Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. My colleagues, it is time to call on our allies in the State of Israel to stop shooting children. Since March of this year, 17 children have been shot by Israeli snipers near the border of Gaza, shot for the crime of picking up small pieces of rock to use for aggregate because the Israeli blockade is preventing construction materials from coming into Gaza. Seventy percent of these children were shot while doing this activity beyond the 300-meter unilaterally imposed security zone. Young children and adults are picking up small pieces of gravel because they cannot import concrete to rebuild schools, hospitals, clinics and water treatment facilities without it. Let us call upon our allies in the State of Israel to stop shooting children, to prosecute those who have shot children, and to lift the blockade to allow raw materials in and economic prosperity to succeed. On this Human Rights Day it's the least we can do.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the chairman. My earlier comments acknowledged the many people who are working so hard down in the gulf, and I want to pay particular respect and admiration to a great public servant, Admiral Thad Allen. As many of us know, Thad Allen in effect essentially retired from the Coast Guard, but recognizing the importance of this mission and the urgency of his role there he has stayed on, working many, many long hours in an incredibly complex endeavor. I have immense respect for him and hope that people appreciate the kind of contribution not only that Admiral Allen is making but that all of the coasties and other government employees are making down there, as well as the many local residents as well. I also want to acknowledge the great work of the committee staff on both sides of the aisle in drafting this legislation, and I particularly want to speak about an aspect of this legislation that I've worked on and that I think is particularly important and often overlooked. In many other areas of activity, the role of human factors has been recognized as playing an increasingly important role. That's the case with the nuclear power industry, which realized in the post-Three Mile Island analyses that the complex information that was being provided to the operators of the plant was easily overwhelming and contributed to that disaster. It has been recognized for a long time by the Federal Aviation Administration. Indeed, the tragic accident in which an airliner crashed into the Potomac not far from this very building was believed strongly related to ice on the wings, but not just the ice on the wing, but how the pilot and the copilot interacted in their discussion about whether or not it would be safe to fly under those conditions. As they looked at that analysis, it became apparent that the rules for cockpit interactions and making decisions about safety needed to be changed. When we looked at this event that happened in the gulf and you follow the dialogue that has been reported between BP and the drilling operators, it is clear that human factors and risk analysis needs dramatic improvement. Witnesses at the committee hearing testified that we have to not only improve, as I mentioned earlier, the training of the personnel on the rigs, but I think the management needs to be addressed and the decisionmaking process. If you can have a circumstance wherein someone says we're going to go ahead with this operation as we deem appropriate, and effectively the response was, well, that's I guess why we have the blowout prevention devices, meaning somebody thought that if we do this, we're likely to have a blowout. Now, when one looks at the history of safety and efficacy of those blowout preventers, it's pretty clear that they had a high failure rate.

Mr. BAIRD. If we have an interaction system wherein people are making decisions with a known possibility of a blowout and blowout preventers that have a fairly high probability of failure, somebody needs to intervene and say what the heck is going on here if people can make these decisions when, and I want to underscore this, when the consequence is the loss of human life. Eleven souls lost their lives on that rig that day. We talk so much about the cleanup and the environmental catastrophe that's resulted. Let us not forget those eleven lives. When people's decisionmaking leads to the loss of human life and leads to an environmental and economic tragedy of this magnitude, we've got to make sure they make those decisions in the right way, with the right information and the right communication strategy, and as important as this bill is in improving the technology for drilling and drilling safety, essential to that technology are the human elements, and I'm grateful that the committee saw fit to include those elements in the legislation. I thank the chairman again.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill before us now, H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act, and shortly we will be discussing H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act. I want to begin by complimenting our chair, Ms. Woolsey and Ranking Member Hall for two outstanding pieces of legislation that could not be more timely, and that are tremendously important given not only the events we are facing in the gulf today, but towards trying to prevent these kinds of incidents from occurring in the future. I want to start by commending the many thousands, more than 33,000 people who are in the gulf today working on this cleanup effort. I had the privilege of traveling there recently, along with members of our Science Committee staff, and when I met with some of those folks I asked what can we do to help? And their answer was the first thing you can do is tell people that we are working tremendously hard, and we are making a real difference. We have people working in more than 100- degree weather, in a terribly difficult environment, and they are working 12- to 14- to 16-hour days, 7 days a week. And they often feel that all they get is criticism. They are making a real difference. It's a heroic effort, an unprecedented scale, and we should be proud of them. In that visit I met people from virtually every major Federal agency, from NOAA, EPA, National Marine Fisheries Services, the Coast Guard, and countless others, many of whom, I am proud to say, are from my own great State of Washington. And they are very proud of the work they are doing. I want to begin by acknowledging that. As we all know, OPA 90 came in response to the Exxon Valdez spill. And thanks to Ms. Woolsey's leadership, we had actually begun in our subcommittee to try to review how the research effort to prepare for and prevent these kinds of spills was going forward. Sadly, that proved to be very prescient, because the spill that evolved in the gulf is precisely the kind of event that we were trying to prepare for. The average folks that I represent say to themselves, and they ask us, a few simple questions: What went wrong that allowed this to happen to begin with? What are we doing now to get it cleaned up? How do we prevent future spills from happening? And if there should be a future spill, what can we do to clean it up and to better understand and mitigate the environmental impacts? The legislation, both bills before us today, answer those questions. They are designed to improve our ability to extract material in a safe manner. One of the critical measures we are doing is reprioritizing some of the funding so there will still be an emphasis on the extractive technologies, but with greater attention paid to the safety of those, both the safety of the crews working on the vessel, and to the protection of the environment from environmental impact. At the same time, we are trying to do measures to prevent accidents from occurring in the future. That includes implementing best practices, reviewing the technologies, human factors dealing with the communication, and the training of the workforce. Some of the testimony we had suggested the workforce training has not kept up with technological developments, particularly in the specialized area of deepwater drilling. And this applies to the regulatory agencies, who it's essential that they have personnel on the scene who are experts in the precise technologies that they are overseeing during their regulatory visits. We also spent a great deal of time looking at the environmental impacts of this. What is it we know about how the environment is being impacted and what is it we need to know? This legislation before us will direct the research agencies to improve our knowledge both of the research available on how to clean this up--we heard from Mr. Kevin Costner and others who have technologies designed to clean up the water--but also so we can understand what we need to know to conduct research prior to the event. Additionally, I am proud to have authored an amendment, along with Paul Tonko, that would allow us to pre-stage both technologies for cleanup and research studies so that should there be an event, we can make use of that event to gather more knowledge on what we can do to reduce the oil in the water and to mitigate the environmental impacts. The other thing people are asking about is what are we going to do to make sure we can clean this up better? And I will tell you that the areas we visited in the gulf, there are some areas that are doing remarkable work to prevent oil from coming onshore in pelican rookeries, to try to clean up the beaches when they have been contaminated. But one thing we know, this is going to be a long- standing impact. And we need to not only research what's happening today, we need to continue to research what's going on in the future. This will be a long-term research project. This legislation recognizes and supports that. Finally, I should say that this is an international issue, and this legislation provides for measures to collaborate with international entities.

Mr. BAIRD. In conclusion again, I just want to acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Hall, the ranking member, who has been instrumental in prior work to make sure we had developed competitive technologies to gain access to these resources for the benefit of our country, but the foresight of Ms. Woolsey, and the outstanding leadership in bipartisan fashion of Chairman Gordon. The Research and Science Committee has again led the way on an issue of major national importance. I am proud to have been a part of this, and urge passage of both bills today.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Chair, I think one of the best things that can happen to a Member of Congress is the privilege to serve on a committee you are passionate about and with a chairman and ranking member who you have deep respect for, and that certainly applies to the Science Committee chairman and ranking member. America COMPETES is about jobs; it is about energy independence; it is about better foreign policy; and it is about leaving a cleaner, healthier environment for our children and our grandchildren. Contrary to some of the things some of the opponents have said, this is, in fact, one of the very best investments we can make in our future. Every day and in this room today are young Americans watching this process. This bill is about their future. It's about whether they'll have qualified, well-trained scientists, engineers and mathematicians as professors and mentors. It's about whether this country will have the technology to lead the world in the next century and the rest of this century on energy independence. It is about discoveries that will transform lives and transform this Nation. I'm particularly proud of the authorization work in this to reauthorize the DOE Office of Basic Science. They produce outstanding work, as my colleague Mrs. Biggert said earlier, but I am also particularly impressed with some of the new programs of the original America COMPETES, notably the ARPA-E program. If anything this Congress does is going to turn around the economy not just for the short term but for the long term, it is innovations like that which will result from the authorization of the America COMPETES Act, ARPA-E, NSF reauthorization, NIST, and all of the other elements. This is critical legislation, absolutely critical for the future strength, national security, economic health and jobs of our citizens, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill, H.R. 3650.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so delighted that Mr. Ehlers is here for a number of reasons. First of all, the history of harmful algal bloom legislation really owes its existence to this gentleman. As a scientist, as someone who cares passionately about the people of his State and the Great Lakes, I will say without any hesitation the Great Lakes have had no stronger champion in the Congress than this gentleman here, Dr. Ehlers. And for that matter, I believe science itself has had no stronger champion. If you look at his contributions on the Great Lakes, harmful algal blooms I just mentioned. Invasive species. He has been a champion in trying to fight the zebra mussel, which is also the kind of thing someone could look at with derision and say why are we trying to fight invasive species, a little tiny mussel? Well, it costs billions of dollars a year in property loss and economic loss. Just yesterday we were on a panel together and he was raising the very important issue of the possible invasion of carp into the Great Lakes system, which would devastate the sports fishing and other industries in the Great Lakes. The other reason I think it is particularly appropriate that he is here is when we speak about red tide, inland communities may say, we don't have any marine waters, what do we care? The Great Lakes are a classic example of an area where harmful algal blooms can affect fresh waters as well as maritime waters. And so my hat is off to Dr. Ehlers, and he has my gratitude for his leadership on this over the years. In closing, I would like to again thank my friend and colleague from Texas, my friend from Michigan, and Mr. Mack, Ms. Castor, and Mr. Kratovil. I am very grateful for the time, and urge passage of this.

Mr. BAIRD. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida. His personal story is one we hear so often. But he knows it firsthand, from his time as a child, an occasional red tide where his parents probably said, No, you can't go swimming today, son, to a 13-month period of red tide. Earlier when I said we have seen an expansion in duration, in size, and in breadth across the country, that's precisely what I'm referring to. I'm sure this is true of both of my colleagues from Florida. If you're a hotel owner, and you get notice that a red tide is forming off your beach, that's it. You basically can kiss your entire season of income--or at least a good part of it--goodbye. Where I'm from in the Pacific Northwest, clamming, razor clams are one of the great things that draws people to the coast. Our beaches just are covered with folks, and they get up in the wee hours of the morning when the tide is low and go out. It is a great family endeavor. It provides a wonderful delicacy to people, and people look forward to it year-round, and it is the high season at the coast. Except if a scientist is out there and says, We've got an algal bloom forming, and it is not safe for people to eat the shellfish or to swim in this water at this time. Why isn't it safe? Well, first off, I want to underscore that most shellfish from around our country is safe, but during these periods, it is not. And here is why: The toxin that forms is a neurotoxin. It attacks your brain. It's called paralytic shellfish poisoning. In some areas, sometimes you will hear it as amnesic shellfish poisoning. Amnesic shellfish poisoning attacks the part of your brain that turns short-term memories into long-term memories. This is a bad thing. This means that you can't learn new information. So when people say, Oh, this is algae, what do we care about algae--I heard this a lot yesterday. Why are we coming back into session to talk about algae? Well, I hope people can remember that if they eat shellfish with paralytic shellfish poisoning, they can die. Their brain can be damaged. Their children's brains can be damaged. If somebody says, Oh, Mom and Dad, it's just red tide, I'm going swimming anyway, you can't let that happen. The kid will die. It's that serious. Let me turn to the freshwater. A true story from my district. Imagine you take your family dog, your beloved favorite pet, to the water that you always take them to. You take the tennis ball and you fling it out into the water. And your retriever jumps in the water, swims out, grabs that tennis ball, swims back to the shore. You take the tennis ball out, you turn to throw it, and the dog is dying before your eyes. That really happened. It happened in my district in a lake that, when there's not an algal bloom, people recreate in, they have sailboats, they have boat races, they swim in it, they take their dogs there. From one week when it was safe for that dog to go in the water, the owner comes back the next week, and through no fault of their own, the dog does everything it normally does, and it dies. If I had a glass of clear water here, and someone were saying, Oh, what a waste of time, what a waste of time to work on this, and it had the toxin from blue-green algae, the person who drank that water would die. If it's in your freshwater system, a large reservoir for your municipality, and you get a blue-green algal bloom in that with toxin, I would ask my colleagues who are skeptical about this, Tell me how you get it out? There are mechanisms, but they're not easy, and they're very costly. How do you get it out of there? And more importantly, tell me how you're going to give the people who you represent clean drinking water if your water system is contaminated. If you depend on surface reservoirs, and you get a blue-green algal bloom, you are in deep, deep trouble, and you are looking at a lot of money and possibly some deaths of your constituents. Mr. Mack talked a little bit about hypoxia, which is a huge problem in the Gulf. Let me put this in terms we understand: Hypoxic zones are areas where the algae has decomposed, and that decomposition has taken the air out of the water, basically taken the oxygen out. Imagine if you were walking your normal route to work or to your home, and suddenly, invisibly, you went into an area where there was no oxygen in the air. You're walking a route you normally take. No oxygen. What happens? You suffocate. You die. That's what dead zones do. Hundreds of thousands, millions of aquatic fish--the very fish that our fishermen in our coastal communities depend on, the very fish we eat and enjoy-- they just flat die. They're swimming in their normal, maybe their migratory route, maybe their reproductive areas. They go into this area. They can't tell there is no oxygen in the water. They swim into it, they have no oxygen, and they die in enormous quantities. Then they wash up on the beaches as a pleasant attraction for our tourism industry. In this body, we stick around to honor sports teams, we praise movie stars. This is something that can kill you, for goodness sakes. I also want to make sure we thank the many scientists who have done the work on this legislation. Scientists around the world are trying to study the causes, trying to study the interventions. They literally evaluate our beaches around the country and our freshwater systems on a daily basis and give us the information we need to protect the public safety and health. And I want to make sure I commend them. At this point I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Before recognizing Ms. Castor, I would just point out, as he is aware--first of all, I want to thank him for his support of the underlying issue here. I think the recognition of the severity of this problem is much appreciated, as Mr. Mack will attest to in just a moment. Regarding the issue of unfunded mandates, the Congressional Budget Office has looked at this legislation and determined specifically that it does not impose any unfunded mandates, so I respect the concern but would offer assurance that it is not considered a problem, at least by CBO. Regarding the authorization levels, we discussed these levels at some length. Given the severity of the problem, we actually began with the higher number. In consult with our friends on the other side of the aisle, we actually lowered the number. And, furthermore, the number, of course, is an authorizing number; it is not an appropriated amount. Our premise is that the problem actually perhaps deserves substantially more money than we have been spending on it because it is a deadly threat and an economic loss. But we recognize that probably now actual appropriated levels will fall below authorization. Having a greater authorization allows us to up the effort should a situation arise that needs that. With that, I'm happy to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who has been a champion of this, as it affects so much of her State.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, as amended, is a good bipartisan bill. The bill represents a timely and necessary step to address the large and growing problems of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Act was first signed into law in 1998 and last reauthorized in 2004. Since the last reauthorization, there has been an increase in the number, frequency, and type of algal blooms and hypoxic events. These events can terribly affect the marine and freshwater systems where they occur. Large fish kills, closed beaches, and poisoned seafood are all typical consequences of harmful algal blooms. I listened to the debate on the rule prior to our debating the bill itself; and as far as the question of why are we debating this, the simple answer is, it can kill you. Indeed, it does kill some of our citizens every year. It kills countless numbers of fish life, it destroys tourism, and it costs hundreds of millions of dollars. That seems to me a pretty good reason to take something up. In addition, as my dear friend and colleague from Florida will attest, his tourist industry, as mine, and as the gentlewoman from Maine who spoke earlier and indeed the gentleman from California and my colleague from Texas, all have beaches which are adversely affected. If the issue we are concerned about is jobs, harmful algal blooms are destroyers of jobs in addition to takers of lives. In freshwater, harmful algal blooms present a toxin that is very, very difficult to remove; and let me clarify why. All the normal means we use to purify water don't work with harmful algal blooms. You cannot boil it because boiling separates the toxin from the algae and actually concentrates the toxin. Indeed, lab researchers use boiling as a way to concentrate the toxin when they are trying to study it. You can't filter it because filtering breaks down the bodies of the algae, and that also releases the toxin. Chlorine doesn't work because chlorine is designed to kill protozoa, and these are not protozoa. The toxin is not caused by a protozoa. So we've got a very dangerous problem. And beyond that, it is a problem that is expanding in duration. Harmful algal blooms and hypoxic events are starting earlier in the season and lasting longer. They are growing in larger scale, and they are spreading around the country. We have some ideas about why, and we have some ideas about how to control them, but we don't know for certain. And that is why this bill matters, and that is why my colleagues, Mr. Mack, Mr. Ehlers and others, have worked on it. We have taken some important steps since 1998 and 2004. And, again, I want to commend my colleague, Vern Ehlers, who has been instrumental on this issue for many, many years. The bill before us would establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tasked as the lead in overseeing the development of these plans and the execution of this national program. HABs, again, do not only affect our coastlines. From the waters and streams of Virginia and West Virginia to the Great Lakes, throughout this country, every single State in the Union, whether it is freshwater or marine ecosystem, has been affected by harmful algal blooms. My own State of Washington, the Puget Sound in Hood Canal, has a dead zone that expands every year. Off our coast, we have increasing dead zones, and red tides devastate the tourist industry when they stop the clamming season from happening. Legitimate questions have been raised about the authorized funding levels in this bill. But the increased investment this legislation calls for is necessary to address the harmful economic impacts and health impacts that HABs pose to our country. Conservative estimates back in 2006 estimated a minimum impact of $82 million per year. This bill is the product of bipartisan collaboration and contains the input of both Democratic and Republican Members. And as I mentioned, Dr. Vern Ehlers, Dr. Connie Mack, as well as on our side Mr. Kratovil and Ms. Castor, have all offered very valuable input. The bill you have before you today is the product of two hearings, a subcommittee markup, a full committee markup, post-markup negotiations with the three House committees with jurisdiction over the bill, as well as negotiations with the Senate Commerce Committee. The bill represents a focused effort to address the specific issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution just adopted, I call up the bill (H.R. 3650) to establish a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and to provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAIRD. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I want to commend Ms. Castor for her comments, and join her in acknowledgement of the incredible leadership of Connie Mack from Florida. We talk about the costs of this legislation. Consider the costs to Florida's economy, to the Gulf economy if a red tide comes in at the height of tourist season. You can't swim in this; it's toxic. You can't fish in it, you can't collect shellfish. The fishing industry out in the coast when a hypoxic zone comes in, it kills hundreds of thousands of fish overnight. Shore birds are affected. And on and on the list goes. As Ms. Castor pointed out and as Mr. Mack has pointed out in our discussions, making sure that we understand what causes this and finding ways to remediate it and prevent it is not only in the interests of human health, it is in the interests of our economy as well. I am particularly pleased also that the Puget Sound area, which is near and dear to my heart and near to my home, has received recognition. We have got a serious problem off the coast in terms of red tide. But within the Puget Sound region, particularly Hood Canal, there is a growing annual development of a dead zone. And these things seem to be developing earlier, lasting longer, and growing in size. This bill will help us understand why. The bill has support from a broad group of stakeholders, including Ocean Champions and the PURRE Water Coalition. And again, I am pleased that it has been a bipartisan effort. Dr. Ehlers, as I mentioned earlier, has been instrumental for many years on this. And of course Connie Mack has been as well. I thank the gentlemen for their input. Mr. Hall has offered some constructive suggestions. And of course as we move this forward and work with the Senate, we will try to make sure we incorporate as many of those as we can. Finally, I would also like to recognize the staff who worked so diligently on this bill: Shimere Williams and Katrina Lassiter on the majority side, and Tara Rothschild on the minority side. Ongoing research, development, and implementation of an action strategy are key components to addressing this environmental challenge, and H.R. 3650 helps move us forward in each of these areas. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3650. One last thing I will say. Understanding the impact of harmful algal blooms in freshwater is absolutely critical. If a major metropolitan area develops a toxic algal bloom, as I mentioned earlier, it will be extraordinarily difficult to remove the toxins from the waterway. It has happened in some smaller communities. It is extremely costly, and can present an urgent and immediate and hugely expensive health crisis. We need to understand how to prevent this, and we need to understand how to treat it. This legislation will help us do that both in the saltwater and in the freshwater environment. I urge its passage, and thank my colleagues.

Mr. BAIRD. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland. He has been a tireless champion of this. The watermen in his district and the others who depend on this great natural resource owe him, I am certain, a great debt of gratitude. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor), who has also been a tireless champion of clean water and of this issue.

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, at this point, I want to acknowledge that, as is so often the case, H.R. 3650 was a collaborative effort, not just with my minority colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, but also with the Natural Resources Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well. I would like, here, to insert a letter of exchanges with those committees into the Record, and I want to also thank both Chairmen Rahall and Oberstar for their efforts on this legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC, November 12, 2009. Hon. Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn H.O.B., Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on H.R. 3650, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2009, which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources. Because of the continued cooperation and consideration that you have afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, and knowing of your interest in expediting this legislation, I am willing to waive further consideration of H.R. 3650 by the Committee on Natural Resources at this time. Of course, this waiver is not intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over the provisions of this legislation or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Natural Resources on these provisions, and request your support if such a request is made. Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R. 3650 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on the House floor. With warm regards, I am Sincerely, Nick J. Rahall II, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1055), supporting the designation of National Robotics Week as an annual event.

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 1055, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 1055, a resolution supporting the designation of National Robotics Week as an annual event. National Robotics Week is observed the second week of April. Its purpose is to celebrate the United States as a leader in robotics technology development, to educate the public about how robotics technology impacts our society, and to inspire students of all ages to pursue careers in robotics and other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Robotics technology is an increasingly important technology for United States innovation and competitiveness, helping to create new jobs and increase productivity. It has potentially transformative implications for a broad range of sectors, including health care, national defense, homeland security, energy, manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. At the same time, as the United States struggles to maintain a highly skilled STEM workforce, robotics technology has the ability to inspire young people and get them excited about science and technology. It is precisely this kind of enthusiasm that robotics technology and robotics competitions offer to our children that will encourage them to consider careers in STEM-related fields. I particularly want to thank and acknowledge the hard work of Representatives Mike Doyle from Pennsylvania and Phil Gingrey from Georgia for introducing this bipartisan resolution. Representatives Doyle and Gingrey are the co-chairs of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, and they have made it a priority to educate Members of Congress about robotics technology and the important role that it plays in our competitiveness. I would urge support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I would just mention, as my dear friend from Texas pointed out, that anybody who has had the opportunity to visit some of these nationwide competitions and see the enthusiasm of these young people as their robots compete in everything from pushing balls around to try to score goals in robotic soccer to mock combat, what you really see is people who have really put their hearts and minds into something, an enthusiastic learning experience that, as Mr. Hall pointed out, will really inspire these people to careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. We need more of these folks, and this legislation helps champion that idea. I again urge its passage. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. I would urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1069) congratulating Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith for being awarded the Nobel Prize in physics.