PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 20, 2012
Department of Energy High-End Computing Act of 2012 - Amends the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004 with respect to: (1) exascale computing (computing system performance at or near 10 to the 18th power floating point operations per second); and (2) a high-end computing sytem with performance substantially exceeding that of systems commonly available for advanced scientific and engineering applications.
Directs the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to: (1) coordinate the development of high-end computing systems across DOE; and (2) include among the multiple architectures researched any computer technologies that show promise of substantial reductions in power requirements and substantial gains in parallelism of multicore processors, concurrency, memory and storage, bandwidth, and reliability.
Repeals authority for establishment of at least one High-End Software Development Center.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to conduct a coordinated research program to develop one or more exascale computing systems to advance DOE missions. Requires establishment through competitive merit review of two or more DOE National Laboratory-industry partnerships to conduct integrated research, development, and engineering of one or more prototype exascale systems.
Requires the Secretary to conduct mission-related co-design activities in developing prototype exascale platforms. Defines "co-design" as the joint development of application algorithms, models, and codes with computer technology architectures and operating systems to maximize effective use of high-end computing systems.
Directs the Secretary to develop any advancements in hardware and software technology required to realize fully the potential of an exascale production system in addressing DOE target applications and solving scientific problems involving predictive modeling and simulation and large-scale data analytics and management.
People & committees
Rep. Biggert, Judy [R-IL-13] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6454 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6454 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6454 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6454 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.