Remarks of Representative Judy Biggert, IL-13
Biggert Amendment #192
to H.R. 1, Full Year Continuing Resolution Act
February 15, 2011

I have an amendment at the desk, submitted through the pre-printing process and designated as amendment #192.

My amendment would cut funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy – commonly known as ARPA E -  by fifty million dollars and put that funding towards deficit reduction.

For my colleagues that know me, you know it is not easy for me to cut funding for energy research.  I have always maintained that there are two priorities I believe in and will continue to promote in Congress;  energy R&D is one of them.  I truly believe the greatest investments we can make to secure our economic competitiveness are those investments that cultivate scientists and engineers of the future – and provide the research infrastructure from which they can innovate and create jobs.

ARPA-E was first proposed in 2005 in the distinguished report entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”.  Modeled on DARPA, ARPA-E was recommended along with dozens of recommendations designed to spur scientific investment.  These recommendations were authorized as a part of the first America COMPETES Act of 2007, and reauthorized again last year.

Despite my strong support and leadership for COMPETES and its programs, I have had concerns about ARPA-E since inception.  As a Senior Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, our minority views on the President’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget accurately reflect my sentiment:

“Those of us in opposition to ARPA-E maintain the view that creating a new agency to do work that is currently being done at the DOE is not a justified use of the limited funds available to the Department, and we support the Department’s previous decision to not establish ARPA-E, but to engage in ARPA-E-type projects within the current DOE structure.”

More importantly, I have always believed ARPA-E threatens to divert resources from the DOE’S Office of Science, the largest supporter of basic research.  That is why I secured language through COMPETES 2007 that would prohibit funding for ARPA-E unless the Office of Science is fully funded. I felt this was the most productive way to move forward with the ARPA-E concept and prevent duplication or competition with other DOE programs.  However, when we reauthorized COMPETES last year, this language was NOT included and, unfortunately, my attempts to limit ARPA-E appropriations were unsuccessful.

Supporting my concerns about spreading resources too thin, now-Secretary Steven Chu said the following of ARPA-E in testimony before the Energy subcommittee in 2006:

In funding ARPA-E, it is critical that its funding not jeopardize the basic research supported by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
The committee’s recommendations are prioritized and its top recommendation in the area of research is to increase the funding for basic research by 10% per year over the next seven years.

Were it not for the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment stimulus bill, ARPA-E would never have been funded. I urge my colleagues to join me in cutting ARPA-E funding and rejecting duplication and stretched resources.

I yield back.

###