Brian Baird

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman for yielding. And I would just caution I wouldn't state ``for the life of me'' on something that I hadn't studied very well no matter how obvious it may look.

Mr. BAIRD. I could answer the question. I am just giving you the caveat about staking your life on things. Here is the issue: I don't think we want to say that we should never study the history of things. It is the perspective of this gentleman that we should not study history. And particularly, when you look at bison, I am not an expert in this, but to pretend to be so would be a mistake. To pretend to be so on your side or on my side would be a mistake. The authors of this study have contended that biologists and social scientists have tried to look at how humans make decisions to maximize and minimize risks in different environmental conditions. As you face different food supply systems, how do you deal with that? And that is part of the point here. How did people who live on the plains look at where they were going to harvest bison?

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. The challenge here, my friends, is you asked, I think, a question that is just improperly placed. Neither of us is trained in these areas. You are challenging a fundamental tenet of how we do National Science Foundation research. If you truly believe that the most cost-effective use of this body's time, and that we are qualified to use our time in that fashion, is to, one by one by one, review National Science Foundation grants for our considered and qualified judgment of the appropriateness of those grants, it seems to me that that is a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that you are really making a political statement. If the political statement you want to make is we should spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely, I, 100 percent, agree. You may not know it, and probably don't, that we are working with the National Science Foundation to establish a letter actually that scientists that receive public grants would have to sign saying they understand the money came from the taxpayers, they are committed to doing research that is well designed and ethically high quality and that is relevant. The problem for us, in this brief time we have here and lacking expertise in the field, is it is really presumptuous of us on either side to say I can either attack or defend. I would yield time to either of you if you want to tell us what your personal qualifications are in the area of expertise of any of these studies, and I will hold you to it. What personal qualifications do you have in the broad area of this study to speak to that study?

Mr. BAIRD. Let me just share with the gentleman the dangerous path you are on. There was a study some time back dealing with the sex life of the screw worm, perhaps aptly noted. The sex life of the screw worm, that would be pretty tempting to come to the floor and say, by God, why are we spending taxpayer dollars studying the sex life of screw worms? The reason being that that research saved the cattle industry millions of dollars by eliminating a parasite that deposited eggs in the placenta of newborn cows. We don't have the knowledge. We are indeed stewards of the taxpayers' money, which is why we created the National Science Foundation, why we are very careful about designating how the peer-review process works, and, quite frankly, why we shouldn't mess with that peer-review process. If we truly want to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, which I believe all of us want to be, then our best approach is to delegate some of the decision making about where some of that money is spent to those who best know the realm in which the research is spent. It is precisely because I believe in the task of being a steward of the taxpayer dollars that I oppose the general purpose of the amendment. I understand you are trying to save money. I just don't think our best way to do so is by micromanaging either this or most of the other foundations. And I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman from California. Just a couple of brief comments, and it's getting late, so we don't want to carry this forever. I would suggest that we all agree that consistency is a very dangerous thing. If the gentleman talks about being consistent, I would ask the gentleman why they chose not to micromanage the vast expenditures of dollars, not even to have oversight hearings of the vast expenditure of dollars on the war. If you really want to save the taxpayer dollars, we are burning $2.5 billion a week in Iraq. This entire bill is $21 billion over 3 years. We're talking about 3 full years to fund the basic scientific research of this entire Nation, from mathematics to physics to chemistry to social sciences. That's about 6 or 7 weeks or so of what you spend in Iraq. And yet when it came to oversight of the expenditures in Iraq, the majority, then-majority party was then just virtually silent. If you really want to save the taxpayers' money, and I do, you could have looked at that. But let me suggest what the gentleman from New Jersey misrepresents. And I asked earlier if any folks on the other side were qualified to study this. The gentleman from New Jersey just doesn't seem to understand how this legislation works. He completely misrepresented when he said that it is incumbent upon the majority and the chairman who is bringing this forward to defend these studies. Sir, this bill does not authorize specific studies. That is not how the authorizing language for the National Science Foundation works. It would be ludicrous, and you should know that; and if you don't know it, you are not qualified to speak to this. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that when you authorize a foundation, that you are authorizing every single specific study or that you know what all those specific studies are. That's not how the National Science Foundation works. That's not how we authorize it. That's not how this bill functions. And it's indeed not how many, many of the authorizing bills function here. So to suggest that, to bring forward a broad authorization bill that gives responsibility to a foundation, one has to justify every single study is to misrepresent how this legislation works. And that's the problem. I think the gentleman either misunderstands or misrepresents how the legislation works. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, here's the problem with what the gentleman is proposing, however well-intentioned it may be. And I am deeply concerned; as the gentlemen know, I serve on the Budget Committee with some of the gentlemen who are speaking, and we are all concerned about the long-term deficit picture for this country. However, if you cut investments in scientific research and scientific education, in the long run you will increase the deficit of this country, and you will decrease our national security, our national health care and our national and international competitiveness. That is why this is a mistake. And don't just take my word for it. The National Academies of Science, in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a 2005 publication, called for more than a 10 percent increase; the U.S. Commission on National Security, the Hart-Rudman report, a similar level of increase; the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, in their publication, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment in 2003; a coalition of 15 industry associations, in the publication Tapping America's Potential, in 2005; the Council on Competitiveness in their publication, Innovate America. This is not just a Democratic proposal or Republican proposal. I would remind the gentleman that this bill passed unanimously out of committee with bipartisan support. I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of them would say no. You would, I think, by this cutting, with due respect, significantly be impairing, and it sounds like a small measure, but remember, we are already falling behind in a number of areas in science and math, not only in the education, but in the applied fields. This is consistent with President Bush's own administration request of a 7 percent per year increase. Again, this is a bipartisan approach, not a Democratic or Republican approach. The President has called for this. And again, as Dr. Ehlers said so eloquently earlier, our return on investment from research is profound. And when you cut that investment, I think you're cutting that return on investment.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to echo what the distinguished ranking member said. The following countries are increasing their investment in basic research faster than this legislation would authorize, and they've already put the money up front. Listen to these countries and see if you think it is wise for our Nation to reduce its investment even further, and further fall behind: China, Taiwan, European Union, South Korea, Singapore and others. Do we seriously want to further reduce our investment in basic research if we want to keep our Nation competitive? I submit we don't, and I would urge defeat of this amendment. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have been over the basics. Let me just reiterate, this proposal for the increase in the National Science Foundation is thoroughly consistent with President Bush's own agenda. The competitiveness initiative calls for these kinds of increases. That is point one. Point two: If we hope to maintain our competitiveness, if you look at the proportion of our economy today that is the direct result, and Dr. Ehlers illustrated a number of examples, but the direct result of research and inventions that have come out of funding by the National Science Foundation, a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity today came from those investigations. As Dr. Ehlers so eloquently said, we don't know, ``we'' generally, not just we in the Congress, but especially we in the Congress, don't necessarily know which particular investigation, which particular study, is going to yield those profound results. But some will. I will tell you, I just spoke to a scientist in my district last week and he said to me, Congressman, the pipeline of U.S. scientists is drying up. You just really have to understand this. The pipeline of U.S.-based scientists is drying up, because the research funding is not adequate to meet the demand. What is happening is many, many young researchers are either not entering the field or are dropping out of the field or abandoning potentially promising careers, promising not just for them, but for our society. The hit rate, if you are a young researcher applying for a grant through NSF, your hit rate is low. You are going to spend a tremendous amount of effort applying for a grant, trying to further your research agenda, and your hit rate is going to be significantly low. That is demoralizing. It blocks important avenues of research that might yield promising results. And when we make these cuts, it is easy for us. I agree that we have got a huge fiscal problem. But, again, I will tell you that if you look at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces, nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation that is driving this country into debt. That is not what they say. They say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for goodness sake. So I would urge defeat of this amendment for the same reasons I urged defeat previously.

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I thank Mr. Ehlers for his comments. Very briefly, in 2002, 397 Members of this Congress, including 194 Members of the then-majority party Republicans, voted to double, double, the National Science Foundation. For those members of your party who plan to vote against this bill or who plan to vote for this reduction in the authorized levels for this committee, I would just suggest you well may be voting against something that you voted for just a few years ago at much higher levels and that the President signed into law. The then-majority voted to double the budget. The President signed it into law at much higher levels than what we are talking about today. In the last Presidential election, somebody ran around with a flip- flop guy chasing Mr. Kerry. If you do this, the flip-flop guy might be outside your door.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for making precisely the case I have tried to make myself. The case I have tried to make myself is that it is not in the best purview of this body to intervene and micromanage specific studies. The reason I point that out is because the gentleman spoke about important health issues. One of the studies he seeks to eliminate funding for addresses an important health issue. Menopause is tremendously important to the women of this society. It is fine for two men to get up here and decide whether we want to fund menopause research; but I will tell you, every woman in this country is going to go through it, and they think menopause matters. One of the studies that the gentleman wants to reduce funding for is very important in terms of addressing the factors that influence how menopause develops. I would share with the gentleman, although my knowledge is somewhat limited, I believe there are correlations between menopause and a number of the issues the gentleman mentioned like cancer and other factors. So if we believe we want to address those important matters, one of the very studies this gentleman is suggesting we eliminate funding for could very well address those very important issues. I would just urge you go back to your women constituents and suggest to them that you decided, based on your vast medical and anthropological expertise, and your vast understanding of women's health, that menopause did not merit research funding from the National Science Foundation. And you may try to pick the title and say what does that have to do with Bangladeshi immigrants, et cetera. It may have a lot to do because natural experiments in which one population and another population may be of the same age, different, but subject to different cultural or dietary or other factors, and thereby have different variations in how they manifest certain biological processes can often give us profound insights into disease processes and the development of natural rhythms. And for you or I to presume that we have the expertise to say that we don't think this study will do that because we know so much about menopause, sir, and I count myself among those ``sirs,'' I think is vastly presumptuous. Menopause is profoundly important to the women of this country. This study deals with menopause, and I am tremendously grateful to the gentleman for picking this study because in so doing, you have made the best possible case for not micromanaging this fine agency. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I greatly respect and admire the gentleman from Arizona, who I know is committed to trying to reduce the deficit, as am I, and we have worked on other areas on that, but let me just share a couple of things about this. First of all, the gentleman talked about private industry research, and he is right about that. There is a lot of private industry research. Let me share with the gentleman some of the private industry bodies that endorse this bill, and the list is very impressive. I have got it. I would be happy to share it. If it is such a bad bill or needs to be dramatically modified, these are the organizations that support it: Computing Research Association, National Defense Industrial Association, American Chemical Society, Business Roundtable, Information Technology Association of America, National Venture Capital Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Software & Information Industry Association, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, Accenture, Advanced Micro Devices, Agilent, Apple, Applied Materials. I have only it four or five. I am just on the A's. I could go on. The point being, yes, private industry does fund a great deal of research. They recognize government has a very important role, and far from being deeply suspicious of that role, they profoundly endorse it. As for the gentleman's amendment per se, I share with the gentleman that much of this legislation develops from research conducted by the National Academy of Science presented in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which the gentleman may or may not have read. One of the key challenges we face in our research enterprise is keeping young investigators in the pipeline. If you look at the data on when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons for that. Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the grants, and what we are trying to do here is to say to people, just remember that only about 25 percent of grants are funded. So the mere fact you did not get funding the first time does not mean your application is a bad application at all. It does not mean we have said it is not worthy of funding. Quite the contrary. What it may well have said is it is a very good application, but given the competition and the constrained funding, in its current state, we will not choose it. What this bill does is basically say to the young investigator, we will give you some help in advancing your career so you can make a second run at this. This is supported by the National Science Foundation. Folks who have done this research, and I have written applications for grants, I am sure Dr. Ehlers has, it takes you a while to learn how to do it. Sometimes the young professors who are the very people who are teaching the undergraduate classes, trying to get their labs put up, they lack the resources. And on top of that, you need to understand the dynamics of the peer review process. Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long established research credentials and careers are just going to have more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say, look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman, they have been around a long time. The unknown person, the new person who may hold the promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage. So what we are trying to do is in a small way, a relatively small way with this program, redress the difference between the new investigators. We know what that's like. We have been relatively young Members, not so anymore here in the Congress. We have had the senior Members tell us where the bathroom was, to quit voting with our meal cards and stuff like that. Nobody threw us out. They get a second chance. But what I am saying, that's what this is about. I profoundly respect the gentleman. I hope he knows that. He is committed to try to reduce the deficit. This is not the way to do it. This program is actually a good program. It's by a host of scientists, a host of scientific bodies. I think we ought to defeat the gentleman's amendment, with respect, because I know his intent. In this case I think he would have an adverse effect on what we are trying to do with this legislation.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, as it is getting rather late, I would ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on subsequent amendments to 10 minutes.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady from California's amendment, and let me share with you why. I think most Members of this body have had people from the scientific community come and talk to us about why their research matters or how it is going to help society, and we have said to ourselves or to them, ``Could you please put that in English so I know what you are talking about?'' The challenge is that the esoteric realm that some of the scientists work in is really beyond some of our ken. And I think that is fine. But if we are going to make informed policy decisions, it is essential that we understand the research that we are making decisions about that may have been illustrated earlier tonight in some of the discussion. Let me share with you, and I respect Dr. Ehlers immensely, as everyone knows. But the very researchers who, if there is concern that this proposal by the gentlelady from California would reduce funding for other research, let me point out that many of the associations whose members depend on the core research funding nevertheless believe there is merit to this amendment. And let me share with you, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I will read in a moment what they have to say, the Federation of American Society for Experimental Biology, the Council of Graduate Schools, the Society for Neuroscience. I absolutely believe as a former teacher of science, I believe it is our obligation as teachers to help our young charges learn how to communicate what they do. But it is not being done well enough, that has been recognized, and the gentlelady is to be commended for it. Let me share with you that the American Association for the Advancement of Science says the following, which I will submit for printing in the Record. ``While Federal support of scientific research is of critical importance to innovation,'' and let me underscore this, ``it is also very important that we find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must have the tools needed to communicate the work they do. The ability to more effectively communicate scientific information may inspire more children to pursue a career in science, and certainly will help a higher quality dialogue among the research community and the citizens whose investment it relies on.'' So I commend the gentlelady. This is something that we don't talk about a lot; but when people have to communicate information to the policymakers or to the public or to the consumers of their research, it is important they do so in a way that is intelligible. This amendment moves an important step in that direction. I applaud her and urge its passage. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, May 2, 2007. Hon. Doris Matsui, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Matsui: Thank you for your support in the recent passage of the reauthorization for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by the House Science and Technology Committee. As you prepare to debate the NSF reauthorization bill (H.R. 1867) on the floor, I would like to express our support for your efforts to improve scientific communication with the public. For over 50 years, the NSF has had a unique role in supporting basic research across the spectrum of scientific disciplines. This support has led to remarkable advances in fields as disparate as nanotechnology and economic theory. While federal support of scientific research is of critical importance to innovation, it is also very important that we find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must have the tools needed to communicate the work that they do. The ability to more effectively communicate scientific information may inspire more children to pursue a career in science. It certainly will help create a higher quality dialogue among the research community, the citizens whose investment it relies upon, and the broad society it ultimately serves. Sincerely, Alan L. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The superb gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It's a superb amendment. We're happy to accept it, and I commend him for offering it.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The prior speakers have been very eloquent in support of this and the hour is late; so I won't go into any detail. I just want to commend them for their leadership on this and urge support of this outstanding amendment.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to share the happy birthday wishes to the distinguished ranking member and thank him for his bipartisan participation in not only this, but so many endeavors. Congratulations, Ralph. You are a dear friend and a model to many of us, and I very much appreciate all your service. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership in not only this bill but the entire innovation agenda that has been moving through this Congress so efficiently and with, again, good bipartisan support. I mentioned Mr. Ehlers repeatedly earlier tonight. He has been so central to the passage of this bill. And I especially want to thank the majority staff and the minority staff. We have worked very well together. And I want to thank my dear friends and colleagues on the other side. Though we have had a spirited disagreement on some issues and agreed on some, it has been a civil debate, a well-intentioned debate, and I think it has advanced our discussion of the important role of this legislation. The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before. It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat. And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise outstanding bill.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and chairman. This is a good day for science and research, and that means it is a good day for the United States of America and for our economic prosperity and for our children's future. As Chair of the Research and Science Subcommittee, I rise today in support of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act, and I want to commend Chairman Gordon for his strong leadership on this bill that we are considering now, and on the one that passed earlier today. I share Chairman Gordon's absolute commitment and belief that we must take bold steps now to ensure that American students and workers are prepared for the careers of the future and so our Nation is equipped to compete in the global economy. To accomplish this, however, we must make sure our young scientists receive the support they need. That is why, as many of our prior speakers have pointed out, it is critically important to invest in the minds of young researchers now, because not only are they highly productive, but one day they will fill the ranks of our senior established and groundbreaking scientists on which our country's economy, competitiveness, and indeed our national security depend. That is why I am so pleased we are considering H.R. 363 today. The bill will ensure continued innovation by supporting outstanding researchers in early career stages, and ensuring that graduate students in research fields of particular importance to our future competitiveness receive adequate funding. I also share Ranking Member Ehlers' commitment to the importance of interdisciplinary scientific studies which he so well articulated. This bill and the one before it that we considered already and passed today, are critically important to the future prosperity of our country. I share Chairman Gordon's commitment to them, and I urge passage. I also would like to take this opportunity briefly to express support for the amendment soon to be offered by Mrs. Gillibrand of New York. Her amendment will require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to award scholarships in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to undergraduate scholars. As a former teacher of undergraduate scholars and researchers, I know how important this stage is to career development and I support her commitment to it, applaud her offering the amendment. I urge passage of that, as well as final passage of the bill.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I rise in support of Ms. Gillibrand's amendment. This amendment will require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to award scholarships in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to undergraduate scholars. Congresswoman Gillibrand and I share a commitment to recruiting and educating our young people to meet the growing need for a larger science and engineering workforce. I commend Congresswoman Gillibrand for her leadership on this issue and, as Chairman, look forward to continuing to work with her to strengthen math and science education in this country and ensure our future competitiveness. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to congratulate my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Larsen, for his tireless efforts on this. This bill has been around for several Congresses. It has had wide bipartisan support. And as my friend, Mr. Inslee, said, this was done the right way. Mr. Larsen held countless hearings, met with virtually every imaginable interest group. There were compromises, sometimes difficult, sometimes painful compromises. But in the end, we have a truly remarkable area of land set aside. And, Mr. Larsen, our friends in the other body, Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell, worked very vigorously on this, and I congratulate them. And, as Mr. Inslee did, I also want to congratulate the many citizen groups who worked so hard on this. I encourage my friends on the other side to recognize that no bill will be perfect, but this is about as good as you are going to get. This is an area definitely worth preserving, and the people on the ground support it, by and large. It is one thing to say that it is nice for people to set aside wilderness in their own area and not other areas, but doesn't that converse also apply in not opposing an effort of someone to set aside a wilderness in his own area? I would think the reasoning would suggest that it would, and I urge support from both sides of the aisle on this. I would just finally conclude with this. It is not possible for us to construct or build new wildlands. We can't do that; it is not within our power. What is within our power is to protect the small remaining areas of wildlands for all the future generations. This legislation does an admirable job of achieving this. I urge its passage, and I commend my friend and colleague, Mr. Larsen, and the entire committee for working on this.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, no votes in Congress are more wrenching or difficult than those involving war; whether that vote involves initiating combat, or in this instance, steps to bring about the end. The consequences are profound, uncertainty about the right course is great, and there are strong feelings on all sides. Every member of Congress is committed to the security of this Nation and to supporting our troops and their families. There are legitimate differences about how best to achieve those goals, but the core commitment to security and to support of our troops should not be doubted or questioned, regardless of where one stands on this matter. Before the first vote authorizing force in Iraq in 2002, I asked fundamental questions of the President: `What will the cost be in human casualties on all sides? What are the international and potential regional scenarios that might be developed? What is our long term strategy for the region?' I also asked about the economic costs to our Nation and the world, and about the likelihood of religious conflicts leaving our soldiers caught between warring religious factions with grievances that are centuries old. I asked what provisions had been made to care for the wounded and their families when they return? I called for greater commitment to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issues and for reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum. Finally, knowing well the history of the region, I asked how long our commitment was expected to last if hostilities were initiated. Not one of these questions was answered by President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld or any member of the administration. That is why I voted ``no'' on that initial resolution. Sadly, the same questions remain today and they have still not been answered by the President, which is why I will vote ``yes'' on the bill before the House today. For the sake of our Nation's security, for the safety or our troops, for the sake of our economy at home, for the sake of our international standing, we must say to the Iraqi leaders and to the world, `We have removed a dictator from power, we have disarmed a tyrant, elections have been held, and a constitution is in place. We have shed the blood of our finest, we have indebted our children, we have tried to help rebuild infrastructure and put in place the basis of a democratic republic. Now, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to find a political solution that is in everyone's interest and will lead to an end to the bloodshed.' Our Nation cannot and should not attempt to impose that solution indefinitely; it must come from the Iraqis themselves. Today's bill says just that. It provides the necessary funds to continue to support our soldiers in the field. It adds much needed resources to ensure they receive care when they come home. It addresses needed priorities within our own Nation. And, most importantly, it says affirmatively, there will be an end to our role in combat in Iraq and it is time for our Nation, for the Iraqis, and for the world, to begin to prepare for that time. This cannot go on forever. Those who talk about staying the course without end, as well as those who would call for opposing this bill because they want the war to end tomorrow, must all recognize that in the process of this conflict, our overall military readiness has been profoundly impaired and our Nation is now vulnerable should other, more severe, threats emerge elsewhere in the world. At the same time, our local preparedness of the National Guard is in tatters. Our Guard lacks key resources, equipment, and manpower to respond to fires, floods, or other disasters or to join in serious conflicts elsewhere if called upon to do so. This bill, quite rightly, seeks to correct these deficits. The reality before us today is that we cannot immediately stop funding for our forces or neglect the readiness deficits that now endanger our Nation. That would be irresponsible and would leave our soldiers on the ground and our citizens at home and abroad in greater danger. It would also endanger the lives and hopes of the Iraqi people themselves and leave them vulnerable to extremists and chaos. At the same time, however, it would be equally irresponsible to allow this hemorrhaging of blood and money, this neglect of our own Nation's needs here at home, to continue unchecked. This legislation changes the direction for our Nation and says the Iraqi's must change the direction of their Nation. They must take responsibility for their own security, share their oil wealth equitably with their own citizens, arid establish fundamental constitutional reforms. This bill requires that our President must certify that such things are being done. Far from `tying the hands' of the President, this legislation gives him much needed direction. If it becomes law, President Bush must at long last say that his own people, the American people, in the constitutional democratic republic that is our Nation, and that he is sworn to defend, have spoken through their representatives and have said it is time for change. It will soon be up to the Iraqi's themselves to determine the fate of their own Nation so that we can, at long last, may again determine the fate of ours. If you care about the security of this Nation, vote ``yes'' to restore our military readiness. If you care about our soldiers, vote ``yes'' to give them the equipment they need while deployed and the care they need when they return home. If you want to see an end to this conflict, vote ``yes'' to begin the process that will at last bring that about.

Mr. BAIRD

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1068) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, as amended.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 1068, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1068, a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. This is a bipartisan bill which Congresswoman Biggert and I introduced. I want particularly to acknowledge the role Mrs. Biggert has played in working to develop this legislation over the past several years. This bill is based on a bill introduced by Congresswoman Biggert and Congressman Lincoln Davis during the past two Congresses. And in both those Congresses, the bill passed the House. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their support for the legislation, for helping to advance it through the committee and to bring it to the floor. H.R. 1068 will improve the planning and coordination process for the major Federal interagency research program in information technology. Information technology is a major driver of economic growth. It creates high-wage jobs, provides for rapid communication throughout the world, and provides the tools for acquiring knowledge. For example, information technology helps to make the workplace more productive, to improve the quality of health care, and to make government more responsive and accessible to the needs of our citizens. High-performance computing and networking is not only an essential component of U.S. scientific competitiveness, it also has important industrial, medical, and defense applications. Vigorous long-term research is essential for realizing the potential of information technology. The technical advances that led to today's computers and the Internet evolved from past federally sponsored research, in partnership with industry and universities. High- performance computing is necessary as we work to develop new ways to transfer vast amounts of information around the world. The depth and strength of U.S. capability in information technology stems in part from the sustained research and development program carried out by Federal research agencies under a program codified by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. That act is widely credited with reinvigorating U.S. high-performance computing capabilities after a period of relative decline during the late 1980s. The 1991 act created a multi-agency R&D program to accelerate development of information technology and to attack challenging computational science and engineering problems. The 1991 act also put in place a formal process for planning and budgeting for the activities carried out under the interagency R&D program, which is formally known as the Networking and Information Technology R&D Program. The need for this legislation today arises from what I would characterize as a weakening over time of the planning and prioritization process for the program. In order to maintain our competitiveness, we must ensure that the resources available to advance high-performance computing technology are allocated to the highest priority areas and that the activities supported are carefully coordinated among the performing agencies. Toward that end, H.R. 1068 requires formal biennial reviews of the interagency program by its external advisory committee in order to provide advice from the research community and from the information technology industries on how to sharpen program priorities and improve program implementation. Also, the required annual progress report for the program must now include a formal response to the recommendations of the advisory committee. H.R. 1068 calls on the agencies carrying out the program to focus more effort on high-end computing. The key requirement is for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create and maintain a road map for developing and deploying high-end systems necessary to ensure that the U.S. research community has sustained access to the most capable computing systems. Finally, this bill clarifies the grand challenge problems supported under the interagency program, such as clean energy production, climate change, and patient safety and health quality, which are intended to involve multidisciplinary teams of researchers and demand the most capable high-performance computing and networking resources. Consistent with this requirement, the bill also specifies the provisions for access to high-end computing systems includes technical support to users of these systems. Mr. Speaker, the interagency information technology research program launched by the 1991 act has been largely a success. H.R. 1068 will serve to strengthen this vital research program and deserves the approval of this House. I ask my colleagues for their support in passing H.R. 1068. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.