Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6213) to limit further taxpayer exposure from the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 778 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 778 is a closed rule for the consideration of two bills, H.R. 6365, which is the National Security and Job Protection Act, and H.J. Res. 117, which is the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY13.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a freshman on the Rules Committee. It's a good committee to be on. I enjoy it. I get to work with learned Members like my friend from Florida, who is across the aisle, but it falls to me to handle continuing resolution bills. As you'll remember, when we showed up at the beginning of 2011, there was a lot of unfinished business from 2010, and we went right into continuing resolution act to continuing resolution act to continuing resolution act--sometimes 2 and 3 weeks at a time. That's no way to run a government. It's no way to have a Congress.

My friend from Florida and I disagree on a great deal of policy, but we believe that a deliberative process yields better results than the ``right here, right now, hurry up and wait'' kind of mentality that this body so often adopts. So what we've done here today with this bill, with this H.J. Res. 117, is to say we understand that the appropriations responsibilities of this Congress have not yet been completed. The Constitution gives this Congress--not just this body, but this Congress--the responsibility of providing appropriations for this Nation.

Now, as the Speaker knows full well, this House has set about getting its business done. We divided those appropriations bills up across a number of bills. The Commerce-Justice-Science bill passed this House with a bipartisan majority. It went to the Senate, and the Senate had no floor action whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, you know that the Energy and Water bill passed this House with a bipartisan majority. It went to the Senate, and the Senate did nothing with it whatsoever. You know that the Homeland Security bill passed this body--again, with a bipartisan majority. It went to the Senate, and the Senate took no action. I can go on and on and on. There is the leg branch bill, the military construction bill, the defense bill, on and on and on.

So here we are. We don't have control over the Senate. We only have control over what goes on here in this body, and I've got to tell you that I'm proud as a freshman that we've set about getting our business done. With one deliberative bill at a time and one open rule on appropriations bills at a time, we allowed every Member of this body to come to the floor to offer their amendments and to have their voices heard in order to produce the very best work product that we could produce. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that we did that at a funding level even lower than what the American taxpayer asked of us in the Budget Control Act. I'm very proud of that work.

But in the absence of the Senate taking action, Mr. Speaker, we have to move on. The American people are going to have a referendum in this country. They're going to have a referendum on what fiscal responsibility means.

We're going to have an election in November, and new House Members are going to come and new Senate Members are going to come. The administration may change. We're going to have that opportunity for all of us as citizens to speak out in November and choose a path for 2013. But our business today, Mr. Speaker, is making sure the doors stay open moving into 2013.

As my colleagues know, in the absence of action, Mr. Speaker, government offices begin to close on October 1 of this year, one by one--national parks, veterans services, Social Security services, Medicare services. That's not the kind of governing responsibility that we all swore an oath to uphold.

So I'm pleased to be here today, Mr. Speaker, to bring this rule to the floor to say, yes, we have gotten our work done in this House, but we've been stymied by the leadership in the Senate that has not scheduled votes on these bills, but we will not allow the American taxpayer and American citizens to pay the price of inaction by the United States Senate. We will make sure that government services continue with this great referendum that this great Republic will have in November. It's a 6-month continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, and it will solve that need.

This rule also, Mr. Speaker, provides for consideration of H.R. 6365. It's called the National Security and Job Protection Act, but what it is is a sequester replacement bill. Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I've ever been more disgusted in my 18 months in this body.

We came together here in this House in a bipartisan fashion. We passed the Budget Control Act, which gave six House Members and six Senate Members--six Republicans, six Democrats--12 Members of this Congress, esteemed Members of this Congress, talented, bright, conscientious, American-loving Members of this Congress, an opportunity to look at our entire budget. They didn't just look at the $3.8 trillion that we'd spend this year, Mr. Speaker, not just that $3.8 trillion, but next year, and the year after that, and the year after that, well into the three-generational window. It was hundreds of trillions of dollars these 12 men and women had an opportunity to look at to find bipartisan agreement.

About 4 months they worked on that project, Mr. Speaker, and you know how that story turns out. After 4 months of labor by 12 of the brightest, most conscientious Members of this body--six Republicans, six Democrats, six House Members, six Senate Members--looking at hundreds of trillions of dollars in tax expenditures in social programs, in taxes and tax cuts, they agreed on absolutely nothing. Not one dollar out of hundreds of trillions did they come together on. That was a tremendous disappointment.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in order to try to bring agreement to that body, we passed legislation that implemented what they called the sequester, to say, if against all odds this joint select committee were to fail--candidly, it was not on my radar screen that they would. This was a solemn responsibility. These were talented Members who were assigned to it. But if they were to fail, we would implement automatic spending cuts that would achieve the kind of budget reductions that every American knows that we need. The problem in this town is spending, and the sequester said we will not fail on this opportunity to address it.

Well, that sequester goes into effect in January of next year, and hardest hit will be the United States military. Again, this was a device that was put into place not because folks thought it was the best policy in the room, but to be there as the hammer to say surely this 12-member committee, this joint select committee will come to the agreement that will bring us back from this fiscal cliff. They didn't. Now this sequester hangs over the head of not just the United States military, but over Medicare, over social programs.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm just so proud to be a freshman Member of this House. This House said back in the spring that is an unacceptable outcome. It was never intended to be the outcome. No one ever desired that it be the outcome, and we can change that outcome.

So we passed a sequester replacement right here in this House that went into mandatory spending programs, which is where the real problem is in the budget, as we all know, and said let's replace the sequester that may harm

defense--cuts that are going to deal with our military, that are going to put our national security at risk, and let's replace those with spending reductions that make sense.

Again, we passed that in the House. The Senate has taken no action whatsoever.

I don't mean to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that they've taken no action on our bill. They most certainly have not. They're under no obligation to. It's the right thing to do, but they're under no obligation. They are under an obligation to do something about it. They are under an obligation to stand up and listen to the same constituents that my colleague from Florida and I listen to to say there must be action. We must prevent this tremendous threat to our readiness, to our troops, and to our troops' families.

This bill, introduced in this body by Colonel Allen West of Florida, gives us an opportunity to do just that in the bipartisan, open-minded way that I think has characterized the 18 months that I've served in this House because of the leadership of folks like you, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't say you have to use the House-passed bill already.

Was it a good bill? Absolutely. Was it the right answer? I believe that it is.

But what it says is use the House-passed bill or use something like it. If you can find a better plan, if the Senate, in its wisdom, can find a better plan, that's going to work, too. It's not our way or the highway. It's that we know that there's a right way and a wrong way to deal with our budget challenges, and we want to do it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I rise in strong support of the two underlying provisions, as well. I look forward to the debate on that this afternoon. We're going to be able to debate these individually, which I believe is the right way to handle questions of this magnitude and this importance.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before I yield to my freshman colleague from Pennsylvania, to say to my friend from Florida, I don't think you heard the word ``Democrat'' come out of my mouth during my presentation except to talk about those things on which we cooperated together. There are absolutely challenges in this Chamber, but the challenges I'm talking about are challenges with the United States Senate.

Democrats and Republicans in this body came together to pass 7 of the 12 appropriations bills this cycle. We began back in April. Far from being an 11th-hour solution, we began, as the Constitution requires us to begin, one piece of legislation at a time in the most open process this body can implement, Mr. Speaker, where every Member of this body gets to offer any amendment that they desire. Seven appropriations bills we've moved through this body, Mr. Speaker. And then it became apparent, as the Senate has moved not one of 12 bills, that that process was going to be fruitless--fruitless.

Again, is that what the American people want from us? Absolutely not. Are we doing what the American people deserve in this body? Absolutely we are. In my 18 months, I have not found it to be a Republican- Democratic problem. I've found it to be a problem of ideas.

I said to my friend from Florida, I know that he believes in his heart every single word that he has just enunciated. He speaks for inspiration, Mr. Speaker. I have the great pleasure of sitting behind him on the dais in the Rules Committee, so it's always his words that inspire me before it's my turn to take the microphone.

My constituents back home, they say, Rob, what have you learned in 18 months with a voting card? I said, What I have learned is it's not theater on the other side of the aisle. Folks aren't taking to the microphone for their 15 seconds of fame on television. They're taking to the microphone with heartfelt beliefs that they know in their heart to be a reflection of their constituents back home.

And so as we hear two different presentations about what it is we're doing today--a presentation that suggests it's an 11th-hour, last- minute process versus that presentation that says we've done it all right in the openness of day, and here, 4 weeks before the deadline approaches us, we are going to take action to make sure that uncertainty does not further slow this economy.

I'm told, Mr. Speaker, that the fewer days Congress is in session, the higher the stock market goes because at least nothing bad happens here. We're the problem, Mr. Speaker. Government is not the solution. Government is too often the problem.

The last Congress that passed as few bills as this Congress has passed, it was the 104th Congress, when Republicans took control of this House for the first time in over 60 years, because they were elected then not to expand the size and scope of government but to improve the size and scope of government, to reform those processes.

What my friend from Florida says about 2005, 2006, unfunded priority after unfunded priority, I'd love to tell him he's wrong, but he's absolutely right. He's absolutely right. The American taxpayer knew it, and Republicans in this Chamber paid the price for it in the very next election. That's the ace in the hole for America, Mr. Speaker, the American taxpayer. They're paying attention to what happens here.

My colleague may believe that we're on the wrong track. I'll tell you, in 18 months, I've never been more proud for what this institution has done. We're going to find out when the American taxpayer speaks out in that referendum November 6.

With that, Mr. Speaker, there are 87 new freshmen in this freshman class and two more added. I yield 2 minutes to a freshman colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd just like to remind my colleague from Massachusetts how we ended up here; and, again, we ended up in a way I think that we can all be proud of.

Take ourselves back to April of this year. Again, this is the 2013 funding bill we're talking about. We sit here in September of 2012, we're talking about funding 2013 spending. We began this process back in April on the floor of this House, bill after bill after bill passing in a bipartisan way.

The Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs bill, Mr. Speaker. What could be more important and what could be more bipartisan? Passed this House 407-12. We went through that bill, Mr. Speaker. We went to every single Member of this Chamber. Not just 435, Mr. Speaker. We went to every delegate as well and said do you have a voice that needs to be heard on this floor on this issue and gave every Member that opportunity.

At the end of that, Mr. Speaker, which was just a free-for-all of democracy right here--it was our Republic at its best--this House came together, 407-12, to pass that bill. Mr. Speaker, 226 Republicans, most of our number, 181 Democrats, most of their number, passed that bill-- 407-12 for our military and our veterans. That bill didn't see the light of day on the Senate side, Mr. Speaker.

Our failure to pass this continuing resolution today sees those dollars go to zero. Far from being an abdication of responsibility, this is the height of taking responsibility. Abdication of responsibility has already happened. I can't fix it. I can't change it. We did our business here in this House. But we are being held hostage. And by ``we,'' I mean we, the citizens of this country. I mean ``we,'' the voters of this country. Those with the priorities of this land, we are being held hostage by a Senate that is finding other priorities, priorities other than military construction and our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end there with Military Construction. It goes on. It goes through Leg Branch appropriations, Homeland Security appropriations, Energy and Water appropriations, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations.

How about Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Speaker? I mean, when you listen to some of the voices on this floor, there's a reason, there's a benefit to being a Southerner and talking slow. It gives your blood pressure time to come down just a little bit before the words begin to come out of your mouth, because Transportation, including mass transit, Housing and Urban Development, those programs for the neediest among us, passed this House 261-163 in a huge bipartisan majority; 182 Republicans, 79 Democrats came together to say let's focus on the priorities of our constituents back home.

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. Let's move that bill through this body. Again, Mr. Speaker, in the most open process this institution can imagine where every single Member has a chance to be heard, where every single Member can offer their amendments right here in the well.

There are no voices that are being quieted here. We all represent American citizens back home. It's their voices that get shut out.

Do we have a closed rule today on this continuing resolution? We do.

I think back, Mr. Speaker, I know you do, too, to H.R. 1, back in the spring of 2011. It's the only continuing resolution I've ever known of that came under an open rule, and boy did we have a show of democracy here.

It began on a Tuesday, Mr. Speaker. Congress was supposed to adjourn by Thursday afternoon; but by early in the morning on Thursday, it was clear we were nowhere near done. As a freshman, I was a little cynical about this process. I had a suspicion the leadership was going to close that process down because Members had planes to catch and events to go to, and after all, all it was was a continuing appropriations bill.

You know what this leadership said, Mr. Speaker? They said not on our watch. We're going to go into Thursday night. And I don't mean Thursday night at 9. I mean Thursday night past midnight. We're going to go all night long. We're going to go all night long into Friday. We're going to go Friday to noon and Friday through dinner and all night long on Friday night. We finished at 5 a.m. on Saturday morning.

Mr. Speaker, I jumped on the first flight out of National. Flew home. Did a town hall meeting no later than 3 hours after we adjourned that Saturday morning. I was on fire because this House gave every single Member a chance to offer every single amendment that their constituents would have them do. That was extraordinary.

We can't do that every day. We can't go marathon sessions 5 days, day and night. I'm young and vigorous, Mr. Speaker, but I've got to tell you, some folks may not be able to handle it. I'm with you, Mr. Hastings, if you're ready to go those days and nights. I'll do them with you.

But we did that, those 12 appropriations bills. We did that in this body. Not all in one package, but one at the time, at the time, and the Senate said no.

Our choice here today is do we close the doors at these agencies? Do we close the doors on these social services? Do we go through another one of those government shutdown scenarios that benefit absolutely no one, or do we do the right thing which is observe our budget caps, continue to reduce spending? That's right, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do on these appropriations bills, on this discretionary spending we spent less in 2011 than they spent in 2010. We spent less in 2012 than we spent in 2011. And if we pass this bill, we'll spend less in 2013 than we spent in 2012.

It hasn't happened since before World War II. Three years in a row, Mr.

Speaker, of this body coming together and telling the American people we can do better with less. That's what this bill is about today, Mr. Speaker.

Again, strong supporter of this rule. Strong supporter of the two underlying measures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I'm grateful to my friend for yielding.

I'd say to the gentleman, I think we would be here until 5 a.m. yet again. But our experience, as was our experience on H.R. 1, is time and time again we do the people's work here and the Senate says, no. I have had no indication from the Senate that they will accept anything in that body except this continuing resolution.

If the gentleman will yield?

I'd say that I regret I'm not high enough up the chain to know all the strategic decisions, but I will tell you that the bill that came out of the Senate is a sad 2-year bill that provides absolutely no certainty to any of the farmers in my district. It spends more and provides less certainty.

The farmers in my district say, Rob, we need a farm bill, but why can't you do it right? And I know my colleague would agree with me.

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to my friend from Florida that I have no further speakers remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate my colleague for his words. A lot of folks, Mr. Speaker, have the burden of working with folks whose motives they question. I have the great benefit of working on the Rules Committee with a team of folks whose motives I absolutely never question because I know folks are operating from their heart and from their constituents' best interest.

Let me say, because we talk so much about productivity down here on this floor, Mr. Speaker, The Washington Times did an article earlier this year on productivity in the House and the Senate. They called it ``the futility index''--the futility of all the efforts in the body. They said the Senate ranked number one of all the years that they've been keeping records; less activity going on in the Senate by a large margin than ever before. Then they came to the House and they said, you know what, it's true the House hasn't passed a lot of bills. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we outlawed all of those silly commemorative bills that were not about the people's business but were about folks and their campaigns. Those no longer come to the floor. We eliminated a whole portion of that that was not about the people's business. What The Washington Times said was this: that we had more time in this House in session than all but 10 Congresses since they began keeping records and that we had more debate in this House, Mr. Speaker, than all but two Congresses on record; more debate, more discussion about those ideas and those priorities that are important to the American people.

Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there's not a man or woman in my district that defines success by how many bills the President of the United States will sign; or if they do, they find those things to be inversely proportional. They don't want us to take over any new industries; they don't want us to regulate any new industries; they don't want us to pick any more winners and losers. They want us to stop. And even better than stopping, they want us to roll those things back.

We're having that debate in America, Mr. Speaker: Who are we? Who are we as Americans? Who are we as a people? And what is so wonderful about this country, despite all of our differences there has always been more that unites Americans than that divides us, always. You can't pick up a newspaper today, Mr. Speaker, without them talking about the ideological divide in this country being as stark as it has ever been, but there is still more that unites us than divides us.

I believe, when we come into this election in November, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have the largest voter turnout in American history. I have no idea what they're going to conclude. But I believe in this country, and I believe that if more of us are at the ballot box participating in this Republic--as we are required, duty bound to do-- we're going to end up with a better result.

I look at the young faces in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. I like to think of myself as young, but I'm in my forties. The gentleman from Florida expressed his age, despite his youthful vigor. It's about the young people, Mr. Speaker.

And when the gentleman says America is strong enough that we can handle all of these growing debt challenges, I say to the gentleman, I admire his optimism but I disagree with his conclusion. The numbers I look at tell me, if I take everything from everybody, if I take everyone's house, everyone's car, everyone's bank account, if I nationalize every single company in this country, if I take it at all and put it in a bank account today, I still can't pay the hundreds of trillions of dollars in promises that this Federal Government has made to generations to come.

We don't have a problem in this country, Mr. Speaker, that we're not taxing people enough. Our problem is that we're spending too much.

I serve on the Budget Committee as well as the Rules Committee, and we took that challenge on head-on, head-on, Mr. Speaker. They call some things the third rail of politics. We said, in this House, in a bipartisan way, the third rail of politics is failing to deal with these challenges. Failing to deal with these challenges is the problem; dealing with them is the solution.

This wasn't a solution that everyone agreed with. It was a solution that got the only bipartisan majority in this entire town. And we did it not once, but twice, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a happy day. I usually come to the floor; I talk about how excited I am to be here because we're going to do an open rule and we're going to have the Republic at its best. That's not today.

That day was May 10 on the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, where we had every voice heard. That day was July 19 on the Defense Department bill, where we had every voice heard passing those bills in huge bipartisan fashion. That day was June 6, when we did it with the Energy and Water bill, huge bipartisan majority; and again on June 7 with the Homeland Security bill, and the Legislative Branch bill on June 8; May 31 on Military Construction, on and on and on, Transportation, HUD, June 29.

We've done those things, and the silence on the Senate side is deafening. We could do all those bills again, but this House has already spoken. The people have already spoken. And this continuing resolution gives this body and the American people 6 months for that referendum in November, for every voting-age man and woman in this country to come out and have their voice heard.

We've done all we can do in this body, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I have had no prouder moment than our debate on H.R. 1--no prouder moment.

Though I will say to the gentleman, as the gentleman knows quite well, it is frustrating that we can't do the business today. We tried.

As the gentleman from Florida knows, we tried all of these appropriation bills. They weren't 6-month bills. They weren't 2-week bills. They were entire FY13 bills, and we did them right. We did them the way they were supposed to be done. Some people won, some people lost, but, in the end, a bipartisan majority came together and passed every single one. That's what

we should be doing here, Mr. Speaker, and we have.

The American people are going to decide in November: Is the problem the House? Is the problem the Senate? Is the problem the executive branch? I have my own suspicions, but I trust the American people more than I trust any other vote that we make in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I rise in strong support of this rule. I rise in strong support of the two underlying bills, the continuing resolution bill and our opportunity job protection sequester replacement bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge my colleagues to support the two underlying bills.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, in a recent editorial by The Wall Street Journal, dated September 11, 2012, entitled, ``China's Solyndra Economy,'' the owner of a solar panel company in China was unable to repay $3 billion in a bank loan that was guaranteed for his solar panel company. Do you know what happened? He leaped from a sixth floor building because he couldn't repay it.

This editorial outlines an unfailing description of all of these different solar panel companies in China that could not repay their loan guarantees. In fact, this summer, the New York Stock Exchange- listed company LDK Solar, which is the world's second largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95 million owed to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $600 million in just the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $200 million in the first quarter of 2012, and it has already shed 10,000 jobs.

It goes on in this article to point out that the Chinese are doing the wrong thing--they're picking winners and losers--and these people who are losing are the people who can't pay back their loan guarantees. Some people in Washington seem to feel that we should compete with China. We have this China envy. In fact, this is what the President said:

I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to

China because we refuse to make the same commitment here.

Now, given what this editorial says and what happened in China, I would think the President of the United States would have to rethink his position. So many in Washington have developed this serious case of China envy, seeing it as an exemplar case of how to run an economy. In fact, the Chinese, the Beijing mandarins, are no better at picking winners and losers, and are just as prone to blowing money as we are here in the United States with these beltway boondoggles. So, if people are concerned about this program and don't think this legislation is necessary, just take a few moments to read this editorial, which outlines the problems with solar panels in China.

I would say to my distinguished ranking member from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) that she and I both know the mission of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is to extirpate--to root out--waste, fraud, and abuse. If it happens anywhere, we should step forward, and that's what we did in the Solyndra investigation. We attempted to understand what the problem was in order to come to grips with what happened. It took us 18 months. It took us almost 8 months to get back the emails from our subpoenas back in November. We were systematic, and we tried to do it without a huge amount of political rhetoric, and I think we accomplished that. The ultimate result of this investigation is the No More Solyndras Act, H.R. 6213. What this bill does is to basically answer some fundamental questions, and it takes the lessons that we learned from this investigation and puts them into this bill.

I reach out to my Democrat colleagues on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) was on the floor just recently, and he indicated he also agreed with us about the subordination. If I understood what he said, he

said it was wrong for the administration to subordinate in violation of the law. In fact, I thought I'd take a few moments and, perhaps, actually read what the law says in dealing with subordination. It's section 1702, Terms and Conditions, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These are the exact words that, I believe, Mr. Green, Democrat from Texas, agrees with, that the administration should not have subordinated taxpayer money.

In the paragraph dealing with subordination--these are the exact words, and I'll read this carefully--``the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.'' That seems crystal clear. Yet, the Department of Energy, after talking to lawyers outside of the DOE who indicated they couldn't subordinate, still parsed the legal language so that they could.

It's very disturbing--and I say this honestly--that David Frantz, the executive director of the loan guarantee program, under oath, said he wanted to continue to subordinate loan guarantees. Now, that's an absolute fact--under oath. The DOE still has a senior loan officer who wants to subordinate. So how in the world could we not pass this legislation and allow the DOE to continue to subordinate and push taxpayers behind--what?--hedge funds? What financial instruments are they going to allow them to subordinate to? He wouldn't elucidate.

So the bottom line here is that the administration still wants to subordinate. That's why I tell everybody on the Democrats' side that you have to--and should--vote for this bill because, in the end, you're going to support David Frantz, the executive director of the loan guarantee program, who wants to continue to subordinate.

Now, here are the key lessons learned--and I'm going to do a colloquy with myself, Mr. Chairman. I think they'll answer the questions the way I want, but I'll answer them the right way.

Did the administration ignore several red flags raised by the Department of Energy and OMB about Solyndra's financial condition in the market for products? Yes.

Did the Department of Energy fail to consult with Treasury prior to issuing a conditional commitment to Solyndra as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Yes.

Did the administration's desire to highlight the stimulus result in DOE pushing the Solyndra loan guarantee out the door? Yes.

Did the Department of Energy fail to adequately monitor the loan guarantee as Solyndra's financial condition simply deteriorated in 2010? Absolutely, yes.

Did the DOE subordinate its interest in the loan guarantee to two Solyndra investors, which was contrary to the Energy Policy Act prohibition on subordination? Absolutely, yes.

Did Treasury play any role in reviewing the restructuring when DOE was moving forward on Solyndra? The answer to that is ``no.'' Definitely no. They did not. In fact, numerous times through email, Treasury showed that they wanted to consult with DOE.

Did DOE consult with the Department of Justice about the subordination? You would think if they were going to parse the legal language on something that was in violation of the Energy Policy Act, section 1702, Terms and Conditions, you'd think they would go to the Department of Justice and say, ``What do you think of our parsed language?'' No, they didn't. They decided not to consult with Justice.

In the end, the items that I mention, the key lessons I learned from this investigation show demonstratively that this bill is absolutely required. Each of the seven areas I outlined and gave you definitive answers, each of these answers is included in this bill. And based upon what we see in China and what we see happening in the solar industry, we should not risk taxpayers' loans for any more of these loan guarantees if it's going to endanger taxpayers' money.

I'll just conclude by again reminding my colleagues of the mismanagement and the poor executive oversight by Secretary Chu back in 2011. He said, ``We are confident we can repay the loans.'' He was wrong, and that's why this bill is needed.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2012]

China's Solyndra Economy

(By Patrick Chovanec)

On Aug. 3, the owner of Chengxing Solar Company leapt from

the sixth floor of his office building in Jinhua, China. Li

Fei killed himself after his company was unable to repay a $3

million bank loan it had guaranteed for another Chinese solar

company that defaulted. One local financial newspaper called

Li's suicide ``a sign of the imminent collapse facing the

Chinese photovoltaic industry'' due to overcapacity and

mounting debts.

President Barack Obama has held up China's investments in

green energy and high-speed rail as examples of the kind of

state-led industrial policy that America should be emulating.

The real lesson is precisely the opposite. State subsidies

have spawned dozens of Chinese Solyndras that are now on the

verge of collapse.

Unveiled in 2010, Beijing's 12th Five-Year Plan identified

solar and wind power and electric automobiles as ``strategic

emerging industries'' that would receive substantial state

support. Investors piled into the favored sectors, confident

the government's backing would guarantee success. Barely two

years later, all three industries are in dire straits.

This summer, the NYSE-listed LDK Solar, the world's second

largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95

billion owed to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $589

million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $185

million in the first quarter of 2012, and has shed nearly

10,000 jobs. The government in LDK's home province of Jiangxi

scrambled to pledge $315 million in public bailout funds,

terrified that any further defaults could pull down hundreds

of local companies.

Chinese solar companies blame many of their woes on the

antidumping tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. and Europe.

The real problem, however, is rampant overinvestment driven

largely by subsidies. Since 2010, the price of polysilicon

wafers used to make solar cells has dropped 73%, according to

Maxim Group, while the price of solar cells has fallen 68%

and the price of solar modules 57%. At these prices, even

low-cost Chinese producers are finding it impossible to break

even.

Wind power is seeing similar overcapacity. China's top wind

turbine manufacturers, Goldwind and Sinovel, saw their

earnings plummet by 83% and 96% respectively in the first

half of 2012, year-on-year. Domestic wind farm operators

Huaneng and Datang saw profits plunge 63% and 76%,

respectively, due to low capacity utilization. China's

national electricity regulator, SERC, reported that 53% of

the wind power generated in Inner Mongolia province in the

first half of this year was wasted. One analyst told China

Securities Journal that ``40-50% of wind power projects are

left idle,'' with many not even connected to the grid.

A few years ago, Shenzhen-based BYD (short for ``Build Your

Dreams'') was a media darling that brought in Warren Buffett

as an investor. It was going to make China the dominant

player in electric automobiles. Despite gorging on green

energy subsidies, BYD sold barely 8,000 hybrids and 400 fully

electric cars last year, while hemorrhaging cash on an ill-

fated solar venture. Company profits for the first half of

2012 plunged 94% year-on-year.

China's high-speed rail ambitions put the Ministry of

Railways so deeply in debt that by the end of last year it

was forced to halt all construction and ask Beijing for a

$126 billion bailout. Central authorities agreed to give it

$31.5 billion to pay its state-owned suppliers and avoid an

outright default, and had to issue a blanket guarantee on its

bonds to help it raise more. While a handful of high-traffic

lines, such as the Shanghai-Beijing route, have some prospect

of breaking even, Prof. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong

University compared the rest of the network to ``a 160-story

luxury hotel where only 11 stories are used and the occupancy

rate of those floors is below 50%.''

China's Railway Ministry racked up $1.4 billion in losses

for the first six months of this year, and an internal audit

has uncovered dangerous defects due to lax construction on 12

new lines, which will have to be repaired at the cost of

billions more. Minister Liu Zhijun, the architect of China's

high-speed rail system, was fired in February 2011 and will

soon be prosecuted on corruption charges that reportedly

include embezzling some $120 million. One of his lieutenants,

the deputy chief engineer, is alleged to have funneled $2.8

billion into an offshore bank account.

Many in Washington have developed a serious case of China-

envy, seeing it as an exemplar of how to run an economy. In

fact, Beijing's mandarins are no better at picking winners,

and just as prone to blow money on boondoggles, as their

Beltway counterparts.

In his State of the Union address earlier this year,

President Obama declared, ``I will not cede the wind or solar

or battery industry to China. . . because we refuse to make

the same commitment here.'' Given what's really happening in

China, he may want to think again.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there are three components to her amendment. The first one is so surprising that she would make this claim that the title XVII program created 60,000 new jobs. Of course, if you go to the Department of Energy's own Web site and you add up the actual number of the permanent jobs in that program, the number is 1,174, according to DOE's own Web site.

How could she possibly come down here and say 60,000 jobs because she includes the ATVM program, which is not part of title XVII, the Advanced Technology Vehicle Program.

First of all, anybody that votes for her amendment supports voting for something that is patently false, patently wrong.

The second portion of her amendment is based upon the fact that she thinks that the decision to loan Solyndra taxpayer money was based upon personal judgment. But throughout all of the emails we received, we show, whether it was OMB or Department of Treasury or even the Department of Energy, they all showed that this program was not going to make it.

Then the last portion of her amendment, which is really the heart, I think, of what her amendment is trying to do, she is saying that the counsel for the Department of Energy determined it was satisfactory to subordinate taxpayers. This is contrary to what I read earlier, Mr. Chairman, which clearly shows it's in violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. You cannot subordinate taxpayers.

In fact, even while they were doing this--I want to read you an email between OMB staff regarding Solyndra and this shows the optics of the whole thing. This email is between OMB staff regarding Solyndra:

While the company may avoid default with restructuring--vis-&-vis subordination--there's also a good chance it will not. At that point additional funds will have been put at risk. Recoveries may be lower and questions will be asked.

So, the bottom line is even after they parsed the language illegally, it was clear from the OMB that they weren't going to make it. So the Department of Energy's legal analysis was a post facto to try to subordinate to make this survive for political reasons.

Why did they want to make Solyndra succeed? Because it was a poster child. It was the one that the President has touted, Vice President Biden touted. They went out there and said we have to make this continue to work, all the while the subordination was illegal.

Now, OMB's Treasury staff believed the DOE had stretched the language of the Energy Policy Act beyond the limits when it agreed to subordinate it. The email I read to you and also further emails I could elicit, which we don't have time for, will show that OMB and Treasury believed that the Department of Energy was wrong in parsing the language to do this. DOE made a questionable, tortured determination of the law in order to justify a decision they had already made.

We want to stop that. That's why this No More Solyndras bill is required. They say that the Treasury consultation was not rushed.

The Treasury Department's own inspector general found that the consultation was rushed, and the cause was a press release that DOE wanted to issue to tout the Solyndra loan guarantee. We don't want that to happen again. Treasury wasn't brought in; a collapse of the credit committee and credit review board that had approved the conditional amendment. Treasury was given 1 day to review the deal, subordination of $535 million. Treasury own's emails that were produced to the committee said that the staff felt jammed.

Mr. Chairman, I think the long and short of it is when you look at the DeGette amendment, it's clear that this has been repudiated by the 18-month investigation. It shows the information that she has in here is incorrect, is patently wrong.

I would say in conclusion to all my colleagues who are listening, subordination of taxpayers' money should stop. If we don't pass this bill, David Frantz, senior loan officer at the Department of Energy, will continue to subordinate.

If you believe in subordination, then you vote against this bill. But if you believe the taxpayers should be protected and taxpayers should not be put at risk, and if they are at risk, they should have the first opportunity to get their money back in a bankruptcy, then you should vote for our bill, No More Solyndras, and you should vote against the DeGette amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

My colleagues, this amendment would allow the title XVII loan guarantee program to go on, continue indefinitely. The committee's 18-month investigation made one thing, I think, absolutely clear: the title XVII loan guarantee program must be eliminated. The No More Solyndras Act accomplishes this goal. It's wholly supported by the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee and by the full committee. We support an all-of-the-above national energy policy that embraces a diverse range of traditional and alternative energy resources, but we don't support the Federal Government playing venture capitalist with taxpayer money.

The gentleman from California mentions innovation. I would submit to him that the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod all came without the government picking winners and losers. The government has a role in fostering the development of new energy technologies, but primarily through research and development. The committee's investigation made clear that the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. And like the editorial that I put into the Record earlier from The Wall Street Journal, China is in the same fix as we are, and a lot of their solar panel companies are going bankrupt. The government needs to get out of the loan guarantee business altogether, and that's why we need to pass this bill.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

How much time do I have remaining?

In an ideal world, the government would never really have gone down this road to create these loan guarantee programs in the first place. I think all of us realize that. While eliminating the program outright is admittedly appealing, and I think a lot of us on this side of the aisle want to do that, we must be mindful of the fact that applicants in the queue have already invested significant time and financial resources towards simply securing their loan guarantee, and they have really narrowed their financing options also in reliance of the existence of this program.

So the question would be, when we thought about this: Is it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game? We're the United States Government. We hear all the time that the government changes the rules. We should be striving to reduce risk caused by the Federal Government, not create it. That's why I said in my statement here that we have to be mindful of the fact so many applicants have already committed themselves and put their time in.

But I think we can learn from this Solyndra debacle. And based upon this amendment by Mr. Waxman, I think we realize that in the end that the No More Solyndras Act tackles all the points that he's concerned about.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Waxman amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured rule. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have brought up yet another closed process in what was supposed to be a more open and democratic House. After 2 years of broken promises, we shouldn't be surprised by this action. And we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are bringing up this overtly political bill just 55 days before election. H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, is just political theater. It's a bill that's going nowhere. We know the Senate won't consider it. The only thing it does is give the Republicans another talking point to use on the campaign trail.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to make it seem like there was a big conspiracy to inappropriately give money to Solyndra, a company that was trying to manufacture solar panels here in the United States. They claim that there was a political effort to award Solyndra funds in an improper, and possibly illegal, way. And in doing so, they are attacking a Department of Energy loan guarantee program that allows private investors to invest billions of dollars in order to create thousands of jobs here in America.

The Republican response to a company that went bankrupt after receiving Federal loans--a company that was manufacturing alternative- energy products here in the United States--was to begin investigations that turned into political witch hunts. And those investigations appear to have led us to this point by consideration of this bill that purports to end the loan guarantee program altogether. Of course, the reality is that those investigations have really been used as ammunition on the campaign trail.

But what the Republicans claim they're doing today and what they're really doing are two different things. They say that they're eliminating the loan guarantee program, getting rid of it completely. But what this bill really does is bar the Department of Energy from considering new applications submitted after December 31, 2011. That leaves $34 billion in the pipeline for applications for the Department of Energy loan guarantee program that were submitted before December 31, 2011. And there's no deadline on when these applications must be approved.

Not only that, but most of the available loan guarantee funding is for fossil fuel and nuclear projects. That's right, Republicans are claiming to end this loan guarantee program but are still allowing it to spend tens of billions of dollars. And they are still picking and choosing the winners and losers by putting an artificial end date on the application submissions. The result will be billions more in loan guarantees for projects dealing with nuclear and fossil fuels like coal and oil and much less for wind, solar, and hydro projects.

America should be about innovation, about creating new things. We're the country that put a man on the Moon. We're the country that created the car, airplane, and iPad. We should be fostering, not stifling, innovation, especially in energy like wind, solar, and hydro. Yet the Republican leadership is showing, once again, that political victory is more important than American success; that winning this election is more important than fostering American manufacturing and leadership in areas like alternative energy.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how this Republican leadership likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. In this case, they say they don't like the loan guarantee program, but they want their own pet industries to be able to use it. It's another example of how their rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions.

But we've seen this hypocrisy for years now. This is the same Republican Party that opposed the stimulus plan, but requested and touted funding from that same stimulus plan. In fact, Republican Members in this House have requested loan guarantees for businesses they support, including those in the nuclear industry; but they oppose this program for alternative-energy businesses that want to manufacture in America. And this is the flip-flopping that kind of makes my head spin.

It's clear that my Republican friends don't let the facts get in the way of their political argument. It's a fact that this loan guarantee program is a success. For example, this loan program has ultimately supported 40 projects that help keep 60,000 people employed during this economic downturn alone. It's also a fact that the Solyndra bankruptcy represented a fraction of the entire loan guarantee program. In fact, loans and loan guarantee programs only cost taxpayers 94 cents for every $100 invested. That's a pretty good return on investment.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Republicans that Congress needs a robust oversight program that examines the executive branch and ensures that they are not overstepping their bounds. It's ironic that these Republicans are conducting a vigorous oversight plan of President Obama, but simply looked the other way when it came to the oversight of the Bush administration.

But there's oversight and then there's overreach. Republicans looked into this issue, they held hearings, and conducted an investigation. And despite their claims of political manipulation, there is simply no evidence of such manipulation. Don't take my word for it. Bloomberg Business Week reported that there was ``no evidence of wrongdoing.'' And The Washington Post reported: ``The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contractors.''

Mr. Speaker, we all know what this is. This is an election year stunt, political theater that is more appropriate for the campaign trail rather than the House of Representatives. It's a bill that supporters claim will do something that it simply will not do. And this closed process is, once again, breaking Speaker Boehner's promise of a more open House.

This is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to close with one observation. We have just returned from a recess. If the rumor mill is true, we will only be in session for 8 days before the election. I'm hearing that we're going to probably give away the first week in October. And given the fact that we're here such a short time, one would think that this would be an opportunity to come together and to pass legislation that both sides can agree on--legislation that might, in fact, help stimulate economic growth; might, in fact, help put people back to work; might address some of the real challenges that the American people are facing. We don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. And that something we agree on, we ought to able to come together and pass it.

Yet what we're doing during these 8 days is debating hot-button issues and bills that are going nowhere. This is a hot-button issue. They will be debating another hot-button issue later. Hot button, hot button, hot button. Never any legislation that has any real meaning in the lives of the American people.

Bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us have that debate. Let us be able to have a vote on whether or not we ought to invest in our economy and invest in our people. My Republican friends are squandering this opportunity. I think one thing is clear, and I think it's evident by the low esteem that the Congress is now held in by the American people: the American people want us to work on their behalf. And I understand the lust in this place for political power and winning elections and winning elections. I used to think that good government was good politics.

But what we are doing here for these 8 days, with the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is kicking the can down the road on a whole bunch of other budgetary issues, what we're doing these 8 days is nothing meaningful, nothing that matters to anybody. And I just think that that's a sad commentary on the leadership of this House.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know what, one of the things that Speaker Boehner promised was a more open House and this would be a place where we could actually deliberate and various points of view would be heard.

I want to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Economy whose amendment was not made in order, so he will not have an opportunity to debate it here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat for my colleagues what Bloomberg Business Week reported, and I quote again: ``There was no evidence of any wrongdoing.'' The Washington Post reported: ``The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.

I mean, you know, it's clear what's going on here.

Again, bringing this bill, a bill that's going nowhere--we heard about the bridges to nowhere; this is the legislation to nowhere--I think is bad enough, but then bringing it up under a closed process.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Natural Resources,

had three amendments. All three of them were denied by the Rules Committee, including a Buy America provision. What a radical idea that we should make it in America and we should buy it in America. That radical amendment was denied by the Rules Committee. It's hard to believe.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond by saying when the Republicans talk about jobs, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let me go back to what we were talking about earlier with Mr. Markey.

Mr. Markey had an amendment--let me read it. It would prevent guarantees from being granted unless the applicant certifies that at least 75 percent of materials and components required for construction, manufacturing, or operations are produced in the United States of America. Any facility at which construction, manufacturing, or operations are to be carried out must also be located in the United States of America. This amendment is not even allowed to be debated on this House floor. The Republicans in the Rules Committee said: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

So, if we're going to be talking about jobs, I mean, maybe we're here about different jobs. I'm talking about jobs in America; maybe my friends are talking about creating more jobs overseas. We need more jobs here. And if you're serious about that, why wouldn't you allow that amendment to be brought up and debated on the House floor?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke for pointing out how bad this rule is. He's on the other side of the aisle, and even though I disagree with the amendment he had, he ought to have been able to offer it to the floor. I hope that he will join with us in opposing this rule because I don't think his leadership will get the message if he rewards bad behavior by giving them a vote.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We ought to have a debate in this Chamber on energy, on an energy policy, whether or not we should invest in innovation, whether or not we should invest in renewable, green, clean energy. I believe we should.

My friends on the other side believe not just in the status quo, they believe in going backwards. They believe in investing, not in new technologies, but in the old technologies.

But we should have that debate here.

This bill really is not that debate, because this bill is a political stunt. It is not anything real. It is not anything that is going anywhere. This is just politics as usual, and that's what makes this so frustrating.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end where I began in my opening, which is to say we're only here for a few days. I mean, I've never been part of a Congress that has worked less than this Congress and that has produced less than this Congress. Today's Roll Call has a great piece: ``Congress on Pace to be the Least Productive.'' Is that what my friends on the other side of the aisle are aspiring to--to be known as the least productive Congress?

We're back for these few days. We ought to do something meaningful for the American people. We ought to be debating a jobs bill. We ought to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't want to vote for it, vote against it, but at least we'd be doing something of substance. We ought to be extending tax breaks for middle-income Americans. Why would you leave town without making sure that middle- income Americans continue to get their tax breaks?

We ought to have a responsible farm bill passed and signed into law. As we're running out of time, we're told that's probably not going to happen at all. We ought to be talking about legislation that will actually strengthen this country, that will help improve the quality of education and give more access to education for our young people.

We are doing none of those things. We are squandering this opportunity. With the exception of passing a continuing resolution, which is tantamount to kicking the can down the road, these 8 days that we have been back in session have been useless. They have just been about politics. That is why the American people are so sick and tired of this Congress. That is why the approval rating is so low. They want us to come to Washington to legislate and deliberate on issues that will make a positive difference in their lives. Instead, what we have is the same old, same old--politics as usual. There has to be some common ground between Republicans and Democrats on energy. Let's find that common ground and move forward. Enough with the political stunts. It is time to start doing the people's business, and this is not it.

So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this, again, restrictive rule that denies a multitude of amendments, including an amendment that would make sure the jobs that we are talking about are in America. Buy American. What is so wrong with even debating that? We're not even given that opportunity. So vote against this restrictive rule, and vote against the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from my neighboring State of Georgia, whom I consider to be one of the most conscientious, hardworking individuals in the Congress, and I appreciate the fact that he's 18 months here in the Congress. He and I know that he understands this institution considerably, having worked here for a number of years, and I'm grateful the process allows and he has allowed that I receive the traditional 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides, as has been said, for consideration of two bills. To identify them again, H.J. Res. 117 is the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, and H. Res. 6365 is the National Security and Job Protection Act.

When my colleague began his remarks, he said the magic words, ``This is a closed rule.'' When I was, as he, 18 months in the House in 1992 and I would be on radio, people were talking about how awful it was that the Democrats had so many closed rules. The Democrats lost the election that following year in 1994, and one of the leading reasons was closed rules. Yet we find ourselves on something as important as the financial circumstances of this country coming to the floor at the 11th hour with a closed rule, and, in fact, not having many more days that we are scheduled to be here, but having absolutely no reason why we could not be here at any point in time between now and the time that our financial circumstances would begin to be, as they are, much worse. Maybe the Republicans should have added a third entitled resolution. I would call it the ``No More Getting Anything Done in This Congress Act,'' because that is the message of this particular package.

This continuing resolution is merely a reminder that my friends in the majority were unable to complete work on the regular appropriations bills.

Instead of devoting congressional time to tackling the needs of essential government programs, Republicans have spent the summer trying to repeal the health care law, giving away benefits to the oil and gas industry, and chipping away repeatedly at women's rights.

Now, my colleague is correct in many respects to point out that the other body presents us with challenges, but it is not as if the other body has not done something. Let me tell you one of the measures that I have a continuing interest in because of my constituency, and that is that the Senate has passed a farm bill for a 5-year extension.

What my colleagues or leadership on the Republican side will not do is put that farm bill here on the floor even though we are faced in this country with a residual from one of the worst droughts that America has ever experienced. Even though food prices for all of the people in this country are continuously rising, here we are with this time that the chair of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member begging the leadership, cannot find time for it to be on this floor. Instead of devoting our time to tackling the needs of essential government programs, we decide that we're going to attack women's rights.

Now, suddenly, you seem to have awakened to the looming, described, fiscal cliff. It's kind of good that you've noticed; but rather than address this challenge head on, the Republicans are pushing a bill that doesn't do anything. The sequester replacement does not actually prevent the sequester with a prudent mix, and every panel that has looked at this says that we have to have a prudent mix of spending cuts and revenue increases. What the Republicans simply do is kick the can down the road, which is no surprise.

I said in an earlier Rules meeting, and it was during the Olympics, that if kicking the can down the road were an Olympic sport, then Congress and the Republican majority would win gold, bronze, silver, and tin. This poor can doesn't have much more space to be kicked on, and I can tell you it places the burden on someone else to deal with this in the future. And this is what my Republican colleagues would call fiscal responsibility?

We got into this mess because of the massive deficits the Republicans piled on this country. Two wars in the Middle East not paid for, huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--for those among us that are in a high-paying position--and huge, unpaid prescription drug benefits are all things that Republican Members in this House voted for despite the huge costs that would be imposed.

In fact, just 61 bills have been signed into law this year, the fewest in more than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed into law. When Democrats controlled both Chambers in 2010, 258 bills were signed into law.

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm the only person who is making this observation that is being made. Let me cite two people, especially here inside the Beltway, that have made this observation, and that are generally respected as nonpartisan and accepted as experts by Republicans and Democrats.

We on this side are not the only ones who have noticed the lack of productivity that I just identified with the 61 bills. Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann wrote in a Washington Post column, the two gentlemen, and I am quoting them:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for

more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this

dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both

parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we

have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the

problem lies with the Republican Party.

That's from two particularly nonpartisan observers that everybody around here recognizes as experts. Now we are asked to support the Romney-Ryan vision of America, which ignores any responsibility for today's economic difficulties and instead demands that those who have the least in this great country should sacrifice the most. While Republicans last year were fighting tooth and nail to default on our debt obligations and crash the economy, millions of Americans were fighting to keep their jobs and millions lost them.

Millions of Americans were fighting to pay off their mortgages, and millions could not pay them. Millions of Americans were seeking access to quality health care, and they could not afford it. Millions of children of parents who wanted them to go to college are finding themselves without the capacity to get a decent education largely for the reasons that I have suggested.

But under the Romney-Ryan vision those priorities should take a back seat

to increase defense spending, and yet give more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us in our society. When it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, student loans and public safety, the Republicans are quick to dismiss billions of dollars in essential funding with a wave of their hand and the crocodile tears of deficit reduction. But when the defense contractors stand to lose just $1, Republicans suddenly find their fighting spirit and cry about a weakening America.

It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans can't shake off their do- nothing indolence to fight as hard for all Americans as they do for the richest.

We have a long list of programs, tax cuts, and activities set to expire at the end of this year; but rather than confront those challenges head on, Republicans are wasting our time with do-nothing bills. I suppose that when you have absolutely no ideas to offer besides tax cuts for those that are better off among our society, you may as well campaign on a platform of ``we have no ideas or even a plan to offer.'' But the American people need and deserve much more.

Mr. Speaker, I reject the Republican notion that a do-nothing Congress can help grow our economy, create more jobs, and address the many challenges facing this Nation from crumbling infrastructure to the impossibly high cost of education; and I also reject the Romney-Ryan vision that the only solution, at least that they have offered to these challenges, is tax cuts that help the rich and increase military spending.

My Republican colleagues paint a very pessimistic vision, Mr. Speaker, of a country where it appears to them that we have given up on trying to better everyone's lives and instead use the public's resources to enrich those who have already made it.

But I believe differently. We can afford to invest in our future. We can afford to create jobs. We can afford to make the choices now that will reap benefits for future generations--right now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend and colleague, Mr. McGovern, I would just urge my colleague from Pennsylvania to know that all of us are mindful, and rightfully should be concerned, about what's transpired in the Middle East. But he cites to one set of finances, and I would urge that he look at how and why the United States is involved in a compact with the Egypt military for the moneys that are distributed there, and not base it on what is happening today but look at what has happened throughout the years to assist in stabilizing that area. It didn't just happen overnight. It happened as a result of a serious compact in peace negotiations.

I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My good friend from Georgia speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, you're saying that we began this process open and this democracy flourished, and you were so passionate about it until when we left at 5 a.m. in the morning you rushed home and you were on fire.

I'm curious to know when we finish up here, ostensibly tomorrow afternoon, what is it that would cause us not to be able to be here and allow, as you put it, every Member to have his or her say for their constituents on this measure?

But, no, we're here on a closed rule.

I understand that the government has to continue and that's why we are doing a continuing resolution, but I also know we could have done an omnibus bill, and I also know that my colleague and others were the ones that caused this country to come to the brink and our credit rating to be assaulted; and you are going to tell me that we can't stay here tomorrow, that we can't come back here after the holidays or tomorrow and stay here if need be to get this done?

But, no, we're doing it now before April so that when we come back, we will be faced with the same crisis, and the only thing that's going to change is the faces and the places that the people come from, and all I'm saying is let's do it now. Let's do those things that you were talking about. And if it requires 5 a.m. in the morning, let's do it at 5 a.m. in the morning. I'm 76 and I'm still staying up. I don't know about you.

I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, first I ask my colleague. You know and I know you have farm interests in Georgia the same as I do, not necessarily the same, but we have farm interests in Georgia and farm interests in Florida. The Senate did pass the farm bill.

Can my colleague tell me why we don't have the farm bill on the floor during all of this period of time? We could at least do that in light of the disaster relief that took place.

I yield to my friend.

Where did you get the number 2-year rather than 5-year bill from? Because the 5-year proposal is what the chair of the Agriculture Committee, your and my colleague, Mr. Lucas, is seeking to offer. But I don't want to get us caught in the weeds.

Let me go ahead and yield 2 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I also have no further speakers and I'm prepared to close, and I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I also would like to offer an apology to my colleague. I committed a parliamentary faux pas when I said you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In the heat of the moment, I guess what I was trying to say is you said one thing one way than you said at another point in time, so I offer you my deepest my apologies.

Mr. Speaker, we will soon start another long district work period even though we haven't given the middle class an extension of tax cuts for the next year. If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the House won't leave town until middle class tax cuts are signed into law. The first step is to give this House a vote on the middle class tax cut, introduced by Mr. Levin, which is the same proposal the Senate has already passed and the President is eager to sign.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, there is an upside to the Republicans' ``do-nothing'' Congress.

First, it creates a clear contrast between the Republicans and Democrats.

Democrats want to press forward with meaningful ideas to create jobs, improve access to affordable health and education, and invest in the kinds of programs that bring about progress and prosperity for all Americans. I believe that my friends in the majority want to push legislation that either cuts taxes for the wealthiest among us, or increases spending on the military, or does nothing more than pay the bills today--play politics while accomplishing nothing.

This is not about the deficit. The United States doesn't lack the money to prioritize our future. What we do lack is the political willpower and leadership necessary to set gainful priorities.

The Romney-Ryan vision for America is nothing more than a reckless sellout to the ideological extremes of the Republican Party, a party that is utterly dominated at this point in our history by a Tea Party dogma which cares more to preserve tax cuts for the rich than to be about the business of ensuring the well-being of our entire society.

The so-called ``sacrifices'' continually demanded by the Republican majority in order to provide ever more money for foreign wars and tax cuts for the wealthy are shortchanging the future of this Nation. Continuing to move further to the right--or to the left--does not constitute progress. Furthermore, the closed-door negotiations and closed process is truly disheartening and does not reflect the democracy that is supposed to be the hallmark of this institution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will my colleague yield?

I just want to ask, 6 months from now, when we come back, if you and I are here, will you commit that we would have that debate 6 months from now under an open rule?

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 779 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6213. This rule provides for the discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation ensures that all American taxpayers will never again be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this administration's politically motivated risky bets.

H.R. 6213 draws on the lessons learned from the failed Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program, which invested $535 million into a solar energy company named Solyndra. Unfortunately, Solyndra went bankrupt, leaving hardworking Americans with a check for over half a billion dollars.

Solyndra has become synonymous with the Obama administration's reckless spending programs that have done nothing to create the jobs our country so desperately needs, nor those that had been promised by the President of the United States and the Democratic Party. Despite warnings that the company was unsustainable and would surely fail, the administration was blinded by their political agenda and committed over half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to a privately held company.

In fact, during a 2011 restructuring of the loan, the administration placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when it came to reimbursement in the event of bankruptcy. Given these practices, it's no wonder that our current President has created budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion each year he has served as President.

In addition to ensuring that the Federal Government does not throw taxpayer dollars after the investments, H.R. 6213 also highlights the need of the Federal Government to stop propping up failed companies which cannot support themselves in the open market. The Federal Government should not guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to companies that do not have a business model that supports sufficient private investment. The administration should not pretend to be a venture capitalist with taxpayers' money.

In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, Congressman Ed Whitfield, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy

and Power, testified that the DOE loan guarantee programs spent $15 billion, but only created 1,175 jobs.

That means that each job created cost taxpayers $12.8 million. These statistics demonstrate what House Republicans have been saying for years--this country cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. Instead, we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing over-regulation and promoting pro-growth policies, including tax policies that do not push jobs overseas, that create a better free enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also careers for Americans. And they should be designed to incentivize private investment, which is known, Mr. Speaker, as the free enterprise system.

Ultimately, the No More Solyndras Act puts an end to an ineffective government program, protects taxpayers from financing the administration's wish list of projects, and establishes necessary oversight to hold executive branch officials accountable for their actions.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know that our Democrat friends think it's absolutely nothing to lose half a billion dollars that a government made a decision on. But what they really don't like is when we bring that up, when we say part of the job of being a Member of Congress as a policy body is to look at the mistakes that were made. We certainly have looked at mistakes that Republicans and Democrats, administrations and others, have made. But to ignore an issue would be a mistake.

This is not just Solyndra. It was the process of a political agenda that did not, could not pass the smell test and even make it out in the real world. It was a political agenda that was so wanted by an administration that they gave lots of money, not just half a billion here, but to other companies.

You know, today's legislation certainly highlights Solyndra as a failure in the DOE, Department of Energy's loan program, but it should be mentioned that there were other companies, not just Solyndra.

It's really a political process that said, Let's go do this thing whether it makes sense or not, whether it makes money. The companies went bankrupt.

Part of this comes from you've got a lot of people in the administration that wouldn't even recognize a business plan if they saw one. They do recognize taxpayer dollars, plenty of those that were made available by this excessive spending. But accountability is now what Democrats don't like when we're saying let's look at what happened, what materialized.

So Solyndra is not just a one-time or one-company failure of an otherwise what would be called a successful program. It's not. This simply became the poster child, and we believe that we shouldn't repeat this failure. We believe we should effectively talk about it on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should take some bit of time. We're not here beating anybody up. You never even heard me mention names behind the administration or who made these decisions or who pushed it. We're not trying to do that.

We're simply trying to say that we believe half a billion dollars, and a review of that, should become available in the light of day, to not just Members of Congress; but we should vote on it and say we drew a conclusion with some issues.

So we believe any objective evaluation of the facts reveals some issues of Federal dollars of a plan that should be stopped, has stopped, but that we should at least tell what the results were. That's what we're doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to go to the report. Let's see what the report out of the Energy and Commerce Committee said. I am quoting what would be on page 5:

However, the Bush administration did not approve any loan

guarantees under the program. This was due partly to the fact

that the DOE office implementing the program was slow in

being set up, and that program funding only became available

in 2007. But even after the Bush DOE had the program up and

running, it ran into difficulties finding applicants whose

energy projects are meritorious.

In other words, they could not find somebody who is asking for the loan who could present a good business plan of not just profit and loss, but where it would fit in the marketplace to even be considered successful. This is the reason why the Bush administration and Republicans did not do that because they could see failure in the marketplace written all over it even as early as 2007.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we're now well into the political extremism that we see many times that exhibits itself not just here on the floor of the House of Representatives but really all across this country--those people that want gasoline to rise substantially because they really don't like gasoline. They really don't like the underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. Whether it's natural gas, they attack natural gas. If it's nuclear--which is a non-emitting source of pollution--they attack that. This crowd that really doesn't like free enterprise and what I believe is the heartland of this country, manufacturing, which has really taken off as a result of effective use of natural resources in this country through natural gas and the availability of nuclear power and the availability of oil, which fuels our cars to where we can use the resources that were given us effectively.

What they want to do is they want to tax these industries higher so that prices go up, so that consumers have to pay a lot more money. What they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the electricity that we need is the cleanest and the best here in America. The way these are produced are American jobs. The way they're consumed is about American jobs. The way that consumers pay for them and pay for these advantages is American jobs. And here we're looking at how half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money was put into an effort that not only not ever got off the ground, it quickly went into bankruptcy because it did not meet the marketplace challenges.

I'm not opposed to competition; I think we stand for competition. But don't push a narrow environmentalist policy, go to the White House, go to the Department of Energy and try and fund these on taxpayer dollars only to see that, whoops, we made a mistake, and then act like, whoops, we don't want anybody to know.

All we're trying to suggest today is that Republicans do believe in American jobs. We do believe in American industry. We do believe in the energy industry. We believe in effective use of resources because we're trying to keep jobs here. Their narrow, political, environmentalist policy is what will diminish American jobs, it will diminish our ability to effectively use the resources that we have in this country, and it will put us in a circumstance--for instance, with the Keystone pipeline--where we could use energy from a friendly neighbor to fuel American needs at a good price and avoid what may happen if we get into a circumstance overseas in the Middle East where we would be held hostage, held hostage by those that have the energy that we need, when we could be having it not only close to home, but in our own home, energy made in America.

So, Republicans, look, all we're trying to say is a half a billion dollars that was wasted, somebody ought to recognize that we shouldn't be doing that. That's what Republicans are doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very obvious that what Republicans are trying to do is to keep American jobs. We're trying to utilize the free enterprise system, the natural resources that we have in America--clean natural gas, the abundance of other power that we have, including coal, including nuclear--opportunities to keep America strong and keep jobs here, and that's why we're really opposed to the loan guarantees and the things which might take on additional debt and risk by the government. But, more importantly, if it can't be funded within the free enterprise system, then it can't stand on its own.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), one of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers and reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see that today's legislation answers the question. It ends the debate about Solyndra. Taxpayers know the committee did its work. It held a Rules Committee hearing. Half a billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We're not down here jumping up and down. We haven't even raised our voices. We simply said that we think that a better process could have taken place, and they're arguing we never should have even had this on the floor--that we don't need any feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they know.

We lost half a billion dollars by one company. At least two others had the same outcome where they did not produce anything. They went belly up--bankrupt. We just think that the administration--government-- is really not in the business and shouldn't be in the business--despite what we've heard--of pushing the envelope. Let's go out and invest whether it makes sense or not.

Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it's a bad proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the government did the right thing, that this administration did the right thing. I think that the facts of the case say that half a billion dollars in a process that didn't work--we need to hear the feedback, and we need to close the books on it. The rule is here to do exactly that--to place on the floor the opportunity for us to debate now the facts of the case, which is exactly what will happen.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.