[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2483-H2487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2005

  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.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 28

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``High-Performance Computing 
     Revitalization Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 2 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C. 5501) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(10) Commercial application of the results of Federal 
     investment in basic and computing science is consistent with 
     longstanding United States technology transfer policy and is 
     a critical national priority, particularly with regard to 
     cybersecurity and other homeland security applications, 
     because of the urgent needs of commercial, academic, and 
     individual users as well as the Federal and State 
     Governments.''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 4 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C. 5503) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and multidisciplinary 
     teams of researchers'' after ``high-performance computing 
     resources'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``scientific workstations,'';
       (B) by striking ``(including vector supercomputers and 
     large scale parallel systems)'';
       (C) by striking ``and applications'' and inserting 
     ``applications''; and
       (D) by inserting ``, and the management of large data 
     sets'' after ``systems software'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``packet switched''; and
       (4) by amending paragraphs (5) and (6) to read as follows:
       ``(5) `Program' means the High-Performance Computing 
     Research and Development Program described in section 101; 
     and
       ``(6) `Program Component Areas' means the major subject 
     areas under which are grouped related individual projects and 
     activities carried out under the Program.''.

     SEC. 4. HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C. 5511 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in the title heading, by striking ``AND THE NATIONAL 
     RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK'' and inserting ``RESEARCH AND 
     DEVELOPMENT'';
       (2) in section 101--
       (A) the section heading, by striking ``NATIONAL HIGH-
     PERFORMANCE COMPUTING'' and inserting ``HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
     COMPUTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT'';
       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``National High-
     Performance Computing'' and inserting ``High-Performance 
     Computing Research and Development'';
       (ii) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following: ``(1) The President shall implement a High-
     Performance Computing Research and Development Program, which 
     shall--
       ``(A) provide for long-term basic and applied research on 
     high-performance computing;
       ``(B) provide for research and development on, and 
     demonstration of, technologies to advance the capacity and 
     capabilities of high-performance computing and networking 
     systems;
       ``(C) provide for sustained access by the research 
     community in the United States to high-performance computing 
     systems that are among the most advanced in the world in 
     terms of performance in solving scientific and engineering 
     problems, including provision for technical support for users 
     of such systems;
       ``(D) provide for efforts to increase software 
     availability, productivity, capability, security, 
     portability, and reliability;
       ``(E) provide for high-performance networks, including 
     experimental testbed networks, to enable research and 
     development on, and demonstration of, advanced applications 
     enabled by such networks;
       ``(F) provide for computational science and engineering 
     research on mathematical modeling and algorithms for 
     applications in all fields of science and engineering;
       ``(G) provide for the technical support of, and research 
     and development on, high-performance computing systems and 
     software required to address Grand Challenges;
       ``(H) provide for educating and training additional 
     undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, 
     computer science, computer and network security, applied 
     mathematics, library and information science, and 
     computational science; and
       ``(I) provide for improving the security of computing and 
     networking systems, including Federal systems, including 
     research required to establish security standards and 
     practices for these systems.'';
       (iii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively;
       (iv) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated by clause (iii) 
     of this subparagraph--

       (I) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (F), respectively;
       (III) by inserting before subparagraph (D), as so 
     redesignated by subclause (II) of this clause, the following 
     new subparagraphs:

       ``(A) establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-
     performance computing research, development, networking, and 
     other activities;
       ``(B) establish Program Component Areas that implement the 
     goals established under subparagraph (A), and identify the 
     Grand Challenges that the Program should address;
       ``(C) provide for interagency coordination of Federal high-
     performance computing research, development, networking, and 
     other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program;''; and
       (IV) by inserting after subparagraph (D), as so 
     redesignated by subclause (II) of this clause, the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(E) develop and maintain a research, development, and 
     deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance 
     computing systems under paragraph (1)(C); and''; and
       (v) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated by clause (iii) of 
     this subparagraph--

       (I) by striking ``paragraph (3)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (2)(D)'';
       (II) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:

       ``(A) provide a detailed description of the Program 
     Component Areas, including a description of any changes in 
     the definition of or activities under the Program Component 
     Areas from the preceding report, and the reasons for such 
     changes, and a description of Grand Challenges supported 
     under the Program;'';

       (III) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``specific 
     activities'' and all that follows through ``the Network'' and 
     inserting ``each Program Component Area'';
       (IV) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``and for each 
     Program Component Area'' after ``participating in the 
     Program'';
       (V) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``applies;'' and 
     inserting ``applies; and'';
       (VI) by striking subparagraph (E) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E); and
       (VII) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated by subclause 
     (VI) of this clause, by inserting ``and the extent to which 
     the Program incorporates the recommendations of the advisory 
     committee established under subsection (b)'' after ``for the 
     Program'';

       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Advisory Committee.--'';
       (iii) in paragraph (1)(C), as so redesignated by clauses 
     (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph, by inserting ``, including 
     funding levels for the Program Component Areas'' after ``of 
     the Program'';
       (iv) in paragraph (1)(D), as so redesignated by clauses (i) 
     and (ii) of this subparagraph, by striking ``computing'' and 
     inserting ``high-performance computing and networking''; and
       (v) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page H2484]]

       ``(2) In addition to the duties outlined in paragraph (1), 
     the advisory committee shall conduct periodic evaluations of 
     the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and 
     activities of the Program, and shall report not less 
     frequently than once every two fiscal years to the Committee 
     on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on its 
     findings and recommendations. The first report shall be due 
     within one year after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.''; and
       (D) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by striking ``Program or'' and 
     inserting ``Program Component Areas or''; and
       (3) by striking sections 102 and 103.

     SEC. 5. AGENCY ACTIVITIES.

       Title II of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 
     U.S.C. 5521 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) of section 201 to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
     described in title I, the National Science Foundation shall--
       ``(1) support research and development to generate 
     fundamental scientific and technical knowledge with the 
     potential of advancing high-performance computing and 
     networking systems and their applications;
       ``(2) provide computing and networking infrastructure 
     support to the research community in the United States, 
     including the provision of high-performance computing systems 
     that are among the most advanced in the world in terms of 
     performance in solving scientific and engineering problems, 
     and including support for advanced software and applications 
     development, for all science and engineering disciplines; and
       ``(3) support basic research and education in all aspects 
     of high-performance computing and networking.'';
       (2) by amending subsection (a) of section 202 to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
     described in title I, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall conduct basic and applied research in 
     high-performance computing and networking, with emphasis on--
       ``(1) computational fluid dynamics, computational thermal 
     dynamics, and computational aerodynamics;
       ``(2) scientific data dissemination and tools to enable 
     data to be fully analyzed and combined from multiple sources 
     and sensors;
       ``(3) remote exploration and experimentation; and
       ``(4) tools for collaboration in system design, analysis, 
     and testing.'';
       (3) in section 203--
       (A) by striking subsections (a) through (d) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
     described in title I, the Secretary of Energy shall--
       ``(1) conduct and support basic and applied research in 
     high-performance computing and networking to support 
     fundamental research in science and engineering disciplines 
     related to energy applications; and
       ``(2) provide computing and networking infrastructure 
     support, including the provision of high-performance 
     computing systems that are among the most advanced in the 
     world in terms of performance in solving scientific and 
     engineering problems, and including support for advanced 
     software and applications development, for science and 
     engineering disciplines related to energy applications.''; 
     and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (b);
       (4) by amending subsection (a) of section 204 to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
     described in title I--
       ``(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     shall--
       ``(A) conduct basic and applied metrology research needed 
     to support high-performance computing and networking systems;
       ``(B) develop benchmark tests and standards for high-
     performance computing and networking systems and software;
       ``(C) develop and propose voluntary standards and 
     guidelines, and develop measurement techniques and test 
     methods, for the interoperability of high-performance 
     computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces 
     to high-performance computing and networking systems; and
       ``(D) work with industry and others to develop, and 
     facilitate the implementation of, high-performance computing 
     applications to solve science and engineering problems that 
     are relevant to industry; and
       ``(2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     shall conduct basic and applied research on high-performance 
     computing applications, with emphasis on--
       ``(A) improving weather forecasting and climate prediction;
       ``(B) collection, analysis, and dissemination of 
     environmental information; and
       ``(C) development of more accurate models of the ocean-
     atmosphere system.''; and
       (5) by amending subsection (a) of section 205 to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) General Responsibilities.--As part of the Program 
     described in title I, the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall conduct basic and applied research directed toward 
     advancement and dissemination of computational techniques and 
     software tools for high-performance computing systems with an 
     emphasis on modeling to--
       ``(1) develop robust decision support tools;
       ``(2) predict pollutant transport and the effects of 
     pollutants on humans and on ecosystems; and
       ``(3) better understand atmospheric dynamics and 
     chemistry.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  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-

[[Page H2485]]

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.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, I would like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), for her constant work on the Science 
Committee and these particular areas for the work that she has done 
over the last several years and her consistent leadership in support of 
the high-end computing.
  I also thank my colleagues in the House for passing the previous 
version of this bill in the 108th Congress, and hopefully the Senate 
will pass this bill also in a timely manner.
  H.R. 28 aims to restore U.S. world leadership in the area of high-
performance computing. Supercomputing is a large national effort spread 
out over seven Federal agencies. This resolution seeks to better 
coordinate those agencies' efforts and to improve both short-term and 
long-term planning.
  The Oak Ridge National Laboratory near my district is a center of 
national leadership and high-performance computing. Oak Ridge is the 
Department of Energy's largest science and energy laboratory. This lab 
is involved in many innovative research projects, including renewable 
energy, materials science, national security, and bioscience.
  I am proud that the Oak Ridge National Lab near my district stands to 
become the home of the world's most powerful supercomputer.
  I envision thousands of scientists traveling to Oak Ridge to use the 
computing facilities. The discoveries they make will change how we 
diagnose and cure diseases, heat and cool our homes, travel from place 
to place, and defend our liberties in time of warfare.
  H.R. 28 will strengthen and streamline our national efforts in the 
areas of high-performance computing. I commend this bill and recommend 
this bill to my colleagues and ask for their support.
  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.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. It 
deals with the competitiveness of the United States of America in the 
global marketplace. This is something that too many take for granted 
that we are going to continue to be preeminent in the competitive 
world. We are not going to be preeminent in the competitive world if we 
do not invest wisely, if we do not direct our resources in the proper 
way, because the competition is all over the place. It is not just one 
State against another. It is the United States against the world. We 
are ahead. That is a position I like. I like to be ahead of the parade.
  But I will tell you, when we look back, we see a lot of people 
following closely behind. So it is critically important that we do 
things like investing in high-performance computing. And among other 
things, this bill directs the director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, that is the science advisor to the President of the 
United States, to develop and maintain a research development and 
deployment road map for the provision of high-performance computing 
systems for use by the research community in the United States of 
America.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, that is a very important assignment. And we want Dr. Marburger 
down at the White House to know that those of us in the legislative 
branch are determined to give the resources necessary, the direction 
necessary to enable him to go forward, confident that he has the 
support, the bipartisan support of the Congress of the United States. 
So I commend this bill to my colleagues. I commend this bill to the 
other side of the Capitol, our colleagues in the United States Senate.
  This is important business and let us get on with it. I thank my 
chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the 
outstanding leadership she has provided and I thank my colleagues for 
their indulgence.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only one to come to this floor to 
oppose this bill. I will try to yield back at least a few minutes to 
the gentleman and hopefully they will be available should my comments 
result in comments of others that need rebuttal.
  I support science. It is important to America. It is important to my 
district. But as we look at what we can accomplish, we also have to 
examine what we should try to accomplish. While we expand the tools of 
the human race, we must also look at the pitfalls.
  This is an issue that I have been talking about for a long time. I 
first brought it to the floor 5 years ago and that is best illustrated 
by the fact that roughly 50,000 years ago was the last time that a new 
level of intelligence came to this planet. It was our ancestors, who 
said hello to Neanderthal, the only other intelligence on the planet 
that we were aware of at the time. It did not work out so well for the 
Neanderthal.
  Today we are as a species looking at two exciting new technologies, 
each which is likely to create an entity, a life form, with a higher 
level of intelligence than human beings; and, in fact, a higher level 
by a differential that exceeds whatever differential there was between 
human beings and Neanderthals. One of these technologies is genetic 
engineering. And if this was a genetic engineering bill, I would not 
get to speak on it as long because there would be more members to speak 
against it, worried about the societal implications. But genetic 
engineering raises questions that should also be raised by computer 
engineering, because the kind of high-technology, high-performance 
computer which is the subject of the bill is an important step towards 
the development of an artificial life form that will exceed human 
intelligence.
  We had hearings 2 years ago in the Committee on Science where the 
consensus of experts and I did not invite any of these experts, senior 
committee members did, (chiefly the chairman) they testified that we 
are roughly 25 years away from a computer that exceeds human 
intelligence.

[[Page H2486]]

  Now, I do not know whether it is 25 years or whether it is a bit 
longer or a bit less, but should we go headlong into developing the 
next intelligent species on this planet without even including, in the 
slightest, in our legislation something to say ``let us examine whether 
this is something we want to do, and whether we want to have any 
controls.''
  The truth is, Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether we are creating 
Data from ``Star Trek, The Next Generation,'' or whether we are 
creating Hal from ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' We know that the future 
will look like science fiction. We just do not know which science 
fiction book or movie.
  Last year when the Committee on Science considered this same bill as 
H.R. 4218, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I reached an 
agreement on an amendment that would provide for looking at the 
societal implications of future advances in information technology. 
That amendment was included in the bill that passed this House. 
Specifically, it directed the National Science Foundation to support 
research into the implications of computers, both hardware and 
software, that were capable of mimicking human ability to learn to 
reason and to make decisions. Likewise, the nanotechnology bill which 
passed both houses, and is now law, provided for even more extensive 
review into the societal implications, including explicitly the 
implications of developing levels of intelligence that exceeds those of 
human beings. But H.R. 28 strips out the provisions that were included 
in prior legislation. This draft says we will do nothing to look at the 
societal, the ethical, the environmental implications of what we are 
doing, and we will rush headlong into trying to do it without the 
slightest thought of whether we should do it.
  My amendment in committee was defeated 17-19 on what was 
unfortunately, and inexplicably a party-line vote. My amendment put 
forward just a few weeks ago was identical to the compromise language 
the chairman and I reached in the 108th Congress.
  Now, the importance of understanding how artificial intelligence will 
be achieved through information technology, how it will impact 
society--that importance has not decreased since last year. The 
amendment should be included before this bill leaves this House.
  Now, I know there are those who say it is okay to create a computer 
that exceeds human intelligence and that is self-aware because it will 
not have hands and will not be able to act except through human beings. 
Trust me, there are those amongst us who would sell hands to the devil 
for a good stock tip. If you create Pandora's box, it will be opened.
  Now, H.R. 28 deals with the creation of high-performance computers; 
and as I said and want to say again, the testimony before our committee 
was that we are 25 years, and this is not one crackpot, this was a 
consensus; the range was 20 to 30 years between now and when we develop 
a computer that exceeds human intelligence. And it is not just me. The 
DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, has on its Web 
page the statement that its mission, supported by this bill, is to 
develop a computer which will ``learn from its experience, be aware of 
itself, and be able to reflect on its own behavior.''
  So part of our government is engaged in trying to create maybe Hal, 
maybe Data, while here in the Congress we pretend that it is 
impossible, that it is not an issue worthy of reflection. DARPA is 
going to create a reflective computer, but we do not have a reflective 
Congress.
  Now, I understand that H.R. 28 is an important bill to set goals and 
priorities in high-performance computer research development with a 
number of different agencies, including DARPA and its subsidiary 
agencies. What I do not understand is why there is such resistance to 
studying the implications of this research. We cannot and should not 
plunge ahead without a provision to study these implications.
  Join me in rejecting this bill on suspension. A bill with this level 
of implications should not be considered under a suspension of the 
rules. Send this bill back to the Committee on Science. Have the 
Committee on Science create a balanced program. Overwhelmingly, this 
bill should deal with supporting the technology, marching forward, 
achieving all of the goals that the preceding speakers have indicated. 
But then let us also put in the bill just a little language to say that 
we ought to look at the implications: Whether it is likely that this 
technology will create an entity more intelligent than human beings? 
Whether that entity is likely to be self-aware? How we could either 
cause or prevent such self-awareness? What are the societal and ethical 
implications of having a slave entity reflective, intelligent, and 
commanded to do what we instruct, without so much as the minimum wage?
  So let us pass this bill next month, after the Committee on Science 
can provide some balance to it.
  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.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). The gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Davis) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his additional 
generosity. I wish to respond to the comments of the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the section of DARPA's 
mission statement that I referred to previously where DARPA itself 
indicates that its mission, using the funds provided by this Congress, 
is to create a computer that is self-aware and able to reflect on its 
own behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, we have thrown around terms as to what is close and what 
is not. It just comes down to whether 25 years, 30 years, is something 
close enough for us to be concerned about, or should we be concerned 
about only the immediate future? I would point out

[[Page H2487]]

that we are not going to have self-aware computers for at least 10, 
maybe 15 or 20 congressional elections. And so if that is how we 
measure time, self-aware computers are a long way away. But when we 
approve construction projects and roads, we do not build bridges that 
are going to collapse in 25 or 30 years, and we assume that human 
beings will be the only intelligent species using those bridges.
  If we are concerned when we build infrastructure for things 20, 30, 
50, 100 years down the road, then we should be even more concerned with 
this bill. And we should not pass this bill in this form and say, well, 
we will worry about these issues when they come up in some subsequent 
decade.

                              {time}  1445

  In addition, it is put forward that we will just have the scientists 
and the research community figure out how to deal with these issues. 
That is perhaps the problem, because if we provide the support 
exclusively to the hardware and software scientists and nothing to 
those who will consider the societal implications, the ethical 
implications, the philosophical implications--then no one will be 
looking at those issues, then we will not have done our job to provide 
a balanced, scientific research bill. That is why I am voting ``no.''
  The material I referred to previously is as follows:

   DARPA Strategic Plan: Section 3.7: Cognitive Computing (Released 
                             February 2005)

       Many elements of the information technology revolution that 
     have vastly improved the effectiveness of the U.S. forces and 
     transformed American society (e.g., time-sharing, personal 
     computers, and the Internet) were given their impetus by 
     J.C.R. Licklider, a visionary scientist at DARPA some 40 
     years ago. Licklider's vision was of people and computers 
     working symbiotically. He envisioned computers seamlessly 
     adapting to people as partners that would handle routine 
     information processing tasks, thus freeing the people to 
     focus on what they do best--think analytically and 
     creatively--and greatly extend their cognitive powers. As we 
     move to an increasingly network-centric military, the vision 
     of intelligent, cooperative computing systems responsible for 
     their own maintenance is more relevant than ever.
       Despite the enormous progress in information technology 
     over the years, information technology still falls well short 
     of Licklider's vision. While computing systems are critical 
     to U.S. national defense, they remain exceedingly complex, 
     expensive to create, insecure, frequently incompatible, and 
     prone to failure. And, they still require the user to adapt 
     to them, rather than the other way around. Computers have 
     grown ever faster, but they remain fundamentally 
     unintelligent and difficult to use. Something dramatically 
     different is needed.
       In response, DARPA is revisiting Licklider's vision as its 
     inspiration for the strategic thrust, ``Cognitive 
     Computing.'' Cognitive computers can be thought of as systems 
     that know what they're doing. Cognidtive computing systems 
     ``reason'' about their environments (including other 
     systems), their goals, and their own capabilities. They will 
     ``learn'' both from experience and by being taught. They will 
     be capable of natural interactions with users, and will be 
     able to ``explain'' their reasoning in natural terms. They 
     will be robust in the face of surprises and avoid the 
     brittleness and fragility of expert systems.
       The benefits from this cognitive computing thrust will be 
     profound. The increasing complexity of military systems means 
     that the level of expertise needed to maintain them is also 
     increasing--as are the staffing requirements for virtually 
     every military function that uses computing and 
     communications technology. By creating systems that know what 
     they are doing, and that can configure, maintain, and adapt 
     themselves, we will be able to drastically reduce the staff 
     needed for operations centers, forward command posts, and 
     even in support of small dismounted units and special 
     operations teams. Cognitive computing technology will also 
     help us to deal with the increasing tempo of operations and 
     the complexity of plans, such as Air Tasking Orders and joint 
     hostage rescue operations plans, by allowing computers to tap 
     into the accumulated knowledge of past experience on behalf 
     of their human partners.
       Along these lines, DARPA's Personalized Assistant that 
     Learns (PAL) program will create intelligent personalized 
     assistants for many tasks, such as a commander's assistant, 
     an intelligence analyst's assistant, or a decision-maker's 
     executive assistant. These assistants will interact with 
     their human partners by accepting direct, naturally expressed 
     guidance to learn their partner's preferences and procedures. 
     Then, they will be able to anticipate the human's needs and 
     prepare materials to be ready just in time for them. These 
     new and unprecedented artificial helpers should reduce 
     military staffing needs in many key places and will help 
     ensure decisions are made in a timely fashion and with the 
     best possible preparation.
       To meet these challenges and seize these opportunities, 
     DARPA has structured its work in cognitive computing to 
     catalyze innovative work in single cognitive systems. 
     collaborative teams of cognitive systems, and collective 
     cognition from large numbers of small non-cognitive elements. 
     Each area will demonstrate the power of merging reasoning, 
     learning, perception, and communication technologies. These 
     areas will be supported and complemented by broad-based 
     technology efforts in the hardware, software, and integration 
     techniques needed.
       The strategic thrust of cognitive computing is a template 
     shaping DARPA's core technology foundation work in 
     information technology.

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I certainly understand the gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) 
efforts in an attempt to amend the bill in the committee process. As 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) has explained, however, 
there are other areas today in the policy of NSF that literally would 
look into the particular issues that he has raised with his amendment.
  As a result of that, both the ranking member and the chairman agreed 
that this legislation is what we need to be considering today. So I 
strongly support this bill. I think that it is good for America. I 
think it is good perhaps even for the world; but, certainly, it is good 
in the areas where research and science is a major part of offering 
opportunities and options for those of us who live in this country.
  So on that effort, I again make my comments of being sorry that the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) efforts were not successful 
in the committee. Actually, last year, we did consider that amendment, 
and it actually passed the House floor; but I recommend strongly to the 
Members of the House passage of this bill, strongly support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Forbes). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 28, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________