Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 47, the Senate's bipartisan, comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that passed 78-22.

I look forward to the House passing this crucial bill later today and sending it to the President.

The House Republicans delay in bringing this bill forward is inexcusable. It should have been the law of the land last year.

Why did they delay it? In no small part because of their concern over recognizing tribal authority to protect Native American victims of domestic violence, even though Native women are victimized at a rate that is more than twice the national average.

I stand with the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest tribal organization in the country, in opposing the Republican substitute amendment and supporting the Senate version. It is well past time that Congress recognizes the inherent power of tribal nations to protect their own and hold criminal offenders, regardless of race, accountable.

Indeed, I stand with all women of this country to say ``no more.'' No more delay in reauthorizing this bill. No more escape for those who attack women. No more violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Halt Index Trading of Energy Commodities, or HITEC, Act. I am reintroducing this bill, which was H.R. 5186 in the previous Congress, with Representative DeLauro because urgent action is still needed to protect our nation's oil and refined product commodities markets from artificial and excessive levels of volatility caused by the trading practices of certain Wall Street traders. Since 1991, Wall Street investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have created and marketed a new financial product known as commodity index funds, which are really energy speculation funds, gasoline gambles. These energy speculation funds track the financial performance of one or more commodities. If a speculation fund has an investment in oil and the value of oil goes up, then the value of the fund goes up; if the value of oil goes down, the value of the speculation fund goes down.

These investments have had an adverse effect on the operation of the markets for the commodities that comprise the funds. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in various energy speculation funds, artificially inflating the prices of our commodities. While these energy speculation funds may be driving up prices for many different commodities, they are having an especially pernicious effect on energy commodities. According to testimony submitted to the House Natural Resources Committee, excessive speculation added nearly $1.00 to the per gallon price of gasoline last spring, and energy speculation funds appear to have been largely responsible. Due to the activities of these energy speculation funds, Wall Street investment banks have profited by introducing new and unprecedented levels of volatility and speculation into oil and refined product markets.

Energy speculation funds have changed the very nature of our commodities markets. Traditionally, the commodities market was dominated by companies who actually used the commodities to hedge the business risk associated with oil or refined products prices. Large oil, gasoline, diesel or jet fuel consumers such as airlines, trucking firms, and shipping services were the largest participants in these markets. Indeed, in 1996, companies who actually bought oil on the commodities market so they could use it owned 93% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. Now, however, these companies only own 37% of the oil futures or derivatives in that market. The bulk of the remaining 63% is owned by speculators who have invested in these energy speculation funds, none of whom will actually use any of the oil or natural gas in which they have invested.

Given how much these energy speculation funds have hurt consumers and business, one might at least think that these energy speculation funds are good investment vehicles. Yet, all evidence is that they have provided mediocre returns in recent years. According to the Wall Street Journal, Standard and Poor's popular GSCI index provided just .08% in annual returns in 2012, far below the returns of the S&P 500. Worse, in 2011, the returns from the GSCI were actually negative. Unsurprisingly, institutional investors like pension funds are moving away from investing in energy speculation funds: Not only do they hurt average Americans and business, but they do not even provide excellent returns for their investors. In truth, the only group of people who seem to be benefiting from the existence of these funds is Wall Street.

Despite only being 22 years old, energy speculation funds have already had a profound impact on our country. They have increased the size of our commodities market. They have increased the volatility of our commodities prices. They have hurt consumers' wallets and small businesses by making them pay more at the pump. They have slowed the growth of our economy by requiring that we devote even more money to energy instead of creating new jobs. They do all these things, and they do not even provide much benefit to their own investors. These energy speculation funds are a danger to our economy, our financial system, and the average American's wallet.

The HITEC Act will restore order to our energy commodity markets and end this experiment. The bill will ban all new investment in energy commodities like light sweet crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline by these commodity index funds from the date of enactment. The day the President signs this bill, energy speculation funds will not be allowed to grow any more if they count speculators among their investors. Existing energy speculation funds that continue to count speculators among their investors will then have two years to wind down their investments. As the average length of a ``spot'' commodity contract is one year, this should allow energy speculation funds that continue to house speculators more than enough time to wind down their investments in a fair and orderly fashion.

This bill does not prohibit energy speculation funds from investing in agricultural commodities like wheat or corn, nor does it prohibit those funds from investing in metals such as gold. The bill also does not implicate trading of electricity in any way, shape, or form. Instead, this bill just prohibits energy speculation funds from interfering with our energy commodities, a market that determines the prices for the fuels that power our economy.

This bill will end an unnecessary and harmful source of excessive price volatility that has only served to benefit Wall Street traders and has harmed our economy by pumping up oil, gasoline, and other refined product prices. Enactment of this legislation will address one major source of the pain American consumers have recently been feeling at the pump, and I once again urge all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critical legislation.

I thank the gentlelady.

I rise in opposition to the rule.

From Cape Cod to Cape Ann, New Bedford to Newburyport, Massachusetts' fishing families are hurting. I, along with the gentlemen from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney and Congressman Keating, offered three amendments to this bill to restore disaster funding for fishermen in Massachusetts and around the country. And to those three amendments, the House Republicans said no, no, no.

The House Republicans have cut a lifeline to our struggling Massachusetts fishermen. The Republicans in Congress are telling Massachusetts fishermen to take a long walk off a short pier.

The economic disaster declared for parts of the New England fishery industry last year was in large part a result of the same forces that made Superstorm Sandy so damaging--the forces of climate change. It hit New York, it hit New Jersey, it hit Massachusetts.

Climate change is increasing temperatures; it's raising sea levels; it's strengthening storms. That means more stress on New England's iconic cod and other species.

I support getting help to the people of New Jersey and New York and Connecticut, but we cannot forget the other Americans who suffered last year. The fishermen of Massachusetts, the fishermen of our country cannot be forgotten. This bill says no to them, no to their needs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor two great Members of the Massachusetts delegation who are departing. The first, John Olver.

John Olver is a public service powerhouse, a transportation titan inside of this institution. He has a Ph.D. in science; but as he came to this institution, he became a scientist who became a statesman, and we were honored to have him in our delegation and in this Chamber. He was an avid outdoorsman, but he was ahead of his time in bringing attention to this Chamber for our consideration of the impacts of climate change, the need to protect our natural environment, the need to raise science as it affected the planet.

He arrived in Congress in 1991. His service on the Appropriations Committee helped rebuild our country's infrastructure and resulted in critical investments in transportation. At the same time, he was always an incredible advocate for his constituents, for their industries, and for the way of life of western Massachusetts.

He was a very special Member of this institution. He began his career in the Massachusetts State Legislature. He has dedicated the largest portion of his life to serving the public, to serving ordinary citizens; and he is going to be sorely missed. He made a huge difference in the lives of the people of Massachusetts and our country. And I just want to say that from our entire delegation and from the entire Congress, he is definitely going to be someone who is irreplaceable in this institution.

At this point, I would like to reserve the balance of my time and to recognize the gentleman from western Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I thank the gentleman so much.

I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mike Capuano.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I turn to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

We thank the gentleman from Salem.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Lowell, Ms. Tsongas.

I thank the gentlelady, and I yield to the gentleman from Worcester, Mr. McGovern.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield such time as she may consume to the leader of the Democratic Party, the gentlelady from San Francisco, Ms. Pelosi.

I thank the gentlelady.

I yield myself such time as may remain in the hour. Since my time is about to expire, I would ask if it were possible for the gentleman from Indiana to be able to yield 5 minutes to me as the opening part of his Special Order.

If Barney Frank were down here, none of this would have happened in terms of the understanding of the parliamentary procedure. He was up there trying to grab the imaginary microphone so he could clarify the parliamentary situation.

I will conclude this part just by saying, again, that John Olver has been for us just an invaluable colleague. He taught all of us so much about our own districts. The other Members have mentioned it, but when he sat down with us talking about transportation, he explained our own districts to us in terms of what was possible and what was needed.

On climate change, I've talked to him over 20 years about the issue. He was on this issue in the early 1990s and probably understood it even before then. He is that smart. He is that visionary in terms of the issues that are central not just to Massachusetts but to our planet. And it has been my great honor to have served with you, John, and to have called you my friend and my colleague over all of these years. We all thank you so much for what you have done for us and done for the country.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Now, on Barney Frank, Barney Frank is at the same time the smartest Member and the wittiest Member of

the United States Congress. That is quite a double to be able to pull off. He has a nuclear power plant for a brain. There is absolutely nothing that he cannot recall when he needs it here in this legislative process.

Now, over his career, he is usually right, but too soon for many people to be able to accept. That is how far ahead he was on so many of the issues which we worked on here in the House of Representatives. His political philosophy is, if you want to negotiate, he wants peace. He would love to negotiate with you. He knows that he will out-negotiate you. But if you want political war, he enjoys that, too, because he does not see it as a sprint but as a marathon heading towards that day when the truth will ultimately prevail.

When he was in the State legislature, when I served with him, when we had monumental battles on whether or not to reinstitute the death penalty in Massachusetts, whether or not we were going to have a black senate seat in Massachusetts, it was Barney Frank who led the efforts to sustain the veto that would make sure that our State would still be the leader in progressive causes.

Here in Congress, the debate on NATO burden sharing, the way Barney would frame it for people is, we helped these people, it's now late into the last century and into this century, and we can't any longer take from the poor people's programs in this country in order to, in fact, pay for the defense of Europe. It was time for Europe to pick up their own fair share of the burden. The same thing was true with fighting for fishermen. The same thing was true with issue after issue out here on the House floor.

Dodd-Frank, which was debated right here on the House floor, the same place where Abe Lincoln was trying to get the votes to abolish slavery, same seats, Barney Frank led the effort to create the new financial services constitution for the 21st century in not just the United States but on the whole planet. And there were some provisions that were so important, that is, creating a Consumer Protection Bureau, that they would rather have Elizabeth Warren as a Senator than have her be the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau inside of Dodd-Frank, and that's just a small part of the totality of that bill.

Barney's message always was to stand up and have courage. Stand up for what's right, even if you don't win early. He has been a parliamentary and a substantive cop on the beat walking around here on the House floor, using the microphone as his nightstick in order to make sure that nothing happened here that was wrong would go uncommented upon so that people would know what should have been happening.

Back in the Massachusetts legislature in the early seventies, the mid-1970s, Barney decided to make amendments on gay rights. Discrimination was rampant, but no one was raising the issue across the country. And so we started to have votes in the Massachusetts legislature. Barney was on the losing side. He knew he would lose early on. But, ultimately, those defeats led to the victories which we talk about today. Out here on the House floor, Barney was the lead opponent of the Defense of Marriage Act. He knew that even if he was on the wrong side, he was going to stand up and make sure that everyone else knew ultimately what the right side would look like.

There was one day I was standing right here at this microphone, and I was talking about oil subsidies that I felt were unjustified, and I said:

Giving a subsidy to an oil company recording record profits

would be like subsidizing a fish to swim or a bird to fly.

You just don't have to do it.

I was feeling quite good about myself. I finished, and I just walked over here, and Barney stood up and came over to me, and he said, you know, you didn't finish that. And I said, finish what? Well, the whole stanza:

Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly.

I'm gonna love that man till the day I die.

That man is Jim Ready, and Barney is now married to him.

It's because of his efforts in making it possible to change the culture in our country that Barney is going to love that man until the day he dies. But it took a lot of courage, and it took a lot of foresight to know that that day would arrive.

So, yeah, and Nancy Pelosi said it--the Mount Rushmore of Massachusetts: Congressmen Tip O'Neill, Joe Moakley, and Barney Frank. He's going down in history. And we all know it. On so many different fronts, he changed the way America thinks. And it's quite a gift that he had and that he gave to the country.

So for both of them, it has been just an enormous privilege for all of us to serve with you, and I think everyone on both sides of the aisle knows that there was greatness in our delegation and that it was an honor, John and Barney, to have been able to serve with you for all of these years. Thank you all so much.

I thank the gentleman very much.

The language which is in question here is language which was spurred by Mr. Barton and I in 1999 as part of the consideration of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley bill. The language for privacy, none had been included in the Senate and none had been included in the rest of the process. But as the bill came to the Energy and Commerce Committee in 1999, Mr. Barton and I, we added privacy language, believing that as companies are able to consolidate banking records, insurance records, brokerage records, the physical examinations of customers and their medical secrets, that there should be privacy here. We were no longer talking about just going into a bank and having old Mr. Wentworth there that you and your family had known your entire life, and you trusted Mr. Wentworth, and there was actually a whole long family history. That is no longer the case. We are now basically living in a world where we have moved from an era of privacy keepers to privacy peepers and data- mining reapers trying to create profiles of people, using all of their financial information as a way of basically making their companies more efficient, but simultaneously compromising the privacy of families all across our country. So, while ultimately the language which Mr. Barton and I included on the House side in Gramm-Leach-Bliley was watered down in the final compromise, that's the privacy that's in the bill.

So, one of the things, of course, that I believed and Mr. Barton believed was that people should get the information that their privacy could be compromised by these now huge mega-banks.

So what this bill is saying is, you don't have to notify people of that each year. You don't have to tell them. If they didn't figure that out when the bank first signed you up as a company, they never have to tell you again because they notified you once right there in the beginning.

Ladies and gentlemen, the amount of information which we get at home from these banks, massive, as you know. You open up your mailbox every day, and there's like 25 solicitations from financial institutions all across the country. They've got loads of money to do that, loads of money. You look at their TV commercials, loads of money. ``You're in safe hands when you give your family's wealth over to this financial institution.''

But if you ask them to just provide a scintilla of information on what privacy rights they have in terms of protecting all of their family secrets inside of that financial information, the banks say, Oh, no, that's too expensive. We can't do that. How can you afford that?

So this just gets right back to the same argument that we had during Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the same exact debate, the same exact terms. And all I can tell you is, there's a looming privacy catastrophe coming in this country. People just don't understand the full consequences of what this new cyberworld makes possible in terms of the compromise of information.

You know, when you're writing out the information to buy the Ritalin for your child, that's a check that the bank has. There it is. You haven't told anyone else in your family that you have a daughter who needs it. All of this has to be told to the public on an ongoing basis.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this suspension.

For the record, for anyone who's listening, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes this; the

American Library Association opposes this; the Consumer Union opposes this; the Liberty Coalition opposes this; and the Coalition for Patient Privacy opposes this.

And the reason is this: You signed up with a bank 10 years ago-- Megabank Inc. They sent you a privacy notice. Then every year for the next 10 years, they buy a new entity that locks right in as an affiliate. And you've already signed off on everything they do, but they don't have to notify you that this new entity, this new affiliate is going to have a totally new use for that information. But you are supposed to have already been notified in 2002.

Moreover, ladies and gentlemen, why can't they just email this notice each year to people? Why can't they just email it to people? ``Here's your privacy.'' And every year it goes out. No tree is chopped down. There is nothing done that affects the environment. Everybody just gets the email each year. ``Here are your privacy rights.'' And it goes in a separate email so that everyone is really getting the opportunity to single it out. It doesn't cost anything. It gives everyone all the information they need.

I thank the gentleman so much for holding this special session.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to Congress 36 years ago. And on my first day in Congress, my first vote in Congress in January of 1977 was a vote for who would be the Speaker of the House. The Republicans were all going to vote for John Rhodes, a very good man. The Democrats were going to vote for Tip O'Neill.

The tradition is that on that first vote, on that first day, the Member has to stand to actually say the name of the person for whom they are voting. So the first word I ever uttered on the floor of the House, standing at my chair at the top of my voice was just saying one word, O'Neill. And with that, I had voted for Tip O'Neill to begin his first term as Speaker of the House.

He was a wage-and-hour Democrat. He was a Social Security Democrat, but he could work with Ronald Reagan to save Social Security. He was a man committed to ending the nuclear arms race, and he led that fight here on the House floor; but he did so while ensuring that there would be a complete preservation of the security of the United States of America.

He always asked two questions on every issue out here on the House floor: Is it fair, and does it work? And he said that if it could not pass that two-part test, then it should not become a law in the United States of America.

He passed a comprehensive energy plan off the floor of this House, protected Social Security, and advanced so many other issues. In my opinion, Tip O'Neill was the Albert Einstein of politics. He knew what it took in order to make this institution work. He knew what it took to reach across the aisle to find people of goodwill, to make this Chamber work, and to advance the agenda for this country.

So for me, it's a great honor to be here because buildings, as we name them, also embody that person. And it is my hope that as people walk in and out of this building in the 21st century that they think about who Tip O'Neill was, they think about--yes, how much he loved political war; but at the same time, he brought his own personal warmth to that so that it was not separated here on the House floor. And it's my hope that in naming this building, perhaps this process, this great institution can be animated by his great legacy.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

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

My amendment is going to call for 25 percent of the electricity in the United States being generated by renewables by the year 2035.

The United States, excluding hydro, is already up to 7 or 8 percent of all of our electricity generated by renewables here in 2012. So, 23 years from now, the goal would be to reach 25 percent.

Now, why do I feel compelled to bring this amendment out here? Well, while the Republicans say that there's a war on coal, so far in this first year and 9 months that they have controlled the United States Congress, they have declared war on solar; they have declared war on wind; they have declared war on all renewables. That's why I bring this amendment down here to the House floor.

They are going to kill the production tax credit for wind energy that is going to send the wind industry off a cliff next year.

Already, 2,367 jobs have been lost in the wind industry because of Republican action. Forty thousand jobs will be lost next year because of Republican action. They are out to deliberately kill these jobs. How many will be lost? Three thousand to 4,000 jobs in Pennsylvania will be lost; 4,000 to 5,000 jobs in Colorado will be lost; 5,000 to 6,000 wind jobs will be lost in Ohio; 6,000 to 7,000 wind jobs will be lost in Iowa if the Republican policy is allowed to be put on the books.

They have declared war on wind. They have declared war on solar, on geothermal, on biomass.

Ladies and gentlemen, what my amendment does is say let's have a plan for everything else because it's not going to be a part of the Republican plan.

So, by the year 2035, 25 percent of all electricity in our country must come from renewables.

Now, how do we know this is possible? There were 12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States this year; 3,200 new megawatts of solar installed in the United States this year.

So, geothermal, biomass, it's all growing. What's their goal? Kill it. That's their problem. Natural gas is

rising. It hurts the coal industry. It's the marketplace.

Wind and solar are growing, geothermal and biomass are growing. They don't want a level playing field. They want to pick winners and losers. They want to pick favorites. That's what it's all about.

So far in their control of the Congress in just a year and 9 months, they have voted to slash research and development for wind and solar, they have voted to end loan guarantees for wind and solar, they have voted to kill the transmission wires to carry wind and solar to our homes and our offices.

The Republicans are so opposed to Americans having access to clean energy that even when it is built they don't even want to have the transmission lines to get it to American homes.

It's a war on solar and wind. My amendment ensures that there is a pathway to the future for the most abundant American energy source, wind and solar, geothermal and biomass. It's all here in America.

At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

If I may inquire from the Chairman, is the majority saying that there is only one speaker remaining on their side?

Then I will yield myself the balance of my time.

Wind and solar is the most abundant source of energy in the United States--when we capture it. Einstein won his Nobel Prize in 1921, the only one that won a Nobel Prize, and that's on how to capture the power of the sun. And now we're on the cusp of doing this successfully as the price per kilowatt hour drops and drops--and then it's all American.

And who is now looming over our shoulder, even though we invented these technologies, even though we're producing these technologies, are the Chinese, the Indians, and others who will pounce on this global opportunity to create the jobs here in the United States, to export this technology around the world even as we deploy the technology here in our country that backs out the energy sources from around the rest of the world. This is what they fear.

They fear the innovation. They fear the change. They fear our ability to capture wind and solar to be able to power the vehicles which we drive in our country, to be able to send up a cleaner source of energy up into the sky that does not pollute. That's what this battle is all about.

We do not want special advantage. All we want is a level playing field. The Republicans continue this war against wind and solar.

Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment, 25 percent renewable electricity by the year 2035.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield? That is not accurate.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady.

Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal. They even named this bill the End the War on Coal Act. But the only battle coal is losing is in the free market to natural gas, to wind, to solar.

Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of our electricity. Now it is down to 35 percent of our electricity. Have the lights gone off? No. And that's because coal has been replaced in the free market by natural gas, which has risen from 21 percent to 30 percent of all electrical generation in our country. And by the way, the same thing is true for wind. Wind has gone from 1 percent of electrical generation to 4 percent of electrical generation.

That's your answer. That's what's happening. The marketplace has moved to natural gas--another fossil fuel, by the way--and wind. And why have they done so? Natural gas is cheaper than coal. It's more plentiful now because of fracking technologies. And the market has moved.

What is happening? What is happening is that natural gas prices have gone down 66 percent in the last 4 years. That is the shift from coal over to natural gas. That's the arithmetic. You're a consumer, you see a product, it does the same thing as the other product, and it's dropped 66 percent in price. The arithmetic says I go and get that product if it's going to ensure that my home is heated, that my air conditioning goes on. It's just arithmetic. Coal is losing to natural gas.

So when the Republicans say there is a war on coal, in a market sense, yes, there is a war. In the same sense that when we started carrying BlackBerries, it was a war on the black rotary-dial phone; in the same sense that when we started using Macs and PCs, it was a war on typewriters; in the same sense that the horseless carriage was a war on horses; in the same sense that refrigerators were a war on salted meats; in the same sense that the telegraph was a war on carrier pigeons.

These aren't wars. It's innovation. It's competition. It's natural gas versus coal. All we're saying as Democrats is let the free market work. You're here saying, No, protectionism. Protectionism against the natural gas industry winning this battle in the marketplace. By the way, natural gas is also winning the battle in the marketplace against home heating oil. Tens of thousands of people are shifting from home heating oil over to natural gas. Why? It's cheaper. The same thing is true in the production of petrochemicals and fertilizers. Industries are moving away from oil as the component part of moving over to natural gas. Why is that? It is cheaper. It's across-the-board.

Do you understand this, Republicans? It's arithmetic. It's simple. It's easy to understand. It's not the policies of the Obama administration. If you want to blame someone, blame Adam Smith for the ruthless, Darwinian, paranoia-inducing market system that we've adopted where utilities and private citizens and the petrochemical industry move toward a product which is cheaper, more available here in the United States, a domestic industry that is here.

Instead, this is a Republican Congress which has 302 anti- environmental votes, which they've cast in just a year and 8 months. That's 302 anti-environmental votes. That's what they're all about. This whole thing is an excuse to lower the protection against pollution coming from coal that damages the health of children, the health of our environment all across our country, when they're just losing a battle to natural gas in the marketplace.

They get an F on Medicare this Congress, F on tax breaks, F on jobs, F on urgent priorities, F on women, and an F on environment. It's just an excuse because they don't like what is going on in the marketplace. And it's a shame because they tout themselves as that party. Simultaneously, you know what they do? They're killing the wind tax break--killing it because it's up to 4 percent of electricity and keeping the exact same amount in for ExxonMobil and the oil companies to produce oil. Now how can you call that a plan of all-of-the-above?

All of this tilts the playing field, tilts the competition in the marketplace. You can't give tax breaks to oil and take them away from wind and say you're all-of-the-above. You can't say you want to tilt the playing field toward coal as natural gas is winning in the marketplace and say you're in favor of all-of-the-above. You are not. You are not.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on these bills as they come to the floor of the House. It is anti-market policy on steroids as they bring it out here on the House floor.

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

I rise in opposition to this bill. The Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal, but the only battle coal is losing is in the free market--to natural gas, to wind and to solar. Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of the electricity in the United States. Now it is down to 35 percent. When you add up hydropower, the renewables, natural gas, and the other gases, you get 44 percent of our electricity sector.

Just like Governor Romney says he has given up on 47 percent of Americans, the House Republicans have given up on 44 percent of our electricity sector. Just like their politics grips tightly to the past, their energy policies hold fast to the energy technologies and the fuels of yesterday, like coal and oil.

The free market has been replacing coal with natural gas, which has grown from 21 percent of our electricity generation back in 2005 and 2006, and has now risen to 30 percent of all electrical generation in the United States. Natural gas. It's not a war, it's a revolution. What has happened is, simultaneously, coal has come down to 35 percent. Surprising, isn't it? The numbers look like they match up pretty perfectly, especially if you add up the rise from 1 percent to 4 percent of the electricity in the United States which has been generated by wind over the last 5 years. That's what's happening, ladies and gentlemen.

All the rest of this I don't understand, to be honest with you. It's almost like the Republicans are rejecting the free market as it is now operating as the country is moving to natural gas. I understand the coal State Members have to stand up and defend this change in the marketplace, but I don't understand why my other Republican friends would reject those free market principles.

Why is this switch from coal to natural gas happening? It's because natural gas is cheaper. Natural gas prices have decreased by 66 percent since 2008. It is cheaper to produce new electricity from natural gas than from coal. This isn't a conspiracy--it is a competition--but Republicans say that there is a war on coal. Well, in a market sense, that war is now being won. When I was a boy, I had to go down into the basement with my father to shovel the coal. That's how we kept our house warm. Then my mother said let's move to home heating oil, and so my father had the home heating oil come. That was a revolution. And now there is another revolution going on.

Up in the Northeast, for example, because of the low price of natural gas, 1.4 million Northeast households have switched from oil to natural gas over the last decade. And why is that? Again, it costs $2,238 to heat your home through the winter with home heating oil, and it costs $629 to heat your home with natural gas. That's why they're switching. The same thing is happening in the petrochemical industry. They're switching from oil over to natural gas. In the fertilizer industry, they're switching from oil over to natural gas. The price is low. They are moving in that direction. That's the larger story that is occurring--the natural gas revolution in the United States of America.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I just urge all of you to understand that this is not the Obama administration in a war against coal. That is not what is going on. There is a paranoia-inducing, Darwinian marketplace revolution that is taking place--led by natural gas, followed by wind-- that is changing the makeup of the electricity marketplace in our country. Only when you understand and admit this will we be able to have a real debate out here, because all the rest of this is really just meant to be political, in order to harm the President in the election of 2012, when the real harm to coal is being done in the marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

With just 1 more day left until Congress recesses until the election, the Republican majority has decided that, instead of dealing with real problems facing Americans by passing a jobs package dealing with the looming fiscal cliff or providing tax certainty to middle class families, we will instead debate a bill that deals with an imaginary war on coal, fabricated by Republicans in order to justify their real war on the environment, the most anti-environment Congress in history.

In reality, this bill just represents a war on us. It's the Republicans in Congress making clear that their priority is not protecting the well-being of the American people. The Republican majority has already acted on four out of the five titles in this bill, and the Senate has rejected every single one of them. The President has vowed to veto every single one of them.

The only new title that is presented is one aimed at preventing the administration from moving forward with a rule that does not yet even exist, that would limit coal mining companies from dumping tons of their toxic mining waste directly into streams and rivers.

The ironic part is that, according to CBO, this bill won't even prevent the administration from doing that. But it does prevent the administration from undertaking any action that would ensure that mountaintop mining operations are safe for workers and safe for the health of those who live and work nearby.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, at this point, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

So the Republicans say that this legislation is all about creating jobs. They say that we will save money by passing this disastrous bill. But the numbers just don't add up.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mountaintop mining has already buried nearly 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste that leaches dangerous heavy metals into that water. One study puts the cost of reclaiming a stream impacted by this type of mining at as much as $800 per linear foot.

If we do a little arithmetic, $800 multiplied by 5,280 feet in 1 mile, multiplied by the 2,000 miles of streams already buried, that's $8.5 billion. That's what it would cost to clean that up. And that's just to clean up the streams that have already been decimated.

But that's not the only cost included in this provision. We also have the cost to health, the cost to children.

Studies have shown that communities located near mountaintop mining sites have as much as a 42 percent increase in infants born with birth defects. These communities also have a 16 percent higher risk of giving birth to a child with low birth weight, a factor that is closely associated with fetal death, inhibited cognitive development, and chronic diseases later in life.

And that's not all. Communities located near mountaintop mining sites also have significantly higher rates of lung disease, cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and a higher likelihood that these diseases will kill them.

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

Could I inquire from the Chair how much time is remaining on either side?

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

While it is impossible to put a dollar figure completely on the suffering that those families will feel, one study has put the public health burden from premature deaths in the Appalachian communities at $74 billion per year. Now, that's arithmetic that even Governor Romney would understand. In fact, when he was Governor of the great State of Massachusetts, he stood in front of a coal plant, and here's what he said. He said, ``I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant kills people.''

My amendment is simple. It says, if the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to issue a rule that would protect pregnant women and children from adverse reproductive outcomes or birth defects or would reduce the prevalence of cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease or lung cancer, that that rule can go into effect.

I urge all Members of this body to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

I actually have no problem with the gentleman's amendment. If he wants to require the publication of scientific studies used to develop regulations, I am just fine with that. I'm sure he knows, of course, that this is already a Federal requirement, but I don't object to the redundancy of an amendment's passing that says they should do something that they do already.

But I do want to take a moment to talk about the Republican war on science, because this bill that we are debating today is their battle plan. The essence of today's bill is that science and facts do not matter and that, when science and facts become inconvenient, we can just repeal them.

Take the provision of this bill that legislatively overturns a scientific finding that greenhouse gas pollution is dangerous, which is a decision that was made based on 2 full years of work and on a 200- page synthesis of major scientific assessments, including assessments performed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington recently rejected challenges to EPA's scientific endangerment finding, saying that EPA used an ``ocean of evidence'' to support its decision that it was ``unambiguously correct'' in its determination and that ``EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.''

Republicans decided that peer-reviewed science was inconvenient because that analysis was what started the pretend ``war on coal.'' So we have to vote again and again and again to eliminate all of that science.

This bill tells EPA to ignore the science that air pollution causes lung disease and that mercury damages children's developing brains. In fact, it tells EPA, Don't even look at the science; look at the costs. If controlling air pollution is expensive, then we shouldn't do it even if it would save lives. It says, no matter what EPA learns about the sludge that comes out of coal-fired power plants, no matter how high the concentrations of poisonous arsenic, mercury or chromium and that no matter what EPA learns about how these materials find their way into our drinking water, EPA is not allowed to scientifically determine that material to be hazardous.

This bill turns a blind eye to science. The only time Republicans value science is when science can be used as a weapon. When science can be used to delay regulations, when endless analysis can be used to create paralysis, the Republicans suddenly value science. The Republican majority doesn't like that every respected scientific entity over the last decade has concluded that greenhouse gases cause climate change.

Their solution: repeal the science.

Republicans aren't happy that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has issued a report that finds that formaldehyde causes cancer. Sure, the World Health Organization already determined that 17 years ago.

Their solution: We should study it again. We should allow a National Academy of Sciences review so that we can prevent the administration from taking any action to protect the public against dangerous formaldehyde. In fact, there has already been a rider to the health appropriations bill that does just that, while also stripping funding for any subsequent reports on cancer. It is a strategy taken right out of the American Chemical Council's playbook. It is act one of Big Coal's comedy of errors.

We've seen it over and over again on the House floor: first deny the science; second, delay the regulations by legislating a new scientific study to review the first science the industry doesn't like; and third, deter efforts to protect the health and security of millions of Americans by requiring yet another third party to review the scientific study that was just legislated and postponing regulatory action until after that is complete.

This bill isn't about the war on coal. It's about the Republicans' war on science. That's why we're out here. It continues unabated today.

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

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

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

There is a tremendous revolution going on in the United States right now that the Kelly amendment would cut right to the heart of.

Between 2017 and 2025, as fuel economy standards in America would rise to 54.5 miles per gallon just because of those additional 8 years of higher fuel economy standards, we would back 2 million additional barrels of oil per day out of the United States. How much is that?

Well, let me just give you an idea. There is conversation about whether or not there might be a war with Iran. Well, the United States imports 1.8 million barrels of oil per day out of the Persian Gulf, 1.8 million barrels a day.

This amendment would kill the efforts, which the auto industry has accepted, to back out 2 million barrels of oil per day by increasing the fuel economy standards between 2017 and 2025. This is one of the most anti-national security amendments that we could ever have out here on the House floor. Combined with the dramatic increase in CO2 that would go into the atmosphere--an additional 6 billion metric tons of CO2 would go up into the atmosphere if this amendment passed. Now, how much CO2 is that? That's as much CO2 as the entire United States emitted in the year 2010 in our country.

If you look at these two issues in combination, you look at the fact that the auto workers endorsed the increase in fuel economy standards, the auto industry endorses the increase in fuel economy standards, it's not unlike this myth that's been created that it's anything other than the marketplace that is the problem that the coal industry is principally having with natural gas coming as a substitute across the country, and the petrochemical industry, and the utility industry, and consumers choosing it for home heating rather than oil.

Well, the same thing is happening here. Where's the problem? Who wants this change? The auto industry doesn't want it. The auto workers don't want it. Clearly it's a huge national security issue. And the auto industry enjoyed last year and is repeating this year record sales as their fuel economy standards go up.

So I would just say that if you care about national security, you really don't want to change the law tonight that backs out 2 million barrels of oil per day, that the industry that is living under the regulation supports. That makes no sense at all as we're getting briefed in secret this afternoon about al Qaeda all across the Middle East, all across North Africa. Why would we do this?

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Let me just say this again, don't quote me. I'm going to

give you Dan Akerson, the CEO of General Motors. This is what he said about the standards that this amendment would repeal here tonight: Not only would it end our ability to back out 2 million barrels of oil a day that we would import from the Persian Gulf, but the CEO of General Motors says that these standards were a ``win for American manufacturers.''

Hear what I'm saying? The CEO of General Motors said these regulations are a win for the manufacturers of automobiles in the United States. It's not my quote. That's the CEO of General Motors. What's good for General Motors is good for America. I don't know if you've ever heard that. But let me tell you, he's not alone. It's also Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota, Volvo, as well as the United Auto Workers, the State of California consumer groups, and environmental organizations. Everyone agrees on this.

So where is the opposition coming from? Who doesn't like this? Why are we having a debate here? There's no point in trying to repeal something that enhances dramatically our national security, saves consumers--because it will be 54.5 miles a gallon by the time it ends. That means since the car goes twice as far on a gallon, instead of $4 a gallon, it's only $2 a gallon. That's a big savings for everyone every time they fill up their tank. We know that the technology is there because that's every ad that we see on television every night now. It's for the new hybrid. It's for the new technology that they're all touting.

So it's all there. The industry supports these regulations that they're seeking to repeal. So it's just ideological. They don't like the government. The Republican paradox is they don't like the government, but they have to come to Washington in order to make sure it doesn't work. Here, the private sector says it's working.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

My amendment is very simple: If you want to keep America on its current path towards North American energy independence by 2020, then let us ensure that EPA uses the authority to reduce demand for oil that this bill rescinds.

In 1985, after the first-ever fuel economy standards mandated by Congress were implemented, we imported only a quarter of our oil. But after the Republicans and the auto industry spent decades blocking further standards from being set, that number skyrocketed to a staggering 57 percent of our oil being imported on the day in 2009 when George Bush walked out of the White House. We were importing 57 percent of our oil. And remember, we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume in our country into gasoline tanks.

Well, 57 percent is a lot to be dependent upon foreign oil, especially at this perilous time in our Nation's history--paid for with money that supports Iran's nuclear program, roadside bombs in Iraq, rockets for Hezbollah and Hamas, and hate-filled Wahhabi teachings in Saudi Arabia.

We broke that destructive cycle when the Democrats passed, and to his credit, President Bush signed, the 2007 energy bill that included the energy bill that I coauthored to require new fuel economy standards to be set. President Obama accelerated the implementation and used the Clean Air Act to require additional reductions in demand for oil, and we are now back down to importing only 45 percent of our oil.

Got that arithmetic? Fifty-seven percent imported oil on the day George Bush walked out of the White House in January 2009 and 45 percent dependence today. Good job, President Obama. Let's stay on that path.

That was not accomplished by launching a war on the auto industry, because 13 major auto companies support these standards. The unions support the standards, environmental organizations.

By repealing these standards, Republicans have launched a war against every single resident of this country whose hard-earned paycheck gets poured into their gas tanks and have to pay for the defense budget to have all of that protection over in the Middle East to ensure that that oil from that dangerous part of the world comes into our country.

And let's be very clear: If the Obama administration is allowed to continue with all of its energy policies, we will be 95 to 99 percent North American energy independent by the year 2020. That is something we should not get off the path for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, let me make this very clear. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're debating here were the fuel economy standards that George W. Bush signed into law in December of 2007.

That was George W. Bush. The increase in the fuel economy standards that we're talking about here tonight are all supported by General Motors and Ford, all the major 13 auto manufacturers in the United States. The standards that we're talking about that the Republicans want to repeal are supported by the United Auto Workers and by all of the major environmental groups.

Where is the fight? It's George Bush and General Motors and the environmental groups. You are all saying that you want Washington to work. You're all saying you want partisanship to be put aside. How can you look past something here that is the perfect example of how the whole system should work?

You know, Bill Clinton said it right at the Democratic convention. It's all about the arithmetic. The D in the automobile is to drive forward; the R is for the reverse. The R's are the Republicans; the D's want to continue to move forward. They're trying to put this country in reverse here tonight, reverse a consensus that was established when George Bush was President that we had to do something about imported oil, and this is the act that we all agreed that we had to take.

So what does this legislation portend for our country? Well, jobs saved: 1 million plus; gas pump savings: double the gas mileage means the consumers' costs are cut in half no matter where they drive in these new, more efficient vehicles; and energy independence. When it's all said in done, it's 3.1 million barrels of oil per day, and we can tell the Middle East we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.

I'm missing something in this debate. I still haven't heard why you would want to repeal something that helps our country on so many fronts and at the same time reduces, by 6 billion metric tons, the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere that is dangerously warming our planet while America is going to sell 14 million new vehicles this year, the most since 2007, since the recession started, under this new law.

I urge adoption of the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

If I may inquire, I do not think that that objection was, in fact, made in a timely fashion, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I thank the Chair.

I yield myself such time as I may consume just to say that this amendment just makes a terrible bill even worse. The bill requires a new interagency committee to conduct an impossible study of EPA rules that haven't even been proposed using data that doesn't even exist. This amendment requires additional nonexistent information to be included in the study.

My colleague's amendment would require an interagency committee to examine what he calls the health effects of regulatory costs. This is ironic since the Republicans have shown little interest in discussing the health effects of the legislative monstrosity which we are debating today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would prevent EPA from using important high-quality scientific research when setting standards to protect public health and save lives. This amendment establishes an entirely new requirement when EPA sets national ambient air quality standards--the scientific health- based standards that essentially tell us how much pollution is safe to breathe. Under this amendment, EPA cannot use any study in setting these air quality standards unless the study's underlying data has been made public.

Why is this a problem? Because data sets underlying peer-reviewed scientific studies are the private property of the scientists that gathered them. In many cases, those data sets may include confidential business information, or personal information such as

an individual's health records. And the public availability of underlying data is not relevant to the quality of a study. Publication of data sets is not required by peer review journals and such publication is not a common practice in the scientific community.

EPA cannot require scientists to give up their private property when they publish their peer-reviewed studies, so in many cases this amendment would block EPA from using relevant, high-quality studies. This policy has long been on the industry's wish list, and we just have to make sure that we don't make it possible for them to put it on the books as a law. This is not because of the data quality concerns or transparency concerns, but because all of these studies conclusively show that air pollution kills people, which is the very subject they do not want to be able to debate.

This is a very dangerous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California, and I compliment the gentleman from California on his fight on this issue because we're 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.

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, $75.6 billion for nuclear, $11.9 billion for coal, 88.4 billion for nuclear and coal.

Now, it will be one thing if they were saying, ah, 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 was Pete Domenici from New Mexico who put the program on the books in order to provide a crutch for the nuclear industry. 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 d0.

Senator Domenici actually put a hold on former Congressman Nussle even being named to the head of the OMB until he promised he was going to give out loans to the nuclear industry. That's the history of this program: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

The last year the Republicans were 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 billion in loan guarantees for wind and solar. Get the picture? Nuclear, coal-- they like it. Wind and solar--they hate it.

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; 3,200 new 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 energy tax break under the Republican program. That's how crazy all of this is.

Get to the bottom line. I made an amendment in the committee. I said, okay, Solyndra lost $535 million. You can see the crocodile tears how concerned they are about this loan guarantee program. So I said okay, no energy loan guarantee recipient who lost more than $540 million last year is eligible for a loan guarantee.

Now, what I was 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 have dropped down to junk bond status, and the Republicans are saying they are so concerned about the standards.

Here is a company basically teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, with the Federal Government already having given it, that company, an additional $1 billion from Federal taxpayers to keep it afloat. The Republicans all voted ``no.'' We're not going to set up any standards. We're 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. It's an all-out assault 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're locked into the past, the Republican Party, that old way that has failed. 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 subsidies.

Vote ``no'' on this only $88.4 billion dollars more for nuclear and fossil no more Solyndras act.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to level the playing field for wind energy and for the guarantee of American jobs coming out of this No More Solyndras Act. This is the final amendment to this bill. It will not kill the bill. It will not send the bill back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

My motion will ensure that we will only give tens of billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees that are authorized under this No More Solyndras Act as long as we will also avoid raising taxes on the wind industry by $4 billion a year, which is what is going to happen if we allow the production tax credit to expire at the end of this year.

What is already happening in the wind industry? Well, ladies and gentlemen, the wind industry says that we are going to lose 40,000 jobs next year in the wind industry. What has already happened in the last 2 months? Jobs are already being lost in this country because the Republicans are allowing the production tax credit for wind to expire even as they authorize these tens of billions of dollars of new projects for nuclear, for coal. We're not saying that wind should be treated separately, specially. All we want is equal treatment for wind--equal treatment.

What's happening in Iowa? Last month, Clipper Wind Company lost 174 jobs in Iowa--gone. Last week, Gamesa, with 165 jobs in Pennsylvania-- gone. This past Tuesday, Molded Fiber Glass in South Dakota, with 92 jobs in the wind industry--gone. By this time next year, 40,000 jobs in the wind industry--gone. There are 1,700 jobs already gone, and we are on our way to 40,000 jobs lost in the wind industry. That's part one of this amendment.

What is the second part of the amendment? The second part says, if the Republicans are going to authorize

these tens of billions of loan guarantees in this No More Solyndras Act, then 75 percent of all of the equipment made under these loan guarantees is to be made here in America and with American workers making that equipment under their bill. If we are going to be doing this, make it in America, and 75 percent of all the equipment should come from our country.

Why is this amendment even necessary? Well, when the Ryan budget came out here on the House floor in February of 2011, one month after they took over, the Ryan budget cut clean energy by 90 percent. What happened in April out here on the House floor? They cut wind and solar by $17 billion and kept in all of the money for nuclear and coal. That's not a level playing field. That's going after wind. That's going after solar. In this bill, what do they do? Basically, what they say is they can keep in $88.5 billion for nuclear and for coal loan guarantees, but for wind and solar, we're sorry.

What we are saying in this amendment is let's have a level playing field. Let's make sure that wind is given the opportunity to flourish in the marketplace. Let's not tilt the playing field so that wind is a guaranteed loser in Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in States all across this country which are right now facing a 40,000 job loss. That's what this is all about. Don't give $4 billion a year to the oil industry and say that it can't be touched and at the same time cut $4 billion from the wind industry, which is an industry that created 12,000 new megawatts of electricity in our country this year.

So this amendment is very simple. It says keep the $4 billion for the wind industry so that we don't lose 40,000 wind jobs in the next 6 months in State after State after State in our country--States that are already beginning to see those losses--and let's make sure that 75 percent of all of the equipment that's made under this loan guarantee program is made by American workers here in the United States. Vote ``yes'' for this recommittal motion. Make it here in America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in the history of this whole program, it was started for the nuclear industry. Pete Domenici, 2005. Why? Because there hadn't been a new nuclear power plant built in 30 years out in the free market so they needed the Federal Government to come in and prop it up on crutches. That's the only way it would work.

So when President Obama took over, he said, Well, maybe we should do something for solar as well. Of course, the coal industry, the oil industry, the nuclear industry, they recoiled in fear that there would actually be competition in the marketplace. When one solar company got in trouble, the Republicans pounced on solar. They pounced on wind. They pounced. That's why, by the way, the Republicans are going to allow the wind tax breaks to expire this year, but they're going to keep all of the oil tax breaks on the books.

So here we are today and they have something called the No More Solyndras Act. Ah. Except for the $88 billion that they're going to grandfather in in terms of the application date that they have selected.

So, who qualifies for that? Well, $76.5 billion would be the nuclear industry, $11.9 billion would be the coal industry. Ah, I get it now. It's not the No More Solyndras Act; it's the ``Only $88.4 Billion More for Nuclear and Coal No More Solyndras Act of 2012.'' It's just the same kind of tilted playing field that the Republicans have always had. Nuclear, oil, coal, great. Wind and solar finally getting going--12,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States this year; 3,200 megawatts of solar installed in the United States this year--that puts the fear of the marketplace in the coal and the nuclear and the oil industry brain. So that's why we're out here with this ``kill solar and save nuclear and coal'' with this incredible amount of money.

Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I had an amendment that I requested the Rules Committee put in place, and that is that if your company last year lost $540 million or more, you could not qualify for a loan guarantee. Remember, Solyndra lost $538 million, so I picked $540 million. And if your company is on the verge of being delisted by the New York Stock Exchange and has already reached junk bond status with S&P's and Moody's, come on, you cannot qualify. I mean, come on. We're not having Federal taxpayer money go to companies on the verge of being delisted and that have already reached junk bond status.

They all voted ``no'' in the committee. When I had my amendment put up before the Rules Committee, they rejected it. Now, why did they reject it? Because the United States Enrichment Corporation lost $540 million last year; it's on the verge of being delisted on the stock exchange; it's reached junk bond status; but yet nuclear will qualify. So I said, well, we can't invest in that kind of a company.

As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the same thing is true for buying American. If we're going to have these loan guarantees, let's at least make sure that they are American jobs. They wouldn't put that amendment in order as well.

This whole issue here is basically one of this favored oil-above-all agenda, not all of the above--not when you say tax breaks for oil companies continue and wind companies die; not when you have loan guarantees that continue on for nuclear and coal, but not for wind, not for solar. It's just so transparent. It's just arithmetic, ladies and gentlemen. Solyndra loses 538, the Enrichment Corporation--nuclear-- loses 540. The arithmetic is pretty simple: They both should not qualify. But not these guys, no, no.

Not these guys, oh, no--no, no, no, because it's not marketplace. There's no rhyme or reason to it until you start to think about what has always been their agenda. That has always been the fossil fuel industry agenda.

I would abolish the entire program. You want to abolish this program? Abolish it. Put the vote out here, I'll vote for it. Get rid of the loan guarantee program, then let solar and wind and nuclear and coal and oil all compete in the free marketplace for private capital investment. You want to know what that would do? It would put the fear of Adam Smith in the heart of the nuclear industry because they would receive no private investment, none. It takes the Federal Government providing a crutch. So it then requires the Republican Party to take away the loan guarantees for the competition. Well, they're giving the loan guarantees, Federal taxpayer loan guarantees, to industries that otherwise could not get any money in the private sector. The United States Enrichment Corporation can't get any private sector investment. Nuclear power industry, this loan guarantee program--two for $8 billion for a program that is already $1 billion over the two Vogtle plants in Georgia. The whole thing is bad arithmetic for the American taxpayer.

I thank the gentleman.

As Americans watch their Olympic favorites this week, House Republicans are handing out gold medals to all their favorites right out here on the House floor.

In London, speed, agility, and strength determines who gets the gold. But in the Republican-controlled House, it's the wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations who secure all of the gold medals.

Two weeks ago, Republicans awarded the gold to America's defense contractors by actually increasing defense spending. Despite sequestration, despite our ballooning deficit, despite the looming fiscal cliff, they increased defense spending.

Then last week, oil companies scored a gold medal by securing new drilling rights off of America's coastline, off of our beaches in California and New England and Maryland to drill. And the Republicans refused yet again, even though Big Oil's margin of victory was enormous on that issue, Republicans refused to end $4 billion in annual tax breaks to the oil companies we cannot afford, despite the fact that the oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year, the most profitable industry in the history of the planet.

And today, it's millionaires and billionaires who will cross the finish line and secure the biggest gold medal of all, as the Republicans double down on the Bush tax cuts by rewriting the Tax Code to include $331,000 in additional tax cuts for the average millionaire in this country, a tax break they do not need and America cannot afford.

House Republicans are setting a world record in rigging the tax system for the ultra-rich while cutting middle class priorities like education and investing in good American jobs. The big losers in the Republican Olympics: the middle class, whose taxes will go up. The middle class, where the Medicare guarantee for millions of seniors will ultimately be destroyed. The big losers: investment in finding cures for Alzheimer's and cancer and Parkinson's, which will have to be drastically cut so the Republicans can crown billionaires, Big Oil, and nuclear bomb builders the big gold medal winners. The losers: the American people, and their families' health and well-being.

Vote ``no'' on this fixed Republican Olympics. Vote ``no'' to take care of the billionaires in our country as ordinary families suffer. Nostalgia for a past that never existed has overtaken the idealism which should animate our debates here on the House floor. For the poor, the sick, and the elderly, the past is just a memory and the future is their hard reality. And this Republican budget makes that future all the more difficult for the middle class in our country. Vote ``no'' on this fixed Republican Olympics.

I thank the gentlelady for her great leadership.

I have served 36 years on the Telecommunications Subcommittee. No Member of Congress has ever done this.

I know that this is an important moment. This is an important resolution because the Internet today is indispensable to our economy, intricately linked to innovation worldwide, and initiates the free flow of ideas around the planet. It is the most successful communications and commercial medium in the history of the world.

In testimony before the Telecommunications Subcommittee in May, Vint Cerf, known to many as the ``Father of the Internet,'' explained:

To allow any rules that would sequester this innovation and

inhibit others would damage the future of the Internet

dramatically.

I could not agree more. That is why I strongly support this bipartisan resolution with Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Walden, and Ms. Bono Mack. This is why we have to be out here together. It is why we must send a bipartisan signal to the rest of the world that the United States will defend an open Internet.

The World Wide Web is essential to our economy. Companies large and small rely on the Web regardless of whether their commercial aspirations are local or global. The Internet's worldwide scope has also helped to foster community and cultural communications across the planet. We have recently witnessed the power of social media in toppling dictators and in promoting democracy across the globe.

What makes the Internet so special is the decentralized, open system that currently governs it. It is chaotic; it is impossible to control; and the multistakeholder process that is in place today ensures the Internet's vibrancy will continue into the future.

Here, domestically, we have to ensure that the broadband barons don't close down this cacophony of voices which are heard and stifle innovation. But globally, yes, a number of countries, including China and Russia, are now proposing measures that strike at the core of what makes the Internet great. Their proposals could stifle innovation, cripple job growth, muzzle democratic principles. These proposed measures include bringing the Internet under intergovernmental control and imposing fees for relaying Internet traffic or termination rates for delivering Internet traffic to its end destination.

We have to resist and reject these regressive ideas. It would undermine the essence of the Internet. It would take us back to the days when, in the satellite world, it was the controlling governmental officials in countries that actually decided what ideas could go into that country and made people pay exorbitant rates in order to get access to those ideas. The Internet--this packet switch system that was invented in the United States--breaks down those barriers. We must ensure that we keep Internet freedom. Thank you all for bringing this great resolution out to the floor here this evening.