Cliff Stearns

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we've had a very good session of the 112th Congress, and we got through it last night. I think all of us, regardless of how we voted, feel a certain relief that we can move on in this country and start to tackle the huge deficit we have. This is going to be my last speech on the floor. I had the opportunity yesterday to deliver a speech that deals with what I felt were some of the problems in this country with regard to the deficit. I quoted a lot from Thomas Jefferson, who aptly realized how troublesome and serious the amount of borrowing by this Congress and past Congresses could be to this country. He, of course, inherited a similar situation when he became President, and how he solved it, I felt, was important to put in the Record--his acute sense of urgency and how he went about solving the deficit he inherited. So I talked about that last night in my speech on the floor. The second thing I talked about was this whole idea of Keynesian economics and that the problem we have is continuing to stimulate the economy with either QE1, QE2, QE3, and so on with this quantitative easing that Chairman Bernanke is doing and how that is ultimately hurting this country. I also thought I would speak briefly today on some of the accomplishments that I have had over my 24 years. Some of these are very important, I think, for my district and, of course, I think, for the country. The first one I'll mention is the Cross Florida Barge Canal. This was 86,000 acres that were tied up at the Federal Government. President Nixon wanted to do the Cross Florida Barge Canal. Ultimately, he decided against it, so this amount of land was tied up in the Federal Register. With the help of Charlie Bennett, a Congressman from Jacksonville at that time, I sponsored a bill to retake that 86,000 acres and move it back to Florida, where it was originally located. So we de-authorized the Cross Florida Barge Canal, and President Bush signed into law my bill on November 29, 1990. The second major piece of legislation I am very proud of is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was a conferee with the Senate. I had many amendments involved with that, particularly with the broadcast side. It provided competition, reduced regulation, and it started this whole innovation in our telecommunication industry. And it was a great honor for me to serve and to be contributing to that great bill which created all of the new jobs in this country. The third one was the Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act, which was signed by President Clinton on March 10, 2000. This bill was to provide extended care services for our veterans, to make improvements in health care programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was chairman of the Health Subcommittee at the time, and I was able to advance this bill, and I am very proud that President Bill Clinton signed it. The fourth bill was the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. President Clinton signed it on February 13, 2000. It prevents as many as 50,000 unnecessary deaths each year in the United States by using what are called AEDs, which are automated external defibrillators. It allowed people to be trained to save lives, and so this act was very important. I'm glad that it was signed as my bill. The fifth one I am very proud of that President Bush signed is dealing with asthma conditions. Self-administration of medications was prevented in schools because they had no drugs allowed, and some of the children had asthma and they needed EpiPin or they needed some albuterol, and if it wasn't available they could go into asthma attack. This bill allowed nurses in schools to provide this type of treatment. The sixth one is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It was signed by President George Bush on October 26, 2005. It basically provided civil liability action protection for companies that were manufacturing, distributing, or importing firearms or ammunition, for damages that were caused. Cities and States were suing these manufacturers, putting them out of business. They were nuisance suits, and I'm glad that President Bush signed it. The last one I'm very happy to talk about is a bill that President Clinton signed, H.R. 5109, which basically assisted the Veterans Health Administration to help personnel. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Jack Seum, my chief of staff, for his 20 years of service; Paul Flusche for his 17 years; Sherrie Porter for her 10; and Shawna Williams for her 14 years of service. They did an extraordinarily good job, and I thank them. I recognize my long time employees. Jack Seum, Chief of Staff, 20 years of service; Paul Fluche, Press Secretary, 17 years of service; Sherrie Porter, District Director, 10 years; and Shawna Williams, Staff Caseworker, 14 years. And I thank all of my staff for their strong efforts. Also I want to thank Jay Pierson for his help during my tenure in Congress. He was the floor manager and did a great job. His 34 years of service was extremely impressive. district funding requests summary 1. Establishment of an outpatient clinic for Veterans in Leesburg and Ocala, Florida. 2. Instrumental in building a Veterans' hospital facility in western Marion County, part of The Villages, with ten acres of land donated by Gary Morris, the owner of The Villages. 3. Funding for a 235-bed facility for the Veterans Administration Hospital in Gainesville. 4. Numerous funding support for the infrastructure for the beltway in Ocala and the beltway in Clay County. 5. Conversion of the Master Navy Jet Base Cecil Field into the Cecil Field Commerce Center with continuous appropriated funding made to help transition this into a commercial enterprise. 6. Further funding for the National Guard in Camp Blanding for the new Education Center as a result of the 9/11 tragedy and terrorist attack. Also helped National Guard in the relocation of the space program deposit of rocket fuel at Camp Blanding. 7. Federal funding for the building of a new prison in Sumter County and the funding for the intersection to allow transportation requirements to be met off of I75. 8. Accomplishments for Jacksonville Area: JAX VA Cemetery: I first offered legislation (H.R. 3882) to establish a new VA cemetery in northeast Florida in 1996. There are approximately 189,000 veterans in the Jacksonville area, but there were no veterans' cemetery to provide them a permanent place of honor. It was not until 2003, with the inclusion of language from my bill (H.R. 197) into H.R. 1516, the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, that a veterans' cemetery in Jacksonville was finally established. Cecil Field: With the closure of Cecil Field, I have worked with area leaders and involved citizens in transforming Cecil into a commercial center. Since 2001, I have secured $10.5 million in appropriations funding for the former Cecil Field, now Cecil Commerce Center. I also worked through the Military Airport Program (MAP) to upgrade the facilities at Cecil. From FY 2000 to 2003, I helped Cecil receive more than $12.5 million in MAP funding for building and hangar renovation, runway rehabilitation, and infrastructure improvements. Florida National Guard: I have a long record of working with the Florida National Guard and its premier facility at Camp Blanding. I have secured funding and support for establishing the Rocket Motor Storage Facility, various infrastructure upgrades, and the Air National Guard Weather Readiness Training Center. NADEP: I support the mission and workers at Jacksonville NADEP. Stearns contacted Secretary of Defense and pointed out specific examples in which NADEP personnel contributed directly to returning equipment to combat readiness. JAX Port: I consistently join the area delegation in supporting dredging at JAX Port Authority. more recent examples are 1. Representative Stearns introduced FAST, the ``Faster Access to Specialized Treatment Act'' (H.R. 4132), which rewrote Section 506 of the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act to modernize the accelerated approval pathway for rare disease drugs. FAST was included in the FDA Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), Rare Disease Bill. 2. Congressman Stearns worked with Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) to craft H.R. 734, the Pedestrian Safety Enhacement Act of 2009 which directed the Secretary of Transportation to set a noise level sufficient to alert blind and other pedestrians of the presence of operating motor vehicles. This legislation was signed into law on January 4, 2011 as S. 841. 3. One of the high points for veterans and serving on the 24 years on the Veterans Affairs Committee was the accomplishment of getting a new cemetery in Jacksonville. The language in Representative Stearns' bill H.R. 1516 was incorporated into the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, establishing a veterans' cemetery in Jacksonville. This was signed by President Bush. Representative Stearns had originally dropped H.R. 3882 and it was ten years later that this Act was accomplished and signed into law by President Bush. 4. Representative Stearns served as a member of the Air Force Congress with Sam Johnson who spent 6\1/2\ years as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. While a member of the Air Force Caucus the Air Force Association presented to Congressman Stearns the W. Stuart Symington Award which is the highest honor presented to a civilian in the field of national security. 5. A recent bill which passed the Congress for the first time with Democrat support was H.R. * * * (James) the Concealed Weapons Permit to allow Americans to carry a concealed weapon if they have established their credentials from the state of their residency to other states.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, today I close my 24 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives--it has been a rare honor to serve the people of north east Florida and I'm humbled by this responsibility. In reflecting on my tenure, I'm very proud of my record of accomplishments. As a veteran of the United States Air Force, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to serve on the Veterans Affairs Committee and to work on behalf my fellow veterans. Through these efforts, we established new VA outpatient clinics in the district, including a state of the art facility in South Marion County. In addition, we succeeded in building support for the new patient bed center at the Gainesville VA Medical Center. And, after over a decade of work, we saw my language to create a new veterans cemetery in north east Florida signed into law. Furthermore, two measures I offered in the VA became law: the Veterans Millennium Health Care & Benefits Act improving veterans' access to long-term care; and the VA Health Care Personnel Act to increase pay for VA health care professionals. Working with members on both sides of the aisle, one of my first achievements was gaining enactment of S. 2740 / H.R. 4237 to amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. This measure deauthorized the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, and allowed the State of Florida to preserve this canal corridor as a greenway spanning the state. Then there is the Telecomunications Act of 1996. Computers, the Internet, and other innovations transformed the national economy, making our laws and regulations outdated and burdensome. As a House conferee on this legislation, I worked with my colleagues in developing a response providing greater competition, less regulation, better service, and lower prices. And once again, Congress should work to remove the current obstacles to greater innovation that will bring more products, services, and jobs. Most recently, my selection to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations provided the chance to make our government more transparent and responsive. Through our oversight, we discouraged the implementation of overly rigorous rules and regulations that hamper economic growth and job creation. We also discovered the waste and abuse in the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program. This risky scheme to create so-called green jobs cost taxpayers billions of dollars while yielding a few jobs. This is best exemplified by Solyndra, which received $535 million from the taxpayers only to declare bankruptcy and becoming the target of a criminal investigation by the FBI. In recognition of our $16 trillion debt, I take great satisfaction in my record on fiscal responsibility. It is a distinct honor to be one of only 53 House and Senate members to receive an ``A'' rating from the National Taxpayers Union. In addition, my record on jobs and the economy earned recognition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform. I also owe many thanks--to so many of my colleagues, and especially to the people of Florida's Sixth District. I also thank my staff for their help in serving my constituents, my Chief of Staff Jack Seum and Paul Flusche here in Washington, and Shawna Williams, Sherrie Porter, and Jean Clough (Cluff) in the District. Again, it has been an honor and an experience of a lifetime to serve in Congress.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of my constituents, Barry Rutenberg, from Gainesville, Fla. Barry is the 2012 chairman of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and has been deeply involved in helping housing--and his fellow builders--get back on course. After suffering the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression, Barry's steady leadership at NAHB during the past year has paid great dividends as he has presided over a solid recovery for the industry. Housing starts and single-family sales are projected to jump 20 percent for the year, and the number of improving housing markets has soared from just 12 in September of 2011 to more than 200 in December of 2012. Meanwhile, home prices have stabilized across much of the Nation, helping to put more workers on the job and making housing a net contributor to economic growth. As chairman of NAHB, Barry has provided a laser-like focus to help get housing back on track by working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to get pro-housing bills introduced and passed. NAHB played a pivotal role in reauthorizing and preserving the National Flood Insurance Program for an additional five years. This put to an end the many short-term lapses the program has endured in recent years--along with the delays and canceled home sales those lapses have caused home buyers and home builders. Under Barry's direction, NAHB instituted a nationwide Protect Homeownership campaign that featured several rallies in key political swing states during this past election season. This effort to elevate housing on the national agenda sent a powerful message to the electorate that Americans value homeownership and Congress must support pro-housing policies that will create jobs and help local communities to flourish. In normal times housing accounts for more than 17 percent of the Nation's total economic output. Building 100 single-family homes creates more than 300 full-time jobs and generates millions of dollars of tax revenues which increase the property tax base that supports local schools, police and firefighters across the land. To help housing return to its position as an engine of economic growth, Barry instituted an aggressive agenda at NAHB. He made it a priority to help protect housing tax incentives that are vital to renters and home buyers; prevent expensive, pointless regulations from impeding home building and dampening the recovery; and to push for a balanced solution to overhaul the Nation's housing finance system that retains a federal backstop in the event of a catastrophic situation while providing a stable, affordable supply of credit for home buyers and limiting taxpayer exposure. He also maintained a regular presence on Capitol Hill, meeting with lawmakers and testifying on behalf of the Nation's home builders on how small businesses and consumers would benefit from smarter and more sensible regulation. I commend the efforts of Barry Rutenberg and NAHB to ensure that housing remains accessible and affordable to America's families and an important national priority.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 10, 2012, Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland presented European Leaders with the Nobel Peace Prize. The European Union (EU) received the distinguished award for its promotion of peace and human rights. Since the end of World War II, Europe has seen six decades without wars, turning a continent historically known for conflicts into a continent of peace. Since the formation of the European Union's initial organizations, there has not been a single hostile incident between the member states now known as the European Union. While there has been violence and war on the edges of the EU, such as the Balkan Wars, these did not happen between EU members, and now with the goal of full EU membership the nations of the Balkans are beginning to look forward to the future. Membership in the EU requires a nation to have a fully operating democratic government, protection of civil liberties for a broad variety of minorities, recognition of private property and a fully functioning free enterprise economy. EU membership is a demand for democracy and free enterprise which brings peace and security to every country that has joined. The growth from six western European countries to an organization of 27 member states that represent over 500 million people with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $17.6 trillion is a transatlantic accomplishment worth noting for generations to come. The U.S. can take pride in the support and cooperation it has provided the EU over the years, with both our economies representing 54% of world GDP and is responsible for 14 million ``on shored'' jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. Speaker, peace is not simply an era without war, but a common goal we share and are committed to maintaining. Both our constituencies are faced with terrorism, climate change, and recovering economies. These problems know not of party lines or of national borders. We are encouraged by the EU's achievements as a community of nations that have overcome so much in the pursuit of peace. Where there was war, now is peace. As we continue to work closer with our allies in the EU, I am confident that where there is now peace, peace shall remain. Both the EU and the U.S. face a recovering economy. Towards that end, we are encouraged to hear of preliminary discussions regarding a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU and the impact it will have on jobs and economic growth for our economies. While the reduction of spending by nations is required, our efforts should also support a special emphasis on job creation. With the EU and the U.S. as the largest trade partners for each other, reduction in tariff and non- tariff barriers will help facilitate a job creating environment providing hope for the citizens we represent.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize United States Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Brian Forsythe for his service to our great nation. A resident of Florida, SMSgt Forsythe has honorably served for 21 years and will be retiring in January of 2013. His contributions ensure the greatest Air Force in the world completes their mission statement to fly, fight, and win. . .in air, space, and cyber space through the mastery of various positions including: Wing Functional Manager, Command Group Superintendent, and Infrastructure Section Chief. SMSgt Forsythe graduated from the Air Force Airmen Leadership School, Air Force Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy, and Southwestern College, among others. In his 21 years of dedicated service, SMSgt Forsythe has displayed both patriotism and bravery through his successful deployments in Operations Southern Watch, Northern Watch, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. As a selfless mentor, he has inspired numerous US and Allied Airmen earning recognition for individual accomplishments. His life is a living testament to the courage and duty our men and women in the armed forces possess, so that freedom and liberty may endure. On behalf of Florida's Sixth Congressional District, I extend my congratulations to SMSgt Brian Forsythe on his retirement from the United States Air Force.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following: June 25, 1925-November 12, 2003. Teacher, mentor, beloved mother and daughter. ``A lady of grace and nobility. A legacy of inspiration and passion.'' Alice Haigazian Berman, first generation American daughter of Armenian immigrants, Avedis and Baidzar Haigazian. She was born in Chicago, lived in Los Angeles, New York City, Ocala Florida. Wife of Harry Berman of the Music Corporation of America. Mother of Lloyd Berman Bellows. Alice was a tenacious advocate for recognition of the 1915 Genocide that took the lives of over one and a half million Armenians, including several members of her mother's family. She was a classical Ballet instructor, a champion of the arts, a horse breeder, a registered securities broker. She wrote radio copy as a student. She appeared in traveling theatrical productions that included such personalities as Bob Hope, Harvey Korman and Dom Deluise. Alice was a mentor of young people and an inspiration and role model for all. Her character and undying spirit will be missed by all who knew her and all those whose lives she touched.

Mr. STEARNS

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

Mr. STEARNS. In an ideal world, the government would never really have gone down this road to create these loan guarantee programs in the first place. I think all of us realize that. While eliminating the program outright is admittedly appealing, and I think a lot of us on this side of the aisle want to do that, we must be mindful of the fact that applicants in the queue have already invested significant time and financial resources towards simply securing their loan guarantee, and they have really narrowed their financing options also in reliance of the existence of this program. So the question would be, when we thought about this: Is it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game? We're the United States Government. We hear all the time that the government changes the rules. We should be striving to reduce risk caused by the Federal Government, not create it. That's why I said in my statement here that we have to be mindful of the fact so many applicants have already committed themselves and put their time in. But I think we can learn from this Solyndra debacle. And based upon this amendment by Mr. Waxman, I think we realize that in the end that the No More Solyndras Act tackles all the points that he's concerned about. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Waxman amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, this amendment would allow the title XVII loan guarantee program to go on, continue indefinitely. The committee's 18-month investigation made one thing, I think, absolutely clear: the title XVII loan guarantee program must be eliminated. The No More Solyndras Act accomplishes this goal. It's wholly supported by the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee and by the full committee. We support an all-of-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).

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

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

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

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

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, in a recent editorial by The Wall Street Journal, dated September 11, 2012, entitled, ``China's Solyndra Economy,'' the owner of a solar panel company in China was unable to repay $3 billion in a bank loan that was guaranteed for his solar panel company. Do you know what happened? He leaped from a sixth floor building because he couldn't repay it. This editorial outlines an unfailing description of all of these different solar panel companies in China that could not repay their loan guarantees. In fact, this summer, the New York Stock Exchange- listed company LDK Solar, which is the world's second largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95 million owed to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $600 million in just the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $200 million in the first quarter of 2012, and it has already shed 10,000 jobs. It goes on in this article to point out that the Chinese are doing the wrong thing--they're picking winners and losers--and these people who are losing are the people who can't pay back their loan guarantees. Some people in Washington seem to feel that we should compete with China. We have this China envy. In fact, this is what the President said: I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China because we refuse to make the same commitment here. Now, given what this editorial says and what happened in China, I would think the President of the United States would have to rethink his position. So many in Washington have developed this serious case of China envy, seeing it as an exemplar case of how to run an economy. In fact, the Chinese, the Beijing mandarins, are no better at picking winners and losers, and are just as prone to blowing money as we are here in the United States with these beltway boondoggles. So, if people are concerned about this program and don't think this legislation is necessary, just take a few moments to read this editorial, which outlines the problems with solar panels in China. I would say to my distinguished ranking member from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) that she and I both know the mission of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is to extirpate--to root out--waste, fraud, and abuse. If it happens anywhere, we should step forward, and that's what we did in the Solyndra investigation. We attempted to understand what the problem was in order to come to grips with what happened. It took us 18 months. It took us almost 8 months to get back the emails from our subpoenas back in November. We were systematic, and we tried to do it without a huge amount of political rhetoric, and I think we accomplished that. The ultimate result of this investigation is the No More Solyndras Act, H.R. 6213. What this bill does is to basically answer some fundamental questions, and it takes the lessons that we learned from this investigation and puts them into this bill. I reach out to my Democrat colleagues on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) was on the floor just recently, and he indicated he also agreed with us about the subordination. If I understood what he said, he 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. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I would say to the dean of the House of Representatives, I appreciate sincerely his compliments and his kind words about me. The words he used by calling us Luddites, of course, refers to the 19th century textile workers who objected to the machinery being used. I would really say to Mr. Dingell that he is Luddite because you folks are objecting to letting the free market work. Just because other countries subsidize their energy sector to diversify their portfolios doesn't mean that we should, too. In fact, you saw the editorial recently in The Wall Street Journal how the Chinese subsidize, and now all their solar panel companies are going bankrupt, too.

Mr. STEARNS. As pointed out by Chairman Upton, the investigation was methodical; it was systematic; it was thorough; and it was over an 18- month period. It took us almost 8 months after we issued a subpoena in November to try to even get the administration to respond. The Energy and Commerce Committee requested, received and reviewed documents from every executive branch agency that was connected to Solyndra, and it interviewed more than a dozen administration officials who played key roles in the loan guarantee. The committee has also reviewed documents produced by Solyndra's investors, as well as by DOE's independent consultant and legal adviser. As the committee's investigation revealed, the Obama administration put Solyndra's loan on a fast track for political reasons despite repeated red flags and warnings in 2009 from the Office of Management and Budget and DOE officials about the company's financial condition and, actually, about the market for the product they were trying to sell, which was that they couldn't do it. It's clear that DOE failed to adequately monitor the loan guarantee, blindly writing check after check to Solyndra as the company hemorrhaged cash throughout 2010. When the warnings came to fruition and Solyndra was out of cash in the autumn of 2010, the Obama administration doubled down on its bad bet, restructuring Solyndra's loan in early 2011 and putting wealthy investors at the front of the line, ahead of taxpayers, which was a clear violation of the Energy Policy Act. Right up to the bankruptcy filing, my colleagues, the administration was willing to take extraordinary measures to keep Solyndra afloat for political reasons and ensure that the first loan, which was their poster child, would not be a failure. The investigation also showed that DOE failed to consult with the Treasury Department, which was part of the law and which they should have done as required by the Energy Policy Act, prior to issuing a conditional commitment to Solyndra, and that Treasury didn't even play a role in reviewing the restructuring, which was also a violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The No More Solyndras Act will stop that, and it will correct this by ensuring that Treasury is actively involved in the loan process to protect taxpayers. This investigation and this No More Solyndras Act are great examples of how congressional oversight should work. Our investigation uncovered a problem, and this legislation will fix it. In closing, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in particular, Todd Harrison, Karen Christian, Alan Slobodin, John Stone and Carl Anderson and my Legislative Director, James Thomas, for their dedication and hard work during this investigation.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the distinguished chairman. And let me say that we are here this morning because the Oversight Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Upton, and myself as chair were able to define the problems. Now, on that side of the aisle, they obviously are going to defend the administration. But you can't defend an administration that lost $535 million, and they did so in a way that violated the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Now, the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, indicated that nothing was done wrong. I think if she looks carefully at the evidence, obviously, a lot was done wrong because the Energy Policy Act said you cannot subordinate taxpayers' money to the two hedge funds which they did in the case of the Solyndra loan. And also, I think when you look at the evidence, you'll see that there's wholly mismanagement by the administration and the Department of Energy. And actually, there were so many warning signs that, in the end, this loan should have never gone forward. And these warnings came from the administration. So, my colleagues, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, which I am proud to join with Chairman Upton in sponsoring. And as mentioned, this is a culmination of 18 months of thorough investigation by our Subcommittee on Oversight and on Investigations. Solyndra, as many of you know, was a California-based solar panel manufacturer that not only went bankrupt, but was also raided by the FBI a week later, and ultimately lost almost a half a billion dollars. Now, my colleagues, this bill was systematically put together carefully. It will phase out the Department of Energy's grossly mismanaged loan guarantee program by simply stopping DOE from issuing any loan guarantees for applications submitted after December 31, 2011. But, for those applications submitted prior to the December 2011 cut- off date, the legislation allows them to remain eligible to receive a guarantee but subjects them to tougher, tougher scrutiny, and provides taxpayers strong new protections, including--let me outline these four basic protections. (1) forbidding the subordination of U.S. taxpayers' dollars at any time to private investors; (2) requiring the Department of Energy to submit to Congress a transparency report that details the specifics of any new loan program that is going to be guaranteed by our taxpayers; (3) requiring the Department of Energy to first consult with Treasury prior to any restructuring of a guarantee; and (4) holding DOE officials accountable for their actions by imposing penalties on them for failing to follow the law. Certainly, the folks on this side of the aisle would agree, that if we have continued subordination and if these people do it in violation of this act, there should be some accountability. As many of you know, Solyndra was the first recipient, as Mr. Upton mentioned, of a DOE loan guarantee under title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It also holds the dubious title as the first stimulus-backed recipient of a DOE loan guarantee to actually go bankrupt just 2 years after the loan closed and 6 months after DOE restructured the loan. So it didn't take long for these folks to end up in bankruptcy. And when they were out of cash, the Obama administration doubled down on their bad debt. Now, why would the administration double down on their bad debt? I think we'll go into that further as we get into this debate. They attempted to restructure Solyndra's loan and subordinate the interest of the taxpayer to two very, very wealthy and well-connected investors, all but ensuring taxpayers will never, ever see a dime. Other DOE loan recipients have also struggled. Three of the first five companies which received loan guarantees issued by DOE's Loan Guarantee Program--Solyndra, Beacon, Abound Solar--have all filed for bankruptcy, losing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will never, ever be recovered. Two other companies are struggling, my colleagues. Nevada Geothermal has substantial debt and no positive cash flow, and First Wind had to withdraw their planned IPO and also has substantial debt. So, on behalf of the American taxpayers, we had a duty to figure out what went wrong with the Solyndra loan guarantee and whether the Loan Guarantee Program was properly managed. I think, as we go into this debate, we will show that it was not well managed.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, later today, we will begin debate on the rule for H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, which, along with my chairman, Fred Upton of Michigan, I am proud to sponsor. This legislation is a culmination of an intensive and thorough 18-month investigation by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, which I chair, and will fix the problems we have uncovered. Specifically, the No More Solyndras Act will phase out the Department of Energy's grossly mismanaged loan guarantee program by prohibiting DOE from issuing any loan guarantees for applications submitted after December 31, 2011, and it will provide taxpayers strong, new protection for any pending participants in this program. The bill provides greater loan guarantee transparency by requiring the DOE to report to Congress on the decisionmaking process, and, of course, the details of the loan. The bill also prohibits DOE from restructuring the terms of any guarantee and forbids the subordination of United States taxpayers' dollars at any time to private investors and holds the Department of Energy officials accountable for their actions by imposing penalties by failing to follow this law. As many of you know, Solyndra was the first recipient of a DOE loan guarantee from title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and, frankly, was the poster child for President Obama's stimulus-driven green economy. It was also the first stimulus-backed recipient of a DOE loan guarantee to file for bankruptcy just 2 years after the loan closed, and 6 months after DOE restructured the loan and subordinated taxpayers' interest to two wealthy and well-connected investors, all but ensuring taxpayers won't see a dime. Other DOE loan recipients have also struggled. Three of the first five companies which received loan guarantees issued by the DOE Loan Guarantee program--Solyndra, Beacon, and Abound Solar--have all filed for bankruptcy, losing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that will never, ever be recovered. The other two companies are struggling, also. Nevada Geothermal has substantial debts and no positive cash flow, and First Wind had to withdraw their planned IPO and also has substantial debt to boot. On behalf of the American taxpayers, we had a duty to figure out what went wrong with Solyndra, the loan guarantee, and whether the loan guarantee program was properly managed. The Solyndra investigation has been thorough and methodical. The Energy and Commerce Committee requested and received and reviewed documents from every executive branch agency connected to Solyndra, and interviewed more than a dozen administration officials who played key roles in the loan guarantee program. The committee has also reviewed documents produced by the Solyndra investors, as well as DOE's independent consultant and their legal advisers. As the committee's investigation revealed, the Obama administration put Solyndra's loan on the fast track for political reasons, despite repeated red flags and warnings in 2009 from the Office of Management and Budget and DOE officials about the company's financial condition in the market for Solyndra's product. Were they viable? It is clear that DOE failed to adequately monitor the loan guarantee, blindly writing checks to Solyndra as the company hemorrhaged cash throughout the year 2010. When the warnings came to fruition and Solyndra was out of cash in the autumn of 2010, the Obama administration doubled down on its bad debt and bad bet, restructuring Solyndra's loan in early 2011 and putting wealthy investors at the front of the line in front of taxpayers, which is a clear violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Right up to the bankruptcy filing, the administration was willing to take extraordinary measures to keep Solyndra afloat for political reasons and ensure that the first loan guarantee was not going to be a failure. The investigation also showed that the DOE failed to consult with the Treasury Department as simply required by the Energy Policy Act prior to issuing a conditional commitment to Solyndra and that Treasury didn't even play a role in simply reviewing the restructuring. The No More Solyndras Act will correct this by ensuring that Treasury is actively involved in the loan process to protect our taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, the Solyndra investigation and the No More Solyndras Act are a great example of how congressional oversight should work. We asked the tough questions, collected all the facts, identified the problem, and now we're offering good legislation. I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, to ensure that the mistakes and misguided decisions that occurred never, ever happen again.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, in 2006 when the original SAFE WEB Act was signed into law, I was Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. I believed then, as I believe now, that this bill provided needed authority to the Federal Trade Commission to address cross border fraud. Essentially, the SAFE WEB Act ensures that the FTC can effectively combat Internet scams and fraud being perpetrated against U.S. citizens by foreign operators. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have worked to pass strong data security and cyber protections for consumers, and the SAFE WEB Act directly correlates with this mission. Without reauthorization, the Act and its grant of authorities to the FTC will expire on December 22, 2013. I appreciate Chairman Bono Mack's attention to this issue and focus on reauthorizing this bill before it expires. Delay in reauthorization could threaten the strong relationships the FTC has been able to build with foreign countries, such as Canada, these past six years. I am also pleased to see that while today's bill will extend the SAFE WEB Act for an additional seven years, it also makes clear that the law will sunset if not again reauthorized. While I applaud what the FTC has done so far, I support sun-setting laws that provide independent agencies with new authorities. Such action guards against bureaucratic overreach and preserves important Congressional oversight. In conclusion, I believe this is an important bill and I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my distinguished chairman and colleague. I rise today in support of H.R. 4057, the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2012. It has been offered by my colleague from Florida, Gus Bilirakis. My colleagues, this bill would provide veterans and servicemembers the resources that they need to make informed decisions when choosing the right institution or school for the career they wish to pursue. The other provisions included would help veterans with State certification credentials for skills acquired while on active duty. It ensures homeless veterans have access to shelters, in compliance with the State and local codes, and would require the Secretary to establish and maintain a burn pit registry program for individuals who may have been exposed to toxic chemicals. During the committee markup, I offered an amendment that would limit the amount the VA would pay in performance awards to senior staff from fiscal year 2013 to 2017 to adequately cover the costs associated with H.R. 4057, along with the provisions included from the other three bills. My colleagues, in the last 3 years, the worst economic climate this country has seen since the Great Depression, almost 800,000 VA employees received monetary awards totaling $1.1 billion. This limitation amendment I offered affects only the Senior Executive Service, the SES, as they are called, who are considered to be like the generals of the Federal workforce and make between $120- and $180,000 a year. The VA has an agency that has underperformed, yet they continue to provide performance bonuses at the expense of taxpayers and the well- being of our veterans. Today's VA backlog stands at 840,000 claims, of which more than 55 percent have been pending for more than 125 days. It is unconscionable that these senior executive employees are receiving bonuses averaging $40,000 a year, on top of their six-figure salaries, when the number of backlog claims is close to the number of monetary awards given. Today, September 11, is a day every American will never forget. I urge all my colleagues to support passage of this bill, and by doing so we honor our veterans and servicemembers by supplying them with these needed resources to help rebuild their lives. Mr. Speaker, today is a day we'll never forget. We'll always remember the sacrifices of those brave men and women, and in passage of this bill we will remind everybody of our appreciation for them.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the Obama Administration has said that they have created 4.5 million new jobs in the last 4 years. But, my colleagues, CNN, along with another group of individuals, in fact, a host of other organizations, have really fact-checked this claim. They found that, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census, there were actually 400,000 fewer--fewer--nonfarm payroll jobs today than when the President took office in January 2009. But our job crisis is actually much, much worse because a large chunk of Americans have simply given up looking for work, and the jobs have not come back, and aren't the same ones that we lost. Also, according to a study released by the National Employment Law Project, low-wage fields such as retail sales and food service are adding jobs nearly three times as fast as higher-paid occupations. But we need to add these higher-paying jobs. The sad truth is that there are fewer people working now than when President Obama took office. And Madam Speaker, these are simply the facts.

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 515 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. STEARNS

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office came out with its report yesterday, their latest analysis of the President's health bill, and what it confirms is there are flaws in the law. CBO reports that this $1.6 trillion program will cost individuals and businesses $5 billion more than was initially estimated. CBO says that the health premiums that they already predicted would increase by $2,100 now will increase even more. CBO estimates that 11 million people who currently have employer-based coverage will simply lose their health plan. The President said we could keep our coverage, but under the law, employers are dropping coverage, and premiums are simply increasing, which drives up the cost of health care for everyone. And remember, historically, the CBO greatly underestimates their analyses. We need to repeal this law and replace it with commonsense solutions that simply increase competition in the marketplace and places the consumer, not the government, in charge of health care.