39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–36

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT 

OF 2005

APRIL 12, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 28] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

28) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 5

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 5

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 6

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 7

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 7

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section) .................................. 8

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 12

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 13

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 14

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 15

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 15

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 15

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 16

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 16

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 16

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 16

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 16

2

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 27

XX. Additional View ........................................................................................... 28

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 32

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

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; 

3

‘‘(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’’; 

4

(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: 

‘‘(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 highperformance computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces to high-performance computing and networking systems; and 

5

‘‘(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.’’.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to revitalize interagency coordination 

and planning for the interagency program established by the HighPerformance Computing Act of 1991 and to focus greater attention 

and resources on federal high-performance computing programs. 

The program includes activities at the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

State of high-performance computing in the world today 

High-performance computers (also called supercomputers or 

high-end computers) are an essential component of U.S. scientific, 

industrial, and military competitiveness. 

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. The success of Japan’s Earth Simulator, both its speed and its efficiency, caused a great deal of soulsearching in the high-performance computing community in the 

U.S. The Earth Simulator was the culmination of a serious, sustained investment by the Japanese government in research, development, and construction of a customized computer designed to be 

the best in the world at tackling specific scientific and engineering 

tasks, including climate modeling and earthquake simulation. 

While Japan pursued this course, the U.S. chose to favor the use 

of commercially available components for constructing high-performance computers. An advantage of this approach was that it 

made high-performance computers more cost-effective to develop by 

leveraging development costs against a larger market. A disadvantage was that certain kinds of research questions are difficult to 

pursue on the kinds of computers that can be built with commercial components. 

6

The role of the U.S. Government in high-performance computing 

Despite the technical success of the Japanese, the return of U.S.-

made supercomputers to the top two positions on the November 

2004 list of the fastest supercomputers in the world demonstrated 

that the U.S. is still highly competitive in high-performance computing. The depth and strength of U.S. capability stems in part 

from the sustained research and development program carried out 

by federal science agencies under an interagency program codified 

by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. That Act is widely credited with reinvigorating U.S. high-performance computing 

capabilities after a period of relative decline during the late 1980s. 

The Federal government promotes high-performance computing 

in several different ways. First, it funds research and development 

at universities, government laboratories and companies to help develop new computer hardware and software; second, it funds the 

purchase of high-performance computers for universities and government laboratories; and third, it provides access to high-performance computers for a wide variety of researchers by allowing them 

to use government-supported computers at universities and government laboratories.

According to the National Coordination Office of the National Information Technology Research and Development Program 

(NITRD), 10 agencies or offices participate in the high-end computing elements of the NITRD program. The total estimated 

NITRD budget for all 10 agencies in Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) for 

high-performance computing is $967.1 million. The largest research 

and development programs are at NSF, $300.7 million, the DOE 

Office of Science, $205.5 million, and the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH), $200.4 million. Other major agency activities (with 

funding ranging between $54 and $66 million each) are at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Security 

Agency, NASA, and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). These budget estimates do not include the procurement costs for high-performance computers purchased by agencies 

such as NNSA and NOAA for computational science related to 

their missions. In addition to high-end computing, the NITRD program includes other program component areas, such as large scale 

networking. 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

On May 13, 2004, the Committee on Science held a hearing to 

examine the current state of federal high-performance computing 

research and development activities. Dr. John Marburger, Director 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), endorsed 

H.R. 4218 (the virtually identical version of this Act introduced in 

the 108th Congress) on behalf of the Administration. Dr. 

Marburger also released the report of OSTP’s High-End Computing 

Revitalization Task Force, Federal Plan for High-End Computing, 

during his appearance before the Committee. 

The other witnesses also voiced their support for the legislation. 

The Committee heard testimony from Dr. Irving WladawskyBerger, Vice President for Technology and Strategy, IBM Corporation; Dr. Daniel Reed, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Dr. 

7

Rick Stevens, Director of the Mathematics and Computer Science 

Division at Argonne National Laboratory. Witnesses addressed the 

need for an ongoing, coordinated interagency planning process to 

guide federal investment in high-performance computing procurements, research, and development. The witnesses noted the importance of the federal role in high-performance computing to ensure 

U.S. leadership in the field, and to ensure that U.S. academic and 

industrial researchers have access to leadership class machines. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On January 4, 2005, Representative Judy Biggert, Representative Lincoln Davis, and Representative Sherwood Boehlert introduced H.R. 28, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act 

of 2005, a bill to update the High-Performance Computing Act of 

1991 and to strengthen the U.S. position in high-performance computing. 

The Full Committee on Science met on Thursday, March 17, 

2005, to consider the bill. 

Mrs. Biggert offered an amendment to add a finding to the HighPerformance Computing Act of 1991 that emphasizes the importance of commercial application of the results of Federal investment in computer science. The amendment was adopted by a voice 

vote.

Mr. Sherman offered an amendment to require that NSF support 

research into the implications of computers that would be capable 

of mimicking human abilities to learn, reason, and make decisions. 

The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–17; N–19). 

Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, 

H.R. 28, to the House with the recommendation that the bill do 

pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and prepare the legislative report and 

that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before 

the House for consideration. With a quorum present, the motion 

was agreed to by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Finds that commercial application of the results of Federal investment in computer science is critical. 

Defines ‘‘high-performance computing’’ as advanced computing, 

communications, and information technologies, including supercomputer systems, high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications and systems software, 

and the management of large data sets. 

Updates the authorized activities of the interagency High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program. Requires the program to provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-performance computing; sustained access by the research community in the United States to high-performance computing systems; computational science and engineering research on 

mathematical modeling and algorithms for applications in all fields 

of science and engineering; and educating and training of additional undergraduate and graduate students in fields relevant to 

high-performance computing. 

8

Updates and strengthens the coordination responsibilities of the 

Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Requires the Director to establish the goals and priorities for Federal 

high-performance computing research, development, networking, 

and other activities and to develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research community in 

the United States. 

Requires the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, 

management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the 

Program, and to report to Congress on the findings. 

Authorizes specific responsibilities for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency under 

the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program. Requires NSF and the DOE Office of Science to provide U.S. 

researchers with access to world-class high-performance computing 

systems. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 28, THE HIGH-PERFORMANCE

COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2005

Section 1. Short title 

‘‘High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005.’’ 

Section 2. Findings 

Amends section 2 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 

1991 (HPC Act) to add a finding that emphasizes the importance 

of commercial application of the results of Federal investment in 

computer science. 

Section 3. Definitions 

Amends section 4 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 

1991 (HPC Act) to further elaborate on, or amend, the definition 

of terms used in the Act: 

‘‘Grand Challenge’’ means a fundamental problem in science 

or engineering, with broad economic and scientific impact, 

whose solution will require the application of high-performance 

computing resources and multidisciplinary teams of researchers; 

‘‘High-performance computing’’ means advanced computing, 

communications, and information technologies, including 

supercomputer systems, high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications 

and systems software, and the management of large data sets; 

‘‘Program’’ means the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program described in section 101; 

‘‘Program Component Areas’’ means the major subject areas 

under which are grouped related individual projects and activities carried out under the Program. 

9

Strikes the definition of ‘‘Network’’ because it refers to the National Research and Education Network, which no longer exists as 

such. 

Section 4. High-Performance Computing Research and Development 

Program 

Amends section 101 of the HPC Act, which describes the organization and responsibilities of the interagency research and development program originally referred to as the National High-Performance Computing Program—and renamed the High-Performance 

Computing Research and Development Program in this Act. Requires the program to: 

Provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-performance computing; 

Provide for research and development on, and demonstration 

of, technologies to advance the capacity and capabilities of 

high-performance computing and networking systems; 

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; 

Provide for efforts to increase software availability, productivity, capability, security, portability, and reliability; 

Provide for high-performance networks, including experimental testbed networks, to enable research and development 

on, and demonstration of, advanced applications enabled by 

such networks; 

Provide for computational science and engineering research 

on mathematical modeling and algorithms for applications in 

all fields of science and engineering; 

Provide for the technical support of, and research and development on, high-performance computing systems and software 

required to address Grand Challenges; 

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; 

Provide for improving the security of computing and networking systems, including research required to establish security standards and practices for these systems. 

Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP) to: 

Establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and other 

activities; 

Establish Program Component Areas that implement the 

goals established for the Program and identify the Grand Challenges that the Program should address; 

Provide for interagency coordination of Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and 

other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program; 

Develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing 

10

systems for use by the research community in the United 

States. 

Leaves substantially unchanged the provisions of the HPC Act 

requiring the Director of OSTP to: 

Provide an annual report to Congress, along with the annual 

budget request, describing the implementation of the Program, 

including current and proposed funding levels and programmatic changes, if any, from the previous year; 

Consult with academic, State, and other appropriate groups 

conducting research on and using high-performance computing. 

Requires the Director of OSTP to include in his annual report to 

Congress: 

A detailed description of the Program Component Areas, including a description of any changes in the definition of activities under the Program Component Areas from the previous 

year, and the reasons for such changes, and a description of 

Grand Challenges supported under the Program;

An analysis of the extent to which the Program incorporates 

the recommendations of the Advisory Committee established 

by the HPC Act—currently referred to as the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC). 

Requires PITAC to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, 

management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the 

Program, and to report to Congress once every two fiscal years, 

with the first report due within one year of enactment. 

Repeals section 102 of HPC Act, the ‘‘National Research and 

Education Network,’’ which required the development of a network 

to link research and educational institutions, government, and industry. This network was developed but has since been supplanted 

by the Internet. 

Repeals section 103 of the HPC Act, ‘‘Next Generation Internet,’’ 

as this program is no longer in existence. 

Section 5. Agency activities 

Amends section 201 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the Program. Requires NSF to: 

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; 

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, including support for advanced software and applications development, for 

all science and engineering disciplines; 

Support basic research and education in all aspects of highperformance computing and networking. 

Amends section 202 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) under the Program. Requires NASA to conduct basic and 

applied research in high-performance networking, with emphasis 

on: 

11

Computational fluid dynamics, computational thermal dynamics, and computational aerodynamics; 

Scientific data dissemination and tools to enable data to be 

fully analyzed and combined from multiple sources and sensors; 

Remote exploration and experimentation; 

Tools for collaboration in system design, analysis, and testing. 

Amends section 203 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Energy (DOE) under the Program. 

Requires DOE to: 

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; 

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. 

Amends section 204 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, including the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the Program. 

Requires NIST to: 

Conduct basic and applied metrology research needed to support high-performance computing and networking systems; 

Develop benchmark tests and standards for high-performance computing and networking systems and software; 

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; 

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. 

Requires NOAA to conduct basic and applied research in highperformance computing applications, with emphasis on: 

Improving weather forecasting and climate prediction; 

Collection, analysis, and dissemination of environmental information; 

Development of more accurate models of the ocean-atmosphere system. 

Amends section 205 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the 

Program. Requires EPA to conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement and dissemination of computational 

techniques and software tools with an emphasis on modeling to: 

Develop robust decision-support tools; 

12

Predict pollutant transport and their effects on humans and 

on ecosystems; 

Better understand atmospheric dynamics and chemistry. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Interagency planning and coordination

The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 codified an interagency planning process that remains in place today. The Committee expects all of the participating agencies to engage in a forward-looking planning and coordination process led by OSTP to coordinate high-performance computing activities across the federal 

government. The agencies, led by OSTP, should submit a coordinated budget for federal high-performance computing activities to 

the Office of Management and Budget. Furthermore, the agencies, 

led by OSTP, should develop and periodically refine a research, development, and deployment roadmap for high-performance computing systems. In addition, in formulating plans for the Program, 

the Committee expects the participating agencies to take into consideration the findings and recommendations of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, which is required to 

conduct recurring reviews of the planning, implementation, and 

contents of the Program. 

Assuring U.S. researchers sustained access to high-performance 

computing infrastructure 

The Committee believes that the High-Performance Computing 

Research and Development Program, in general, and NSF and 

DOE’s Office of Science, in particular, must provide U.S. researchers with sustained access to high-performance computers that are 

among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance in 

solving scientific and engineering problems. This is necessary in 

order for the U.S. to maintain its position as a world leader in scientific and engineering fields and in technology innovation. By 

‘‘among the most advanced in the world,’’ the Committee means 

general purpose scientific computing systems that would rank 

among the top few systems in existence in performance (1) on widely accepted standardized tests, such as the LINPACK Benchmark 

used to generate the Top 500 list; and (2) on actual production 

codes for solving the most demanding problems in science and engineering disciplines. The Committee intends that such computing 

systems be equivalent to ‘‘Leadership Systems’’ as described in the 

May 10, 2004 report of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Federal Plan for High-End Computing. 

The Committee is supportive of recent initiatives to make DOE’s 

Office of Science high-performance computing resources more 

broadly available to researchers not otherwise supported by DOE 

and to allocate those resources on a competitive, merit-reviewed 

basis. The Committee encourages DOE to increase the quantity of 

supercomputing resources allocated to U.S. researchers in this 

fashion and to provide information to the research community on 

the long-term availability of these resources. 

The Committee is supportive of continued NSF funding of software, algorithms, networking and data storage techniques, and 

education and outreach activities associated with high-performance 

13

computing. However, the Committee emphasizes that significant 

attention and funding must also be devoted to procurement of highperformance computing hardware for high-performance computing 

user facilities, including the NSF supercomputer centers. 

Overall, the Committee believes that for the federal government 

to effectively meet the scientific community’s high-performance 

computing needs, NSF and DOE’s Office of Science each must support Leadership Systems which should be available for use by researchers from academia, industry, and government laboratories. 

By use of the phrase ‘‘sustained access’’ the Committee expects 

NSF and DOE to develop and maintain plans and budgets to assure ongoing improvements in the capability of high-performance 

computing user facilities, such as the NSF supercomputer centers 

and DOE’s Office of Science high-end (high-performance) computing 

user facilities, so that the computing infrastructure made available 

through these facilities remains among the most advanced in the 

world. 

But the most advanced high-performance computing hardware, 

on its own, will not be enough to enable researchers to conduct the 

most advanced science. The Committee believes that the development of software, applications, networking, and data storage and 

management techniques, including support for the applied mathematics required to develop advanced software and algorithms, will 

be essential to enable researchers to make effective use of the highperformance computing resources made available under this Act. 

National Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRD) 

The NITRD program includes six program component areas: 

High End Computing, Large Scale Networking, Software Design 

and Productivity, Human Computer Interaction and Information 

Management, High Confidence Software and Systems, and Social, 

Economic, and Workforce Implications of Information Technology. 

While the focus of this Act is on high-performance computing, the 

Committee recognizes that all program component areas are essential parts of the federal information technology research and development effort and expects the planning and coordination process 

for the NITRD program to result in an appropriate balance of resources among the program component areas. The committee expects the annual report for the program to provide the rationale for 

the allocation of funding among the program component areas. The 

Committee expects that the allocations for the high end computing 

program component area will be sufficient to carry out this Act. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

IX of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 28 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, 

or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. H.R. 28 does not authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in 

Section X of this report. 

14

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

APRIL 4, 2005. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 28, the High-Performance 

Computing Revitalization Act of 2005. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 28—High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005

Summary: H.R. 28 would amend existing statutory guidelines for 

interagency research and development (R&D) related to high-performance computing. Nondefense R&D on high-performance computing is conducted at six agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill would realign program objectives with current R&D priorities, repeal authorizations for activities that are 

technologically outdated and emphasize newer issues, such as providing researchers sustained access to the most advanced computing systems in the world. In addition, the bill would direct the 

program’s advisory committee to evaluate program funding, management, and effectiveness on a periodic basis. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 28 would cost a total of 

$220 million over the 2006–2010 period, assuming appropriation of 

necessary funds for the new directives in the bill. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 28 would have no effect on direct spending or 

revenues. 

H.R. 28 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 28 is shown in the following table. For this 

estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted during 2005 

and that outlays will follow historical patterns for similar R&D infrastructure programs. The cost of this legislation primarily falls 

within budget function 250 (general science, space, and technology).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................. 34 34 70 86 88

Estimated Outlays ..................................................................... 10 22 45 62 81

Basis of estimate: CBO expects that agencies would need to increase spending to meet the bill’s new goal of providing researchers 

with sustained access to ‘‘high-performance computing systems that 

15

are among the most advanced in the world in terms of performance 

in solving scientific and engineering problems.’’ (The six agencies 

currently conducting nondefense R&D on high-performance computing systems received appropriations of approximately $1.9 billion in 2005.) For this estimate, CBO assumes that this provision 

would authorize appropriations to provide sustained access to such 

leadership-class facilities. Under the bill, two agencies—NSF and 

DOE—would be required to provide such systems for researchers. 

According to a May 2004 federal task report on high-end computing, leadership-class facilities are high-end computers that will 

enable breakthroughs in challenging scientific and engineering 

computational problems. There are no such systems currently 

available for U.S. civilian researchers, but CBO expects that DOE 

will build one leadership-class facility under current law. 

According to DOE and NSF, such systems are typically acquired 

over a three-year period and need to be replaced every three or four 

years. Hence, it is likely that NSF and DOE would need continuous 

funding for facility acquisition to provide researchers with sustained access to the most advanced computers. Based on information from those agencies, CBO expects that the cost of individual 

facilities could range from $60 million to $150 million (or an average of about $100 million in 2005), depending on the capabilities 

of the facilities and the software and infrastructure needed to support them. Experience with existing systems suggest that operations and maintenance for each facility would cost about $15 million a year. For this estimate, CBO assumes that NSF would build 

one facility over the 2006–2008 period and would begin acquiring 

a replacement facility in 2009; we assume that DOE would begin 

acquiring its next replacement facility in 2008.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 28 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, and tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mike Waters; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Gregory Waring; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES) 

H.R. 28 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 28 

are to update the activities of the interagency High-Performance 

Computing Research and Development Program; to authorize specific program areas at NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, NOAA, and EPA; 

and to expand the responsibilities of OSTP and PITAC in order to 

16

enhance the planning, management, and coordination of the Program. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 28. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The functions of the advisory committee required by H.R. 28 

could be performed by one or more agencies or by enlarging the 

mandate of another existing advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 28 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING ACT OF 1991

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following: 

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act, the term—

(1) * * *

(2) ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ means a fundamental problem in 

science or engineering, with broad economic and scientific impact, whose solution will require the application of high-perVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
17

formance computing resources and multidisciplinary teams of 

researchers; 

(3) ‘‘high-performance computing’’ means advanced computing, communications, and information technologies, including øscientific workstations,¿ supercomputer systems ø(including vector supercomputers and large scale parallel systems)¿, 

high-capacity and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, øand¿ applications and systems software, 

and the management of large data sets; 

(4) ‘‘Internet’’ means the international computer network of 

both Federal and non-Federal interoperable øpacket switched¿

data networks; 

ø(5) ‘‘Network’’ means a computer network referred to as the 

National Research and Education Network established under 

section 102; and 

ø(6) ‘‘Program’’ means the National High-Performance Computing Program described in section 101.¿

(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.

TITLE I—HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING øAND THE 

NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK¿

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 101. øNATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAM. 

(a) øNATIONAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING¿ HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.—ø(1) 

The President shall implement a National High-Performance Computing Program, which shall—

ø(A) establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and 

other activities; and 

ø(B) provide for interagency coordination of Federal highperformance computing research, development, networking, 

and other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program. 

ø(2) The Program shall—

ø(A) provide for the development of technologies to advance 

the capacity and capabilities of the Internet; 

ø(B) provide for high performance testbed networks to enable 

the research, development, and demonstration of advanced networking technologies and to develop and demonstrate advanced applications made possible by the existence of such 

testbed networks; 

ø(C) promote connectivity among computer networks of Federal agencies and departments; 

ø(D) provide for efforts to increase software availability, productivity, capability, portability, and reliability; 

ø(E) provide for improved dissemination of Federal agency 

data and electronic information; 

18

ø(F) provide for acceleration of the development of high-performance computing systems, subsystems, and associated software; 

ø(G) provide for the technical support and research and development of high-performance computing software and hardware needed to address Grand Challenges; 

ø(H) provide for educating and training additional undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, computer science, library and information science, and computational science; and 

ø(I) provide—

ø(i) for the security requirements, policies, and standards necessary to protect Federal research computer networks and information resources accessible through Federal research computer networks, including research required to establish security standards for high-performance computing systems and networks; and 

ø(ii) that agencies and departments identified in the annual report submitted under paragraph (3)(A) shall define 

and implement a security plan consistent with the Program and with applicable law.¿ (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 highperformance 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.

ø(3)¿ (2) The Director shall—

19

(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;

ø(A)¿ (D) submit to the Congress an annual report, along 

with the President’s annual budget request, describing the implementation of the Program;

(E) develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for the provision of high-performance computing systems under paragraph (1)(C); and

ø(B) provide for interagency coordination of the Program; 

and¿

ø(C)¿ (F) consult with academic, State, industry, and other 

appropriate groups conducting research on and using high-performance computing. 

ø(4)¿ (3) The annual report submitted under øparagraph (3)(A)¿

paragraph (2)(D) shall—

ø(A) include a detailed description of the goals and priorities 

established by the President for the Program;¿

(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;

* * * * * * *

(C) describe the levels of Federal funding for the fiscal year 

during which such report is submitted, and the levels proposed 

for the fiscal year with respect to which the budget submission 

applies, for øspecific activities, including education, research, 

hardware and software development, and support for the establishment of the Network¿ each Program Component Area; 

(D) describe the levels of Federal funding for each agency 

and department participating in the Program and for each Program Component Area for the fiscal year during which such report is submitted, and the levels proposed for the fiscal year 

with respect to which the budget submission applies; and

ø(E) include the report of the Secretary of Energy required 

by section 203(d); and¿

ø(F)¿ (E) include an analysis of the progress made toward 

achieving the goals and priorities established for the Program 

and the extent to which the Program incorporates the recommendations of the advisory committee established under subsection (b). (b) ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—(1) The President shall establish an 

advisory committee on high-performance computing consisting of 

non-Federal members, including representatives of the research, 

education, and library communities, network providers, and industry, who are specially qualified to provide the Director with advice 

and information on high-performance computing. The recommendations of the advisory committee shall be considered in reviewing 

20

and revising the Program. The advisory committee shall provide 

the Director with an independent assessment of—

ø(1)¿ (A) progress made in implementing the Program; 

ø(2)¿ (B) the need to revise the Program; 

ø(3)¿ (C) the balance between the components of the Program, including funding levels for the Program Component 

Areas; 

ø(4)¿ (D) whether the research and development undertaken 

pursuant to the Program is helping to maintain United States 

leadership in øcomputing¿ high-performance computing and 

networking technology; and 

ø(5)¿ (E) other issues identified by the Director.

(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.

(c) OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.—(1) Each Federal 

agency and department participating in the Program shall, as part 

of its annual request for appropriations to the Office of Management and Budget, submit a report to the Office of Management and 

Budget which—

(A) identifies each element of its high-performance computing activities which contributes directly to the øProgram 

or¿ Program Component Areas or benefits from the Program; 

and 

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 102. NATIONAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—As part of the Program, the National 

Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of 

Energy, the Department of Commerce, the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration, and other agencies participating in the 

Program shall support the establishment of the National Research 

and Education Network, portions of which shall, to the extent technically feasible, be capable of transmitting data at one gigabit per 

second or greater by 1996. The Network shall provide for the linkage of research institutions and educational institutions, government, and industry in every State. 

ø(b) ACCESS.—Federal agencies and departments shall work with 

private network service providers, State and local agencies, libraries, educational institutions and organizations, and others, as appropriate, in order to ensure that the researchers, educators, and 

students have access, as appropriate, to the Network. The Network 

is to provide users with appropriate access to high-performance 

computing systems, electronic information resources, other research facilities, and libraries. The Network shall provide access, to 

the extent practicable, to electronic information resources maintained by libraries, research facilities, publishers, and affiliated organizations. 

ø(c) NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS.—The Network shall—

21

ø(1) be developed and deployed with the computer, telecommunications, and information industries; 

ø(2) be designed, developed, and operated in collaboration 

with potential users in government, industry, and research institutions and educational institutions; 

ø(3) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which 

fosters and maintains competition and private sector investment in high-speed data networking within the telecommunications industry; 

ø(4) be designed, developed, and operated in a manner which 

promotes research and development leading to development of 

commercial data communications and telecommunications 

standards, whose development will encourage the establishment of privately operated high-speed commercial networks; 

ø(5) be designed and operated so as to ensure the continued 

application of laws that provide network and information resources security measures, including those that protect copyright and other intellectual property rights, and those that control access to data bases and protect national security; 

ø(6) have accounting mechanisms which allow users or 

groups of users to be charged for their usage of copyrighted 

materials available over the Network and, where appropriate 

and technically feasible, for their usage of the Network; 

ø(7) ensure the interoperability of Federal and non-Federal 

computer networks, to the extent appropriate, in a way that allows autonomy for each component network; 

ø(8) be developed by purchasing standard commercial transmission and network services from vendors whenever feasible, 

and by contracting for customized services when not feasible, 

in order to minimize Federal investment in network hardware; 

ø(9) support research and development of networking software and hardware; and 

ø(10) serve as a test bed for further research and development of high-capacity and high-speed computing networks and 

demonstrate how advanced computers, high-capacity and highspeed computing networks, and data bases can improve the national information infrastructure. 

ø(d) DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY.—As part of the Program, the Department of Defense, 

through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, shall 

support research and development of advanced fiber optics technology, switches, and protocols needed to develop the Network. 

ø(e) INFORMATION SERVICES.—The Director shall assist the President in coordinating the activities of appropriate agencies and departments to promote the development of information services that 

could be provided over the Network. These services may include 

the provision of directories of the users and services on computer 

networks, data bases of unclassified Federal scientific data, training of users of data bases and computer networks, access to commercial information services for users of the Network, and technology to support computer-based collaboration that allows researchers and educators around the Nation to share information 

and instrumentation. 

22

ø(f) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—All Federal agencies and departments are authorized to allow recipients of Federal research grants 

to use grant moneys to pay for computer networking expenses. 

ø(g) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall report to the Congress on—

ø(1) effective mechanisms for providing operating funds for 

the maintenance and use of the Network, including user fees, 

industry support, and continued Federal investment; 

ø(2) the future operation and evolution of the Network; 

ø(3) how commercial information service providers could be 

charged for access to the Network, and how Network users 

could be charged for such commercial information services; 

ø(4) the technological feasibility of allowing commercial information service providers to use the Network and other federally funded research networks; 

ø(5) how to protect the copyrights of material distributed 

over the Network; and 

ø(6) appropriate policies to ensure the security of resources 

available on the Network and to protect the privacy of users 

of networks. 

øSEC. 103. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology may support the Next Generation 

Internet program. The objectives of the Next Generation Internet 

program shall be to—

ø(1) support research, development, and demonstration of 

advanced networking technologies to increase the capabilities 

and improve the performance of the Internet; 

ø(2) develop an advanced testbed network connecting a significant number of research sites, including universities, Federal research institutions, and other appropriate research partner institutions, to support networking research and to demonstrate new networking technologies; and 

ø(3) develop and demonstrate advanced Internet applications 

that meet important national goals or agency mission needs, 

and that are supported by the activities described in paragraphs (1) and (2). 

ø(b) DUTIES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—The President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (established pursuant to section 101(b) by Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 1997 (62 

F.R. 7131), as amended by Executive Order No. 13092 of July 24, 

1998), in addition to its functions under section 101(b), shall—

ø(1) assess the extent to which the Next Generation Internet 

program—

ø(A) carries out the purposes of this Act; and 

ø(B) addresses concerns relating to, among other matters—

ø(i) geographic penalties (as defined in section 7(1) 

of the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998); 

ø(ii) the adequacy of access to the Internet by Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic 

Serving Institutions, and small colleges and universities (whose enrollment is less than 5,000) and the 

23

degree of participation of those institutions in activities described in subsection (a); and 

ø(iii) technology transfer to and from the private 

sector; 

ø(2) review the extent to which the role of each Federal 

agency and department involved in implementing the Next 

Generation Internet program is clear and complementary to, 

and non-duplicative of, the roles of other participating agencies 

and departments; 

ø(3) assess the extent to which Federal support of fundamental research in computing is sufficient to maintain the Nation’s critical leadership in this field; and 

ø(4) make recommendations relating to its findings under 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). 

ø(c) REPORTS.—The Advisory Committee shall review implementation of the Next Generation Internet program and shall report, 

not less frequently than annually, to the President, the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, 

and the Committee on Science, the Committee on Appropriations, 

and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives on its findings and recommendations for the preceding fiscal 

year. The first such report shall be submitted 6 months after the 

date of the enactment of the Next Generation Internet Research 

Act of 1998 and the last report shall be submitted by September 

30, 2000. 

ø(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 

to be appropriated for the purposes of this section—

ø(1) for the Department of Energy, $22,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; 

ø(2) for the National Science Foundation, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, as authorized in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 

1998; 

ø(3) for the National Institutes of Health, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000; 

ø(4) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $10,000,000 for fiscal year 

2000; and 

ø(5) for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 and $7,500,000 for fiscal year 

2000. 

Such funds may not be used for routine upgrades to existing federally funded communication networks.¿

TITLE II—AGENCY ACTIVITIES 

SEC. 201. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ACTIVITIES. 

ø(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I—

ø(1) the National Science Foundation shall provide computing and networking infrastructure support for all science 

and engineering disciplines, and support basic research and 

human resource development in all aspects of high-performance computing and advanced high-speed computer networking; 

24

ø(2) to the extent that colleges, universities, and libraries 

cannot connect to the Network with the assistance of the private sector, the National Science Foundation shall have primary responsibility for assisting colleges, universities, and libraries to connect to the Network; 

ø(3) the National Science Foundation shall serve as the primary source of information on access to and use of the Network; and 

ø(4) the National Science Foundation shall upgrade the National Science Foundation funded network, assist regional networks to upgrade their capabilities, and provide other Federal 

departments and agencies the opportunity to connect to the 

National Science Foundation funded network.¿

(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.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES. 

ø(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, particularly in the field of computational science, with 

emphasis on aerospace sciences, earth and space sciences, and remote exploration and experimentation.¿

(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.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 203. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACTIVITIES. 

ø(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the Secretary of Energy shall—

25

ø(1) perform research and development on, and systems evaluations of, high-performance computing and communications 

systems; 

ø(2) conduct computational research with emphasis on energy applications; 

ø(3) support basic research, education, and human resources 

in computational science; and 

ø(4) provide for networking infrastructure support for energy-related mission activities. 

ø(b) COLLABORATIVE CONSORTIA.—In accordance with the Program, the Secretary of Energy shall establish High-Performance 

Computing Research and Development Collaborative Consortia by 

soliciting and selecting proposals. Each Collaborative Consortium 

shall—

ø(1) conduct research directed at scientific and technical 

problems whose solutions require the application of high-performance computing and communications resources; 

ø(2) promote the testing and uses of new types of high-performance computing and related software and equipment; 

ø(3) serve as a vehicle for participating vendors of high-performance computing systems to test new ideas and technology 

in a sophisticated computing environment; and 

ø(4) be led by a Department of Energy national laboratory, 

and include participants from Federal agencies and departments, researchers, private industry, educational institutions, 

and others as the Secretary of Energy may deem appropriate. 

ø(c) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.—The results of research and development carried out under this section shall be transferred to the 

private sector and others in accordance with applicable law. 

ø(d) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this subsection, and thereafter as part of the report required 

under section 101(a)(3)(A), the Secretary of Energy shall report on 

activities taken to carry out this Act.¿

(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 highperformance 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.

ø(e)¿ (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

SEC. 204. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTIVITIES. 

ø(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I—

ø(1) the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

shall—

26

ø(A) conduct basic and applied measurement research 

needed to support various high-performance computing 

systems and networks; 

ø(B) develop and propose 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 systems; and 

ø(C) be responsible for developing benchmark tests and 

standards for high-performance computing systems and 

software; and 

ø(2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

shall conduct basic and applied research in weather prediction 

and ocean sciences, particularly in development of new forecast 

models, in computational fluid dynamics, and in the incorporation of evolving computer architectures and networks into the 

systems that carry out agency missions.¿

(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.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 205. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES. 

ø(a) GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES.—As part of the Program described in title I, the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement 

and dissemination of computational techniques and software tools 

which form the core of ecosystem, atmospheric chemistry, and atmospheric dynamics models.¿

(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 disVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
27

semination of computational techniques and software tools for highperformance 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.

* * * * * * *

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 17, 2005, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported H.R. 28, The High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005, as amended, by a voice vote and 

recommended its enactment. 

(28)

XX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE BRAD 

SHERMAN 

SHOULD WE AT LEAST STUDY THE IMPLICATIONS OF COMPUTERS

EXCEEDING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

Last year, when the Committee on Science considered H.R. 4218, 

a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, 

Chairman Boehlert and I reached agreement on an amendment 

dealing with the societal implications of future advances in information technology. It was included in the final House-passed 

version of the bill. Specifically, the amendment directed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support research into the implications of computers (including both hardware and software) that 

would be capable of mimicking human abilities to learn, reason, 

and make decisions. At the time that the Science Committee 

marked up this bill in the 108th Congress, the Chairman pledged 

to work with me on this issue:

‘‘I think everything we should do should consider societal 

impact, ethical impact. So I will be glad to work with you 

directly, have staff talk this thing through, and see if we 

can’t accomplish some of your original intent to focus on 

the issue, without being proscriptive and preventing any 

research going forward absent such a study.’’—Chairman 

Boehlert, Science committee markup of H.R. 4218, 6/16/

2004

My amendment to H.R. 28, the 109th congress version of the 

High Performance Computing Revitalization Act, was identical to 

the compromise that the Chairman and I worked out in the 108th 

Congress. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 17–19, on 

what was unfortunately, and inexplicably, a party-line vote. 

At the markup of H.R. 28, the Chairman also raised some questions about NSF’s support for the amendment at the markup of 

H.R. 28. The NSF did express support for my amendment when it 

was developed as a compromise with the Chairman in the 108th 

Congress. NSF’s Office of Legislative and Public Affairs Section 

Head, David Stonner, corresponded with minority professional staff 

on the Science Committee and confirmed that my amendment 

would have no negative impact on NSF. In fact, the research outlined in the amendment is not inconsistent with projects that NSF 

has already funded. 

I am disappointed that the chairman did not support my amendment again this year. The importance of understanding how artificial intelligence achieved through information technology will impact our society has not decreased since last year. We should not 

rush headlong into the creation of a second cognitive intelligence 

on this planet without at least studying the implications. 

29

H.R. 28 sets the goals and priorities for federal high-performance 

computing research, development, networking, and other activities 

for those agencies under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee 

(National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency). These agencies are a 

part of the broader multi-agency Federal networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program. The 

law that H.R. 28 amended, the High Performance Computing Act 

of 1991, set forth the structure for what would become NITRD. The 

1991 law established a coordination and planning process for this 

multi-agency research and development project. 

One of the agencies that participates in NITRD is the Defense 

Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA’s mission 

statement states that it is the agency’s goal to develop a computer 

which will learn from its experience, be aware of itself, and be able 

to reflect on its own behavior (see attached excerpt from DARPA 

strategic plan released February 2005). In this vein, DARPA contributes the research conducted by the Human-Computer Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM) coordinating group, 

a part of NITRD. 

While DARPA is not under the jurisdiction of the Science committee, it conducts research on artificial intelligence within NITRD, 

a multi-agency program that was put in place by the Science Committee. It is difficult to imagine that DARPA is the only agency in 

NITRD that will contribute in some way to the inevitable creation 

of artificial intelligence that equals or surpasses human intelligence. 

We heard testimony in a Science Committee hearing on April 9, 

2003 on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology that within 

roughly 25 years artificial intelligence will match or exceed human 

cognitive abilities. No expert testified that 25 years was an unrealistically short estimate. We cannot ignore that fact and plunge forward with computers as if they are simply tools, without reflecting 

that we are within a generation of creating another cognitive life 

form. If we do not study the effects of technological advances now 

as they are being created and discovered, we run the risk of not 

realizing the true impact of this technology until it has permeated 

our society. 

Directing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support research into the implications of computers that would be capable of 

mimicking human abilities to learn, reason, and make decisions is 

a common-sense step that will allow us to understand the ramifications of our technological advances as we move towards a new age 

of artificial intelligence.

BRAD SHERMAN.

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-sharVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6969 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
30

ing, 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. Cognitive 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 they 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 operation 

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 commander’s assistant, 

an intelligence analyst’s assistant, or a decision-maker’s 

31

executive assistant. These assistants will interact with 

their human partners by accepting direct, naturally expressed guidance to learn their partners’ 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. 

32

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 28, HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION 

ACT OF 2005

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Science Committee will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider 

the following measures: H.R. 1023, Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards Act; H.R. 1158, To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 

1988; H.R. 28, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 

2005; H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and Development 

Act of 2005, and how appropriate that we entertain this on St. Patrick’s Day; H. Con. Res. 96, Recognizing the significance of African 

American women in the United States scientific community; and 

H.R. 798, Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005.

Before we proceed with the markup, however, the Committee 

must first dispense with some administrative business. 

I recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a request regarding Democratic 

Subcommittee membership. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

By direction of the Democratic caucus of the Science Committee, 

I ask unanimous consent to ratify the election of Representative 

Brad Miller of North Carolina to the Subcommittee on Research, 

thereby filling one of the existing Democratic vacancies. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters, and 

without objection, it is so ordered. 

That concludes the Committee’s organizational business, and we 

will now proceed with the markup beginning with opening statements. And I shall begin with mine. 

I want to welcome everyone here for our St. Patrick’s Day markup. I hope that the markup will leave everyone seeing green, not 

because we are spending lots of money, but because we are environmentally-friendly and because others should be green with envy 

over the ability of this committee to move sensible, bipartisan legislation. 

The bills before us today deal with a wide variety of critical problems, including the need to improve our energy efficiency, the need 

to improve our technological competitiveness, the need to improve 

our environment, the need to protect our citizens from the impacts 

33

of drug abuse, the need to have a more diverse scientific workforce, 

and the need to increase interest in science among the general public. 

All of these bills have broad support. Four of them passed the 

House last year: the Charles ‘‘Pete’’ Conrad Astronomy Awards, the 

Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act, the High-Performance Computing Revitalization 

Act, and the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. The 

Senate ran out of time to take up these bills. They were still pending without prejudice when the clock ran out, and we are optimistic 

about moving them through the entire process in this Congress. 

The other two items before us should also move swiftly: the resolution recognizing African American women in science, and the 

Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act, which we held a 

very productive hearing on earlier this month. 

I want to move this markup along, so let me just close by thanking all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who introduced 

and contributed to these important bills. 

Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here for our St. Patrick’s Day markup. I hope that 

the markup will leave everyone seeing green—not because we’re spending lots of 

money, but because we’re environmentally friendly and because others should be 

green with envy over the ability of this committee to move sensible, bipartisan legislation. 

The bills before us today deal with a wide variety of critical problems, including 

the need to improve our energy efficiency, the need to improve our technological 

competitiveness, the need to improve our environment, the need to protect our citizens from the impacts of drug abuse, the need to have a more diverse scientific 

workforce, and the need to increase interest in science among the general public. 

All these bills have broad support. Four of them passed the House last year—the 

Pete Conrad Astronomy Awards, the Steel and Aluminum energy Conservation Act, 

the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act, and the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. The Senate ran out of time to take these bills up—

they were still pending without prejudice when the clock ran out—and we’re optimistic about moving them through the entire process this Congress. 

The other two items before us should also move swiftly, the resolution recognizing 

African American women in science, and the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act, which we held a hearing on earlier this month. 

I want to move this markup along, so let me just close by thanking all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who introduced and contributed to these important 

bills. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, in keeping with the date, you seem 

to have brought your blarney with you, and I wish to compliment 

you for this—for the efforts to revisit our unfinished legislative 

agenda from the past Congress and for your willingness to explore 

some new legislative areas. 

I am especially pleased that Mr. Calvert and my Methamphetamine Remediation Act is getting the rapid consideration it deserves. We thank you and over 1/3 of our committee’s membership 

for signing on as co-sponsors. The methamphetamine epidemic is a 

scourge on rural America, affecting many of our Congressional Districts that must be addressed. And I will explain more about the 

importance of this bill later in the markup. 

Our committee’s legislative environment in high-performance 

computing goes back at least 20 years. The bipartisan High-PerVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
34

formance Computing Act of 1991 that today’s bill amends was instrumental in getting the various departments of the Executive 

Branch working together to apply the power of supercomputers to 

our society’s major challenges. And we have been working together 

on today’s amendments to the High-Performance Computing Act 

for really two Congresses now. We on the Democratic side are very 

supportive of this important legislation. 

We will consider another important resolution by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, recognizing the significant contributions that African American women have made to science. 

Given our need to encourage young men and women of all races to 

enter into the science and technology fields, I compliment Congresswoman Johnson for her advocacy of this resolution. 

And our former Committee colleague, Doug Walgren, introduced 

the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology 

Competitiveness Act of 1988 at that time when the steel industry 

in the United States was experiencing hard time and high energy 

costs and consumption. The program established under this act has 

led a steel industry technology roadmap and 10 cost-sharing 

projects that have permitted the industry to modernize and to better meet the new higher-weight products needed—or lighter-weight 

products needed by the auto industry and other industry customers. We on the Democratic side are supportive of the effort of 

Congresswoman Hart and our new Member, Congressman Lipinski, to reauthorize this important program. 

The Green Chemist Research and Development Act is also an important act today, and it is an improved over last introduction. We 

are pleased it incorporates several Democratic amendments offered 

during the last consideration. However, the bill still does not do all 

we should be doing moving into—moving in the right direction for 

green chemistry practices, and I think we will see some amendments this morning that would improve that bill. 

Therefore, I will yield the balance of my time and look forward 

to moving forward today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

I wish to compliment Mr. Boehlert for his efforts to revisit our unfinished legislative agenda from the past Congress and for his willingness to explore new legislative areas. 

I am especially pleased that Mr. Calvert’s and my Methamphetamine Remediation 

Research Act of 2005 is getting the rapid consideration it deserves. We thank you 

and over a third of our committee’s membership for signing on as co-sponsors. 

The methamphetamine epidemic is a scourge on rural America, affecting many of 

our Congressional districts, that must be addressed. I will explain more about the 

importance of this bill later in the markup. 

Our committee’s legislative involvement in high-performance computing goes back 

at least 20 years. The bipartisan High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 that today’s bill amends was instrumental in getting the various Departments of the Executive Branch working together to apply the power of supercomputers to our society’s 

major challenges. 

We have been working together on today’s amendments to the High-Performance 

Computing Act for two Congresses now. We on the Democratic side are very supportive of this important legislation. 

We will consider an important resolution by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson recognizing the significant contributions that African American Women have 

made to science. Given our need to encourage American young men and women of 

35

all races to enter into scientific and technical fields, I compliment Congresswoman 

Johnson on her advocacy of this resolution. 

Our former committee colleague Doug Walgren introduced the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 at a time 

when the steel industry in the United States was experiencing hard times and high 

energy costs and consumption. 

The program established under this Act has led a steel industry technology roadmap and ten cost-shared projects that have permitted the industry to modernize and 

to better meet the new lighter weight products needed by the auto industry and 

other industry customers. We on the Democratic side are supportive of the efforts 

of Congresswoman Hart and our new Member, Congressman Lipinski to reauthorize 

this important program. 

The Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, H.R. 1215, is improved over 

its last introduction. 

We are pleased that it incorporates several Democratic amendments offered during its last consideration, including my amendment to establish a grant program to 

enable colleges and universities to update their curricula to include training in 

green chemistry. However, the bill still does not do all we should be doing to move 

green chemistry practices from the laboratory bench into everyday practice. Therefore, we will be offering several amendments today to further improve this legislation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. 

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record 

at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. Today, the House Science Committee is considering six bills for 

markup. Most are non-controversial and receive wide bipartisan support. 

First, I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and 

Representative Calvert for introducing H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005. As a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 798, I am pleased the 

legislation has moved quickly through the Science Committee and am hopeful it will 

come to the House Floor soon. 

This legislation is urgently needed because methamphetamine abuse and addiction continues to grow throughout the United States. In my home State of Illinois, 

methamphetamine use has significantly increased in the last few years. Alarmingly, 

almost 10 percent of the meth labs seized by law enforcement officials in 2004 were 

in Illinois. Clearly, methamphetamine abuse is a very serious problem in my congressional district and I strongly support Ranking Member Gordon’s bill because it 

establishes a federal research program that would develop voluntary standards to 

help states deal with the challenges associated with methamphetamine abuse. I 

worked closely with the State and local law enforcement officials in my district to 

secure funding in 2003 and 2004 for a grant program in Southern Illinois to train 

approximately 100 law enforcement officials across the region in dismantling and 

cleaning up meth labs. In addition, Drug Task Forces were formed in Southern Illinois to fight against the methamphetamine problem that has reached epidemic proportions. We cannot allow the methamphetamine problem to overwhelm law enforcement officials and it is critical we implement a strategy to help our communities respond. 

Secondly, I would like to thank the Chairman for agreeing to markup H.R. 1158, 

a bill To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology 

Competitiveness Act of 1998. As a Member of the Congressional Steel Caucus, I am 

pleased this committee is taking an active role to keep the steel industry competitive in today’s global marketplace. Many are aware that the steel industry suffered 

a major crisis a few years back, which caused four steel companies in Illinois to file 

for bankruptcy, including Laclede Steel and the parent company for Granite City 

Steel, which are in my district. More than 5,000 steel workers have lost their jobs 

in Illinois alone. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1158 to reauthorize 

important funding measures to improve the health of the domestic steel industry. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for all their hard work on these 

important issues and look forward to today’s proceedings.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 28, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005.

36

I recognize Chairwoman Biggert to present her remarks on the 

bill. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about the bill, the High-Performance 

Computing, or HPC, Revitalization Act of 2005, which will ensure 

that America remains a leader in the development and use of 

supercomputers. 

I want to start by recognizing the bill’s chief co-sponsor, Congressman Lincoln Davis, and by thanking the other co-sponsors of 

this important legislation, including you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Gordon. 

I will keep my remarks brief, as I know that many of you are 

familiar with this bill. But for those of you who may not be, it 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. It subsequently passed both this committee and the Full House by voice vote. This bill has enjoyed such 

broad bipartisan support, because both Congress and the President 

recognize that high-performance computers are essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in many scientific fields. 

Supercomputers also have many applications, from pharmaceuticals and climate, to national and homeland security. And that 

is why we must commit to providing sustained support for highperformance computers at our federal-civilian science agencies. 

To achieve this aim, my 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, 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. 

It is not enough simply to buy big machines. We need to have 

a balanced, comprehensive approach to maximize the benefits these 

machines can bring to science and to our nation. The original legislation that my 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. I believe that this bill will guide federal agencies in providing needed support to high-performance computing in its user 

communities. Our nation’s scientific enterprise and our economy 

will be the stronger for it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Biggert follows:]

37

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JUDY BIGGERT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about 

my bill, the High-Performance Computing—or HPC—Revitalization Act of 2005, 

which will ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of 

supercomputers. I want to start by recognizing the bill’s chief co-sponsor, Congressman Lincoln Davis, and by thanking the other co-sponsors of this important legislation, including you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Gordon. 

I will keep my remarks brief, as I know many of you are familiar with this bill. 

For those of you who may not be, it 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. It subsequently passed both this Committee and the Full House by 

voice vote. 

This bill enjoyed such broad, bipartisan support because both Congress and the 

President recognize that high-performance computers are central to maintaining 

U.S. leadership in many scientific fields. Supercomputers also have many applications, from pharmaceuticals and climate to national and homeland security. That’s 

why we must commit to providing sustained support for high-performance computers at our federal civilian science agencies. 

To achieve this aim, my 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, 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. 

It’s not enough to simply buy big machines. We need to have a balanced, comprehensive approach to maximize the benefits these machines can bring to science 

and to our nation. The original legislation that my 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. 

I believe that 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 the stronger for it. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased you brought H.R. 28 before the Committee for its 

consideration today. The bill continues the long-term efforts of the 

Committee to advance high-performance computing and communications technologies. And I want to commend Congresswoman 

Biggert and Congressman Lincoln Davis for their leadership on 

high-performance computing policy and for their work during the 

last Congress that led to the bill before us today. 

And I would like to yield the balance of my time to Lincoln Davis 

for explaining the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased you have brought H.R. 28 before the Committee for 

its consideration today. The bill continues the long-term efforts of the Committee 

to advance high-performance computing and communications technologies. 

I want to commend Congresswoman Biggert and Congressman Lincoln Davis for 

their leadership on high-performance computing policy and for their work during 

the last Congress that led to the bill before the Committee today. 

38

The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 authorized a jointly planned and 

coordinated, multi-agency research program to accelerate progress in advanced computing and networking technologies and to support computational research in a 

range of science and engineering fields. 

H.R. 28 amends the 1991 Act to re-energize the planning and coordination processes now in place and to focus more attention on very high-performance computing 

in support of computational science and engineering. 

Computation has become one of the principal tools, along with theory and experiment, for conducting science and engineering research and development. The legislation will help ensure that the U.S. research community has access at any time to 

high-end computers that are well suited to tackle the most important and 

computationally challenging problems. 

I recommend support for the bill by my colleagues. 

I now yield to Congressman Davis, who has taken the lead on this side of the aisle 

on this measure.

Mr. DAVIS. Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon, I 

thank you again for the process of expediting House Resolution 28 

very quickly through this Committee. The High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act, which Congresswoman Biggert and I 

have reintroduced, aims to put the United States back at the top 

of world leadership in this area. 

I want to thank Ms. Biggert for her continued support of highend computing legislation and for her constant effort and work on 

this Science Committee on legislation that impacts our country as 

a whole and puts us on the cutting edge in many situations and 

circumstances of—in the area of technology advancement. 

H.R. 28 amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, 

which established the major federal research and development program involving seven agencies and funded at about $2 billion a 

year. The bill seeks to strengthen the planning mechanisms for 

high-end computing and better coordinate agency efforts. We will 

require the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop and 

maintain a roadmap for developing and employing high-end computing systems. In addition, the National Science Foundation is explicitly required to provide access for researchers. This requirement 

will ensure that the research community has access to the most 

powerful computing systems. 

Mr. Chairman, the interagency research program launched in the 

1991 Act has largely been a great success. It has helped provide 

the infrastructure needed to support cutting-edge research and to 

drive information technology forward for the benefit of society. I am 

proud that the Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee will stand to 

become the home of the world’s most powerful supercomputer. 

H.R. 28 will serve to strengthen and streamline our national effort in the area of high-performance computing. I ask my colleagues for their support in reporting the bill favorably to the 

House. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the rest of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN DAVIS

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you again for expediting H.R. 28 

through this committee. 

The High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act, which Congresswoman 

Biggert and I have re-introduced, aims to put the United States back at the top in 

world leadership in this area. I want to thank Ms. Biggert for her continued support 

of high end computing legislation. 

39

H.R. 28 amends the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, which established 

a major federal research and development program involving seven agencies and 

funded at about $2 billion per year. The bill seeks to strengthen the planning mechanisms for high-end computing and better coordinate agency efforts. 

H.R. 28 will require the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop and 

maintain a roadmap for developing and deploying high-end computing systems. In 

addition, the National Science Foundation is explicitly required to provide for access 

by researchers to these computing systems. These requirements will ensure that the 

research community has access to the most powerful computing systems. 

Mr. Chairman, the interagency research program launched by the 1991 Act has 

been largely a success. It has helped provide the infrastructure needed to support 

cutting edge research and to drive information technology forward for the benefit 

of society. I am proud that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, near my District, 

stands to become the home of the world’s most powerful supercomputer. 

H.R. 28 will serve to strengthen and streamline our national efforts in the area 

of high-performance computing. I ask my colleagues for their support in reporting 

the bill favorably to the House. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Biggert. 

I will ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 

and open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed 

with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The first——

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. The first amendment is by Mrs. 

Biggert. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 28 offered by Mrs. Biggert of 

Illinois. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am—I have always been a ‘‘B,’’ but I think today I have an ‘‘O’’ 

in front of my name as ‘‘O’Biggert,’’ so I will—thank you. 

This amendment simply adds a finding to the bill, a finding that 

was included in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 

of 2002, which is now law. This finding articulates the importance 

of ensuring that the results of our federal investments in supercomputing and energy technology research are transferred to the 

private sector and applied commercially. A recent report from the 

Council on Competitiveness outlined the existing use of high-performance computers in various industries and concluded that 

‘‘there is a 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 an Energy Subcommittee 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 in—during the vehiVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
40

cle design process. Pharmaceutical companies simulate chemical 

interactions to design new drugs. These approaches help companies 

increase the speed to market for new products. 

The Council on Competitiveness report went on to recommend 

that stronger partnerships are needed between government, industry, and academia to address key technical and educational barriers to supercomputer use by the private sector. Such partnerships 

would focus on developing and updating advanced software for industrial applications and growing the pool of computational scientists. While this bill will ensure that government does its part 

to revitalize the development and use of supercomputers in the 

United States, this amendment will ensure that our investment in 

research translates into real benefits for U.S. companies in our 

economy. 

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. Thank you, Mrs. Biggert, for all 

your work on the bill, and the Chair intends to support the amendment. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If no, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is one offered by Mr. Sherman. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Sherman? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 28 offered by Mr. Sherman of 

California. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain the 

amendment. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we can be proud of the consensus 

building that this committee has achieved under your leadership. 

And we have been able often to create non-controversial bills of the 

various types—of the very type that should be considered by the 

House under suspension of the rules, thus saving the time of the 

House. 

And it is not always just Democrat versus Republican consensus 

that needs to be built, but also consensus between those focused on 

building new tools for mankind with science and those who are concerned with how those tools might be used. Perhaps the best example, or one of the best examples of this consensus building was this 

very bill when it came before this committee last year. I had an 

amendment to require a review of certain societal and ethical implications of this research. It was thought that that might slow 

down the research. We worked with you, Mr. Chairman. We developed what I might call a watered down but compromised language 

that not only had your support, Mr. Chairman, but the support of 

the NSF. 

And now the bill comes before us without that compromised language. And that language, I think, is important not only to improve 

the bill but to assure people around the country who are concerned 

about science that we are looking not only on how to build tools but 

what it will mean to possess them. 

41

In this particular case, we are dealing with the issue of creating 

computers that will match or exceed human cognitive abilities. 

Now that may sound like science fiction, but we had hearings and 

a panel selected by the Chairman, not selected by wild guys like 

me, selected by the Chairman. And the—everyone on that panel 

was asked the question: ‘‘How far are we away from computers 

that match or exceed human cognitive abilities?’’ The consensus answer was 25 years. Now I don’t know whether it is 25 years or not, 

but I do know that it is close enough so that DARPA has on its 

web page the statement that its mission is to develop a computer 

which will learn from its experience, be aware of itself, be able to 

reflect on its own behavior. It is DARPA, not Sherman, that uses 

these human pronouns. We don’t know whether we are in the 

midst of creating data from the next generation or Hal from 2001 

A Space Odyssey. I don’t think it is all that bad an idea to put some 

language in this bill that perhaps we ought to think about it. 

Now I know that those who are interested in doing—building the 

tools aren’t interested in—or some of them are not interested in 

looking at the implications of building those tools. But I think that 

we should not rush headlong to the creation of a cognitive intelligence on this planet without at least putting some vague language in this bill that we should take a look at the societal implications. 

That is what the amendment I have at the desk would do. It was 

good enough for the NSF last year. I would hope that we could 

adopt it, that we could create a non-controversial bill, and that we 

could have the House consider that bill, perhaps, as a non-controversial, perhaps as a suspension bill. 

I would like to reserve the balance of my time, if I am allowed 

to do so. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. You certainly are, Mr. Sherman. And I acknowledge the hard work you have put in on this 

amendment, and you have fairly characterized what has transpired 

previously. 

The gentleman is indeed offering language that we negotiated 

with him last year, and I don’t like to re-open past agreements, 

even in a new Congress, and we are not bound in the new Congress 

by what we did in the previous Congress. 

But we have learned some things about this amendment since 

last year. We have learned that it is adamantly opposed by the 

bill’s sponsor, who happens to be one my very distinguished and respected Subcommittee Chairs. We have learned that it is adamantly opposed by both industry and the Administration. We have 

learned that it is an obstacle to dealing with, as we like to call 

them, the other body. And we learned all of that the hard way 

while keeping to our agreement by trying to get the language 

through on another bill, Mrs. Biggert’s Energy Department computing bill that we got signed into law last year. 

Now I might be willing to continue to support this amendment 

despite all of that, if I thought it dealt with a crucial and pressing 

problem, but I don’t think it really does. All of the experts tell us 

we are nowhere near creating what Mr. Sherman fears. And I 

might add, it is not completely accurate to say the National Science 

Foundation supports it. The National Science Foundation essenVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
42

tially has indicated to us that they could probably live with it, and 

that is a little bit different. 

And so I would rather see the money that would go to the studies 

you are proposing, Mr. Sherman, go to any of the unfunded—underfunded science projects that we have all been complaining about 

in recent years. 

So I respect what the gentleman is trying to do. I acknowledge 

the accuracy of his summation of the history of this, but we are in 

a new Congress, and quite frankly, I am changing my position for 

all of the reasons enumerated at the outset. And guess what, those 

who are intractable, shame on them. You have got to adjust to different circumstances, and that is what I am doing. And therefore, 

I oppose the amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

The language the gentleman is offering is indeed language that we negotiated 

with him last year. And I don’t like to reopen past agreements, even in a new Congress. But we’ve learned some things about this amendment since last year. 

We’ve learned that it is adamantly opposed by the bill’s sponsor who happens to 

be one of our subcommittee Chairs. We’ve learned that it is adamantly opposed by 

both industry and the Administration. We’ve learned that it is an obstacle to dealing 

with the Senate. And we learned all that the hard way while keeping to our agreement by trying to get this language through on another bill—Mrs. Biggert’s Energy 

Department computing bill that we got signed into law last year. 

Now I might be willing to continue to support this amendment despite all that 

if I thought that it dealt with a crucial and pressing problem. But it doesn’t. All 

the experts tell us we are nowhere near creating the dystopia that Mr. Sherman 

fears. 

And so I’d rather see the money that would go to the studies he’s proposing go 

to any of the underfunded science projects that we’ve all been complaining about 

in recent weeks. 

So I respect what the gentleman is trying to do; I acknowledge that in a new Congress I am changing my position, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there anyone else who seeks to be heard 

on this? 

Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I do regretfully, you know, oppose this amendment, because 

this committee seems to work so well together that we don’t very 

often have this. But I have been opposed to this last year in the 

other bill, and I oppose it in this bill. 

We did hold a hearing in the Science Committee on high-performance computing in May of last year. And at that time, my colleague from California asked the experts who testified at that hearing, and I have a little different take on what happened there, and 

his question was whether there was any danger of computers approaching the cognitive abilities of humans. And to my understanding, and from the record, is that the witnesses gave a resounding no in answer to that question. And more specifically, Mr. 

Sherman wanted to know how close we were to a machine that 

reached a level of intelligence where it could be entitled to the minimum wage. Dr. Jack Marburger, the President’s Science Advisor, 

and I quote, ‘‘Not very, we are quite far from that. In terms of the 

number of components measured in neurons, for example, the 

interconnectivity of the human brain far exceeds anything that we 

could currently build or foresee in the foreseeable future with comVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
43

puter hardware.’’ Dr. Rick Stevens, a renowned computer scientist 

from Argonne National Laboratory, responded to the same question 

saying, and I quote, ‘‘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.’’

Simply put, I think that the concern that Mr. Sherman is trying 

to address with this amendment is totally unfounded. It really is 

a solution in search of a problem. So that is why, Mr. Chairman, 

it would be, I think, exceedingly inappropriate for this committee 

to impose a requirement on our federal agencies to focus on societal 

implications of hypothetical human-mimicking computers. We as a 

Committee 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. I would also 

mention that DARPA is not covered by this bill or this committee. 

So for these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to join me in 

opposing this amendment. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There seems to be some—I won’t say confusion, but maybe just 

a difference in opinion as to the temperature of the National 

Science Foundation toward this provision. It is my understanding 

that they have reviewed it and found it to be consistent with the 

kinds of research activities that they support under an existing 

program on social, economic, and workforce implications of information technology. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you for that intervention. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, as a dear friend, and we 

share several Committees together, and I respect many of his—the 

things that he is concerned about, but let me note that, as a fellow 

Californian, that I believe that Mr. Sherman would not be so concerned about the social implications of the creation of these machines with the human—with traits of human intelligence if Arnold 

Schwarzenegger was a Democrat. The fact is that——

Mr. SHERMAN. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would be happy to terminate this part of 

my——

Mr. SHERMAN. I assure you that Hall is a Republican and data 

is a Democrat. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But just one note, I do think the money could 

be spent—better spent, as the Chairman says, in these other areas 

of research where we are actually coming up with new capabilities 

and that we are so far away from having to be concerned about the 

44

Terminator coming in and taking over the world that perhaps it 

would be better to put the money into machines that will help us 

be more competitive with our international competitors, for example. So—but I do appreciate my friend, Brad, who is a very expansive thinker. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And a thoughtful Member of the Committee. 

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition? 

Mr. Sherman, I hope we can make it brief, because we want to 

get through with our business before a series of votes that are projected. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, I guess the question is when is an issue significant enough, close enough, that we ought to put some non-binding language in a bill that we should at least start thinking about 

it. The consensus from the experts who were sitting at that table 

was that we are about 25 years away. We can ignore the issue and 

not think about it, but if we remember the Transportation Committee, would you fund a bridge that was going to collapse in 26 

years? When you are a Member of that Committee, you think more 

than 25 years into the future. 

Now as to while the panel of experts that we had here dealt with 

the issue, they all reached the consensus of 25 years. One is the 

author of a book entitled ‘‘The Age of Spiritual Machines’’ in which 

he lays out the milestones that he thinks we will reach during that 

25-year period. So we can use language like ‘‘far off’’ or we can 

focus on one generation, 25 years. I think that with this Congress 

funding DARPA, which has, as its mission statement, or the mission statement of one of its programs, the creation of this very kind 

of artificial intelligence, it would be short-sighted of this committee 

to decide the problems that won’t affect us this decade are problems that don’t deserve study and fund. 

I would hope that some would think beyond this decade or even 

the next decade and vote in favor of the amendment. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

If there is no further discussion on the amendment, the vote is 

on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The nos appear to have it, and the amendment is not——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes no. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

45

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes no. 

Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. 

Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes no. 

Mr. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes no. 

Mr. Feeney. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes no. 

Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes no. 

Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes no. 

Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes no. 

Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes yes. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes yes. 

46

Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes yes. 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. 

Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes yes. 

Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes yes. 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes yes. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Honda votes yes. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes yes. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Davis votes yes. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes yes. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes yes. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes yes. 

Mr. Baird. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes yes. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes yes. 

Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is Mr. Feeney recorded? 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney is not recorded, sir. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes no. 

47

Chairman BOEHLERT. Just let me tell you how the Chair intends 

to proceed, because we are advised we are going to have a series 

of votes coming up rather shortly. I think this is the last amendment on this bill. We will dispatch with this bill. We will then skip 

over the Green Chemistry bill, near and dear to my heart, very appropriate on this day, but there are a number of amendments, and 

there will be adequate discussion of those amendments, so we will 

go to the African American legislation, women’s legislation, and 

then we will conclude the business and we will take up Green 

Chemistry when we get back. Oh, and the Methamphetamine. 

Well, that is non-controversial. 

The Clerk will——

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 17; no, 19.

48


Insert graphic folio 54 here 28q.eps
49

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. The amendment is not agreed to, 

and the amendment is rejected. 

Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on 

the bill, as amended, H.R. 28, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005, as amended. All of those in favor, say aye. 

Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

I recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 28, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I 

move the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report, make 

necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 

consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The motion—the question is on the motion 

to report the bill favorably. Those in favor of passage will signify 

by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which 

to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary to adopt in the 

House and pass H.R. 28, High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005. Without objection, so ordered. 

Let the record reflect that Mr. Johnson would have voted no on 

the Sherman amendment on H.R. 28. 

We don’t have to come back after votes. This is it. We are going 

to take up the Green Chemistry bill, which is going to require a 

little more time right after the recess. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, if I could just real quickly say, I 

know that there a lot of Members that have personal interests in 

this methamphetamine concern. This is just a first start. We will 

have some additional legislation. I know we rushed through this 

today, but we will have more for all of us to be involved with later. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And we are going to have it on the Floor 

with some considerable discussion on it. 

Thank you all very much for arriving. I want to thank you for 

participating. 

This concludes our Committee markup. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(51)

Appendix: 

H.R. 28, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

52


Insert graphic folio 57 here 28a.eps
53


Insert graphic folio 58 here 28b.eps
54


Insert graphic folio 59 here 28c.eps
55


Insert graphic folio 60 here 28d.eps
56


Insert graphic folio 61 here 28e.eps
57


Insert graphic folio 62 here 28f.eps
58


Insert graphic folio 63 here 28g.eps
59


Insert graphic folio 64 here 28h.eps
60


Insert graphic folio 65 here 28i.eps
61


Insert graphic folio 66 here 28j.eps
62


Insert graphic folio 67 here 28k.eps
63


Insert graphic folio 68 here 28l.eps
64


Insert graphic folio 69 here 28m.eps
65

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 28,

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2005

Sec. 1. Short Title 

‘‘High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 2. Definitions 

Amends section 4 of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (HPC Act) to 

further elaborate on, or amend, the definition of terms used in the Act: 

• ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ means a fundamental problem in science or engineering, 

with broad economic and scientific impact, whose solution will require the application of high-performance computing resources and multidisciplinary 

teams of researchers; 

• ‘‘High-performance computing’’ means advanced computing, communications, 

and information technologies, including supercomputer systems, high-capacity 

and high-speed networks, special purpose and experimental systems, applications and systems software, and the management of large data sets; 

• ‘‘Program’’ means the High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program described in section 101; 

• ‘‘Program Component Areas’’ means the major subject areas under which are 

grouped related individual projects and activities carried out under the Program. 

Strikes the definition of ‘‘Network’’ because it refers to the National Research and 

Education Network, which no longer exists as such. 

Sec. 3. High-Performance Computing Research and Development Program 

Amends section 101 of the HPC Act, which describes the organization and responsibilities of the interagency research and development program originally referred 

to as the National High-Performance Computing Program—and renamed the HighPerformance Computing Research and Development Program in this Act. Requires 

the program to: 

• Provide for long-term basic and applied research on high-performance computing; 

• Provide for research and development on, and demonstration of, technologies 

to advance the capacity and capabilities of high-performance computing and 

networking systems; 

• 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; 

• Provide for efforts to increase software availability, productivity, capability, 

security, portability, and reliability; 

• Provide for high-performance networks, including experimental testbed networks, to enable research and development on, and demonstration of, advanced applications enabled by such networks; 

• Provide for computational science and engineering research on mathematical 

modeling and algorithms for applications in all fields of science and engineering; 

• Provide for the technical support of, and research and development on, highperformance computing systems and software required to address Grand 

Challenges; 

• 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; 

• Provide for improving the security of computing and networking systems, including research required to establish security standards and practices for 

these systems. 

Requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to: 

• Establish the goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and other activities; 

• Establish Program Component Areas that implement the goals established for 

the Program and identify the Grand Challenges that the Program should address; 

• Provide for interagency coordination of federal high-performance computing 

research, development, networking, and other activities undertaken pursuant 

to the Program; 

66

• Develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment roadmap for 

the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research 

community in the United States. 

Leaves substantially unchanged the provisions of the HPC Act requiring the Director of OSTP to: 

• Provide an annual report to Congress, along with the annual budget request, 

describing the implementation of the Program, including current and proposed funding levels and programmatic changes, if any, from the previous 

year; 

• Consult with academic, State, and other appropriate groups conducting research on and using high-performance computing. 

Requires the Director of OSTP to include in his annual report to Congress: 

• A detailed description of the Program Component Areas, including a description of any changes in the definition of activities under the Program Component Areas from the previous year, and the reasons for such changes, and a 

description of Grand Challenges supported under the Program; 

• An analysis of the extent to which the Program incorporates the recommendations of the Advisory Committee established by the HPC Act—currently referred to as the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee 

(PITAC). 

Requires PITAC to conduct periodic evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the Program, and to report to Congress 

once every two fiscal years, with the first report due within one year of enactment. 

Repeals section 102 of HPC Act, the ‘‘National Research and Education Network,’’ 

which required the development of a network to link research and educational institutions, government, and industry. This network was developed but has since been 

supplanted by the Internet. 

Repeals section 103 of the HPC Act, ‘‘Next Generation Internet,’’ as this program 

is no longer in existence. 

Sec. 4. Agency Activities 

Amends section 201 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) under the Program. Requires NSF to: 

• 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; 

• 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, including support for advanced software and applications development, for all science and 

engineering disciplines; 

• Support basic research and education in all aspects of high-performance computing and networking. 

Amends section 202 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) under the Program. Requires NASA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance networking, 

with emphasis on: 

• Computational fluid dynamics, computational thermal dynamics, and computational aerodynamics; 

• Scientific data dissemination and tools to enable data to be fully analyzed and 

combined from multiple sources and sensors; 

• Remote exploration and experimentation; 

• Tools for collaboration in system design, analysis, and testing. 

Amends section 203 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the 

Department of Energy (DOE) under the Program. Requires DOE to: 

• 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; 

• 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. 

Amends section 204 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the 

Department of Commerce, including the National Institute of Standards and TechVerDate jul 14 2003 20:02 Apr 14, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR036.XXX HR036
67

nology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

under the Program. 

Requires NIST to: 

• Conduct basic and applied metrology research needed to support high-performance computing and networking systems; 

• Develop benchmark tests and standards for high-performance computing and 

networking systems and software; 

• Develop and propose voluntary standards and guidelines, and develop measurement techniques and test methods, for the inter-operability of high-performance computing systems in networks and for common user interfaces to 

high-performance computing and networking systems; 

• 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. 

Requires NOAA to conduct basic and applied research in high-performance computing applications, with emphasis on: 

• Improving weather forecasting and climate prediction; 

• Collection, analysis, and dissemination of environmental information; 

• Development of more accurate models of the ocean-atmosphere system. 

Amends section 205 of the HPC Act, which describes the responsibilities of the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Program. Requires EPA to conduct basic and applied research directed toward the advancement and dissemination 

of computational techniques and software tools with an emphasis on modeling to: 

• Develop robust decision-support tools; 

• Predict pollutant transport and their effects on humans and on ecosystems; 

• Better understand atmospheric dynamics and chemistry.

68


Insert graphic folio 73 here 28n.eps
69


Insert graphic folio 74 here 28o.eps
70

Æ


Insert graphic folio 75 here 28p.eps