Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have another amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from The New Jersey reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of my amendment which would require that none of the funds provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill be used for the purposes of providing loan guarantees for ``carbon capture and sequestration projects.'' If you think that carbon capture and sequestration is an important goal--and I'm sure there are some people who believe it is. Let me just note that I do not believe that, and I think that having heard the debates that
have been going on about this particular issue over the years, that there are large numbers of my colleagues who do not believe that as well.
Well, if you do not believe in carbon sequestration and capture as an important goal, then I would suggest that the best sequestration--if you really believe that we must sequester carbon and that that is an important goal, then let me suggest this, and that's what my amendment is all about: it's better to leave the oil and coal in the ground if that's what you really want to do is capture this carbon and sequester the carbon and capture it.
And I would suggest that the best way to do that is by promoting new nuclear technologies such as the new, inherently safe, small, modular nuclear reactors, especially those that do not use water as a coolant. We can provide all the clean, safe electricity that we need. And I would hope that any funds that the Secretary might have, in terms of his opinion, determined to use in carbon capture and sequestration, instead that the Secretary will use that limited amount of money that he has available
to him on a positive program that will permit us an alternative to oil and gas. I personally, however, do not believe that oil and gas necessarily and the capture of carbon sequestration is an important goal; but if you do, you should be supporting--instead of basically using that as an expensive tool that will hurt the economy, we should be using the funds that are available instead to promote this positive alternative of nuclear energy, especially the high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As I said earlier, respectfully, I still think this amendment, as with the previous one, is an issue where we are determining winners and losers, and I believe the market should decide.
Let me say, the committee is strongly supportive of the whole issue of development of small, modular nuclear reactors, and it is amazing how much interest there is out there. There is incredible ingenuity that is going into it.
We do have support for nuclear loan guarantees. I think there is $11 billion in unused funds and $6 billion for fossil fuels. We have money available for the development of these types of technologies which hopefully you will find to be reassuring.
But for reasons I said earlier, without repeating myself again, I oppose your amendment at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that, again, we should be taking responsibility, especially when we see something as important to the American people as the issue of energy, especially clean energy, and how we are going to make sure that it is supplied to the people of the United States.
Specifically designating that these funds won't be used for sequestration and carbon capture, I mean, that seems to me that is what we should do. We should determine whether or not we believe this is an appropriate use of government funds. I suggest that it is not, especially when we have alternatives that are available to us, like these new technologies in the nuclear field, that can give us what we need in terms of not producing carbon and making sure that you don't even need sequestration
then. If you have those alternatives, then we shouldn't be spending the money on this other approach, on the carbon capture and sequestration approach. That makes sense to me.
We need, as Members of Congress, to set these type of parameters on the spending of our limited dollars in a way that will have the most positive impact, and the carbon capture and sequestration concept is not the best way to spend our money when we have these other alternatives.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.