Judy Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the IDEA conference report. I want to thank the conferees and our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for their hard work throughout this process. I am also pleased that my report language to make IDEA consistent with McKinney-Vento provisions was included. This will go a long way in ensuring that homeless children with special needs get the services they need to succeed. In order to create a more cooperative environment for special needs students, the conference report contains a number of badly needed reforms, all of which will help parents and teachers trust each other. When that happens, they can create the most positive environment for the children. I would like to address the fears that some of my constituents had about the discipline provision. Many in the disability community were very concerned that children could be shut out of the educational process. We all agree that a child should not be punished for behavior that is the result of a disability, and the conference report requires schools to determine if this is the case. If a student is misbehaving and it is not due to his or her disability, school officials can discipline that child in the same manner they would any other child. Schools are given the resources to deal with the most severe case of weapons possession, illegal drugs or severe bodily harm, but the legislation specifies that the students cannot be denied services. If a behavior is attributable to a student's disability, the student will get the support he needs so that his behavior does not become an impediment to his own learning or that of other classmates. Special needs students have the right to the services they need, but other students have the right to learn in a safe environment. The IDEA compromise is a common-sense approach to improving special education. The reforms will shift the focus onto students and their needs instead of on the legal process. At the same time, it protects the right of student and their families. I am proud to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a man who exemplifies the very best in public service. His name is Joel Kagann and his service to the people of the Village of Woodridge and the County of DuPage is unmatched. His contributions are many, and his dedication to the highest ideals of service has been unwavering. Like so many other outstanding and unsung public servants, Joel Kagann began his career as a police officer. That was almost fifty years ago, back in 1957 when the Village of Woodridge was just beginning to attract returning servicemen looking for a great place to raise their young families. Working his way up through the ranks, Joel was named Chief of Police for the Village of Woodridge, a post he held for nearly a decade, until his retirement in 1978. For most mere mortals, that would be enough. But not for Joel Kagann. A natural born leader, Joel became Mayor of Woodridge--not because he was ambitious or yearning for more, but because his fellow citizens entered his name as a ``write-in'' candidate on the ballot in 1973. That same year, his leadership talents again were recognized when he was appointed Administrative Assistant to the DuPage County Circuit Clerk. Again working his way up through the ranks, Joel became Senior Executive Assistant and then Chief Deputy Circuit Court Clerk. In 1991, when his predecessor retired, the DuPage County Circuit Court appointed him to the office of Clerk of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County. He was elected to the post the following year, and again in 1996 and in 2000. Despite the demands of his professional obligations, Joel always found time to volunteer on local and statewide committees and groups, including the Illinois Association of Court Clerks, where he served as President in 1999. He holds multiple life memberships in organizations such as the International, Illinois, and DuPage County Chiefs of Police Associations, the Illinois and DuPage County Police Associations, Lions Club, Loyal Order of Moose, Knights of Columbus, Boy Scouts, and Woodridge Special Events Committee. Joel is also a founding and active member of Saint Scholastica Roman Catholic Church in Woodridge and was named ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Village of Woodridge in 1987. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine where the Village of Woodridge or DuPage County would be today without a man named Joel Kagann. For 47 years, he has given, and given again, and given still more. He has inspired countless other young public servants to give their very best efforts to the people they serve. Those who have worked with and for him are loyal and devoted fans who will follow him anywhere. His commitment and tireless efforts as a public servant serve as inspirations to us all. He is a decent man, a giving man, and a man who I am so proud to call my friend. I am happy to join so many others in congratulating him on his retirement and wishing him all the best in the years to come. He will never be repaid for the goodness he has so generously shared with others, but I guess if you're a man named Joel Kagann, you would never expect it.

Mrs. BIGGERT

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. These powerful machines are used in the development of pharmaceuticals, in modeling the earth's climate, and in applications critical to ensuring our national and homeland security and our economic competitiveness. 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. The bill currently under consideration, H.R. 4516, spells out in detail the research and development the Department of Energy should be doing to help ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of supercomputers. More specifically, H.R. 4516 does three things. First, it requires the Secretary of Energy to establish and operate high-end computing facilities involving leadership-class machines that are among the most elite in the world. Second, this bill directs the Secretary to conduct advanced scientific and engineering research and development using these leadership class systems, and to continue to advance the capabilities of high-end computing hardware and software. Finally, the bill requires that these computing facilities be made available on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis to researchers from U.S. industry, institutions of higher learning, national laboratories and other Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, dramatic scientific and commercial breakthroughs will require us to increase computing power by a factor of 100 or, in some cases, by a factor of 1,000. While attaining these increases may seem daunting, the history of computer development has taught us that, with a sustained commitment to research, such gains are within our reach. That is why Energy Secretary Abraham announced last summer the selection of a team, including Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, IBM, Cray and other partners, to develop and build a new, high-end computing facility. H.R. 4516 complements and supports this DOE initiative and ensures that the department can fulfill its responsibility to help lead the Federal Government's supercomputing R&D efforts. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent last month, and in July the House passed a similar version by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation again and send it to the President's desk so that the United States can maintain its distinction as home to the world's most powerful computer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to conclude this debate by recognizing the bill's cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and thank them for their efforts in support of this legislation. I also would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for holding a Science Committee hearing last May to review our Federal investment in high-end computing. The hearing was a success. We received positive feedback on this legislation from a number of experts on high-performance computing who testified before the committee. I also would like to acknowledge the U.S. supercomputing industry for its impressive accomplishments. I congratulate IBM for its new Blue Gene/L supercomputer, which was recognized just last week as the fastest computer in the world. The Blue Gene/L is faster than Japan's Earth Simulator, which held the world record in computing speed for nearly 3 years. With passage of this bill, the DOE can work closely with IBM and other industry leaders like Cray and Silicon Graphics Incorporated as well as academia to ensure that the United States continues to be home to the world's fastest supercomputer for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. 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 the Senate amendment to H.R. 4516, the bill now under consideration.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4516) to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research and development to advance high-end computing.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and the staffs of the committee for their work in producing an outstanding package of financial services initiatives that were reported out of committee on a bipartisan basis and included in H.R. 10. Mr. Chairman, the 9/11 Commission recognized our country's success in tracking and freezing terrorist finances in the post-9/11 period, and that was certainly welcome news. But the sad truth remains that we are only as strong and successful as our weakest link. Our weakest link may be a country, or several countries, with antiquated financial systems, a weak economy, or inadequate oversight and enforcement of the money that flows within their borders. Through diplomatic and other means, we are aiding other nations and encouraging them to join in our fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The 9/11 Commission testified before our committee that there must be experts at the forefront of our efforts to continue to counter terrorist financing. We must keep our Treasury experts, in collaboration with our State Department experts, on the front lines in our dealings with international financial bodies, especially when those bodies are making decisions with regard to anti-terrorist financing. With that in mind, the committee adopted an amendment that I offered along with my colleague from New York (Mr. King) that seeks to ensure that the Treasury Department's role as the lead Federal agency in international financial matters is clear. By confirming that the Secretary of the Treasury is the lead U.S. representative and negotiator to international financial institutions and multilateral financial policymaking bodies, we will ensure that the U.S. has consistent financial leadership, a consistent financial message, and endorses consistent financial policies. Secondly, I want to point out that this bill now contains important language that will encourage best practices in building private-public partnerships to detect counterterrorist financing activities and enhance financial sector disaster preparedness and response. The Department of the Treasury and ChicagoFirst are one such partnership that can serve as a model for other agencies and industries. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 10.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment. Passage of this resolution will not protect marriage, and I am concerned it will create the opposite effect of what its proponents seek to accomplish. Let me first state that I believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. I strongly support the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996. Second, marriage is an issue that our Founding Fathers wisely left to the states. Article X of the Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' No Congress ever has seen fit to amend the Constitution to address any issue related to marriage. No Constitutional Amendment was needed to ban polygamy or bigamy, nor was a Constitutional Amendment needed to set a uniform age of majority to ban child marriages. So why do proponents argue that we must take this unprecedented step now to ban same-sex marriages? They claim that without the Amendment, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states. Yet the Defense of Marriage Act not only prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages, it allows individual states to refuse to recognize such unions performed in other states. And in the eight years that have passed since its enactment, DOMA never has been invalidated in any court in the country. The authors of DOMA took the greatest pains to write a law that is constitutional and will withstand judicial challenges. Proponents also claim that amending the Constitution is the only way to prevent so-called ``activist judges'' from legislating matters of same-sex marriage. Yet amending the Constitution to address marriage could invite federal judicial review not only of marriage, but of divorce, child custody, inheritance, adoption, and other issues of family law. Not only would this violate the principles of federalism, it would create very bad public policy. Mr. Speaker, no legislature in the country has established same-sex marriage in statute. In fact, 39 states, including Illinois, have adopted laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman. I urge my colleagues to have faith in our system of government, keep marriage out of the Constitution, and allow the states to continue to exercise what is best left to them.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 461, which supports the goals and ideals of designating September as National Life Insurance Awareness Month. I want to thank my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, for introducing this resolution with me and for his support on this important issue. He could not be here this evening, and I would submit his testimony under general leave. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for moving this resolution through the Committee on Government Reform expeditiously and, of course, my good friend on the committee the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). Mr. Speaker, life insurance is too often thought of only when it is too late. How many times have any of us heard friends or loved ones sadly reflect that the deceased had no life insurance or had too little life insurance? Today, only 4 in 10 adult Americans own an individual life insurance policy, and among those who do have life insurance the amount is often too small to safeguard the financial future of their loved ones. Because of insufficient coverage, family members are often forced to take a second job, to work longer hours, borrow money, or sell the family home. In short, these outcomes are only the symptoms of the crisis of underinsurance that exists in our Nation today. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on both the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Education and the Workforce have been working very hard to increase the level of financial literacy and economic education in this Nation. Understanding how financial products work and how they can work to build financial security are two important ingredients in a complete financial education. To call attention to the problem of the uninsured and the underinsured, the Life and Health Insurance Foundation for Education, the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers, and many other leading insurance companies and organizations designated September 2004 as Life Insurance Awareness Month. They have launched programs to reach out to Americans and educate them about life insurance, and my colleagues might have seen some of their ads on TV. The goal of this resolution is to further educate Americans about the importance of life insurance to a sound financial plan. Losing a family member is painful enough without it being compounded by financial difficulties. It is my hope that recognizing Life Insurance Awareness Month will motivate Americans to seek out information about the benefits of life insurance so that if the premature death of a loved one does occur, they will be spared the economic hardships that often accompany tragedy. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting designating September 2004 as Life Insurance Awareness Month.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Watt amendment which would restore the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over questions relating to the Pledge of Allegiance, changing the bill back to the way it read when I and 224 other Members cosponsored it. Congress clearly has the authority under article III of the Constitution to define the jurisdiction of the Federal district and appellate courts, and the original H.R. 2028 was perfectly supportable on this point. But this new bill strips the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and I cannot support that. Mr. Chairman, in our more than 200-year history as a Nation, there is no direct court precedent in which the Supreme Court is cut off entirely from review of a constitutional issue. Congress wisely has chosen not to test its power to deny Supreme Court review of laws Congress has passed; that is until H.R. 3313 and this amended version of H.R. 2028. I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) cited Ex Parte McCardle as authority under article III to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But in McCardle, the court recognized that other avenues and at least some level of review were available on a constitutional challenge. I would caution my colleagues to think twice before tampering with authorities clearly granted in the Constitution. The issue today may be the Pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is second amendment rights, civil rights, environmental protection or a host of other issues that Members may hold dear. I would ask my colleagues, do we really need 50 different versions of the Pledge of Allegiance? I certainly do not think so. I believe that ``under God'' are two of the most important words in the Pledge. I also believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all Federal questions. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Watt amendment to the Pledge Protection Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2028, the Pledge Protection Act, because it makes in order an amendment that I strongly support. The amendment to be offered by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is very straightforward. It would restore to the bill the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over questions related to the Pledge of Allegiance, changing the bill back to the way it was originally introduced and as it was when I and 224 other Members of this body cosponsored it. As introduced, H.R. 2028 would have restricted the Federal district courts and the appellate courts from hearing cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. When I signed on as a cosponsor of the original bill a week after its introduction back in May of 2003, H.R. 2028 was a good bill. It took care of those renegade jurists, but it retained the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over this important constitutional issue. Its title read, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court over certain cases and in controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.'' While the title has not changed, the content of the bill certainly has. As reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 2028 now prohibits the Supreme Court from hearing such cases. I recognize that Congress clearly has the authority under Article III of the Constitution to define the jurisdiction of the Federal district and appellate courts. The original H.R. 2028 was perfectly supportable on this point, for it related to the courts ``inferior to of the Supreme Court.'' I know that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) cited ex parte McCardle as authority under Article III to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But constitutional scholars say there is no direct precedent for making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This unprecedented restriction of the Supreme Court's authority would violate the basic tenet of checks and balances within our system of government. The Founding Fathers created this balance of power within our democratic government to ensure the integrity of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court is not able to fulfill its constitutional purpose, our Federal Government will be unable to ensure that our laws reflect the rights set forth in our Constitution. I would caution my colleagues to think twice before tampering with authorities clearly granted in the Constitution. The issue today may be the pledge, but what if the issue tomorrow is environmental protection, civil rights, second amendment rights or a host of other issues that Members may hold dear? I would ask my colleagues not to succumb to a false comfort that the Supreme Court ultimately will strike down the legislation, so therefore it is acceptable to cast a politically expedient vote that you know is just wrong. I would also ask my colleagues to think about, do we really want 50 different versions of the Pledge of Allegiance? I certainly do not think so. However, that is what could happen if you believe the Committee on the Judiciary's press release on this bill. Its headline says it all, ``Committee approves legislation allowing States to decide whether 'under God' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.'' I believe the Supreme Court, not 50 different State courts, should be the final arbiter of any questions on the constitutionality of that congressionally approved phrase. I come to the floor with a heavy heart on this but, Mr. Speaker, I revere the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that ``under God'' are two of the most important words in the pledge. I also believe that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of all Federal questions. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Watt amendment to the Pledge Protection Act.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, due to the radical changes made by the committee to the introduced bill, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 2028.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, due to a prior commitment in my district, I missed the following rollcall votes yesterday: rollcall number 441 on passage of H. Con. Res. 363, rollcall number 442 on passage of H. Res. 667, and rollcall number 443 on passage of H. Res. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all of these votes.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a group of young constituents in my district whose efforts to recognize September 11 brought a local community together in collective pride for the United States. Three years ago, when our Nation was overcome by fear and dismay, Katie and Carrie Straub came together with other young people to make a difference during the aftermath of our Nation's greatest tragedy. They planned a local flag rally to bring youths together to share in their grief and honor America's heroes. The first rally was an impromptu response to the profound sadness and patriotism expressed in the days after September 11, and it caught the eyes and ears of a community and its local leaders. Now, with the help of many other youths in the community and local businesses, the annual rally has grown to incorporate charity fundraising events and has become an uplifting day, focused on staying positive and helping others in the wake of tragedy. The girls sought out and received official approval for the annual rally, and this year, September 11, 2004, has been declared Character Counts Youth Flag Rally Day in the village of Lisle, Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of these young constituents. They heard the call of the President to stand up in support of our nation in the days after September 11, and their dedication and spirited efforts have proven once again that teens can make a difference.

Mrs. BIGGERT

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 myself such time as I may consume and, in closing, I want to recognize the bill's chief lead sponsor along with me, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), and thank the other cosponsors of this important legislation, including the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). I would thank them all for their support. And I would also have to thank the Committee on Science staff, the majority and the minority, for their hard work. I also would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for holding a full Committee on Science hearing this past May to consider this legislation. At this very successful hearing, the committee received very positive feedback on the bill from the experts on high-performance computing. That is also the hearing where Dr. Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, communicated the administration's support for the bill. As I said earlier, we must commit to providing sustained support for high-performance computers at our Federal civilian science agencies. Our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be the stronger for that.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who is a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, and has been a great help to the scientific community, the Department of Energy, and all its programs, and especially the Office of Science. So we appreciate all his hard work on behalf of them. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the House Committee on Science.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

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. These powerful machines are used in the development of pharmaceuticals, in modeling the Earth's climate, and in applications critical to ensuring our national and homeland security. They also help ensure our economic competitiveness. In a recent Subcommittee on Energy hearing, we heard how supercomputers can help companies anticipate how new products will behave in different environments using simulations that are called ``virtual prototyping.'' 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. The top computer in the world today, the Earth Simulator, is not in the United States. It is in Japan. 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 and conventional approach to computing R&D. Beginning in the 1990s, the U.S. focused on a single architecture for high-performance computing and emphasized the use of commercially available components over custom-made components. In hindsight, we see that this approach has meant lost opportunities. Japan's Earth Simulator is an example of a road not taken. The U.S. is still a leader in supercomputing. In fact, 10 of the top 20 most powerful computers in the world today are in the United States. Even so, the Earth Simulator is nearly three times as fast as the most powerful computer in the United States, the ASCI-Q computer at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The bill we are considering today on the floor, H.R. 4218, 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 supercomputing than building big machines. That is why the bill requires Federal agencies to support all aspects of 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 research, development and deployment roadmap 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 missions of each of the Federal agencies that have a role in developing or using high-performance computing. Mr. Speaker, at a full committee hearing on May 13, Dr. John Marburger of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy communicated the administration's support for this bill. The bill is consistent with a report written by the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force and released by OSTP on the day of the hearing. Mr. Marburger and the Bush administration recognize that we cannot imagine the kinds of problems that these supercomputers of tomorrow will be able to resolve, but we can imagine the kind 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 and provide a 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

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3890, the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act. I'd like to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, Melissa Hart, for introducing this important legislation. During a very busy week in May, I chaired two Energy Subcommittee hearings on the issues of energy efficiency R and D. The first hearing took a broad look at research and development in the area of energy efficiency. The second hearing focused on the legislation under consideration today, H.R. 3890. This bill authorizes a research and development program at the Department of Energy aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the metals industry. Some may have wondered why we didn't simply combine the two hearings, on similar topics, into a single hearing. But there were two main reasons why it was important to give the metals industry initiative a dedicated place on the Subcommittee's calendar, and why the Department of Energy has an initiative focused on this one industry to begin with. First of all, the metals industry is highly energy-intensive. Taken together, the steel, aluminum, and copper industries account for more than 10 percent of industrial energy usage in the United States. President Bush's National Energy Plan recognized that improving energy efficiency in our most energy-intensive industries could yield large improvements in productivity, product quality, safety, and pollution prevention. Second, we have a strategic national interest in helping our metals industry remain competitive. For any industry, energy efficiency means increased production without increased energy consumption or costs. Improving energy efficiency helps improve the bottom line, making American metal products more competitive on the global market. That means more jobs here at home. But energy efficiency is more than that. Reducing energy use reduces our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases, and it increases our energy security. In this way, energy efficiency just makes sense-- dollars and cents--for the nation. Again, I commend Ms. Hart for all her hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BIGGERT

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), once more for his work as a lead sponsor of this legislation, and I would also like to thank the minority and the majority staff of the Committee on Science for their time and effort and ideas. With the passage of this legislation, the Department of Energy will continue to revolutionize the use of supercomputers, ensuring the competitiveness of American science and industry. I would urge my colleagues to support 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, in light of the bill just considered by this body, I am sure many of our colleagues are wondering why we are considering another high-performance computing bill and what the difference is between this bill and the one just approved. In a nutshell, the bill we are considering right now, H.R. 4516, the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, authorizes specific research and development activities that the Department of Energy will need to undertake to meet the mandates laid out in H.R. 4218, the bill just considered by the House. H.R. 4516 strengthens the interagency planning process for high- performance computing R&D. It also makes clear that the Department of Energy, through its Office of Science and the National Science Foundation, are the two lead agencies within the Federal Government responsible for providing U.S. researchers with access to the most advanced computing facilities in the world. The bill under consideration now complements H.R. 4218 by spelling out in detail the R&D that the Department of Energy should be doing to help ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of super computers. More specifically, H.R. 4516 does three things. First, it requires the Secretary of Energy to establish and operate high-end computing facilities involving leadership-class machines that are among the most elite in the world. Second, the bill directs the Secretary to conduct advanced scientific and engineering R&D using these leadership-class systems and to continue to advance the capabilities of high-end computing hardware and software. Finally, the bill requires that these computing facilities be made available on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis to researchers from U.S. industry, institutions of higher education, national laboratories, and other Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, last fall the Department of Energy's Office of Science released its 20-year facility plan, a prioritized list of the most important facilities needed to advance multiple fields of scientific endeavor over the next 2 decades. The second-highest priority identified on the Department's list was ultra-scale computing. Ultra- scale or high-end computing ranks high on the Department of Energy's priority list, because these computers are essential tools for achieving the next generation of scientific breakthroughs in a variety of fields central to the Department of Energy's mission. In many cases, dramatic breakthroughs will require increasing computing power by a factor of a hundred or in some cases by a factor of a thousand. While attaining these increases may seem daunting, the history of computer development has taught us that, with a sustained commitment to research, such gains are within our reach. That is why Secretary Abraham recently announced the selection of a team including Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, IBM, Cray and other partners to develop and build a new high-end computing facility. When completed, this new user facility will outpace the world's current number one computer, Japan's Earth Stimulator. H.R. 4516 supports this new initiative of the Department of Energy and ensures that the Department can fulfill its responsibility to help lead the Federal Government's supercomputing R&D efforts. Mr. Speaker, by renewing our commitment to high-end computing research and development at the Department of Energy, the United States can regain its competitive edge in the development and use of supercomputers and recapture the distinction of being home to the world's most powerful computer. Again, our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be the stronger for it. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4516, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4516) to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research and development to advance high-end computing, as amended.