6213, the no more solyndras act which i am proud to join with chairman upton in sponsoring. and as mentioned this is a culmination of 18 months of thorough investigations by our oversight investigation committee. and solyndra, as many of you know, is a california based

solar panel manufacturer that not only went bankrupt but was raided by the f.b.i. a week later and they lost almost a half billion dollars. my colleagues, this bill was systematically put together carefully. it will phase out the department of energy's grossly mismanaged loan guarantee program by simply stopping d.o.e. from issuing any loan guarantees for applications submitted after december 31, 2011. but for those applications submitted prior to december, 2011, cut off date, the legislation allows them to remain eligible to receive a guarantee but subjects them to tougher, tougher scrutiny. and provides taxpayers strong new protections, including, let me outline these four basic protections, forbidding the subordination of u.s. taxpayer dollars at any time to private investors. number two, requiring the department of energy to submit to congress that temperatures

report that details the specifics of any new loan program. which is going to be guaranteed by the taxpayers. requiring the department of energy to consult with treasury prior to any restructuring of a guarantee. and fourth, holding d.o.e. officials accountable for their actions by imposing penalties on them for failing to follow the law. certainly the folks on this side of the aisle would agree with that that if we have continued subordination, and these people do it in violation of this act, there should be some accountability. . as many of you solyndra was the first recipient of a d.o.e. loan guarantee under title 17 of the energy policy act of 2005. it also holeds the dubious title as the first stimulus-backed recipient loan guarantee to actually go bankrupt.

just two years after the loan closed and six months after d.o.e. restructured the loan. so it didn't take along for these folks to end up in bankruptcy. and when they were out of cash, the obama administration doubled down on their bad debt. now, why would the administration double down on their bad debt? i think we'll go into that further as we go into the debate. they attempted to restructure solyndra's loan and subordinate the interest of the taxpayer to two very, very wealthy and well-connected investors, ensuring taxpayers will never, ever see a dime. other d.o.e. loan recipients have also struggled. three of the first five companies that were issued loans by the loan guarantee, solyndra, beacon, solar all filed bankruptcy, losing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars that will never, ever, ever be recovered.

two other companies are struggling, my colleagues. nevada geothermal has substantial debt and no positive cash flow and first wind had to withdraw their planned i.p.o. and also has substantial debt. so on behalf of the american taxpayers, we had a duty to figure out what went wrong with solyndra loan guarantee and whether the loan guarantee program was properly managed. and i think as we go into this debate we'll show it was not well managed. and as pointed out by chairman upton, it was methodical, it was systematic, thorough. it was over a 18-month period. it took us almost eight months -- mr. upton: two more minutes. mr. stearns: it took us eight months after we were issued a subpoena in november to try to get the administration to respond. the energy and commerce committee requested, received and reviewed documents from every executive branch agency that was connected to solyndra and interviewed more than a dozen administration officials

who played key roles in the loan guarantee. the committee has also reviewed documents produced by solyndra's investors as well as d.o.e.'s independent consultant and legal advisor. as the committee investigation revealed, the obama administration put solyndra's loan on a fast track for political reasons despite -- despite repeated, repeated red flags and warnings in 2009 from the office of management and budget and d.o.e. officials about the company's financial condition and actually the market product they were trying to sell that they couldn't do it. it's clear that d.o.e. failed to adequately monitor the loan guarantee, blindly simply writing check after checks to solyndra, just hemorrhaged cash throughout 2010. when the wargs came down to fruition and solyndra was out of cash in the autumn of 2010, the obama administration doubled down on its bad debt re-structuring solyndra's loan and putting wealthy investors at the front of the line of

taxpayers which was a clear violation of the energy policy act. right up to the bankruptcy filings, my colleagues, the administration wanted to sure that the first loan which was their poster child would not be a failure. the investigation also showed that d.o.e. failed to consult with the treasury department which was part of the law which they should have done as required by the energy policy act. prior to issuing a conditional commitment to solyndra and that treasury didn't even play a role in reviewing the restructuring. also a violation of energy policy act of 2005. the no more solyndra act will stop that, will correct this by ensuring that treasury's actively involved in the loan process to protect taxpayers. this investigation and this no more solyndra act is a great example of how congressional oversight should work. our investigation uncovered a problem and this legislation will fix it. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: i yield 5 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from illinois. i ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman, control the rest of the time on this side of the aisle. the chair: without objection, mr. waxman will control the time and the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 5 1/2 minutes. mr. rush: i want to thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, first off, i want to commend mr. waxman and thank him for leading us on the subcommittee in such a profound and effective way leading the minority on the subcommittee and also on the full committee. mr. speaker, this is much to do about nothing, and as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, i would

urge the members of this committee and the members of the majority committee, i would strongly urge them to get on their feet and apologize to the american people who are wasting their time, energy and resources because, mr. speaker, this piece of legislation that we have before us and the legislation that don't answer any of the american people's problems, don't acknowledge of their concerns and certainly don't speak to the pain that they are suffering day-to-day, moment by moment, week by week and we stand here posturing

solely for a few political points in the november election. mr. speaker, i want to ask the members of this body to refer to comments made just about 30 days ago in the "usa today" in an article dated august 15, 2012. this "usa today" article was entitled "this congress could be the least productive congress since 1947." mr. speaker, the author outlines and references the u.s. house clerk office and determined that in 2012 a measly 2% -- 2% of the close to

4,000 bills introduced by members of the 112th congress became law. 2% of 4,000 bills actually became law. we are not proud of these figures. i want to quote from this article. these statistics make the 112th congress covering 2011 to 2012 the least productive two-year gathering on capitol hill since the end of world war ii. not even the 80th congress, which president truman called the do-nothing congress in

1948, passed as few laws as the current one. the records show. mr. speaker, here we go again, another charade, another empty gesture, another misguided approach, another insensitive response to the pain and the plight and problems of the american people. here we impagain. we're having here on this floor today another prime example of the -- of why this has been the least effective congress in over 60 years. after taking the last six weeks off, we come back in to

washington, d.c. for 38 -- for eight days during the month of september. what are we doing? instead of creating jobs and putting americans back to work, my republican colleagues, we come back here to washington and bring to this floor yet one more ill conceived, unwanted and unnecessary messaging bill which is to have political advantages over the current administration. shame on you. we need to apologize to the american people. this no more innovation bill is

not a serious piece of legislation. mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman another two minutes. another two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rush: and my republican colleagues, you know full well that this bill will never become law. it would die before it even gets to the front door of the senate. yet here we are in front of the cameras hoping to score more political points before we head into this fall election. as the ranking member of the energy and power subcommittee which is where this horrendous piece of legislation, this horrendous excuse of legislation originated, i must confess unfortunately that in the subcommittee and the energy and commerce committee as a

whole has contributed to the do-nothing, the accomplish- nothing 112th congress. with over 30 hearings and over a dozen subcommittee and full committee hearings on bills that have originated from the energy and power subcommittee, congress has enacted one piece of legislation. 30 hearings, one piece of legislation. and that is a part of our record. and while this will be a sad record any time, it is even more egregious when you look at all of the extreme weather that has occurred over these -- in this past year and it's a

reminder of why the energy and power subcommittee, the energy and commerce committee, it's so necessary and so important. all year long this fight over letters written by mr. waxman and myself -- mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. rush: this past summer, 2/3 of the country experienced severe drought causing crops to wither and spurring the earliest corn harvest in 20 years. at the same time, four of the five great lakes plummeted to high evaporation rates and insufficient rainfall. house republicans twiddle their thumbs and bringing messaging

bills to the congress instead of working in a bipartisan fashion to address the real issue facing the american people. it is past time for this congress, it is past time for my republican colleagues to get serious with the business of governing and not just voting on mittcal posturing legislation to express their displeasure over president obama. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i'd like to include in the record an exchange of letters between the energy and commerce committee and the committee on science, space and technology. the chair: under general leave it will be included. mr. upton: and i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i thank the chairman of the committee for yielding to me.

i want to respond to my colleague from illinois, my democratic colleague who just spoke, my democratic colleague who is the ranking member of the subcommittee of energy and commerce, the subcommittee on energy and power. mr. chairman, as you know, he used all of his allotted time plus additional time to talk and rail about a do-nothing congress, but i want to remind the gentleman and i want to remind all of my colleagues that this bill, this no more solyndras act, that we are bringing to the house floor comes from another subcommittee of energy and commerce, subcommittee of which the gentleman from illinois is not a member and that subcommittee, as you all know, is the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. . the gentleman made some points in regard to the public looking

at us as a do-nothing congress, and in many ways that's true. not a lot has been done. not a lot has been accomplished. but it sounds like that he's suggesting that we members of the oversight investigation committee of energy and commerce, or for that matter, any subcommittee on oversight investigation, of any standing committee of the house of representatives, should sit back and do nothing. because it's an election year. well, colleagues, it's an election year every two years. it's a presidential year every four years. we have our work to do. i feel very compelled to stand here before you today and complement in the highest -- compliment in the highest way the chairman of this subcommittee on oversight investigations of energy and commerce in the house of representatives, a distinguished member with well over 20 years of service.

you-all know he'll be retiring from this body after this year, but i am so proud to be on that committee, to work with him. i have an opportunity to see how he handled this 18-month investigation of this solyndra loan program through the department of energy. and how flawed that it was and how diligent he was in trying to get the information necessary to connect the dots. yes, even in issuing subpoenas to get the information and how proud i am of the chairman, overall chairman of the committee, fred upton, the gentleman from michigan, in regard to being very careful and deliberate and working with the other side of the aisle not a rush to judgment but a very careful planned investigation to finally get to where we are today. and i'm extremely proud of the work of the staff of the

subcommittee on oversight investigation. the gentleman would yield another minute. i thank the gentleman. the bottom line, my colleagues, is we have work to do, and we are members of oversight investigation, we have got to ferret out waste, fraud, abuse, corruption, any program of the federal government that takes money from we the taxpayer, whether it's a loan or a grant or whatever, to investigate, to look, to make sure, to make sure that these programs are being done in the right way, not for political purposes, to promote an industry, yes. but to make sure that this applicant is reasonable. that due diligence has occurred. that they have a good business plan. that they are not burning cash, and that we are not putting good money after bad. in this case, mr. chairman, $550

million. this is just one of three failed programs. beacon power another one. three out of the first four. so there was something wrong in river city. so we are all together correct and right in ending this program. and that's why i stand here today and i encourage each and every member on both sides of the aisle, vote yes on no more solyndra. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california. >> at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from california. i compliment the gentleman from california on his fight on this issue because we are right down to something which is one of the greatest political frauds of all time, being perpetrated here on the house floor. it is a monument to the political cynicism of the

republican party that we have such a bill out here on the floor today. it is a tribute to the control that the fossil fuel and nuclear industry now has over the republican party. we have a bill out here on the house floor which purports to make sure that the program which gave loans to solyndra is ended. and the name of the bill is no more solyndras. meaning no more federal loans to these speculative energy projects which could ultimately wind up taking money out of the pockets of american taxpayers. that's what they say they are doing. no more solyndras, meaning end that program. but what does their bill do? well, their bill says, no more solyndras, but it should be amended to say, the only $88.4

billion more for nuclear and coal no more solyndras act of 2012. because what the republicans do is that they grandfather in all of these applications, $76.5 billion for nuclear. $11.9 billion for coal. $88.4 billion for nuclear and coal. now it would be one thing if they were saying, but we have made a determination that the solar industry, the wind industry that's risky, but the nuclear industry, oh, that's just the safest industry ever. except for one thing, when this program was put on the books in 2005, it would keep domenici from new mexico who put the program on the books in order to

provide a crutch for the nuclear industry. and then when the bush administration was even apprehensive about giving out any loans, the republicans then began to pressure the bush administration to give out loans to the nuclear industry, which it did not want to. senator domenici put a hold on former congressman nussle even being named the head of the o.m.b. until he promised he was going to give out loans to the nuclear industry. that's the history of this program. nuclear, nuclear, nuclear. last year the republicans in control of the house and the senate, what did they do? well, in the loan guarantee program they left in $32 billion for nuclear and coal, and cut out the $17 in loan guarantees for wind and solar.

got the picture? nuclear, coal, they like it. wind and solar, they hate it. or to be more clear about it, the nuclear and the coal industry hate it. because wind and solar are taking off across this country. 12,000 new megawatts of wind this year, ,200 megawatts of solar this year. it is taking off as these other two industries are going down. this level playing field was just too much, too much for the republicans. adam smith is spinning in his grave so quickly that he would qualify for a new tax break under the republican program. that's how crazy all of this is. and get to the bottom line. i made an amendment in the committee, i said, ok, solyndra lost $535 million. you can see the crocodile tears.

how concerned they are about this loan guarantee program. so i said, ok, no energy loan guarantee recipients. who lost more than $540 million last year is eligible for a loan guarantee. now, what was i talking about? the united states enrichment corporation, a nuclear company that last year and this year has been put on the warning list to be delisted from the new york stock exchange. which s&p and moody's has gone down to jump out status. the republicans are saying they are so keshed about -- concerned about the standards and here's a company basically teetering on the bank of bankruptcy with the federal government already giving it -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. waxman: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. markey: that company

receiving an additional $1 billion from federal taxpayers to keep it afloat, the republicans all voted no. we are not going to set up any standard. we are not going to have any rules. when the southern company wanted $8 billion for two nuclear power plants, even though it's $1 billion over cost already, the republicans say, no problem. it's nuclear. so this is a pretty clear line here. this is all out of salt on solar and wind. all out. it's been going on for a year and a half. this is the next installment. it's all about the future. they are locked into the past, the republican party, that old way that has failed. and as this new marketplace has opened up, they are doing everything they can to undermine that new future of solar and wind while tilting the playing

field so that nuclear and coal continue to qualify for federal taxpayer dollar subsidies. vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds before i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas. just say although it's true that d.o.e. has $34 billion in loan guarantee authority remaining, d.o.e. is actually capped at $22 billion for nuclear projects. so the argument this act creates a loophole that would allow up to $100 billion in new nuclear projects is simply not right. the projects that are in the application pipeline, remember those remain in the pipeline through december of last year, they are not limited to nuclear. in fact, there are only six active nuclear related applications in that queue. the other 40-plus include solar, biomass, wind, a whole number of things. i yield now three minutes to the gentleman from texas.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding. today's vote culminates nearly a two-year investigation into how the administration has mismanaged the department of energy's loan guarantee program. allowing the loss of $535 million in the interest of gaining a political win on solar energy. emails, documents show that the white house and political appointees at the department of energy had a heavy hand in pushing the solyndra application forward despite multiple misgivings. misgivings from the credit committee, yet the department of energy both in president bush's administration before and career staff of the office of the management and budget and department of treasury. moreover, when it was clear that by rushing the solyndra application it actually could result in a very embarrassing bankruptcy for the president, the department of energy pushed for a very questionable legal move that actually subordinated the taxpayer interests below that of private equity

interests. a move that we have now seen will result in the complete annihilation of the $535 million from the perspective of the taxpayer. one of the glaring issues that the investigation committee uncovered was that because no penalties existed in the 2005 loan guarantee authorization, officials at the department of energy had nothing to fear. and actually breaking the law as it was written by our committee and passed by this congress. indeed, the department of energy intentionally hid its head in the sand refusing to consult with either department of treasury or department of justice for an outside reading on whether subordination could be a legitimate option. instead they stopped the outside law firm's analysis, create add memo justifying what they had already decided to do that is place taxpayer dollars below the interest of private equity. for this reason i welcome the opportunity to work with chairman upton, chairman stearns

to add explicit lang wamming to provide for penalties for those officials who violate the terms of the authorization which created the loan guarantee program. it is time that those in the agencies that dole out millions of dollars and choose to ignore the law be held accountable. indeed, the public understands this concept very well. any employee in the private sector who ignores their boss' instructions and loses millions of dollars in company money is going to face immediate sanctions, including losing their job. no one has lost their job over solyndra. public employees should be no different from private employees. this is an important bill. today's vote would be a win for every citizen concerned about our good government and fiscal future. it's time to end failed government programs that are driving us over a fiscal cliff. this is a maimingor step in the right direction. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, at this point i want to yield five minutes to the dean of the

house, the chairman emeritus of our committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dingell: i rise to salute the gentleman from florida and to express to him my affection and respect and good wishes as he leaves the congress. and also to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, mr. upton. i would observe, however, if anybody were to put a monument like this to me, i would bend this cane of mine over his head. this is perhaps one of the sorriest things i have seen done. it is like the mule. it has neither pride of heritage nor hope of posterity. it isn't going anywhere. it accomplishes precisely nothing. . it has findings which are totally unrelated to fact and doesn't mean anything and doesn't help us with the problems before us. it is a piece of legs which was adopted by -- legislation which

was adopted by this congress with all of the support of all of my republican friends over there who are now shying away from their parentage of the basic legislation. and i say to my one-eyed friends, this is not going to accomplish anything. i would point out to you, it isn't going to pass the senate. it isn't going to be signed by the president. it doesn't address any of the problems that are before us. it grandfathers everybody in and says there will be nothing new. what does it really do? it hurts our efforts to see to it that we are able to remain competitive in high-tech new energy undertakings which are the hope and the future of this country. that's what it does. that's why if i were on this side of the aisle i would have a red face and i would point out that this proposal is backed by my republican

friends, supported by my dear friend, mr. upton and all of my good republican friends. all of a sudden they find that solyndra has lost money and has gone bankrupt. why? because the chinese knocked the bottom out of the market for solar panels. why? a governmental economy has killed another american industry. the future of this country is to compete in high-tech jobs. in the new kind of undertakings where we can whip the world. but there is a major capital problem for those companies and they were not prosper and this country will not prosper unless we provide mechanisms to see to it that they can do the things they did. the oversight investigations committee has had no hearing on this, has thrown subpoenas

around like popcorn at a circus. but they haven't found anything. and the committee has brought forward this miserable, hopeless piece of legislation in the expectation it's going to do something and that is to try help the republicans with their election campaign. now, this is a laudable thing if you're a republican. if you're an american this is not helping our country and this is not benefiting anybody. what the result of this legislation is is more wasted time on the floor of the house. what my republican colleagues won't admit to you is this is the soriest session of the congress in history. i think it outranks the do-nothing 80th congress and that was a session where we did nothing in this great body. i observe to my friends, if you want to do something, let's get down to deal with jobs. let's get down and deal with

the economy. let's work to see to it that we address our foreign policy questions and the problems that the united states faces. let's complete a budget. not a thing has been done. i heard this particular congress has done 60 bills, and when i walk over i always ask my staff, which post offices are we naming today? that's what we have done. if we're working for a record of accomplishment, look at the senate which usually does very little, but they are putting us to shame because they are in fact legislating while we are over here digging around with a nonsincecal piece of legislation, accomplishes nothing except to try to vindicate a failed investigation where subpoenas were thrown around like rice at a wedding. i say it is time for us to buckle down if we're going to go out of here with some proud on our faces and with our heads

held up, let's go out with a piece of legislation that accomplishes something. this accomplishes nothing except to make a few people who couldn't do their job feel good. so my counsel to the house is, let's vote this nonsense down. let's decide that we're going to do something right around here for a change. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 24 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has 17 minutes remaining. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from florida before i yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from florida has 30 seconds. mr. stearns: i would say to the dean of the house of representatives, i appreciate sincerely his compliments and his kind words about me.

the words calling us mudites refers to the 19th century textile workers who objected to the machinery being used. i would say you folks are objecting to letting the free market work. just because other countries subsidize their energy sector to help their portfolio doesn't mean we should too. you saw the editorial recently in "the wall street journal" the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. stearns: all the solar panels are being bankrupt too. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. upton: i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. whitfield. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for three minutes. the chair would take the opportunity to remind members, you are addressing the chair. please make all your comments to the chair. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i want to thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the oversight committee, mr.

stearns, for the great effort they did over the last year and a half of bringing the facts of these loan programs to the congress and to the american people. i'm also personally glad that we have the opportunity to talk about this issue today. because transparency is vitally important, i believe, for the american people. this legislation applies to two loan guarantee programs at the department of energy. section 1703 hoops and section 1705 loans. the 1703 program was adopted in 2005. most of us in here voted for it. president bush was in the white house at that time, but no loan guarantees were issued under president bush under that program. the second program was 1705 which was part of president obama's stimulus package.

now, i believe that the president made a mistake and maybe it was deliberate and maybe it wasn't but i don't think that he ever had a sound policy to help stimulate the economy in america. i believe that his stimulus program, particularly this loan guarantee program, he was using that as an opportunity to push an agenda to move america into green energy before america was able to go to green energy. and he loaned $538 million to solyndra, a company of which mr. george kaiser, one of the president's major political donors, was a part owner. that company went bankrupt and not only did it go bankrupt but the bankruptcy terms were such that the venture capitalists,

the private capitalists, mr. kaiser and others, would get their money back before the taxpayers did. and so this 1705 program, and the 1703 program, in my view, put the government in as a venture capitalist in risky projects. and we know they're risky because solyndra's already bankrupt, abound solar is bankrupt, beacon power is bankrupt, nevada geothermal has no positive cash flow. first wind has withdrawn its i.p.o. and having significant financial problems. so the president was not really developing a sound policy to stimulate the economy. he was developing -- providing money to risky venturers to push america into green energy before the technology was really available. so this legislation simply puts an end to the program.

now, i would be the first to say that there's still -- may i have one additional minute? there's still $34 billion left. we have 50 companies that have presented applications to the department of energy. they spent a lot of money so to just cut it off right now would be basically unfair. i would like to end it right now but it would be unfair. but let me just finish with this note. the department of energy's own website said that because of these loan guarantee programs, 1,175 million jobs were created in america in green energy and guess what. each job cost $12.8 million. now, if you're a hardworking taxpayer out there, i don't think you want your taxpayer

dollars going to risky venturers in which private capitalists get their money back before anybody else does and for every job created it costs $12.8 million. let's pass this legislation. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentlelady from the state of california, ms. matsui, three minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: sorry. recognized for throw minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, mr. chairman. the no more solyndras act is to attack america's clean energy future. while solyndra did not achieve its goals, other project did and they have made investments in clean energy infrastructure and job creation.

not every investment works out as the private sector well new orleans, and one failure is not a reason to condemn the entire d.o.e. loan guarantee program, a program created in a bipartisan manner to further our energy independence and spur nick -- spur economic growth. an independent analysis by herb ellison says that the program poses less risk than originally envisioned when congress first created and funded the program. american companies are fighting an uphill battle against foreign countries that aggressively subsidize their clean energy industries. last year china and germany both heavily invested in their clean energy future. we cannot and should not depend on foreign made clean energy technologies. in order to remain competitive in the global marketplace, the federal government must

continue to play an active role in encouraging and promoting investment in clean energy technologies. not only does this support help spur innovation, but the loan guarantee program has already generated $40 billion of direct private investment in the u.s. economy and is supporting 60,000 direct jobs in american clean energy industries. my home district of sacramento, california, houses more than 230 clean technology companies with more than 30,000 jobs. this are small business owners who understand the need for federal investment to help level the playing field at home and in the global marketplace. these companies hold the promise of making us the world leader in clean energy technology while simultaneously creating good-paying jobs, lowering energy prices and

preserving and protecting our environment. this partisan bill would take us backwards in this pursuit, and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to a member of the committee, mr. gardner, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank chairman upton for his leadership on the solyndra investigation. and i also thank chairman stearns for the great work you did to really, no pun intended, bring this issue to light, the issue with solyndra over the past year. last week was the solyndra anniversary of the bankruptcy filing, a bankruptcy -- an anniversary that was by no means met with parades around the country. i held town hall meetings in my district which they talked about responsibility, responsibility of the federal

government to watch how our dollars are being spent to make sure that the federal taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. and then they talk about solyndra. they don't talk about solyndra and say, you know, you should have kept giving them money. why didn't those people keep giving solyndra money? they talk about how did it happen in the first place. how did a committee that said no then come back and say yes? how did a committee succumb to political pressure, to put on a press conference for the vice president so they could have great celebration about spending $1 trillion more in our stimulus bill? . if people on the floor are so excited about solyndra, why aren't they investing their money into it? but instead they are putting their hope into a government program so that government program can take the risk, and in fact it did. it took the bankruptcy. the sun has set on the solyndra scandal, it's a good thing, too,

because the american people are tired of waste and abuse and braud and that's exactly what happened here. the fact is half a billion dollars in taxpayer money is gone and i can't believe to hear the debate today that defends solyndra, that defends the abusive taxpayer dollars that says we should have done more. we shouldn't have done more, we shouldn't have done it at all. the fact that this company had a credit rating that they knew they were in rubble trouble, the department of energy -- trouble, the department of energy's oversight failed. i support this bill, let's protect the taxpayer dollars. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, this is not serious legislation. it's a political bill. in fact, much of the bill is composed of inaccurate and misleading congressional findings. the bill repeats baseless and unproven allegations of

wrongdoing. that are not supported by the whole 18-month investigation of the solyndra loan guarantee. there is no fraud. there is no fraud. there is no wrongdoing. there is a loss of money because this was a loan guarantee for a new way to deal with solar energy. and it was not successful when the chinese dropped the price of their solar energy panel which meant that solyndra could not compete successfully. in an attempt to invent a scandal, house republicans have spent the last year and a half lambasting the home loan guarantee program. they ignore the successes of that loan guarantee program. the successes are that, you never know it from the republican rhetoric, are d.o.e.

programs that are expected to support nearly 60,000 jobs, save nearly $300 million gallons of gasoline per year, by supporting six power generation projects that are now complete, nine projects that sending power to the electric grid. one of the world's largest wind farms in oregon. one of the largest concentrated solar generation projects in california. in arizona, one of the largest photovoltaic solar power plant. so they concentrate, the republicans do, on a failure. now, when you have risky projects because they are new ways to have alternative energy sources, you're not always going to have a success. that's why these projects need government loan guarantees. the republicans say this is so

terrible. we should never have had this program to start with. they are not going to allow another solyndra, but they don't end the program. if they wanted to terminate the loan guarantee program, this bill's not for you. despite their rhetoric, this bill does not end, phase out, or defund the loan guaranteed 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 havele isal -- no new applicants can come in and ask for funds. only those applicants that have their applications submitted by the end of last year. the gentleman from kentucky said that's utterly fair. why is that fair? this is supposed to be a program that's going to invest in clean

energy to enhance our international competitiveness, address the challenges of energy security and climate change. instead this bill prevents new innovative projects from competing for loan guarantees. as mr. markey from massachusetts pointed out, most of those that are pending now are nuclear projects. so they create a winner's 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. and 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 the 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 this this country. we shouldn't create a list of winners that eliminate all the other potential clean energy projects. we do not have time, mr. chairman, for phony political bills. we have real problems to solve. we should be spending this time -- 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. the no rule solutions to the problems we face. we should reject this flawed legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time of the the committee will now rise informally to receive a memming. -- message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 33 -- 3552, to

re-authorization the federal inspect at thisside act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. i just remind my friend from california that the department of justice tells us there are still an active criminal investigation as to the solyndra matter. i yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pompeo: i come down to support this piece of legislation. it's important to america and taxpayers to protect them. i want to thank chairman stearns and chairman upton for letting me participate this this important investigation. just yesterday two facts support completely in passing this legislation. yesterday that conservative jewel, "new york times," reported that mr. spinner, who was critical to pushing the 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 bungler for this administration. and also yesterday we had a hearing, that hearing in which we saw american has the opportunity to become energy independent within the next decade. if the federal government will just get out of the way, stop picking winners and losers, with the department of energy loan guarantees for far too long. i'm confident department we can move away from this program. i urge all of my colleagues to support it. the conservative groups, the american conservative union, americans for tax reform, let freedom ring have all submitted letters in support of this legislation. it's time to end this loan guarantee program. we should do it today. i yield back. -- -- i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire how much time each side has? the chair: the gentleman from california has nine minutes remaining. mr. waxman: how much on the other side? the chair: the gentleman from michigan controls 16 3/4

minutes. mr. waxman: we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: at this point i yield three minutes to the chairman of the science committee, mr. hall, from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. hall: thank you. mr. chairman, i of course rise in support of h.r. 6213, this bill makes more important changes to better protect taxpayer funds spent on the department of energy's title 17 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 and one purpose of the title 17 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 yerl this year, as part of a hearing in which we received testimony from energy secretary stephen chew. --chu. the poster child for this poor judgment of solyndra, which president obama famously touted as a, quote, true engine of economic growth, unquote, for the united states most persons are familiar with solyndra's sorry trouble and story in which the department of energy with 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 d.o.e. made 25 other gambles under the program section 1705 authority. stating a number of total of approximately $16 billion of american taxpayer money on what they call green energy.

with risky business models similar to that of solyndra. i'm also sorry to say that many of these companies also have ties to the current administration through investors that are major donneors and advocates. if more of these companies failed, the department of energy made clear it could restructure loan agreements in the same manner it handled solyndra, placing political supporters and private investors at the front of line while leaving taxpayers holding the bag. this legislation would prevent -- it would absolutely prevent that from happening again by requiring that taxpayer dollars are not subordinate to private financing should more bankruptcies result from this program. further, the bill seeks to limit taxpayer risk by prohibiting d.o.e. from making new loan guarantee award for projects from applications submitted after december 31, 2011. these are necessary fixes to a troubled program and i urge members to support them and the

underlying legislation. 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 and advancement of it being brought to the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: may i inquire through the chair how many speakers there are on the other side of the aisle? the chair: the gentleman from michigan. 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: we'll continue to reserve our time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady, my good friend from north carolina, ms. foxx. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman upton, for yielding me time and bringing this important bill to the floor. mr. speaker, 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 largess of big government bureaucrats that prompted solyndra's ex-c.e.o. to write that, quote, the bank of washington continues to help us, end quote. 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 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i rise in strong support of this legislation and i first want to commend chairman upton and especially my long time friend, chairman stearns, for bringing this important legislation to the floor of this morning. . i heard for many years that almost 80% of small businesses fail within the first five 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, yet they squandered and failed, and what we heard today about two years. what a ridiculous scandal. 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, 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 1% of our total energy. the government should not be

picking winners and losers. i have nothing against solar energy if it could stand on its own feet, but it certainly cannot do so at this time and so i rise in strong support of 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 nor contentious, who has worked harder and who has tried to study legislation any more than he has, and i want to especially commend him and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, 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. in 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 gain 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 we wouldn't have all of our eggs in the basket of the oil and coal industries and pearblely in the area of oil where we were so dependent on other countries to give us that oil. we are so dependent on those oil that we are adding to the greenhouse gas emissions that causes 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 ground-breaking projects that would not be built without this program. let me give you an example. one solar power facility is being completed in the california desert. it will be the largest facility of its kind in the world. when completed will give three 400-foot towers that will collect solar energies 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. then they take that 1,100 when they talk about how much money is being spent and say x number of dollars per job, but this one project puts away that statement. it's not employing 1,100 but 2,100 construction workers. doesn't construction worker jobs count? we need more of them. as a c.e.o. invested $300 million in the project put it, quote, this project would never have happened without the federal government's support. there's just no private sector financing for our cutting edge technology project. there are other solar, thermal projects out there but none of this magnitude and this will be considered first of the kind in the financing in the world, end quote. 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 ignore 13,000 construction jobs, pretending that providing a loan to a company is the same thing as spending the money and then they lose it forever. but 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. experts reviewing the loan poet foalio made it clear -- portfolio made it clear that d.o.e. will likely be paid back from the loans they put out. 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

billion-something. $34 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 break throughs, 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 dead sitting on the grave of solyndra for so long. enough is enough. our country needs to move forward in this area. mr. chairman, i want to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from michigan.

mr. upton: mr. speaker, i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker and chairman for the opportunity to speak today. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support for h.r. 6213, the no more solyndras a act. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor 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 crealted 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. i understand the desire to do something to help american businesses succeed, but allowing free willing 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. speaker, government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. it's time to end the wasteful government spending, protect taxpayer dollars and empower the private sector over government. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. upton: mr. speaker, we're prepared to close if you're going to be the final speaker and then we'll close and get to the amendments. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, we have another speaker, and i want to yield to -- we wish to

yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas to debate this issue. member of our committee. the chair: the gentleman from california should be aware that he has three minutes remaining. mr. waxman: how much time? the chair: three minutes. mr. waxman: we yield the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields the balance of the time. mr. green: as a member of the energy and commerce committee's oversight and investigation committee i was involved in the investigation of the solyndra 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 expressing frustration that such a mistake could have happened. i was angered even more to find out that taxpayers' investment would be paid back after investments to outside the investors. i believe explicitly this was outlawed in the energy policy act of 2005. the department of energy did what other administrations have done. they'll go lawyer shopping and find a legal opinion and allow

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 believe would have had bipartisan support to do so. instead, my republican friends smelling blood in the water decided to take a different approach. they are having more political theater, guaranteeing that the loan guarantee will continue to be broken. worse yet, the bill doesn't even accomplish what they want to do. their allies like the hair tanel foundation oppose it. when we go home this weekend we'll be confronted by frustrating constituents saying, why can't you work together in washington? after seeing this bill pass on mostly a party line, what do we tell them? we didn't do it. we're passing a bill that will never become law. the problems we identified in the solyndra investigation will continue to exist and we're leaving our constituents on the hook for future solyndras. i urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

it's bad policy. undoes a bipartisan compromise in 2005. instead, let's work together to find common ground and pass a bill that will fix the problems without the politics. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. upton: how much time remains on our side? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has nine minutes remaining. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i'd just yield the balance of the time to mr. stearns to close the debate on the bill. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to put in the record the recent editorial by "the wall street journal" of september 11 entitled "china's solyndra economy." the chair: it's covered by general leave, will be included. mr. stearns: in this editorial, my colleagues, the owner of a solar panel company in china was unable to repay $3 billion

in bank loan that was guaranteed for his solar panel company. and you know what happened? he leaped from a six-floor building because he couldn't repay it. this editorial outlines an unfailing description all these different solar panel companies in china who could not repay their loan guarantees. in fact, this summer the new york exchange listed company, l.d.x. solar, the world's second largest waiver producer defaulted on $95 billion, not million, billion owed to over 20 suppliers. the company lost $600 million in the fourth quarter. just the fourth quarter. of 2011, another $200 billion in the first quarter of 2012.

has shed 10,000 jobs. and 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 that are losing are people that can't pay back their loan guarantees. you know, and some people in washington seem to feel 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 seem to make the same commitment here. now, combiven what this editorial said and what happened in china, i say the president of the united states needs to rethink his position. . seeing it as an exemplar case of how to run the economy. in fact the chinese are no better at picking winners and losers and can blow money as we

are here in the united states with thesetway boondoggles. if people are around about this program, and don't think this legislation is necessary, just take a few moments to read this editorial outlining the problems with solar panel in china. now, i would say to my distinguished ranking member, ms. degette from colorado, she and i both know the mission of our oversight subcommittee is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. and if it happens anywhere, we should step forward. and that's what we did in the solyndra investigation. we at-ed to understand what the problem is to try to come to grips what happened, it took us 18 months, it took us almost eight months to get back the emails from our subpoenas back in november.

systematic. and trying to do it without huge amount of political rhetoric. and i think we accomplished that. and the ultimate results of this investigation is, no more solyndras act, and what this bill does, basically, is answer some fundamental questions and takes the lessons that we learned from this investigation and put them into this bill. now, i reach out to my democrat colleagues on this. the gentleman from texas, mr. green, was on the floor just recently, and he indicated he also agreed with us about the subordination. i understood what he said. he 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 dealing with subordination. in section 1702, terms and conditions, energy policy act,

2005. these are the exact words that i believe mr. green, democrat from texas, agrees that the administration should not have subordinated taxpayers' money. this is the exact words they say. on the paragraph dealing with subordination, and i'll read this carefully, the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinated to other financing. the obligation is not subordinated to other financing. that seems pretty clear. crystal clear. yet the department of energy after talking to lawyers outside of the d.o.e. who indicated they couldn't subordinate, d.o.e. still paragraphsed the legal language so that they could. you know it's very disturbing, i say this honestly, david france, 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 d.o.e. still has a senior loan officer who wants to subordinate. so how in the world could we not pass this legislation and allow d.o.e. to continue to subordinate and push taxpayers behind, what, hedge funds? who, what financial instruments are they going to allow them to subordinate to? he wouldn't elucidate. i will not yield. so the bottom line here is that the administration still wants to subordinate and that's why i tell everybody on the democrat side, you have to -- you should vote for this bill because in the end you're going to support david france, executives director of the loan guarantee program, who wants to continue to subordinate. 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. did the administration ignore

several red flags raised by the department of energy and o.m.b. about solyndra's financial condition in the market for products? did they? 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 struss -- stimulus resulted in d.o.e. rushing, pushing the solyndra loan guarantee out the door? did they? yes. did the department of energy fail to adequately monitor the loan guarantee as solyndra's financial condition simply deteriorated in 2010 in absolutely yes. did the d.o.e. 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

d.o.e. was moving forward on solyndra? the answer to that is no. definitely no. they did not. in fact, treasury numerous times through emails showed that they wanted d.o.e. -- they wanted to consult with d.o.e. did d.o.e. consult with the department of justice about the subordination? you would think if they were going to paragraphs the legal language on something that was in violation of the energy policy act, the section 1702, terms and conditions, you would think they would go to the department of justice and say what do you think of our paragraphs language? no, they didn't. they decided not to consult with justice. so in the end the items that i mentioned, the key lessons i learned from this investigation, shows that this bill is absolutely required, each of the areas, seven areas i outlined and gave you definitive answers,

each of these areas are 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 again to remind my colleagues of the mismanagement that poorly executive oversee by secretary chu, back in 2011 he said we are confident we can repay the loan. he was wrong. and that's why this bill is needed. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-31. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to the 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, and shall be considered as read, shall be debated for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by an opponent and proponent, earn shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it's now this order to consider amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-668. props the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? ms. degette: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printsed in house report number 112-668 offered by ms. degette of colorado. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 779, the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette, and a member opposed each will

control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from colorado. ms. degette: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, sadly this deeply flawed legislation we are considering today is the result of a political investigation not a fact investigation. the majority has ignored the benefits of the d.o.e. 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 prove 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 misleading legislative findings so that at least the record will attempt to be clear and honest. the first thing that the -- the first findings idea was 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 o.m.b. were 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 d.o.e. and o.m.b. 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 requested 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. now, mr. speaker, there are also other findings in the legislation that are inaccurate and should be removed. the findings state that the d.o.e. acted illegally until subordinating the solyndra loan, and chairman stearns talks 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 d.o.e.'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. now, chairman stearns talks about talking to independent lawyers who said the subordination was not legal. sadly he refused to call any of those lawyers to testify before our committee. and furthermore he refused to call the lawyers at the department of energy or d.o.j. who had said subordination was legal despite repeated requests by myself and chairman waxman that they should come in. so 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 the department of justice just go and prosecute these people? it just doesn't make sense. and that's why my amendment also replaces the misleading findings about subordination with an honest set of facts. mr. speaker, -- mr. chairman,

the findings also ignore the important successes of title 17 and the loan program. in total the d.o.e. loan programs are creating 60,000 jobs and saving nearly 300 million gallons of gasoline a year. the title 17 program has 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 and world's largest concentrated solar generation project. the world's largest votto volume at thisic power plant. 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 affect the actions. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. stearns: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five 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 17 program created 60,000 new jobs. of course if you go to the department of energy's own website and you add up the actual number, the permanent jobs in that program, the numbers, 1,174, according to

d.o.e.'s own website. so how could she possibly come down here and say 60,000? because she includes the atbm program which is not part of title 17, the advanced vehicle program. so first of all anybody that votes for her amendment is voting for something that is patently false, patently wrong. the second portion of her amendment is based upon she thinks that the people made the decision based upon personal judgment. but throughout all of the emails we got, we show -- o.m.b. or department of treasury or even department of energy, they all showed that this program was not going to make it. . and the last portion of her amendment which is the heart of what her amendment is trying to do, she's saying that the council for the department of energy determined it was satisfactory. this is in contrary who i read earlier, mr. chairman, which clearly shows it's in violation of the department of energy law

in 2005. you cannot subordinate taxpayers. in fact, even while they were doing this, i want to read you an email between o.m.b. staff regarding solid rafment and this shows the -- solyndra. and this shows the optics of the whole thick. this is between o.m.b. staff regarding solyndra. while the company may avoid default with restructuring, vis-a-vis sbord nation, there's also a good chance it will not. at that point additional funds would have been put at risk. recoveries may be lower and questions asked. so the bottom line is, even after they parised the language illegally, it was clear from the o.m.b. that they weren't going to make it. so the department of energy's legal analysis was that post factow, to try to subordinate to make this survive for political reasons. why did they want to make solyndra succeed? because it was the poster child. it was the one that the president has touted, vice

president biden touted. and they went out there and said, we have to make this continue to work. all the while the sbord nation was illegal. -- sborden ionn was illegal. i mean, the email i read to you and also further emails i could elicit which we don't have time will show that o.m.b. and treasury believe that the department of energy was wrong in parsing the language to do this. d.o.e. made a questionable, tortured interpretation of the law in order to justify a decision they had already made. we want to stop that, that's why this no more solyndra bill is required. they say 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 d.o.e. wanted to

issue to time-out the solyndra loan guarantee. we don't want that to happen again. treasury wasn't brought in until after the credit committee and credit review board had approved the congressional commitment. treasury was given one day to review the deal. $535 million. and the treasury was given one day. treasury's own emails that were produced to the committee showed it to staff -- so he -- showed that the staff felt jammed. mr. chairman, i think the long and the short of it is when you look at the degette amendment and you look at each component, 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, and i would say in conclusion to all of my colleagues who were listening, you is board nation of taxpayer money should stop. if we don't pass this bill, the

senior loan officer at the department of energy will continue to subordinate. so if you believe in that, then you vote against this bill. but if i believe the -- if you believe the taxpayers should be protected and taxpayers should not be put at risk and if they are she the 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. i yield back the balance of my time. how much time do i have, mr. chairman? the chair: 10 seconds. mr. stearns: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. stearnsstearps mr. chairman, -- mr. stearns: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-668.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-668 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 779, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five 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. d.o.e. 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 land basketting this bush era program for more than a year, house republicans are leaving it in place to issue tens of billions of dollars more in loan guarantees and that's a fact. so, here's what the republican bill actually does. it arbitrarily picks winners and losers by prohibiting d.o.e. from considering any application for a loan guarantee submitted after december 31, 2011. so when you say those are the

only guarantees that can be considered, it creates winners. and anyone 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 techonology, 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 breaks for technologies can be looked at to compete with the older technologies that submitted applications by the end of 2011. that makes no sense. well, 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, there's only -- 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 want to end the loan guarantee program, you should end the loan guarantee program. but what is unfair is saying that those are the only ones that can be considered. renewable energy is a critical part of what we need to reduce our carbon pollution and prevent unchecked climate change and the disasters that come with it. breakthroughs in the renewable energy are 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 d.o.e. from even considering them. but 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. and yet a loan guarantee for such a possible technology would node be able to be considered. suppose it was for a next generation nuclear plant. and they wanted to submit an application. they can't. you understand the republican bill. -- under the republican bill. so my amendment eliminates the arbitrary provision that prevents d.o.e. from considering

any application submitted after 2011. it keeps all the other provisions in the bill, even ones i disagree with, but it would assure that d.o.e. 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, d.o.e. will still have $34 billion to award in loan guarantees should it choose to. if my amendment passes there will still be the same amount of money. i urge support for the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida rise in opposition? mr. stearns: yeah, i rise in opposition. the chair: is recognized for five minutes. mr. stearns: my colleagues this amendment would allow the loan program to go on, continue indefinitely. the investigation made one thing absolutely clear.

the title 17 loan guarantee program must be eliminated. no more solyndras, this act accomplished this goal, it's wholly supported by the oversight investigative committee and the full committee. we support all-of-the-above national energy policy, it embraces a diverse range of traditional and alternative energy resources. but we don't support the federal government playing venture capitalists with taxpayers' money. the gentleman from california mentions innovation and i would submit to him that the iphone, the ipad, the ipod all came without government picking winners and losers. while the government has a role, some type of 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, should not be in the business of picking winners and losers and like the editorial that i put in the 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 allingt and that's why we need to pass -- altogether and that's why we need to pass this law and i give two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. white house advisor larry summers said it best when bun of -- when one of solyndra's own investors was astonished to learn that his startup firm qualified for this earmark. summers replied, the government is a, quote, crappy venture capitalist, unquote. nearly three years 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 g.o. 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 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 taxes had to be paid back first. and these taxpayer safety nets was removed. second, it was reckless. officials at o.m.b., d.o.e., 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 made 16 visits to the white house about solyndra. this committee uncovered emails between keiser and white house officials on solyndra and 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 d.o.e. loan program. i urge a no vote on the amendment and support for the bill. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: how much time?

the chair: the gentleman from florida has two minutes remaining. mr. stearns: -- mr. waxman: will the gentleman yield to me for a question? mr. stearns: no. let me just close. i have two minutes remaining. you know, 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. and while eliminating the program outright, you know, is admittedly appealing and i think a lot of us on this side of the aisle wanted to do that, we must be mindful of the fact that applicants in the queue have already invested significant, significant time and financial resources toward simply securing their loan guarantee and they have really narrowed their financing options also in reliance of the existence of their 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 and we should be striving to reduce risk caused by the

federal government, not create it and that's why i said in my statement here, that we have to be mindful of the fact that some of the applicants have already committed themselves and have put their time in. but i think we can learn from this solyndra debacle and baseded upon this amendment by mr. waxman, i think we realize that in the end, that the no more solyndra act tackles all the points that he's concerned about and for that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time and i urge a no vote on the waxman amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . . those opposed say nay. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. mr. stearns: on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on

those amendments printed in house report 112-668 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1 by ms. degette of colorado. and amendment number 2 by mr. waxman of california. the chair will reduce to two minutes the maximum time for any electronic vote after the first series of votes. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on the amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-668 by the gentlewoman from colorado, ms. degette, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 112-668, offered by ms. degette of colorado. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 169, the nays are 238. the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-668 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: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-668 offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is orred. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170. the nays are 231. the amendment is not agreed. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the

committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 779 i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 6213, and pursuant to house resolution 779 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of

the amendment in the any a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrosement and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title 17 of the energy policy act of 2005. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order and 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. will all members please remove their afferingses from the floor. clear the aisle and the well. -- conversations from the floor. clear the aisle and the well. the gentleman from massachusetts qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. markey of massachusetts moves to recommit the bill h.r. 6213 to the committee on energy and commerce with instructions to report the same back -- mr. markey: i ask consent to

dispense with the reading of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this motion to level the playing field for wind energy and for the guarantee all the american jobs coming out of this no more solyndra act. this is the final amendment to this bill. it will not kill the bill. it will not send the bill back to committee. and 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 solyndra 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 two months? mr. speaker, the house is not in

order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. would all members please remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: jobs are already being lost in this country. because the republicans are allowing the production tax credit for wind to expire even if they authorize the tens of billions of dollars of new projects for nuclear, for coal. we are not saying that wind should not 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.

iowa, gone. last week, gansa, 165 jobs in pennsylvania, gone. this past tuesday, molder fiber, 9 jobs in the wind industry in south dakota, gone. by this time next year 30,000 jobs in the wind industry, gone. that's part one of this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: 1,700 jobs already gone on our way to 40,000 jobs lost in the wind industry. what's the second part of the amendment? the second part says that if the republicans are going to authorize these tens of billions of loan guarantees in this no more solyndras act, then 75% of all of the equipment made under these loan guarantees are made

here in america with american workers making that equipment under their bill. if woor going to be doing this -- if we are going to be doing this make it in america. 75% 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, out 2011, one month after they took over, the ryan budget cuts clean energy by 90%. what happened in april out here on the house floor? they cut wind and solar by $17 billion and kept all the money for nuclear and coal. that's not a level playing field. that's going after wind. that's going after solar. and in this bill what did they do? well, basically what they say is they can keep $88.5 billion for nuclear and for coal loan guarantees, but the wind and

solar, we are 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 can't be such, and at the same time you are cutting $4 billion from the wind industry. an industry that created 12,000 new megawatts of electricity in our country this year. so this amendment is very simple. 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 six months in our country in state after state after state after state in our country that are already beginning to see those losses and make sure that 75% of all of

the equipment that's made under this loan guarantee program are made by american workers here in the united states. vote yes. make it here in america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. upton: i claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. upton: i ask the house would be in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i will be brief. i would just note that projects contemplated under title 17 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. i would also like to note that extending the wind tax credit will be part of the larger

debate that the house will have as we look at all of the expiring tax provisions and i look for mr. markey's support as we look to extend all of those later on. particularly the good folks in the state of massachusetts. would just like to say this, this has been a very long and extensive investigation. and i'll tell you that will 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. and it is our job, every one of us here, to look for wherever we can find fraud and abuse and mismanagement in any federal program to identify that 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 investigateor team and 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: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, charity will reduce to five minutes the minimum time on any electronic vote on question of passage. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 175. the nays are 234. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts.

mr. markey: on that, mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 245. the nays are 161. the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's desk, the bill, s. 3552 and i ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: senate 3552, the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read for the third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the bill will have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: thank you, meerks. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one order to inquire mr.

cantor for the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, on monday and tuesday, no votes are expected in the house. on wednesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules next week, including a prioritization of visas for foreign graduates of american universities in the stem fields and issue being championed by chairman lamar smith, the gentleman from texas, as well as bob goodlatte from virginia and raul labrador from idaho. a complete list of suspensions

will be announced at the close of business today. in addition, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.j.res. 118, sponsored by chairman dave camp, which provides for congressional disapproval of a rules submitted by the department of health and human services relating to waivers of work requirements with respect to the temporary assistance for needy families programs. the house will also consider h.r. 3409, the stop the war on coal act, sponsored by bill johnson of ohio, which is a package of bills to expand domestic energy production and help create american jobs. lastly, mr. speaker, members are advised that with the senate's expected passage of the continuing resolution, we no longer anticipate votes in the house during the week of october 1. this is a change from the original house calendar. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the

gentleman for his information with respect to what we're going to consider next week and also i was going to ask him, but he's already indicated that he doesn't expect the scheduled meeting of the week in october to occur and i thank him for that information. that would indicate essentially then, therefore, that we have approximately a little over a day and a half, a day and 3/4 remaining before the election. i want to ask the gentleman first of all, been a lot of talk about the work that has not been done. we have not done the jobs bill that i've been urging us to consider. we have not addressed the middle class tax cut in a way that we'll deal with that and which both sides agree. we have disagreement on tax cuts for those who are in -- not in the middle class. the farm bill. i want to discuss that in a second.

the violence against women act. the farm bill and the violence against women act and the middle class tax cut both passed the united states senate and postal reform, there's also agreement on that in the united states senate. obviously sequestration. and i want to talk a little bit about the fiscal cliff, mr. leader. but in the farm bill, as you know we have a discharge petition that is pending which is somewhat unusual and that our party is -- has initiated a discharge petition to ask you to bring to the floor a bill that your committee reported out of committee. that's somewhat unusual in these discharge petitions. a number of republicans have signed on to that, as you know. as a matter of fact, we understand you're suggesting to some that they do sign -- not you, personally -- excuse me. but there's some suggestion

they sign on to that as a -- as an indication for their support for the farm bill. the senate passed a farm bill 64-35, mr. leader. we are hoping that that bill could be brought to the floor next week. it's not on the calendar, but in light of the fact that 16 republicans voted in favor of it in the senate, it's clear that it does have broad bipartisan support. the ag committee here in this house reported out a bill 35-11. that bill has, of course, not been brought to the floor. we don't have much time left, as you just announced. even if we count thursday as a full day and even if we count friday as a full day of next week we have essentially two days and then suspension votes on wednesday night. many farmers are facing the worst droughts they've seen in

many years. we passed a drought bill here that is not agreed to by the senate and in fact the farm community, as i think the gentleman probably knows, perhaps not unanimously but in large number opposes the drought bill that we passed and the reason they opposed it is because -- and i think you were absolutely right, mr. majority leader, when you talked in the past years about certainty. farmers are opposed to the farm bill that we passed from the house because it doesn't give them any certainty. they think a five-year bill is prmble. they've seen 2/3 of the -- preferble. they've seen 2/3 of the preferable. they've seen 2/3 of the senate pass it. i would ask assurance if there's any possibility that we're going to consider a farm bill, either the house bill as reported out overwhelmingly from the republican chair of the committee, or the senate

bill, passed in a bipartisan fashion, is there any possibility before we leave here in consideration of the crisis that is in the farm community that we'll consider that bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i want to respond to his initial statements about the house's work in terms of jobs and taxes and the gentleman well knows that we have sent to the senate well over 30 measures that are job-creating bills that will help improve the environment for small business men and women to actually begin investing and creating jobs again. as the gentleman know, we passed h.r. 8, the job protection and recession prevention act. we passed that. a bipartisan vote. including 19 house democrats. this followed up on over 20 hearings on tax reform this congress. and what we did in that bill, mr. speaker, the gentleman recalls, is we made sure that

taxes are not going to go up on anybody right now because of the economic situation that exists throughout this country. we don't believe that it is a desirable outcome to see taxes go up on anyone and to take more of their money right now while they're having a difficult time getting through the month. and that is why, mr. speaker, we believe we continue to stand on the side of the hardworking taxpayers and we ask the gentleman to please, when he cites the fact that we didn't pass his jobs bill, we passed a jobs bill. we passed numerous jobs bills. in fact, over 30 jobs bills sitting in the senate. the inaction has been on the senate. so mr. speaker, with the gentleman's question about the farm bill, i in fact just came out of a meeting with one of his members to talk about the farm bill. we're trying to look for ways forward. yes, there can be a possibility that we act again on the issue

of the disaster and the drought. as the gentleman rightly said, we passed the drought relief bill sitting over in the senate, again, inaction. the gentleman indicates the reason for opposition to that bill. there's nothing in the bill that is controversial. it's the fact that some who insist on having something else in the bill didn't have it. well, one thing we know is we're all for allowing the relief is the farmers. why can't we get that done? why can't we finally decide, you know, there are some areas of disagreement and we realize that reasonable people do and certainly in election season sort of emphasizes that, unfortunately. but we also know the things in common. addressing the drought issue is we do have in common. we passed out of the house. mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman any indication he'd give that perhaps there would be some movement on that would be, i think, a positive thing for the farmers.

and we continue to work on how to go forward and, yes, there could be a possibility there's some action next week on the issue of the farm bill. looking to find ways that we can work together on issues that we all support, not issues that divide us and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i think the comments of the gentleman are interesting and i appreciate his comments. we do have agreement in the senate on a farm bill. they voted for it 64 votes, almost 2/3 of the senate. we may not have agreement but we had a bill that came out of the republican-led committee, your committee with over 2/3 vote and neither one of those have been brought to the floor. so we're arguing on something that we had pretty significant disagreement on. yes, there were democrats that voted for the drought relief. i can understand their view. but the farm community is opposed to the drought relief bill, not unanimously but

significant part. so the gentleman points out that we ought at on which we have agreement. let me suggest to him that 98% of americans and 97% of small business people, we agree on not having a tax increase. the gentleman's worried about those people who are making about 20,000 a -- worried about making $2,000 a month. there are people who are having trouble. we need to give them assurance and the gentleman just said, just said we ought to be able to act on that on which we agree. i think the gentleman, maybe i'm incorrect. but i would tell the gentleman, on this side of the aisle, we will produce the overwhelming majority votes on our side of the aisle for a bill that

ensures that there will be no tax increase on those who are making either individually, under $200,000 a year, or as a husband and wife $250,000 a year. i assure the gentleman that i will produce and we will produce on this side well over 180 votes for that proposition. so i tell my friend all he has to do is produce 40 votes but i think he'll produce many more than that because unless he says i'm wrong i think when you say nobody ought to get a tax increase we have agreement, and that's just what the gentleman is talking about. we have an agreement that nobody under $250,000, a couple, $200,000 individual, shall get a tax increase on january 1 of this year. we could pass it next week. we could pass it -- we could pass it under a suspension calendar, in my opinion. we could send it to the senate and they've already passed a

bill. they've already passed a bill through the senate, which adopted that proposition. so we have a majority votes in the senate and i would hope we would have almost unanimity in the senate on that proposition. but i think what i hear the gentleman saying is unless we have agreement on 100%, the fact that we agree on 98% and 97% we're not going to move the bill. now, i agree with the gentleman. if we have agreement, that's something central that we have agreement on. i hope we could move it. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say there's not agreement right now that we ought to raise taxes in this economy. and the reason is, mr. speaker, we are concerned about those individuals that the gentleman speaks about that perhaps may be out of work or underemployed or trying to make it and having a real difficult time. we're concerned about those people, and the best thing we could do is create a job and

see them go back to work and we saw tt this summer ernst & young put out a study demonstrating that his tax policies -- the gentleman's tax policy, the president's plan to raise taxes is going to destroy 710,000 jobs and slash $200 billion from the economy and lower wages for all working americans by 1.8%. that's what that study says. so, no, there's not agreement that we should raise taxes like that. because if you raise taxes, there will be less jobs and less growth. we need to focus on those who want to get back to work. that's where there's agreement is, we all want to work people. we believe you don't help people by laying down a tax increase, put more money in the government that can't seem to figure out a way to fix the problem once and for all. that's what we want to do is fix that problem, help those people and i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his response. i don't think it answered my question. we understand that you want to see no tax increases, no additional contributions from people making $1 million net taxable income or more or $10 million taxable income. we understand you don't want to do it. we don't agree on that. you're correct but we do agree on the fact that 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 couple, $200,000 individual, those ought not to get a tax increase on january 1 and very frankly -- you didn't respond to me. i presume you agree with that. what you don't agree with is if we don't do it all on something we disagree with, that's what's causing gridlock in congress, that's what's causing this congress to be the least productive congress in which i served in 32 years, that's what's causing us to not listen to one another, talk by one

another and not agree. that's why the farm bill hasn't been passed. that's why the violence against women bill hasn't been passed. that's why the postal reform has not been passed. that's why middle class tax cuts has not been passed. because if you don't get it all you don't want to do any of it i say it respectfully to the majority leader, we agree that 98% of americans ought not to get a tax increase. we do disagree on whether those who are better off can make a contribution to bringing this deficit down and dealing with our debt. and what the gentleman responded was unless we're for 100%, we're not going to be for any. that's what i hear you saying and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: that's not why these bills haven't passed. the violence against women bill passed out of this house, sitting over in the senate because the senate has its own bill that has a blue slip problem. let them send the -- let the legislative process work over there, send as you bill and we'll get something done.

the gentleman did not join us in that bill. so the fact that the minority didn't get their way, they wouldn't join us on the bill. we went and did our work. and i'd say more to the gentleman, mr. speaker. you know, the postal reform bill, the fact of the matter is this side, mr. speaker, the minority will not agree to reforms. everyone knows the post office needs reforms. everyone knows the debt that that organization continues to incur and lays on the u.s. taxpayers. we're trying to fix that problem. but because the gentleman and his colleagues refuse to go along with reforms like a five-day delivery. this is something that the president supports. but because his side refuses to go along with trying to reform that organization, we can't move. we can't do that. we all know that's common sense. common sense in reforming the

postal service, something everyone knows needs reform. that's why this bill didn't pass. and we've got another issue on the farm bill. there are issues of policy differences. and the gentleman knows, throughout last year we went through a lot of these policy differences in the snap program and the rest. we have g.a.o. recommendations year in and year out about that program. but unwillingness on the part of the nye mortgage to ever -- minority to ever engage in a discussion on real reform on those programs. let's remember what we're talking about in the farm bill. most of it by far is not farm programs. they're food programs. again, raising the question of how it is we're going to go forward. we need to understand the specifics and other real policy differences. yes, we're all willing to work

together. or at least we are on this side. so i really take exception with the gentleman's assertions that somehow we're sitting here demanding everything. no. we want to work together and set aside differences and agree on things we can find in common. that's how anybody in everyday life tries to run their business or their family. it's not all or nothing, it's not black or white. and so i yield back. mr. hoyer: i say we agread on 8%. the gentleman has not said we don't agree on 98%. he brought up a lot of stuff on the farm bill and other pieces of legislation. farm bill? you're not bringing your own bill to the floor. forget about what we think on this side. you reported out of a -- out a farm bill. you reported out a farm bill some four or five months ago, i'm not sure exactly when, but it's been months ago and you have not brought it to the floor. it's not a request of whether we agree or not, your own bill you haven't brought to the floor. in terms of the violence against women act, you knew that the senate wouldn't do that and the president said he was going to veto it. you didn't sit down with the president to do it because you want to exclude some people. you want to exclude some people

who were subject to domestic violence. in this country. when all the experts say if you exclude people we don't get reports, we can't get domestic abusers out of circulation, if you will. so, i think the gentleman's characterization is not accurate. i would say, with all due respect. mr. cantor: that's not true, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: which is not true? i said a number of things. mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i will yield. the speaker pro tempore: if members would please address remarks to the chair. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say to the gentleman, it's not true. we don't want to exclude anybody from the benefits and he knows that. it was simply a matter of new language inserted by the senate that really -- we don't want to deny those benefits to anyone. we want everyone to have the benefits and not exclude some by specifically identifying others. and the gentleman knows that. it's unfair to characterize

anything we're trying to do to exclude people from benefits when they are subject to domestic abuse. all of us care about those victims. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank -- mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his observations. we have a difference of opinion. on whether or not they want to exclude people. because the senate bill was inclusive and every woman member , republican, of the united states senate voted for it. everyone. that was the difference between the two bills. those who were included and a more specific group that are now included, which we think they ought to be, but we also think there aren't people include who had need to be. with all due respect i think my characterization was absolutely accurate. but it's interesting, mr. speaker, that we still haven't eabed the question -- answered the question. we tend to want to talk about other things. 98% of americans should not get a tax increase on january 1 that

are making less than $250,000 individually as a family. i think we agree on that. mr. speaker, now i haven't heard that we don't agree on that but we agree on that which means there are 2% on which we do not agree. and that bill has not been brought to the floor that passed the united states senate dealing with that 98%. or 97% of small business. now, mr. speaker, it seems to me if we have agreement on 98% and the president of the united states will sign that bill, the majority leader knows, that i know it and the american people know it. he will sign that bill. that bill has not moved, not because of the 98%, but because of the 2%. that's my contention, mr. speaker. i believe that is accurate. because the senate has passed a bill that deals with the 98%. we ought to pass that bill, we ought to pass it before we leave here next week, which will be the last few days of this

session before the election. and the american people at least ought to have that on the floor and, yes, if you want to assert that we want to raise additional revenues to meet our debt, so that our children are not put deeply into debt, and, yes, those of us who are doing better can pay a little more to make sure that our children aren't in debt when they get to be adults, yes, we can have that debate. bring the bill to the floor. and let us pass the senate bill and i would hope our republican colleagues would join us and say at least we're going to take care of the 98%. then we'll argue with the 2%. we'll argue about whether or not that's good policy or bad policy. whether it hurts the economy or grows the economy. very frankly i tell my friend, the majority leader, i was here in 1993. the gentleman was not, i believe. but i was here in 1993 when we raised revenues on the upper 1.5%, 1.75% of american

taxpayers. your side said, as that study which we think is a flawed study said, that it would hurt the economy, it would increase the deficit and the unemployment. as the gentleman well knows, it did exactly the opposite. in conjunction with an extraordinary growth in the private sector, which your party said would be hurt by the action in 1993, which your party unanimously opposed. you're taking the same contention now and that study took the same proposition. it was wrong then, it is wrong now. i would hope very sincerely that we could agree on that on which we agree. because we agree on 98%. and let that move and not hold us hostage to the 2% on which we do not agree. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i do, mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, i'd first of all ask, was there over 8% unemployment then? that's the first thing, mr. speaker.

we are about trying to do something to get people back to work. and if you're worried about the 98%, which we all are, the best thing we can do is to make sure there are more jobs and so our objection to the gentleman's proposal to raise taxes is the fact that those taxes, that tax hike that he's advocating, is going to affect 53% of all small business income. that's joint committee on tax says that. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, just so we're accurate, but not 53% of small businesses and the gentleman knows that, it's a misleading figure because 53% of the income comes from a very small percentage of so-called small businesses that are not in our opinion small businesses at all. the gentleman can correct me if he believes that 53% of small businesses -- because it's our contention that 97% of small businesses, really small businesses, people who are

working hard, making it from day to day and trying to grow businesses and create jobs, 97% of small business will not be affected by our proposal and if the gentleman thinks i'm incorrect i'd be glad to hear that. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the point is about jobs. ok? and the jobs come from the small businesses who are generating income. if you want to help people who are creating jobs, don't raise their taxes, especially when unemployment is over 8%. it's about jobs. i mean, that's the thing, mr. speaker. it's always -- we always hear somehow that we are favoring some big, bad business. no, we are about the businesses who create jobs. small businesses. according to the small business administration definition, create jobs. so, mr. speaker, just because in the gentleman's mind that somehow somebody he doesn't like because they're so successful

gets the benefit, the overwhelming majority of the people who will not get a tax hike on you understand our plan will go out and create a job. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, it is an absurd assertion that there are people i don't like. i would hope the gentleman would retract that. it has nothing to do with people we like or don't like. mr. cantor: i absolutely retract that, mr. speaker. but the gentleman continues to malign people who he feels don't deserve the same treatment on taxes. and what we're saying, if they're successful, that means they're creating jobs, that's the prescription we need right now is more jobs. our policy is about helping the small business men and women who are creating jobs so we can finally do something to bring this unemployment down and get people back to work. that's all. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, one of the greatest challenges to growing our economy is our debt and deficit. and the uncertainty of tax

policy. that is one every economist will tell you that and certainly every business person will tell you that. large, medium or small. and none of us on this side of the aisle have used -- i have not used pejorative terms with respect to large, medium or small businesses. that's not an issue at all. it is an issue as to whether or not we're going to continue to explode this deficit and debt, mr. speaker, or whether we're going to ask some of us to contribute some of us, i.e., perhaps members of this floor, to pay a little more so our children don't confront large deficits and debt. we heard a lot about personal responsibility in the republican convention. we ought to take personal responsibility and the gentleman continues to talk about jobs jeags -- creation. we want job creation. we have a make it in america agenda that unfortunately hasn't

moved. we have a jobs bill that was offered by this president, that economists say would have created a million more jobs. it lays still on a desk somewhere untended to, unconsidered and unpassed by this house. notwithstanding the fact that the leader and i have discussed that -- moving that bill to the floor on numerous occasions. i lament the fact when we talk about this, again, he has not said once that we don't agree on the 98%. that we don't agree on the 97%. i think the reason he hasn't said we don't agree on it, because we do agree on it. he said he doesn't want anybody to get a tax increase. and by the way, that tax increase, as the gentleman well knows, will result as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills passed by the republicans in this house and in the senate and signed by george bush. that's why those taxes are going up on january 1.

because you sunsetted that tax increase, didn't make it permanent. why did you do that? for scoring purposes. because you knew that it would score great deficits. i want to tell the gentleman additionally, mr. speaker, that unemployment was 7%. the reason bill clinton won the election, because the economy was going downhill. that's the same reason barack obama won the election. answered talks about jobs -- and he talks about jobs. a policy that was unanimously opposed, mr. speaker, by the republican side of the aisle in the house and in the senate created 22 million private sector jobs. we know something about creating private sector jobs. notwithstanding the fact your contention on your side of the aisle, not yours personally, mr. leader, was that if we adopted that program, you took the same argument you're taking right now , right now, that raising additional revenues to bring our deficit and debt down would undermine the creation of jobs.

in 1993 you were demonstrably wrong. i don't mean you personaly, mr. speaker, i'm referring simply to the republican party's position on that. demonstrably wrong. 22 million new jobs. and in 2001 and 2003 you argued that if we bring taxes down on the people you were talking about and everybody else that we would explode the creation of jobs. you lost jobs in the private sector over those eight years, mr. leader, i'm sure you know that, about 600,000 net, you lost four million jobs in 2008, the last year of the bush administration. you lost 818,000 jobs in the last month, mr. speaker. 818,000 jobs were lost in the last month of the bush administration. .

it is lamentable that this is another instance where we continue to talk about bills for message purposes, that we know the president won't sign, he said he won't sign it, we know the senate won't pass, and we allow those 98% of americans to twist in the wind. because we will not deal with the other 2% and we're prepared to debate that, of course. and discuss it. but i'm very sorry that we apparently will not see in the next 2 1/2 days remaining before

the election that we address the middle class tax cuts. i'll yield to the gentleman if he wants to say anything further. i have one more subject i want to cover. mr. cantor: we believe that we've got a real spending problem here, mr. speaker. we've got a problem with an unwillingness to reform some programs. the gentleman talks about, you know, members having to pay more. in fact, it was our side that put forward the proposal that we should actually allow and require members as well as federal employees to pay more toward their retirement. the gentleman wasn't supportive

of that. so again, we've got some serious unfunded obligations at the federal level. the american people know that. we're trying to solve problems. the problems are not solved by raising taxes. now, the gentleman is so intent on raising taxes, again, because there is a 2% that he just wants to pay more. ok? he's so intent on doing, that i'd ask the gentleman to join us in actually fixing the problem that all experts say you can't tax your way out of and you can't grow your way out of. you got to reform the program. mr. speaker, week of been the only one to put forward a plan that even begins to solve the problem. the president has not, the senate has not and the gentleman has not. and again, it's about solving problems, producing results for the hardworking taxpayers of this country who so desperately want to see us go forward, reclaim america in its true aspirational sense and be that

place of opportunity and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i hear the gentleman. i presume he refers to the ryan budget. of course the ryan budget does not balance the budget in a quarter of a century. the gentleman knows that. the ryan budget, of course, undermines the security of medicare for people. the majority leader mentions federal employees. the fact of the matter is my position, mr. speaker, and this is a subject i want to talk about, we need to get america on a fiscally sustainable credible path. that's the single most important objective that this congress ought to be addressing. and mr. speaker, very frankly it was addressed in a plan called the simpson-bowles plans, perfectly know.

will we agree on everies a pkt? no. it was a plan that said we had to a balanced approach to doing this. we had to deal with entitlements. we had to deal with revenues. and, mr. speaker, we are now collecting 14.8% of revenues. that's lower than at any point in time in the last 70 years. if we were a business we would have been bankrupt a long time ago. we could keep borrowing so we could keep spending without putting a pay-go discipline that we had in the 1990's that helped, mr. speaker, balance the budget four years in a row. the only administration in the lifetime of anybody hearing, seeing or knowing that we're here that that's been done. it was done because we paid for what we borrowed. mr. speaker, we're going to have an opportunity, not in the

next two days of this session before the election, but we're going to have a lame duck. we're going to have to come back here. we are going to have to do some serious things. we need to as americans, not as democrats, not as republicans, we need to have a conviction that we need to come back here and not walk away from our responsibilities. very frankly the bowles-simpson, every republican member of that group from the house walked away from it, voted no. said, no, we will not agree. and so it didn't get the 14 votes it needed to be brought to this floor. i think that's a sad fact, mr. speaker. that should have had a robust debate. and perhaps modification. but it was a plan that said to

all americans, we're all going to have to be in this together. a balanced plan, mr. speaker, to get a handle on the debt and deficit that confronts this country that is hurting our economy, hurting our people, hurting our credibility and s&p downgraded us not because, mr. speaker, we didn't have the resources to solve our problems. standard & poor's downgraded the united states of america for the first time in the lifetime of anybody i know and perhaps anybody in history because they didn't know whether we had the political will and courage to address this debt and deficit that confronts and puts our country in danger. mike mullens, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mr. speaker, when asked what was the biggest security problem confronting america, didn't respond iraq, iran, didn't respond terrorists, didn't respond other enemies around

the world. he said the biggest security concern that he had, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was the fiscal challenge that was not being addressed in america. . mr. speaker, we need to address it, i hope my friend the majority leader, and he and i worked together on a number of things, we worked on a number of things this session we passed in a bipartisan fashion, i would hope that he and i would both commit ourselves to during the lame duck session do our responsibility to america and to our constituents in reaching a bowles-simpson-domenici, gang of six, almost every economist that has spoken to this issue has said you need a balanced plan. and if we simply have sold our

soul, mr. speaker, to grover norquist on asking people to help bring this debt and deficit down, mr. speaker, we will not succeed. but if we summons the turge and the will to solve this problem, we can do it, mr. speaker. i'm hopeful that my friend, the majority leader, and i, will work together over the next number of weeks between now and november 6 to establish the preface for acting in the lame duck session in a responsible, cooperative, consensus seeking fashion to get this country on a fiscally sustainable, credible path. if we do that, if we do that, we could redeem this congress' performance. i hope we'll do that.

i don't know whether the majority leader wants to make a comment or not. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'm going to try and make sure that i don't bring on even more because i know our colleagues are waiting to speak. i would say to the gentleman there is not immune knit on his side. the minority leader of the house, the president of the united states has not endorsed, the minority leader rejected bowles-simpson and the president has not endorsed bowles-simpson which is part of the issue the gentleman seeks some clarification on which is, where's the plan to get us out of this? anti-president was unwilling to even adopt that. but -- and the president was unwilling to even adopt that. the reason our side rejects bowles-simpson -- we bleve there are good things in bowles-simpson, i do look forward to working with the gentleman and seeing if we can work together, cooperative fashion, to get some results and resolve this cloud hanging over the economy. i'm looking forward to that.

but bowles-simpson, number one, is not this so-called balanced approach unless you say, $1.22 in taxes, new taxes, with $1 in cuts, is balanced. we don't believe so. because we believe it has a detrimental impact on the growth of the economy. we also believe the bowles-simpson revenue target of 20% of g.d.p. is the highest target, and something that is ex-- exceeds that which we have been at pretty much over the last 70-some years for three years. we believe that is too much ofal revenue flow into washington for washington to make the decisions. we've got an issue there about the amount of taxes and the size of government. totally legitimate discussion point, yes, but an issue. it's not just rejection out of hand. like the minority leader and

the president have said. they reject that. we say, this is why and then we also say the disproportionate driver of the deficit is health care entitlements. the gentleman and i both agree upon that. how are we going to deal with this? bowles-simpson leaves in place the structural nature of those programs now and doesn't address the fundamental problem of growing unfunded liability. we want to solve that so that the safety net programs are there for the future and save them. that's our position. and so i do, i do look forward to working with the gentleman. there's some great things about tax reform in bowles-simpson. i want to work with the gentleman on that. and if we can't have a conversation about resolving the deficit and spending. so again i try not to invoke any more time, mr. speaker, and i yield back. million hoyer: i look forward to working with him as well, mr. speaker. because there is no more

important issue that confronts us as a congress or us as people, and no act that we could do would give more confidence not only to our own people but to people around the world that america has got its financial house in order. we need to do that. we can argue the specifics one way or the other. but, mr. speaker, we do have a difference. we had that difference in 1993 and we argued about it. we believe that we won that argument on the vote and we won it, in my opinion, on performance. we argued again on it in 2001 and 2003, and we believe we lost on that argument. which is why we were in the deepest recession at the last administration this country has been in my lifetime. i'm not one of the younger members of this body. but i am with the majority leader hopeful that we can work together and come to agreement

on that on which we agree and move forward. the american people, i think, hope that as well, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on tuesday, september 18, 2012, and when the house adjourn from that day, it at journ to meet at noon on wednesday, september 19, 2012, for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for lemming business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will entertain request for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? america online permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, i rise today with disappointment, i'm disappointed that this nation's leaders have once again kicked the can down the road instead of making tough and important decisions on our nation's spending. mr. hurt: yesterday the house passed the continuing resolution without my vote to simply continue to fund government into the 2013 fiscal year at current levels as catastrophic cuts loom on the horizon set to hit in january of 2013. sequestration as these cuts are known threaten our national security. an estimated 200,000 jobs in virginia will be lost. jobs that support our war fighters and their mission around the world. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, we have 16 days to the beginning of a new fiscal year. yet congress has delayed tough decisions again. these delays are unconscionable. these delays are unacceptable. congress should stay in washington and stop ignoring

the reality of these looming cuts. it is time to put governing over politics. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise on the floor of the house today to pay tribute to astronaut neal armstrong, an american hero. yesterday at the national cathedral we paid tribute to him as a national hero, recognize his name will forever be a testament to our nation's will to prevail in the challenge for successful space explorations and push the boundaries going where no man has gone before. as a 12-year member of the house science committee and member of the space and aeronautics subcommittee, i can tell you that i am deeply indebted but also embedded with the idea of human space

exploration, how can i not be? representing and coming from the community where nasa's johnson space center is. today i rise in tribute to all of them and recognize the great leadership that neal armstrong gave as a numberble american. he along with fellow astronauts, buzz aldrin and michael copins, shared a most significant time in our history. one small step for man but a great and gigantic step for humanity. right now in houston we are celebrating 50 years of human space exploration at the hiatt regency commemorating nasa johnson. i want to thank all of those who came after, after this great hero for continuing the dream. they can count on me as a member of the united states congress to fight again for human space exploration, thank you, neal armstrong, and american hero. may you rest in peace. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? . >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dold: mr. speaker, this is not what economic recovery looks like. last friday's painful jobs report showed for every one american job that was created four people simply exited the labor force. in fact, the percentage of americans participating in the labor force today is lower than it has been at any time since september, 1981. mr. speaker, this is a national crisis. over 23 million americans remain unemployed, underemployed or simply given up looking for work. our nation's g.d.p. growth was lower in this year's second quarter than the first. the average monthly jobs created is less this year than las. washington has tried trillion-dollar stimulus, four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits yet unemployed has remained above 8% for over 43 consecutive months. and the american people are honestly asking themselves, am i better off today than i was

$6 trillion ago? mr. speaker, we need to work together to empower businesses, to create jobs and to grow our economy which is why i've introduced a bipartisan, bicameral jobs bill, the global investment in american jobs act. this isn't about politics. it's about the millions of americans who are unemployed and seeking opportunities for a better future. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reichert: mr. speaker, i'm speaking in favor today of granting russia permanent normal trade relations. i'd like to emphasize this will hold ly benefits for the united states. there is no downsize. downsize for us unless we fail to act. while we await the legislation,

our global competitors are racing ahead, taking advantage of their new access to russian markets. exports to russia could double in five years. currently exports to russia support over 1,400 jobs in my state. passing this bill will increase america's export goods and services substantially. and the growth in trade will serve as a no-cost job creater. if we fail to act, u.s. companies, farmers and workers will not receive the benefits of russia's membership. nor will the u.s. government have authority to hold russia accountable under w.t.o. rules. mr. speaker, in my mind it is my sincere hope that we can come together and pass this legislation, grant russia permanent normal trade relations. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, --

the chair lays before the house personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. heinrich of new mexico today, mr. eddie johnson of texas today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. moran: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, next week following senate action on a six-month continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded until march 27, 2013,

congress is likely to adjourn until after the fall elections. really? seriously? in other words, over the next 53 days before the election this house will be in session about 1 3/4 days. it's a sad state of affairs. the best that this house can do is to punt all spending decisions on this year's budget to the next congress. but that's what we just did this week. before we adjourn there will be no resolution on the budget. there will be no resolution on the sequester. $1.2 trillion.

that is causing disruption throughout the country and particularly among the entire federal government. especially the defense industry. which will have to absorb half of that sequester. could affect directly about a million jobs. almost two million jobs indirectly. but we're not going to do anything about it. there will be no resolution on tens of billions of dollars of expiring tax measures before the election. we'll do nothing on the farm bill. we'll do nothing on postal reform. we'll do nothing on dozens of other important issues for which the public is counting on us to do something. the most basic and fundamental responsibilities our constituents sent us to

washington to address are being left unresolved. i probably served in this institution for more than 20 years. never have i seen this house so unproductive and so dysfunctional. and i served during the so-called gingrich revolution. i served during mr. clinton's administration and during mr. bush's administration, but this house has never been less functional. our nation is suffering from high unemployment, and the residual effects of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. of course our current situation is the result of two deep tax

cuts in 2001 and 2003 which primarily benefited those who needed tax cuts the least, two wars, neither of which were ever paid for and an expansion of medicare which was not paid for. that's what put us in this deep hole. plus the fact that we deregulated the financial industry. and so the american people, whose median income, the working class americans didn't go up. in fact, it edged downward so they had less disposable money. they borrowed from the one house that they had which had been aappreciatiating, real estate, their home and they

borrowed on their credit cards. and now after the economy imploded, their home value's declined. in fact almost 70% of african-american families -- excuse me -- african-american families lost almost 70% of their household wealth. hispanic americans, over 60%. white americans lost more than 16% of their household wealth. they obviously don't have the money to be spending again. they learned their lesson. they're not going to keep borrowing. their home values are down so they can't borrow as much off their real estate. so you don't get those calls, those cold calls from people suggesting that you can borrow more money off your home and consolidate your credit cards. they're not coming. people aren't borrowing. and it's understandable.

and that's why our economy is in such a deep recession. why it's so difficult to pull out of it. now mr. hoyer pointed out that we tried something different in the 1990's from what we tried in the first decade of the 21st century when president clinton balanced the federal government , those who who were in the house majority now all voted against it. in fact, every republican voted against it. it's a pure party line vote. the deciding vote was cast by a freshman member from pennsylvania who lost her seat as a result, but it passed. we have some impurecal evidence as to what happened.

i remember during the debate it was suggested that if this passed that in fact we could see deep unemployment. we'd impinto a recession, millions of people would be out of their jobs and it was the wrong thing to do. i remember the words of mr. gingrich and mr. army and others -- armey and others. well, we have empirical evidence. we did raise taxes at the top. and those folks in the top tax bracket actually brought more after-tax income than at any time in american history. but everyone was better off. about 22 million new jobs were

created. that number seems as though as it's in a different world today when we struggle so hard to create jobs, but just think of all the job creation. we experienced one of the lowest levels of poverty. the rising tide lifted all boats. it worked. but beyond a strong economy and to some extent because of that strong economy we were able to get control over the federal deficit. and in fact for the last three years of the clinton administration we had a surplus . mr. gore was scorned for talking about the lock box, but the lock box was all about putting some of that surplus aside to pay for the retirement

and health costs of the baby boom generation. i'm a member of that baby boom. generation. we haven't all retired. there's more than 70 million of us. many of us feel we should pay for our own expenses. and that would have enabled us to do so. but that wasn't what happened. but that wasn't what happened. mr. gore lost -- i guess i should say rather than mr. bush being elected, the supreme court selected him, but it's done. we took a very different course of action. the $5.6 trillion surplus that was projected at thend of the clinton administration was almost immediately lost with two very deep tax cuts that, as i say, did not benefit the middle class, they benefited

people who needed them the least. and we declared two wars. you really can't have -- you certainly can't pay for two wars with two deep tax cuts. medicare costs a lot more than it should have i think because we put a provision in that forbid the federal government from negotiating with nshurens -- with the drug providers in order to get the lowest rate for medicare beneficiaries. using the leverage of the federal government. we couldn't do that. we had to pay retail prices. and so the veterans administration, which can negotiate, can use the leverage of such a large pool of buyers, they pay a fraction of the price that we pay under the part d program of medicare, but all that was done, it made people happy, temporarily. the term sugar high was used.

this was kind of a fiscal sugar high. and now we are paying the price. now we are paying the price. the fiscal policy that didn't work. as i say, we have people who say it did not work. the question is, where do we go from here? now, we hear from the other side what sounds a lot like campaign of about 12 years ago, more tax cuts is the answer. we are hearing a lot of rhetoric about getting re-engaged militarily in the middle east. after finally concluding the iraq war. talk about military involvement with iran. we are talking about deregulation, repealing

d.o.d.-frank regulations on the financial -- dodd-frank regulations on the financial industry. repealing the affordable care act even though this country spends twice as much per person on health care and yet we don't live as long and we are not as healthy as other countries that spend half what we have spent. the reason is that we pay for the quantity of services provided. almost regardless of the quality of the care. that we are paying for. the affordable care act is all about reversing that. using best practices. about reimbursing hospitals and doctors and other health care providers based upon how effective their treatments, their analyses, their procedures are. and making the patient well. we reward best practices and in fact we are going to reduce

reimbursement for hospitals that keep seeing the same patient over and over again for the same illness. people get infections actually in the hospital and for any number of other reasons that drive up the cost of health care in this country, but that other countries have resolved more efficiently, effectively, and the better interest of the patient. so we are going to try to turn that around while we include everyone and while we make everyone pay the same way we do for social security and medicare, you pay in advance when you are young and healthy so that you'll have insurance when you are older and sicker. that's the whole idea. that's what the individual mandate is all about. simply makes sense. it made sense in massachusetts when mr. romney was governor

there. it's working there. people are happy with it. we ought to apply it here and certainly not repeal it. but yet that's what we are hearing. repeal regulations, repeal the affordable care act. more tax cuts and more bellicose rhetoric. i think that's what got us and much of this situation in the first place. on the other side the president understands that while we are certainly not losing 800,000 jobs a month as we were at the end of the bush administration, the glass is at least halfful. we ought not drain it. so it's empty again, but we ought to build on our successes.

now, if we are going to build on those successes, regardless of who is elected president, the legislative branch needs to do its job. and that's why it's so troubling that with all the things that need to be done now, today, over the next 53 days, members of congress are going to be nowhere in site, at least certainly not up -- sight, at least certainly not up on capitol hill doing the public's business. we'll be out in our districts politicking, seeking votes. going to be a tough record to run on. now, we can go back and -- in history and compare what we are doing now with the past. i do think it's informative.

it suggests that this is not just unfounded political rhetoric suggesting that this is a dysfunctional do-nothing congress. we have empirical evidence, we have facts, we have statistics. in fact, roll call magazine, i want to give them credit for this, page b-9 yesterday, september 13, the headline is, congress on pace to be least productive. they have a chart. the very good people that support our work, which i hope will get a break over the next 5 days, at least that's something positive, but they have blown up this chart. i'll read it because the title is a dubious historical distinction.

from high water marks of the 1950's, remember the 1950's? that was when we passed the g.i. bill that put our returning veterans to work, got them higher education, enabled them to buy a home, really created the middle class, thanks to franklin roosevelt, harry truman, and dwight eisenhower, and then dwight eisenhower followed up building the interstate highway says tell, playing down the infrastructure in this country, employing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. imagine what we would be without an interstate highway system, the number of towns and communities who would have been marginalized in our economy without an opportunity to be on a road that led from one place to another and that you could stop and you could buy something and you could stay overnight and you could decide this is a nice town.

they ought to put roots down here. they generally do that if it's successful. -- accessible. the interstate highway system made the whole country accessible. but from the 1950's, congress has passed fewer bills, enacted fewer laws over time, but even compared with recent years, this congress, the 112th congress, has shown a remarkable lack of lawmaking activity. now, this is not some kind of partisan rag. this is "roll call" which is clearly bipartisan, nonpartisan. the 112th congress, this congress, during its first year, passed the fewest bills since, really, since in our lifetimes. the middle of the last century. look at this. this is public laws enacted. we had a high point up here way, way back in the 84th

congress. and now look. it looks like a ski slope. we have gone from 1,028 laws, to 151. in terms of bills passed in the house, here you go, in the 84th congress, 4,628 bills. now maybe not all the those were of consequence, but at least it shows we were doing something. here you go. all the way down to this. look at this. you get down here to the 100th and then boom, drop off a cliff. less than 600 bills, 4,628 bills back in the 84th congress, to 598. less than 600 bills here today. in this congress. and yet for the next 53 days

we'll be in session for about 1 3/4 days. i don't think that i'm talking about something that ought not be of concern to everyone. i'm not exaggerating. this is unbelievable. you know, surely -- through the course of the history of this congress, this institution, really, what i mean to say, because this congress is not typical, the approaches have oftentimes been different between the two political parties. but republicans and democrats in past congresses have worked across the aisle. we have found common ground. we have enacted legislation when it was needed to stimulate the economy. we have helped the unemployed. we have helped families struggling. we have reached out to the

poor. not with handouts but with a helping hand to create greater opportunity, the outcome is never going to be the same. but people ought to have some sense of equal opportunity. of getting a fair break in this economy. and we have maintained this nation's infrastructure. today there's more than $2 trillion of unmaintained infrastructure needs in this country. roads and bridges and transit and rail and ports and airports . seaports and airports are going neglected. $2 trillion. millions of jobs. there are jobs in this country, they are all skilled jobs, they are all jobs that should fete paid a good wage, and they are all jobs that were paying a

dividend for years to come. they are investments not expenditures, they are investments. and we are seeing the benefit of them for generations to come. yet we can't even get the american jobs act enacted. which is primarily to invest in the physical infrastructure of this country as well as the human infrastructure, putting money into education and research and innovation. to the things that are going to give us a stronger economy, a more stable society, a more inclusive society. a fairer society. that's what the american jobs act does. we can't get it through this body. you know, when ronald reagan faced down a recession in the early 1980's, he proudly signed a transportation authorization bill that raised the tax on gasoline in order to maintain our nation's highways and transit systems.

and they call it a jobs bill and democrats supported it and it was enacted. and it helped get us out of that recession. it strengthened our economy. and it's still paying dividends for generations to come. same thing with president eisenhower with the interstate highway system. and president obama urged congress more than a year ago to consider the american jobs act because it was a plan to get americans back to work by investing in our nation's infrastructure. nonpartisan, apolitical economists estimated it would create 2.6 million jobs and protect an additional 1.6 million existing jobs. so four million jobs were at stake. and yet he was given a cold shoulder. primarily driven by a fairly

substantial block of what some people refer to as tea party republicans with whatever the proper designation, there is an anti-government attitude. i think that the government has a role, particularly in a recession, to get us back on our feet so that the private economy can take over. not relying on the on the federal government but there to be there when we need it to, yes, give stimulus to the private sector and that's what the american jobs act was all about. today the house leadership and too many of its rank and file members think economic stimulus is a dirty word. in fact, you'd think that the federal government is some kind of alien enterprise. the federal government is us.

we should be proud of the federal government. largest civil service in the entire world. the fact is that they've consistently been the most effective in dealing with our problems and making us -- enabling us to have a more inclusive society and prosperous society. we just had a debate today over the issue that has become the rallying cry for anti-government politicians. solyndra. solyndra failed. it's half a billion dollars. the private sector put $1 billion in. that loan represented some of the less than 2% of failures of that guaranteed loan program.

the estimate when it was established was that it was a 10% failure rate. it's been about 2%. the private sector saw facility to put $1 billion of its own money in. went to the private sector and said, yeah, if you put your money in we will not take back what money is left if in fact they do fail, you get it first. we'll subordinate the government loan. that turned out to be a mistake. it was a preference towards the private sector. i don't think you should argue with the good intent, the reliance on the private sector but the public sector, the taxpayers suffered a loss. and yet substantial advances have been made in solar power and wind injury. the reason why solyndra went under is that the chinese government figured this out,

figured out that we can't be so reliant upon fossil fuels, that the future is not with fossil fuels, it's with sustainable forms of clean energy from the sun and from the wind. and so they've already gotten to the point where they can manufacture solar devices that capture the sun, the heat from the sun. in fact, if you go over there you'll see they are more sophisticated than ours. they are likely to put us out in that area as well. their -- ours looks like a jerk dance. it's herky-jerky motion, many of our robots.

theirs are smooth, very precise because they knew to invest in that kind of technology and they're investing in solar panels so they dump those solar panels on our economy and that's why solyndra went owe under. we can't lose out to communist countries, to state-owned enterprises. we have to be at the cutting edge. we got the best schools. we got the most creative people. yet china, they decided over the next decade, 70% of their preschoolchildren from 1 to 5 are going to have at least three years of preschool education. they understand that in the earliest years of a child's life that's when the brain is most absorbent. they are going to invest in

early childhood. and yet what is our budget, the budget that was passed in the house, obviously the democratic side voted against it, what does it do? it eliminates over 00,000 head start slots. cuts money for early childhood education. eliminates childcare tax credit. think about this. not only is the childcare tax credit -- and i don't want to diagrees too much -- but two million single mothers with small children would go deeper into poverty but two million -- that's what i want to focus on. two million mothers of small children would have to leave the work force where they are getting paid roughly minimum wage just enough to support their rent and food on the table, they would be faced with the choice either giving up their job, going on welfare again or locking their small children in an apartment

because they can't afford childcare. is that really who we are as a country? is that what our priorities are? is that how we're going to compete in the future with countries like china and countries in asia and brazil and india? no. that's not. i trust the american people understand that, but that's all related to the solyndra mess. the way it's mischaracterized, the way -- the reason people don't understand what it's all about. so, again, the house voted no more solyndras. they rejected the amendment that was made by mr. markey that says, you know, if we're going to continue to give $4 billion of tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies that extract oil and gas from publicly owned land, land owned by the taxpayers that we're

going to continue to give these tax subsidies to the industry that are the wealthiest, wealthiest corporations in the world, many of whom pay no taxes because of these subsidies, we're going to do that and while at the same time this bill that was passed today would take away subsidies for wind and solar power, we should at least reconsider the tax subsidies we give to the industries that need it the least. least let's be fair about it. let's save those billions of dollars every year. subsidies going to the wealthiest corporations for extracting natural resources owned by the american people and then boosting the price of oil at the gas pump. we continue to pay more than we

should at the pump, but they're a corporation. they're going to maximize their wealth. they are going to pay the minimum taxes they can get away with. and yet this body wants to eliminate efforts to come up with clone sustainable sources of energy comparable to what our competitors in the global economy are doing. i know how that's a digression but you know it's all related. the fact is that the one thing that this congress has proven it can do is nothing. for those most dependent upon the federal government's willingness to reach out a helping hand, to help them climb ladders of economic opportunity, the attitude of the majority in this congress

has been, you're on your own. survival of the fittest. winner take all . that's been the tax policy. that's been the spending policy. as far as i'm concerned, that's not what made this country great. it's what's gotten this country into the economic circumstances that we face today. now, there's a drought brought on by a changing climate, climate change. people in the house majority want to deny even the existence of climate change even when it's standing right in front of us facing us. with all of these extreme violent storms, with the fact

that this has been the warmest year on record and yet they want to deny climate change because it's brought about by human action, human decisions, decisions made by groups such as the american congress to protect the fossil fuel industry which is the primary contributor to global warming. and as a result all this warmer weather, these droughts, these violent storms are bringing devastating economic injury to thousands of america's farmers. and what has been the reaction of the house leadership? the republican majority has chosen to block a farm bill were even being considered on the house floor even though it

passed the senate with an overwhelming vote, bipartisan vote and yet we can't bring it up on the house floor. instead the house leadership has wasted time on the house floor with legislation designed to dismantle the affordable care act, eliminate the prospect of a more secure and affordable health care for millions of americans. three dozen times we had votes to repeal the affordable care act knowing that the senate understands how important it is to the american people and how important it is in the long run to get a grip on this economy, understanding that our corporations can't continue to pay the kind of money they're having to pay for health care that is less effective than the health care provided by every other industrialized country. the senate understands it.

the house doesn't get it and so we keep having these votes that 's pure political posturing. of course the house republican leadership as well has wasted floor time voting to dismantle just about every landmark environmental law. blaming laws passed in the 1970's and 1990's as the cause for today's high unemployment rate. laws that were passed many of them in the nixon administration and the george h.w. bush administration. nixon administration created the environmental policy act. and it saved hundreds of thousands of -- millions of lives, children have not been inflicted with asthma. people who have not gotten the kind of illnesses that they were vulnerable to because we have had cleaner air and water.

but now we can't even update it with the latest technology and latest information. e.p.a. has been the prime target of these budget cuts. so we now have, i think it's been about 38, individual votes that have been taken to destroy environmental laws and regulations. those votes, most of them died in the senate, fortunately, but is that really what this institution should be all about ? and when our children look back on the opportunities that this house of representatives had to secure a better future for them , be it a pathway toward a balanced budget so they don't have to pay off the debt of their parents and grandparents

or better, more affordable opportunities for their educational advancement, elementary and secondary education assistance so we don't have to lay off hundreds of thousands of teachers. we've laid off almost a quarter of a million of teachers now throughout the country as a result of the recession and the result of local and state legislators not being willing to invest in education or the pell grants which enable lower income families who have students who have worked hard to be able to afford college. those opportunities are being lost. as well as the opportunity to have a cleaner alternative energy future which would have generated more than 40,000 jobs and instead in the