4:50 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.

Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

4:50 PM EDT

Jeff Flake, R-AZ 6th

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a lot of people that are offering amendments, so I will try to move very quickly here.

This amendment would simply prohibit funds from going to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. There is ARPA-Defense, there is ARPA other stuff, there is ARPA-E. This is what we are trying to do is prohibit funding from going to ARPA-E, or energy.

ARPA-E is currently set to receive about $100 million in this appropriation bill. The most compelling argument given to defund ARPA-E is found on its own Web site, which states that it was established ``to focus on creative, out-of-the-box transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk, but where success would provide dramatic benefits.'' It is this kind of, I guess, out-of-the-box thinking that has gotten us into this deficit that we're

running, about $1.6 trillion.

We are broke. We are borrowing 41 cents on every dollar that we spend, yet still we find within our budget reason to find $100 million to fund energy research in private companies that others won't fund because it's too risky.

Now, we're not talking about products for defense for which there is no commercial application; we're talking about private sector research that could reap a windfall for some private company, and has in a number of other areas. But yet we believe that it's prudent to borrow--because we're borrowing everything here--borrow money from the taxpayer to pick and choose favored companies to receive this research money.

It's not right. We ought to defund it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:53 PM EDT

Pete Visclosky, D-IN 1st

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding and would join him in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We just had a vote earlier in the Chamber adding $79 million to this program. But setting that particular vote [Page: H5063]

aside, as I have mentioned several times, while I have great trepidation about people at the Department of Energy talking to each other and the Department not having the same vigor, if you would, that they have for ARPA-E, instilling that in other research centers, it does appear that this is a successful program in its infancy. We certainly

ought to make sure that it has a chance to show that it can be successful over a limited number of years--they are talking about 3. My emphasis with them is to distill that same effort across the Department of Energy.

So I would join my chairman in opposing the gentleman's amendment.

4:54 PM EDT

Norm Dicks, D-WA 6th

Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to this amendment, too. The bill would provide $100 million for ARPA-E, which is already $80 million less than FY 2011 funding--and of course we have to take into account the amendment that was just passed--and $450 million below the President's budget request.

ARPA-E is a promising new program that can drive innovation to support our scientific competitiveness. As I stated previously in my opening statement, ARPA-E has shown potential as a new organizational model. And I am disappointed that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic and organizational problems in other existing applied programs, which was an element of the justification used for ARPA-E.

ARPA-E is modeled on DARPA. And as the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, DARPA has been one of the great leaders of innovation in the national security area.

So again, I'm sorry to say it, but I think we have to defeat the Flake amendment.