Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Science has advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just identified less than 10 years ago and, already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments. Given the promise that stem cells hold, it is time to drop the limit on current stem cell lines and allow researchers to do what they do best. It is tragic to let these cells go to waste when they could help to relieve so much suffering. It is time to let researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians dictate. In order to explore all of the possibilities, scientists must have access to all three kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic, and those from the umbilical cord blood. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 810 and the Smith bill as well. The two are not in opposition; they are complementary. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 810 and for the sake of the millions suffering from diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would strike from the bill two provisions that would limit the amount of money available for a very important activity at our national laboratories, laboratory-directed research and development, or LDRD, as it is known. I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his willingness to work with me on this issue. While I have agreed to withdraw the amendment if the chairman agrees to work with me in the future on refining the execution of the LDRD efforts, I want to take this opportunity to address the merits of LDRD. As the Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am a strong supporter of LDRD. In my experience, LDRD has been well managed, is important for both scientific discovery and scientific recruiting, and has a record of producing interesting and innovative ideas. The history of science abounds with examples of discoveries that came about while a scientist was attempting to answer a totally different question. LDRD provides funds to laboratory directors to pursue new ideas and give scientists the resources to go where the discoveries lead them. So what are some of these new ideas that have emerged from LDRD work? Well, what has LDRD done for us? To cite just two examples, LDRD projects led to a discovery that allows geologists to model ore deposits in three dimensions. This model is now also being used to assess and plan the remediation of chemical and radioactive waste at DOD sites. One LDRD project set out to reduce the size of a device that produces concentrated neutron beams for use in the biological and material science. After 9/11, scientists realized such a compact neutron source might be the only practical means of probing large freight containers for highly dangerous nuclear material and other contraband. These examples show that in DOE's core missions in energy, in security and in science, LDRD is making important contributions. In short, LDRD projects represent cutting-edge science, are well managed, are essential to recruiting, and perhaps most importantly, produce results for the American people. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I am concerned about efforts to overly constrain LDRD at the Nation's scientific laboratories. Will the chairman engage me in a brief colloquy?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, would the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations engage in a colloquy with me about some provisions and programs in this bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Under the bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, would no longer operate as a separate program. NERI was targeted at university research which is a vital source of innovative ideas on nuclear energy. Is it the gentleman's intention that the Department of Energy continue to fund university research on nuclear energy even though NERI will no longer exist?

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Adler Planetarium on its 75th Anniversary. As the first planetarium established in America and the Western Hemisphere, it has firm standing as a pioneer in the field of astronomy. Its focus on the heavens has inspired generations to reach for the stars. Among its many accomplishments in the past 75 years, there are several that are especially stellar. Astronomers at Adler helped convert light from the star Arcturus into the electrical signals that turned on the opening lights at the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago. Adler began a partnership with the National Science Foundation in 1964 to create the Astro-Science workshop for Chicago area high school students--a relationship that endures to this day. And earlier this year, NASA selected Adler to be its education partner for the Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission, set to launch in 2008. It is clear that, in the opening years of the new millennium, Adler's great tradition of space and science research is stronger than ever. The Adler Planetarium houses one of the world's finest collections of historic astronomical artifacts, dating as far back as the 12th century. A centerpiece of this collection is the world's oldest sundial, which was crafted in 1529. It also has a telescope once used by William Herschel, the astronomer who discovered Uranus in 1781. Adler has made investments in Chicago area schools to provide them with access to exhibits, astronomers, and scientists through videoconferencing, enhanced websites, and learning instruction techniques. These efforts to educate Chicagoans young and old are a core part of its mission. Mr. Speaker, for many years, children of all ages have been fascinated by space and the world beyond our own. Modern youngsters watch clips of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and gaze to the heavens in wonder--wondering how it was done and how they can do it themselves. As a planetarium, Adler harnesses these vague dreams of space science, space walks, and space travel into tangible reality. The inspiration it feeds our youth is arguably its most important contribution in the past 75 years. With the hopes that it continues its great works for at least another 75 years, I am proud to congratulate the Adler Planetarium on its diamond anniversary.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise today in support of H.R. 366. In today's competitive economies, students must be equipped not only with the technical skills of their chosen field, but basic academic knowledge as well. Realizing this, H.R. 366 focuses on academics. I am particularly pleased that the bill is designed to support student achievement in core academic subjects, including math and science. I think we can agree that our new high tech economy demands that students have stronger math, science, engineering and technological skills. Mr. Chairman, vocational education works. Earlier this year I toured two vocational centers in my district, the Technology Center of DuPage County and the Will County Career Center. Several of the students there told me without vocational education programs, they would not be in school. For whatever reason, they were not interested in the traditional high school education or going on to a traditional 4-year college. Instead of these students slipping through the cracks, they are learning cutting-edge technology in some of the fastest growing career fields: aerospace, computer technology and engineering, health care and aviation, just to name a few. Other students have already been accepted to college and are augmenting their education with technical classes. For example, many students in the health care program will go on to college nursing programs next year. Through vocational ed programs, they can take classes for college credit while still in high school. Not only do these students go to college already having the basic skills needed in their field; it takes them less time to complete their training. The sooner these students finish their training, the sooner they are out earning good paychecks and the sooner we are able to get highly skilled workers in high-demand fields. H.R. 366 will help the students in my district and all across the country get even more out of their education. I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Karen Kurek, a resident of the 13th Congressional District of Illinois, on receiving the U.S. Small Business Administration's 2005 Illinois District Office and Midwest Regional Small Business Administration Champion Award for ``Women in Business Champion of the Year.'' Karen Kurek began her career in Arthur Andersen's Audit practice in 1981 where she became a manager in 1985 and a partner in 1994. Soon after her elevation to partner she gave birth to twins, which made it difficult for Karen to continue with the 60-hour workweeks that are customary for partners. Facing a dilemma common to many women--how to manage a career and family--she paved a pioneering path at Arthur Andersen by proposing and negotiating a reduced work schedule on what was to be a one-year trial basis. Karen faced her fair share of skeptics, but she proved them wrong. She not only excelled at Arthur Andersen, but she committed herself to making these same benefits available for other women working for the firm. Karen's success led to her appointment as head of Arthur Andersen's innovative Growth and Retention of Women (GROW) Initiative. Established in 1998, GROW's purpose was to significantly enhance the recruitment, retention, advancement and leadership paths of women within the firm., Under Karen's leadership, the GROW initiative led to reduced turnover among women, an increased number of women in leadership positions, greater implementation of flexible work schedules, and Arthur Andersen's repeated citation in Working Mother Magazine's annual list of ``100 Best Companies for Working Mothers.'' Today, Karen continues to help women excel in the workforce. As a partner at RSM McGladrey, she heads the firm's Women's Initiative--an ongoing, multi-faceted program of networking, mentoring and career- building activities designed to create a culture that encourages diversity and allows women professionals to excel. Throughout Karen's career, she has paved the way for the women who followed her. Working tirelessly to establish a supportive environment for women in the workforce, she helped to create an atmosphere in which women looking to balance a career and family can thrive professionally. I commend her for improving the lives of women and their families and I once again congratulate her on receiving this much deserved award.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friends, Alan and Joan Hurst of Hinsdale, Illinois, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. In June, the Hursts will celebrate 50 years of marriage, and I would like to take a moment to congratulate them on this special event. My husband Rody and I have known Alan and Joan for almost 35 years-- as neighbors and as friends. When we first moved to our home town of Hinsdale, Illinois, they welcomed us into the community with open arms and open hearts. Together, we have enjoyed many years of friendship, including countless dinners, celebrations and family vacations. The Hursts have been blessed with three children and eight beautiful grandchildren. Avid world travelers, Alan and Joan have a wonderful zest for life and have always demonstrated incredible generosity, friendship and love of family. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime friend, I wish to extend my congratulations to Alan and Joan and wish them many more years of love and happiness.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, not because I think it is a good resolution, but because I think it is the lesser of two evils. What is the first evil? Well, those on the other side of the aisle claim it was the process by which the rules were changed last January. Perhaps they are right. As a member of the committee, I happen to believe that the changes were good ones, but perhaps we will look at that on another day in a bipartisan way. But we should make no mistake about it: The greater evil by far is in not allowing the ethics committee to meet and do its job. And why do I say this? It is because without a functioning ethics committee, some Members will be tried in the press by partisan interest groups or by innuendo and accusation instead of by facts and due process. At the same time, complaints against other Members will go unresolved and uninvestigated. That is not right. My point is that an ethics committee was not created for one particular Member of Congress, it was created for all of us and for the good of this body. As a three-term member of the Committee, I have great respect for both the Republican and the Democrat members with whom I have served on the committee. Peer review is never easy, and it is impossible if we are not allowed to leave politics and partisanship at the door. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his hard work and perseverance. He inherited a challenge, acted as an honest broker, and did everything possible to resolve it. I also commend the leadership of Speaker Hastert on this issue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to send us back to the table to do the jobs we have been assigned to do for this great body.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1158) to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988, as amended.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1158, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 96, a resolution to recognize the significant contributions of African American women to the U.S. scientific community. In recent history, it has become almost ordinary for talented individuals from diverse backgrounds to pursue educational opportunities in fields that were previously considered all white male domains. Yet today's women and minorities could never have succeeded in the once nontraditional fields of science, engineering, and mathematics had it not been for the courage of their predecessors. For today's young women, it is difficult to appreciate how exceptional it was for African American women in particular to pursue a career in science. For those born in the early 20th century, they were told that they did not belong; and they felt lucky if they found work as research assistants to, or unpaid volunteers for, male scientists. Yet the grit and perseverance of women like Ruth Ella Moore, the first African American woman to receive a Ph.D. in natural science from Ohio State University, as well as civil rights legislation and the women's movement, help to overcome these obstacles. They also helped pave the way for the successes of women like Shirley Ann Jackson, the first African American woman to receive a Ph.D. from MIT, and Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in space as a crew member of the shuttle Endeavor. Today, African American women scientists hold positions at all levels of universities, government laboratories, and industry. They chair departments and scientific societies; and they serve on peer review committees, something that was unthinkable just 25 years ago. The women we are honoring in House Concurrent Resolution 96 are more than pioneers. They are role models for a new generation of women who are just beginning to think about their life's work and future ambitions and explore their many opportunities. Yet, despite these successes, women and minorities are still under-represented in undergraduate and graduate science and engineering education. As national demographics shift, we simply cannot rely only on our traditional science, mathematics, engineering and technology workforce, which is overwhelmingly white and male, and retiring. If the U.S. is to remain innovative and competitive, we must nurture, prepare, and engage young women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics today. That is what this resolution is all about. By underscoring the importance of diversity and recognizing the significant scientific achievements of African American women, I hope we can inspire more young women, and men, to follow in the footsteps of those who pursued science with such passion and enthusiasm. In conclusion, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her leadership on this very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 material on H. Con. Res. 96, as amended, the resolution now under consideration.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) recognizing the significance of African American women in the United States scientific community, as amended.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 28) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, as amended.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would agree with the gentleman from Tennessee that we really do have the means to conduct research generally and to the social, economic and workforce implication of information technology, and NSF has that ability; and I think that that is all that is necessary. We do not want a mandate in this bill. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the bill's chief cosponsor, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), and thank him for all the great work that he has done on this bill. It is a very important bill to his district, to my district, and to all of the Nation. I would also like to thank the other cosponsor of this important legislation, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science; along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis); the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), and I thank them all for their support. With that, I would also like to thank my colleagues in this body for supporting an identical bill to this one in the 108th Congress; and, finally, I would like to extend my thanks to the Committee on Science staff, majority and minority, for their hard work to bring this bill to the floor today. As I said earlier, we must commit to providing sustained support for high-performance computers at our Federal civil science agencies. H.R. 28 represents just such a commitment. Our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be the stronger for it. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 material on H.R. 28, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when we think of how computers affect our lives, we probably think of the work we do on our office desktop machines or maybe the Internet surfing we do in our spare time. We do not normally think of the enormous contribution that supercomputers, also called high-performance computers, make to the world around us. A recent report by the Council on Competitiveness outlined how high- performance computers currently are used in various industries. The report concluded that ``there is great potential for increased productivity, innovation and competitive advancement across the private sector'' as more industries learn how to take advantage of supercomputing technologies. This is not at all surprising. At a Science Committee hearing last year, we learned that supercomputers allow companies to anticipate how new products will behave in different environments using simulations that are called ``virtual prototyping.'' For instance, the automotive industry uses high-performance computers to reduce costs and improve quality and safety during the vehicle design process. Pharmaceutical companies simulate chemical interactions to design new drugs. These approaches help companies increase the speed to market for new products. High-performance computers also are central to maintaining U.S. leadership in many scientific fields. Computational science complements theory and experimentation in fields such as plasma physics and fusion, astrophysics, nuclear physics and genomics. However, in June 2002, a new Japanese supercomputer, the Earth Simulator, was named the fastest in the world, a title it held through November 2004. Some experts claim that Japan was able to produce the Earth Simulator, a computer far ahead of American machines, because the U.S. had taken an overly cautious or conventional approach to computing R&D. In hindsight, we see that caution meant lost opportunities. Japan's Earth Simulator is an example of a road not taken. But the U.S. is coming back. Last fall, American machines took the two top spots on the list of fastest supercomputers, pushing the Earth Simulator to third. I commend IBM and Silicon Graphics, Inc. for producing these amazing new machines. The bill we are considering on the House floor today, H.R. 28, the High-performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005, will ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of supercomputers. To achieve this aim, the bill does four things. First, it requires that Federal agencies provide the U.S. research community access to the most advanced high-performance computing systems and technical support for their users. Second, there is more to computing than building big machines. That is why the bill requires Federal agencies to support all aspects of the high-performance computing for scientific and engineering applications. Third, the bill requires the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to direct an interagency planning process to develop and maintain a road map for the provision of high-performance computing resources for the U.S. research community. The original legislation that the bill amends, the High-performance Computing Act of 1991, gave rise to an interagency planning process that has lost the vitality it once had. This provision will help ensure a robust planning process so that our national high- performance computing effort is not allowed to lag in the future. Finally, the bill clarifies the mission of each of the Federal agencies that have a role in developing or using high-performance computing. Mr. Speaker, this bill was the subject of a full committee hearing in May of 2004. At that hearing, Dr. John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, communicated the administration's support for this bill. The bill is also consistent with a report written by the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force and released by OSTP on the day of the hearing. More recently, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, known as PITAC, on April 14 approved the recommendations for a report on computational science they will issue shortly. Designed to ensure U.S. preeminence and competitiveness in the computational science, these recommendations include sustained access for the research community to the highest end supercomputers, devotion of resources to software development and data management, and creation of a multidecade road map for computational science and the fields that require it. In other words, the actions this report recommends are exactly what today's bill requires the Federal Government to do. The Nation's experts on PITAC, Dr. Marburger, and the Bush administration all recognize that we cannot imagine the kinds of problems that the supercomputers of tomorrow will be able to solve, but we can imagine the kinds of problems we will have if we fail to provide researchers in the United States with the computing resources they need to remain world-class. This bill will guide Federal agencies in providing needed support to high-performance computing and its user communities. Our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be stronger for it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier the Committee on Science held a hearing on the high-performance computer in May of last year. And at that time my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) asked the experts who testified at that hearing whether there was any danger of computers approaching the cognitive abilities of humans. And the witnesses gave a resounding no in answer to that question. More specifically, my colleague wanted to know how close we were to a machine that has reached a level of intelligence where it would be entitled to the minimum wage. Dr. Jack Marburger, the President's Science Advisor responded, ``Not very. We are quite far from that in terms of number of components measured in neurons; for example, the interconnectivity of the human brain far exceeds anything that we can currently build or foresee in the foreseeable future with computer hardware.'' Dr. Rick Stevens, a renowned computer scientist from Argonne National Laboratory, responded to the same question saying, ``My personal view is that I would be much more concerned with near-term issues associated with large-scale computing or the use of large-scale data systems to collect information. Right now, if you had to estimate what is the most intelligent device we can build, it is roughly between a worm and an insect in terms of what it can do.'' I think it is exceedingly inappropriate for this bill to impose a requirement on our Federal agencies to focus on the societal implications of hypothetical human-mimicking computers. Doing so would suggest that we as a body fundamentally misunderstand the nature and focus of high-performance computing research. In addition, as Dr. Stevens pointed out at our hearing last year, information technology has societal implications for privacy, for workplace collaboration and for many other areas. Our Federal agencies should focus any resources for societal studies on these real and immediate needs. Finally, NSF already has the ability to conduct research generally into social, economic, and work-force implications of information technology. We should allow the research community, via the peer review process, and the agency to determine if this sort of research becomes necessary. This should not be a mandate in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)