[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H408-H409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   IN OPPOSITION TO CAPUANO AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND NO. 3 TO H.R. 2086, 
   NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment that was just offered by my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) concerning the Department of Energy and 
National Science Foundation.
  There is no doubt that the National Science Foundation should be 
commended for their fine work in making research funds, including those 
for information technology research. Their record of accomplishment is 
impressive, and certainly qualifies them for increased 
responsibilities. That is why I was a cosponsor of this bill that we 
are going to be considering later on, or voting on.
  While I support the bill and the increased NSF funding, I nonetheless 
strongly oppose that amendment because, while very generous to NSF, 
much of the more than $3 billion provided by this bill is newly 
authorized funding, yet this provides no new funding for the Department 
of Energy's programs, and the amendment that was considered would 
further erode, if not eliminate, such programs.
  Would we cut off funds for such research by the Department of Energy 
and the laboratories strictly by virtue of the agency that oversees it? 
It is unfortunate that neither I nor other Members of the Committee on 
Science were given the opportunity to discuss the IT research successes 
of the Department of Energy when the bill was marked up by the 
committee in September, but the sponsor of this amendment, my colleague 
on the Committee on Science, did not offer the amendment at that time.
  This amendment seriously jeopardizes many of the basic research 
collaborations, and will ensure that DOE has no role in the future of 
information technology research. I do not believe that this is a 
prudent course for us to take today, and I am sorry that I was not here 
to speak against that amendment. I do want to voice my displeasure with 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Massachusetts.
  There is no doubt that the National Science Foundation should be 
commended for their fine work in managing research funds, including 
those for information technology research. Their record of 
accomplishment is impressive, and certainly qualifies them for 
increased responsibilities.
  That's why I am a cosponsor of the legislation that would give the 
National Science Foundation the lead in this federal I.T. research 
initiative, and provide almost $3 billion for the NSF's information 
technology research activities.
  While I support the bill and increased NSF funding, I nonetheless 
strongly oppose this amendment. The NSF's fine record of accomplishment 
is no excuse to cut in half the Department of Energy's information 
technology research programs. The two are not mutually exclusive; they 
are, in fact, complementary.
  This bill is very generous to the NSF; much of the more than $3 
billion provided by this bill is newly authorized funding. Yet this 
bill provides no new funding for the Department of Energy's programs, 
and the amendment we are considering right now would further erode--if 
not eliminate--such programs.
  The DOE is engaged in significant computing research and development. 
DOE's research has led to important advances in the field of 
information technology, especially in the area of parallel computing. 
The DOE is also involved in the development of highly advanced computer 
``technology tools'' which allow scientists to model and analyze 
complex scientific problems and collaborate with other researchers to 
meet national needs.
  DOE-supported computational research provides many benefits to the 
broader research community. In my own district, computer scientists at 
Argonne National Laboratory developed an extremely high performance 
``computational kernel'' for use in a wide range of

[[Page H409]]

simulations, from petroleum reservoir modeling to understanding air 
flow over the surface of a wing. Two of the four 1999 Gordon Bell 
Awards were given to Argonne researchers for applications using this 
computational kernel. The Gordon Bell Award is the most prestigious 
award in the application of parallel processing of scientific and 
engineering problems.
  Would we cut off funding for such research strictly by virtue of the 
agency that oversees it?
  Software developed by Argonne for the reconstruction of metabolic 
pathways is being provided on a Website available to the community of 
biological researchers. The software is widely used in such 
applications as establishing the function of proteins, and for 
simulating the functional behavior of higher organisms. In awarding the 
developers, Genetic Engineering News called the Website one of the most 
useful in biological science.
  Again, should such work be ended strictly because another parent 
agency is the target of our funding largesse?
  It is unfortunate that neither I nor other Members of the Science 
Committee were given the opportunity to discuss the IT research 
successes of the Department of Energy when this bill was marked up by 
the Committee in September. But the sponsor of this amendment, my 
colleague on the Science Committee, did not offer his amendment at that 
time.
  This amendment seriously jeopardizes many of these basic research 
collaborations, and will ensure that DOE has no role in the future of 
information technology research.
  I do not believe this is the prudent course for us to take today, and 
I would have strongly urged my colleagues to oppose the amendment if I 
had been here prior to its acceptance.

                          ____________________