We are here to follow through on our pledge to right-size the government, and I appreciate my colleague's amendment for that reason. However, in addition to enacting historic reductions in spending in the CR, we are also committed to an unprecedented level of oversight to ensure that every dollar spent by the Federal Government is, indeed, well spent. My colleague's amendment would virtually eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA-E, as we call it. This relatively new program is getting positive early results for its strong management, for its ability to execute, and for its focus on American competitiveness. We certainly can and must debate which programs are the most worthy of taxpayers' dollars and which we should terminate, but the debate to end a potentially promising initiative to increase funds for another Federal program, as this amendment does, must be thoroughly considered in more than 5 or 10 minutes. I and the committee would be happy to work with my colleague in the fiscal year 2012 process to ensure the proper and thorough oversight and evaluation of this program. However, I must regretfully oppose her amendment.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses concerns about proposed cuts to the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) program.
Share
More from Rodney Frelinghuysen
On rollcall 374, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 374. personal explanation
I have a motion at the desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion. The text of the motion is as follows: Mr. Frelinghuysen moves that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate…
As we complete debate on these three bills and these amendments, I would like to say a few words in closing. I know I join my ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, in thanking our colleagues for the very constructive and civil debate over the last…





