Jim Baird to co-chair Congressional Research & Development Caucus

Friday, April 5, 2019
Jim Baird

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Indiana 4th District Congressman Jim Baird (R-Greencastle) has been named co-chairman of the Congressional Research and Development (R&D) Caucus, a bipartisan group that advocates on behalf of continued U.S. leadership in research and development.

Baird will co-chair with Congressman Bill Foster (D-Ill.).

Primary caucus activities include hosting briefings to better inform members of Congress of accomplishments across the country in all sectors of the economy and academia.

“It is important to identify areas of research that are critical to advancement, so we can invest in initiatives that will move us forward,” Congressman Baird said.

“The advances we make in technology and development shape the world for future generations,” he continued, “and it is our duty to ensure that America remains at the forefront of innovation. In order to do that, the work of our scientists must be highlighted. It is a great privilege to share their progress and achievements with my colleagues as we support R&D nationwide.”

Congressman Foster concurred.

“Robust research and development are crucial in our efforts to confront some of the biggest challenges we face from combating the effects of climate change to fighting the opioid epidemic and discovering new treatments and cures for diseases,” Foster said. “Scientific research and development are also critical to our nation’s long-term economic success in an increasingly competitive global economy in which we must maintain a competitive advantage.”

Congressman Baird represents Putnam and 15 other counties in Indiana’s 4th Congressional District. A lifelong Hoosier, he serves as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Congressman Foster first became co-chairman of the R&D Caucus in the 114th Congress. Prior to serving in Congress, he spent more than 20 years as a high-energy particle physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois.

Comments
View 4 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I met with the Congressman last week in his DC office. Very impressed with his grasp of the issues we brought to the discussion, how he asked questions to gain further knowledge, his humble approach, and the family feel of his office.

    It was very neat to see a GHS grad on his staff.

    -- Posted by beg on Sun, Apr 7, 2019, at 8:37 AM
  • *

    Once again, Mr. Baird is injecting the Federal gov't where it doesn't belong.

    Innovation comes from free market economics (build a better mousetrap) and not from gov't intrusion.

    When you pay (through gov't largesse) for research, all you get is research.

    When you pay (through private monies) for research, you get results that will be injected into the marketplace (to recoup those monies invested).

    Self-serving press releases to paint a picture of relevance is the hallmark of the politician. Voters take note.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 10:22 AM
  • ^ How has privitization of our space program worked? Not very well, as we have had to rely on the Russians to get our astronauts and supplies back and forth to the ISS. Do not mislead yourself in thinking that "free market economics" is the answer for everything. I suppose you would like to privitize our armed forces also? Oh wait, we tried that and it resulted in the debacle called Blackwater.

    -- Posted by Koios on Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 11:10 AM
  • *

    Your premise is faulty.

    "Our space program"(NASA) uses the Russians (namely Russian rockets) to ferry back and forth to ISS since they (NASA) ended the space shuttle program.

    However, PRIVATE space exploration (SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, etc) is doing more, and economically better, than NASA or ANY GOVERNMENT RUN SPACE PROGRAM IN THE WORLD.

    Remember, most of the money for private space exploration is private money. Those investing pay for results and a return on investment. Lunar colonies, Mars expeditions, deep space mining... these are the things that will pay dividends, not science fair projects on the ISS. (And yes, they do have some scientific value - but not for what they cost.)

    For example (which you will find in a provided link): "With NASA’s heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS) costing more than $15 billion to develop and test (with first flight scheduled two years fro now), the immediate comparison to the [SpaceX] Falcon Heavy’s approximate $100M cost."

    https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/10/16/why-does-america-sti...

    http://dlgimmigration.com/spacex-launches-inspire-debate-over-privatization-of-s...

    https://futurism.com/private-companies-not-governments-are-shaping-the-future-of...

    As for your ludicrous comment about privatizing the armed forces...

    One of the few things actually tasked to the United States (federal) Government is defense of our country through the use of armed forces, namely the citizenry called up to defend the country.

    Now you and I can debate the necessity of a standing army (I am at best reluctantly accepting of such), and I imagine that we would actually fall on the same side of our involvement in Iraq, the Middle East, and possibly anywhere else - although likely for different reasons.

    Privatized arm forces are called mercenaries and from a historical perspective have never been looked upon favorably. Those that fight for treasure are always suspect to those that fight for ideals.

    With that in mind, almost all countries have used mercenaries at some point (the fledgling Continental Army during our American Revolution used mercenaries...as did the British).

    But as Blackwater was not actually tasked with fighting/engaging in war, but with other things such as security, I don't even know that I would call them mercenaries. I believe they were technically gov't-contracted security forces.

    So, even if we agreed to call it a debacle (which we don't), I don't think its a fair comparison to the idea of a privatized army.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 3:34 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: