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.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment which would require that the amount provided for in title 17 of the Energy and Water development appropriations bill for loan guarantees for advanced nuclear energy facilities be equal to or exceed that for loan guarantees targeted for carbon capture and sequestration projects.
In laymen's terms, my amendment would specify that we cannot use more funds in this act for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration projects than we make available for projects using nuclear technologies such as small modular gas-cooled reactors.
The purpose for this is simple. These new technologies hold significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective, proliferation-resistant noncarbon-producing American-built nuclear reactors.
As a member of the Science Committee, I, along with my colleagues, have studied this technology over the past 7 years. And let me note, the bureaucracy has studied this technology almost to death. Well, the time has [Page: H5077]
come for that study to be left behind. It's time for the study to be over, and it's time for us to act. There are commercial companies out there right now trying to bring these technologies to market, and this amendment will help make this
I would like to also note that the GAO and the committee have stated that there is a lack of transparency in this loan guarantee program. We cannot expect to perform proper oversight without knowing where and how these funds are being used, and it is critical that we become more specific in stating how we intend the funds to be used. And that's what this amendment would do.
It would also be important that we require the administration to report back to Congress with a full explanation of how these funds are being used. Thus I ask for support for this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New Jersey continue to insist on his point of order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But may I say I have always found him to be very thoughtful and considerate, and I know that he is extremely knowledgeable about this and is committed to the whole issue of taking a look at these types of loan guarantees.
When we put together our bill, we had several guiding principles, and chief among them was to get the Federal Government out of the private sector's way. You should understand that.
The loan guarantee program is at the heart of that debate, and our bill begins to ramp down this temporary program while including funding to help new technologies so that the private sector could take them over. The gentleman's amendment, however, appears to dictate which technology should receive funding through this program and which should not.
Mr. Chairman, responsible private sector entities have sunk literally hundreds of millions of dollars into their applications; and this amendment would, I think, potentially cut off those applicants, despite their investments in good faith efforts. And even more importantly, however, the amendment would determine which technologies win and which would lose. I don't think in our committee or in this Congress we should be determining the winners and losers. We should let the market decide.
So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
For the reasons stated by the Chair on February 17, June 2, and July 7, 2011, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
AMENDMENT NO. 66 OFFERED BY MR.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that it is Congress' job to make decisions. We are the ones who should be actually designating exactly where money is going. I'm a senior member of the Science and Technology Committee. We have studied this issue directly, and this is my recommendation. And I think that what we're supposed to do here is make sure that rather than having money, saying we can just spend all we want in sequestration and accepting that alternative, that we must designate what we think is
the best use and most efficient use of the taxpayer money. That sounds within the rules to me.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of whether a certain type of coolant is used on a project. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.