    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      DISRUPTER SERIES: QUANTUM COMPUTING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 18, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-131

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                       ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    33-124                    WASHINGTON : 2019

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

            Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
                                         JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                           Ranking Member
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
      Vice Chairman                      YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 TONY CARDENAS, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina      JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois                 Massachusetts
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            GENE GREEN, Texas
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................     3
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, prepared statement.....................................    51
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................    52

                                   Witnesses

    Matthew Putman, Founder and CEO, Nanotronics.....................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Christopher Monroe, Chief Scientist and Founder, IonQ, Professor
      of Physics, University of Maryland.............................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Diana Franklin, Professor, University of Chicago.................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Michael Brett, CEO, QxBranch.....................................    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    34

                      DISRUPTER SERIES: QUANTUM COMPUTING

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
                                            Protection,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:16 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta,
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Latta, Lance, Guthrie, McKinley,
    Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Walters, Costello, Schakowsky,
    Welch, Kennedy, and Green.
        Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist Staff Director; Margaret
    Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Melissa Froelich, Chief
    Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm,
    Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative
    Clerk, O&I, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena
    Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff,
    Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie,
    Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Peter
    Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Andy Zach,
    Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment; Greg Zerzan,
    Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Michelle
    Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Caroline
    Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; and Michelle Rusk,
    Minority FTC Detailee.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Latta. Good morning. And again, I would like to welcome
    you all to the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection here on Energy and Commerce. As I mentioned, we have
    another subcommittee that is running right now, so we will have
    members coming back from first floor, upstairs, during the
    committee from one to the other. But again, I do thank you all
    for being here today.
        And I will recognize myself for my 5-minute opening
    statement. And again, welcome to the subcommittee in today's
    disruptor series hearing examining quantum computing. We
    continue our disrupter series as we examine emerging technology
    supporting U.S. innovation and jobs. This morning, we are
    discussing the revolutionary technology known as quantum
    computing. This involves harnessing the power of physics at its
    most basic level. Unlike the computers we are familiar with we
    use today, a quantum computer holds the potential to be faster
    and more powerful. This innovation is expected to change every
    industry and make problems that are impossible to solve today,
    something that can be solved in a matter of days or weeks.
        Efforts to develop a commercially available and practical
    quantum computer are being pursued around the world. Because of
    the tremendous costs involved in developing a suitable
    environment for a quantum computer to operate, many of these
    efforts involve government support, both the European Union and
    China have pledged, or already have spent billions to develop a
    quantum computer.
        In the United States, development of quantum computers is
    proceeding at the academic, governmental, and private sectors.
    In addition to the larger and familiar technology companies,
    smaller startups are also leading efforts in this area. We are
    fortunate to have one of these startups, IonQ, to testify
    today.
        Although a quantum computer holds tremendous potential to
    solve previously noncomputable problems, there are skeptics who
    question whether it will be possible to ever develop such
    technology. We look forward to our witnesses giving us their
    thoughts on this question.
        On the other hand, some fear that the threats such a
    computer would pose to the traditional computing model,
    especially when it comes to encryption and data security. Some
    fear that a quantum computer would make it nearly impossible to
    keep future computers secure. Data security and consumer
    privacy are key concerns of this committee.
        We also look forward to our witnesses addressing this issue
    as well. Quantum computers hold tremendous potential to help
    solve problems involving the discovery of new drugs, developing
    more efficient supply chains and logistics operations,
    searching massive volumes of data, and developing artificial
    intelligence.
        Whichever nation first develops a practical quantum
    computer will have a tremendous advantage over its foreign
    peers. We hope our witnesses will help us examine the state of
    the race to develop a quantum computer, and how the United
    States is doing in that race. This is obviously a very dense
    subject. We also understand there are several other areas under
    development leveraging the principle of quantum mechanics. Our
    goal today is simple: to develop a better understanding of the
    potential of quantum computers, the obstacles to developing
    this technology, and what policymakers should be doing to
    remove barriers and to help spur innovation, competition, and
    ensure a strong and prepared workforce for future jobs.
        As we explore this topic today, I would, again, like to
    thank our witnesses for coming to share their expertise on this
    very complicated and revolutionary technology. I again
    appreciate you all being here today.
        And at this time, I will yield back my time and recognize
    the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good Morning. Welcome to the Digital Commerce and Consumer
    Protection Subcommittee, and today's Disrupter Series hearing
    examining quantum computing. We continue our Disrupter Series
    as we examine emerging technologies supporting U.S. innovation
    and jobs.
        This morning we are discussing the revolutionary technology
    known as quantum computing. This involves harnessing the power
    of physics at its most basic level. Unlike the computers we are
    familiar with and use today, a quantum computer holds the
    potential to be faster and more powerful. This innovation is
    expected to change every industry and make problems that are
    impossible to solve today something that can be solved in a
    matter of days or weeks.
        Efforts to develop a commercially available and practical
    quantum computer are being pursued around the world. Because of
    the tremendous costs involved in developing a suitable
    environment for a quantum computer to operate, many of these
    efforts involve government support. Both the European Union and
    China have pledged or already spent billions to develop a
    quantum computer.
        In the United States, development of a quantum computer is
    proceeding at the academic, governmental and private sectors.
    In addition to larger and familiar technology companies,
    smaller start-ups are also leading efforts in this area. We are
    fortunate to have one of these start-ups, Ion-Q, to testify
    today.
        Although a quantum computer holds tremendous potential to
    solve previously non-computable problems, there are skeptics
    who question whether it will be possible to ever develop such
    technology. We look forward to our witnesses giving us their
    thoughts on this question.
        On the other hand, some fear the threat such a computer
    would pose to the traditional computing model. Especially when
    it comes to encryption and data security, some fear that a
    quantum computer would make it nearly impossible to keep future
    computers secure. Data security and consumer privacy are key
    concerns of this Committee. We also look forward to our
    witnesses addressing this issue as well.
        Quantum computers hold tremendous potential to help solve
    problems involving the discovery of new drugs, developing more
    efficient supply chains and logistics operations, searching
    massive volumes of data, and developing artificial
    intelligence. Whichever nation first develops a practical
    quantum computer will have a tremendous advantage over its
    foreign peers. We hope our witnesses will help us examine the
    state of the race to develop a quantum computer, and state how
    the U.S is doing.
        This is obviously a very dense subject. We also understand
    there are several other areas under development leveraging the
    principle of quantum mechanics. Our goal today is simple: to
    develop a better understanding of the potential of quantum
    computers; the obstacles to developing this technology; and,
    what policymakers should be doing to remove barriers and help
    spur innovation, competition, and ensure a strong and prepared
    workforce for future jobs.
        As we explore this topic today, I would like to again thank
    our witnesses for traveling to DC and sharing their expertise
    with us as we examine this complicated and revolutionary
    technology. Thank you.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. We
    continue our disrupter series with the exploration of quantum
    computing. I want to congratulate all of you for being so
    smart. Dr. Franklin, I was just told I think it was your mother
    and I graduated from the University of Illinois about the same
    time. This was a time before we knew anything about computers
    really, it was just beginning. And here you are today, the next
    generation leading us into the future. So I appreciate all of
    you being here today.
        This technology, I understand, is still in the research
    phase, but the potential applications are tremendous, from
    healthcare to energy efficiency and everything in between.
    Given this potential, global competitors from the European
    Union to China are rushing to invest in quantum computing. The
    U.S. must make strategic investments if it wants to stay ahead.
    And those investments really start with STEM education. We must
    encourage students, including young women and students of color
    to pursue interests in computer science and physics. Fostering
    curiosity today prepares young minds to become great innovator
    of tomorrow.
        As a former teacher myself, I strongly believe that our
    future economic success depends on investing in our children's
    education. Our research universities are leading the way on
    quantum computing. Public investment is crucial to develop
    technology until it can be profitable, possibly deployed in the
    private sector. However, the Federal Government has so far
    failed to provide robust reliable investments in quantum
    computing. The lack of investment in STEM education and
    research speaks to the misguided priorities of this Republican
    Congress. While wealthy shareholders get most of the gains from
    a $2 trillion Republican tax bill, Congress is underinvesting
    in students and research institutions. We fund tax cuts for the
    rich at the expense of our future prosperity.
        Now that Congress has passed a budget agreement, we have
    the chance to make some of the investments that our country so
    desperately needs. But instead of embracing the opportunity to
    advance bipartisan appropriations bills, the Republican
    majority plans to bring up a rescission bill to pull back
    funding for children's health insurance programs and other
    programs. And today, we will be voting on a bill to literally
    take food out of the mouths of families.
        We need to get our priorities straight. The U.S. can be a
    global leader in quantum computing and other groundbreaking
    technologies, but only if we prioritize investment for our
    future over tax cuts for the wealthy.
        I look forward to hearing from our panel about the promise
    of quantum computing. I will try my best to follow what you are
    telling me and the challenges that we face in developing this
    technology. I am especially proud to welcome Professor Diana
    Franklin from the University of Chicago. The University of
    Chicago is one of the leaders in quantum computing research,
    and I am eager to hear more about this work.
        So thank you, chairman Latta, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
    back. The chairman of the full committee has not made it in
    yet. Is there any one on the Republican side wishing to claim
    his time? If not, at this time that will conclude the member's
    opening statements. And to get to the real meat of the issue
    today that we want to hear about. And I won't tell you how long
    ago, Madam Ranker, how long--when I took computer science in
    college, I probably shouldn't say this, we used punch cards and
    teletype machines. It was a bad Saturday morning, we went back
    to the computer science department, and you were expecting
    about that much and came back with that much, and you knew you
    had made a mistake. But I want to thank our witnesses for being
    here with us today and we are really looking forward to your
    testimony today.
        And our witnesses will have an opportunity to make 5-minute
    opening statements. And our witnesses today are Dr. Matthew
    Putman, Founder and CEO of Nanotronics; Dr. Christopher Monroe,
    Chief Scientist and Founder of IonQ, and Professor of Physics
    at the University Maryland; Dr. Diana Franklin, Professor and
    Director of Computer Science at the University of Chicago; and
    Mr. Michael Brett, CEO of QxBranch. And so again, we appreciate
    you being here today. And Dr. Putman, you are recognized for 5
    minutes for your opening statement. If you would just press
    that microphone and pull it close to you and we will get
    started.

      STATEMENTS OF MATTHEW PUTMAN, FOUNDER AND CEO, NANOTRONICS;
        CHRISTOPHER MONROE, CHIEF SCIENTIST AND FOUNDER, IONQ,
     PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; DIANA FRANKLIN,
       PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO; AND MICHAEL BRETT, CEO,
                                QXBRANCH

                      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PUTMAN

        Mr. Putman. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta,
    Congresswomen and Congressmen.
        Nanotronics does not make quantum computers. We are the
    enablers of technologists and companies that with us strive to
    revolutionize the way information can be transformed. We have
    provided some of the world's largest companies and smaller
    entrepreneurial innovators with the tools of modern computation
    and imaging. We work with those that build the most advanced
    materials in microelectronics. Nanotronics achieved this in the
    only way we see feasible for the continued exponential
    progression of technology, which is through artificially
    intelligent factories.
        Quantum computing not only promises to break the barriers
    of encryption, it also breaks some fundamental barriers to
    human progress. Many of our greatest achievements have been
    characterized in terms of competition and races. Often, a
    technological race appears to be a war of ideologies or of
    business dominance. With quantum computing, there is an even
    greater battle, the fight against physical scarcity.
        There are three areas that we must work together on to win,
    not only for our nation, but for humanity, agriculture, new
    fertilizers can feed the increasing population of the world
    while maintaining diversity of crops, drug discovery by being
    able to simulate and produce molecules faster and with greater
    precision than are possible by traditional means. This will not
    only lead to cures for diseases, but reduce the often
    financially restrictive experimentation and trials that are
    required to make even incremental improvements and treatments.
        Materials for power devices from batteries to solar cells.
    These have been studied for decades, but in many respects, the
    United States is still early on in this journey. Companies are
    moving with speed, and with national support, it is possible
    that quantum computing can soon reach an inflection point.
        The race to achieve a workable quantum computer that can
    reduce scarcity to this level requires greater national
    attention than has currently been realized by either the vast
    majority of companies, or of the country as a whole. The steps
    to enabling quantum computing will need to involve, one, an
    effort that funds the creation of factories for new quantum
    chips.
        A semiconductor fab for classical computers can cost as
    much as $20 billion. To a large extent, these fabs are not
    being built in the United States. We have an opportunity to
    acknowledge and to change this trend by leading the way in the
    construction of factories for this next generation of powerful
    computing.
        Two, artificial intelligence. While quantum computing
    itself will increase the capabilities of artificial
    intelligence, the ability to design materials and software for
    quantum computers themselves will come through the interaction
    of human and computer agents.
        Understanding such key elements as component design,
    fabrication conditions, and the number of qubits needed
    requires collaboration of humans and machines. The number of
    qubits in a quantum computer is directly related to the number
    of calculations. A 10 qubit quantum computer can produce 1,000
    calculations, and a 30 qubit quantum computer can produce 1
    billion. Millions of qubits are required to achieve the full
    potential of quantum computing. This exponential growth in
    qubit to calculations is beyond the reach of factories as they
    are. Without the advanced tools of AI for controlling
    factories, a truly useful quantum computer may not be possible.
        Three, education. We need to develop the expertise required
    for the multidisciplinary nature of quantum computer science.
    It is physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, and
    application curiosity and expertise are all necessary. We
    cannot work in isolation. We need to embrace immigration and
    welcome strong talent from around the world with expertise in
    these areas.
        When we look toward the future, we can see it as a battle
    of ideologies, of resources, or of technologies. Quantum
    computers encompass all of these to some extent. Quantum
    mechanics is the basis of universal behavior at the smallest
    scales, but affects the largest of matter. It is, therefore,
    not surprising that harnessing this physical property has such
    far-reaching implications. It is because of this, that it is
    important that we view it with the powerful association that it
    warrants, with the weight of risk in a fractured world, or of
    great rewards in a unified one.
        As we move forward, we see how quantum computing lets us
    scale in ways that meet not only the needs of industry, but of
    our country and the world.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Putman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you for your testimony, this
    morning. And Dr. Monroe, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Thank you.

                    STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MONROE

        Mr. Monroe. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr.
    Chairman. I am honored to be here for this committee's
    disrupter series on quantum computing.
        I am a Quantum Physicist at the University of Maryland, and
    also Co-founder and Chief Scientist at IonQ, which is a startup
    company that aims to build and manufacture small quantum
    computers. I have also worked with the National Photonics
    Initiative, which is a collaborative alliance among industry,
    and academics with the interest in developing quantum
    technology. And I, with the National Photonics Initiative, we
    have promoted the idea of a National Quantum Initiative, and
    there is pending legislation that is coming up in the House
    Science Committee.
        So I have about 1 minute to define what quantum computers
    are, and I think I can get to some of the basics. We know that
    information is stored in bits, zeros, or ones. The fundamental
    difference in quantum information is it is stored in quantum
    bits, or qubits, these can be both zero and one at the same
    time, as long as you don't look. And at the end of the day, you
    look, and it randomly assumes one of the values. But as long as
    you don't look, there is a potential for massive parallelism as
    you add qubits, you get exponential storage capacity. And
    because quantum computers only work while you are not looking,
    it involves quite revolutionary, and even exotic hardware to
    realize this. Individual atoms, that is the technology we use
    at IonQ, superconducting circuits that are kept at very low
    temperatures, other competing platforms involved that type of
    technology. It is very exotic stuff. And I think within the
    next several years, we are going to see small quantum computers
    with up to about 100 quantum bits. It sounds pretty small, but
    even with 100 quantum bits, it can, in a sense, deal with
    information that eclipses that of all the hard drives in the
    world. And on our way to a million qubits, where we can do new
    problems that conventional qubit computers could never tackle,
    we need to build the small ones first.
        So in terms of quantum applications, I would say it falls
    roughly into three categories, there are strong overlaps. In
    the short term, quantum sensors can enhance sensitivity to
    certain measurements that could impact navigation, and it may
    be in a GPS-blind environment and also remote sensing.
        In the medium term, quantum communication networks may
    allow the transmission of information that can be provably
    secure, because remember, quantum information only exists when
    nobody looks at it. If somebody looks at it, it changes. And
    that can make communication inherently secure.
        In the long term, probably the most disruptive technology
    are quantum computers. And quantum computers are not just more
    powerful computers, they are radically different, and they may
    allow us to solve problems that could never, ever be solved
    using classical computers. These involve optimization routines
    that could impact logistics, economic and financial modeling,
    and also, the design of new materials and molecular function
    that could impact the health sciences and drug delivery, for
    instance. An even longer term, quantum computers could be used
    to do decryption, breaking of popular codes. So there is a
    security aspect to everything that quantum information touches.
        Now, the challenges are pronounced in this field. There are
    a few issues. One involving the workforce and one involving the
    marketplace. The workforce issue is that universities are chock
    full of students and faculty that are comfortable with quantum
    physics, and we do research in the area, but we don't build
    things that can be used by somebody that doesn't want to or
    need to know all the details. Whereas industry makes those
    things, but they don't have a quantum engineering workforce.
        The marketplace is also a challenge because we don't know
    exactly what the killer app for quantum computers, in
    particular, will be. So we have promoted the idea of a National
    Quantum Initiative that would establish several large and
    focused hub labs throughout the country, and other components
    as well, including the user access program for existing quantum
    computers. It is imperative that the U.S. retain its leadership
    in this technological frontier. As we heard from the chairman,
    there are concerted efforts in Europe and, in particular,
    China, that is spending lots of very focused investments in
    this field.
        So, in conclusion, quantum technology is coming and the
    U.S. should lead in this next generation of sensors, computers
    and communication networks. The National Quantum Initiative
    provides a framework for implementing a comprehensive quantum
    initiative across the Federal Government.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the
    opportunity to speak on quantum technology and the need for a
    nationally focused effort to advanced quantum information
    science and technology in the U.S.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Monroe follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And Dr. Franklin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DIANA FRANKLIN

        Ms. Franklin. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr.
    Chairman, and Ranking Member Schakowsky. I am honored to be
    here before you in the committee to offer testimony on the
    promise of quantum technology. The important role universities
    must play to realize commercialization, and the biggest
    challenges we are facing in doing so. In my dual roles as
    Director of Computer Science Education at UChicago STEM Ed, and
    a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Computer
    Science at the University of Chicago. I research emerging
    technologies and computer science education.
        As lead investigator for quantum education for the EPIC
    quantum computing project in the NSF expeditions in computing
    program, it is my mission to design and implement educational
    initiatives at K-12, university and professional venues to
    develop a quantum computing workforce.
        Quantum computing can be a game changer in promising areas,
    including drug design and food production. By accelerating
    research time to develop drugs, critical Federal research in
    Medicaid dollars could be saved, along with improved quality of
    life.
        Unlocking the secrets of nitrogen fixation through quantum
    simulation could vastly reduce the energy costs of fertilizer
    production, and thus food production throughout the world.
    While the university has historically been on the forefront of
    computer science and emerging technologies, lapses in academic
    funding for quantum computer science have allowed global
    competitors to make great strides. Putting the U.S. back 10
    years from where it could have been in research output and
    workforce development.
        In the past 17 years, since the inception of quantum
    computer science, distinguished from quantum physics and
    algorithm development, academic funding has only been available
    for 8 of these years, leading to only 10 Ph.D. students being
    trained, rather than a potential of almost 200 students, and no
    meaningful education programs aimed at this area.
        As research groups came and went with the funding, post-
    docs were laid off and graduate students were transitioned to
    conventional computer science fields. Yet, universities are
    critical to commercialization. While companies work
    individually and compete against each other to produce
    proprietary tools, academics produce results and tools that all
    companies can use and improve upon, as well as trained experts
    who can work at companies. They are both necessary for the
    commercialization of quantum computing.
        The challenge of bringing quantum computers to the point of
    usefulness cannot be underestimated, both in building reliable
    machines and writing software. Professor Christopher Monroe
    knows extensive expertise in the former. I am here to talk
    about the increasingly important role that computer scientists
    must take. Historical funding and theoretical software and
    quantum devices has created a chasm between the software, which
    assumes large, perfect hardware, and real hardware that is
    small and unreliable at this point.
        NSF has recently recognized this issue supplementing their
    hardware initiative quantumly with a stat program that requires
    an interdisciplinary team that works to bridge this gap. One
    gap is in software development. There is a difference between a
    quantum algorithm and software that can solve a particular
    problem. Bridging this gap requires interdisciplinary teams
    such as exists at QxBranch. Deep expertise is necessary to
    figure out how to modify software that works in one specific
    context to another, much more so in quantum computing than in
    traditional computing. If this were furniture construction,
    what we have right now is piles of wood, screws and nails. An
    expert needs to figure out how to use those to create useful
    furniture. Instead, what we want in the future is for
    nonexperts to be able to go to quantum Ikea, get a prefabbed
    kit and easily modify it for their application. This exists for
    classical computing, but not for quantum computing.
        Another gap is between software and hardware. Current
    algorithms are written for perfect hardware, but hardware on
    the horizon is very error prone. We are on a journey to that
    perfect hardware, but we are not there yet. It is like if you
    meticulously planned to prepare a gourmet meal for ten, but
    when you arrived, there were only supplies for six, and you
    could only use the kitchen for 2 hours prior to the meal, you
    would need to adjust your plans. Current and quantum computers
    that are on the horizon can only sustain computations for a
    limited time, and they are very small. Some modifications can
    be automated. However, for more advanced modifications, the
    plan needs to be rethought, thus, some of the specific hardware
    limitations, like the specific ways in which different
    technologies tend to introduce errors, need to be communicated
    to the programmers so they can figure out how to adjust their
    applications.
        In order to realize quantum computing, Federal funding
    needs to be, first and foremost, consistent, directed at not
    just building hardware and developing algorithms, but to
    interdisciplinary teams that include applications developer and
    computer scientists. Spread across a range of agencies with
    different missions like NSF, DARPA, DOE, and DOD, directed not
    just at technology development, but to workforce development,
    so there are more people available to write applications and to
    perform the engineering work at these companies. And above all,
    supporting the K-12 STEM pipeline to train the next generation
    of innovators.
        With a significant investment in hardware, software, and
    workforce development, I am confident the United States can
    maintain its dominance in computing.
        This concludes my remarks. I appreciate this opportunity to
    speak with subcommittee members. And I am happy to answer any
    questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Franklin follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        And Mr. Brett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BRETT

        Mr. Brett. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
    Schakowsky, and members of this committee. I am thrilled to be
    here today to participate in today's hearing and discuss the
    opportunities and challenges presented by quantum computing.
        My name is Michael Brett. I am the CEO of a company called
    QxBranch. We are an advanced data analytics company based here
    in Washington, D.C., also with teams in Australia and the U.K.
    We are a fast-growing team of data scientists, software
    engineers, and machine learning specialists who design
    algorithms for challenging data problems. We are at the cutting
    edge of creating algorithms that find patterns, detect
    anomalies, and uncover other business insights that help our
    customers reduce their costs and to serve their customers
    better.
        Data analytics is already a rapidly advancing technology
    area delivering benefits to people all over the world, but we
    are particularly excited about what quantum computing can do
    for our business. As we have heard, quantum computers are not
    just a faster computer, they enable an entirely different
    approach to performing calculations. In the realm of quantum
    physics, there is some incredible and surprising phenomena
    that, if harnessed, could allow us to solve some interesting
    and practically unsolvable problems, like simulating the
    interaction between molecules. As these molecules grow in size,
    the computational costs grows exponentially larger.
        Our friends who build quantum computing hardware are in the
    process of creating machines that take advantage of these
    unique phenomena. And you heard a great example from Chris
    Monroe this morning at IonQ. These machines allows us as
    software developers to solve difficult problems using a
    different kind of mathematics, quantum math, much more
    efficiently than we ever could on classical computers. And our
    ambition is simple: Quantum computers will allow us to solve
    some of the most intractable and most valuable computational
    problems that exist today.
        These new quantum solutions will benefit Americans in ways
    they might not ever be aware of. Globally, the race is on to
    apply quantum computing to problems in transport, energy
    production, health science and pharmacology, finance and
    insurance, defense and national security. And we want our
    applications to be the first apps in a quantum apps store.
        Looking forward to the kind of quantum computers that are
    likely to become commercially available over the next decade,
    there are broadly three classes of application that have become
    possible in the near term. The first are optimization problems,
    like logistics and transport routing, financial portfolio
    optimization. The second is in machine learning, where we can
    accelerate some of the most computationally expensive parts of
    training and artificial intelligence, to detect patterns in
    large and complex data sets.
        And the third is in chemical simulation, where we can use a
    quantum computer to simulate the behavior of molecules and
    materials, and design new processes around them. Across these
    three applications, the potential value to everyday citizens is
    immense. Now let me give you a concrete example of where this
    could apply. QxBranch recently completed a study into quantum
    computing applications with Merck, the pharmaceutical company.
    We worked together to design a quantum algorithm and test it on
    today's available hardware, to look at an approach to
    optimizing the production of a particular drug. And the
    particular drug that they are interested in has an extremely
    challenging production optimization process involved. And
    quantum computing gave us the tools to look at the
    manufacturing process in an entirely different way that could
    radically change the efficiency of creating this drug and
    delivering value to the consumer. It is applications such as
    this that we are focused on at QxBranch, breakthroughs enabled
    by a new approach in computing that allows us to change the way
    we think about business and manufacturing processes. There are
    some challenges ahead, though, in realizing this technology,
    and the Federal Government can help us create the environment
    for industry to lead.
        The three biggest challenges I would like to highlight
    today, first the skills and workforce. As we have heard, if we
    are to be successful at bringing quantum computing to market we
    need a highly skilled, multidisciplinary, diverse workforce
    with core skills in quantum information science, computer
    science, data analytics, machine learning and AI, combined with
    germane expertise in finance, pharmaceuticals, energy and other
    industries. And we need American universities to send us
    graduates with these skills.
        The second is in international cooperation. As American
    companies compete in this emerging ecosystem, we will achieve
    our fullest success through international cooperation. There is
    valuable scientific research and engineering development that
    is being made elsewhere, including in key allies such as
    Australia, the U.K., Canada, Japan, and Singapore. We need to
    be able to access the best talent and technology globally and
    this means partnering.
        There will be national security considerations for this
    technology, of course, but if export restrictions are applied
    prematurely or without your consideration, it will stifle
    commercial innovation.
        Finally, we need to maximize and leverage private sector
    investment into this technology area. Over the past 18 months,
    we have seen an incredible acceleration in corporate R&D and
    venture capital flying into this technology. It is an exciting
    time, but I must stress that we are just at the beginning of
    this technology development. And the government can maximize
    and leverage this investment through targeted Federal funding
    and coordination to reduce the gaps and overlaps in R&D and
    help accelerate technology.
        So in closing, I would like to reiterate my appreciation
    for the opportunity to join you today and share a little about
    what we are doing at QxBranch and quantum computing. This
    subcommittee is addressing important issues that will help
    bring quantum computing to commercial reality and give us a
    powerful, new tool to create valuable software.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brett follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate all
    your testimony this morning, and that will conclude our
    witnesses' testimony this morning, and we will begin our
    questioning from the members. And I will now open with
    questions with 5 minutes. And pardon my allergies this morning,
    it is this time of year in Washington.
        First, I really appreciated reading your testimony last
    night, and a lot of questions in 5 minutes. But if I could
    start, Dr. Putman, with you, if I may, because I really was
    interested, so what impact does quantum computer have on
    manufacturing in the United States? Because, like, in my
    district, I have a unique district, I have 60,000 manufacturing
    jobs, and I also have the largest farm income producing
    district in the State of Ohio. And in your opening statement,
    you had mentioned about on the manufacturing side, you talked
    about with drugs and agriculture, energy, and this committee
    deals a lot with all that, and not really on the agricultural
    side, but I was really interested in that. And I would like to
    know, especially what the impact would be on manufacturing? And
    also, am I correct that it would both create new opportunities
    while disrupting those existing industries that are out there
    today?
        Mr. Putman. Thank you, Chairman Latta, my fellow Ohioan.
    This is, of course, extremely personal to me as well, being
    from Ohio and creating and trying to enable manufacturing work.
    What is important, I think, about your question, is that these
    are brand new industries. It is not just about disrupting
    current industries, it has been creating jobs that are for the
    next generation of technologies. And this is building, I think,
    interesting jobs as well for technologists of the future, and
    that goes through entire large factories. I mentioned the cost
    of a fab. It is not just the cost of building a fab, we would
    like to bring down the cost to build fabs. It is the
    opportunity for workers to be working with the latest of
    technologies. I think that the Midwest and the rest of the
    country as a whole can only benefit from this.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Dr. Monroe, what changes would be needed to ensure America
    has that workforce that is ready for quantum computing
    revolution? You will be hearing from the witnesses, we have to
    have that workforce out there in the training. So how do we get
    to that point? Do we need on the educational side, especially
    at the university levels, do we need universities that would
    specialize that in the field or what do we need to do?
        Mr. Monroe. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman
    Latta. There are a number of things that we can do as a country
    to foster this gap, this connection between university and
    government laboratory research and I said, industrial
    production. At the university side, I am sorry to say that most
    engineering and computer science departments haven't really
    embraced this field as Dr. Franklin mentioned.
        Mr. Latta. Why? Why not?
        Mr. Monroe. Well, I have my own thoughts on that. Actually
    my daughter is a computer science major at University of
    Maryland. And the computer science departments--the students
    are keen to get a high-paying job right after they graduate.
    Quantum computing, not that it is not a high paying job, but it
    is a very speculative field. And it is hard to identify exactly
    what the marketplace is. And I think--computer science
    departments and engineering departments, I think, they have not
    embraced this field as much as the sciences have. And I think
    that is changing at some places. My university, the University
    of Maryland is one of those, Chicago is another. There are
    several across the country that have done that, but it is not
    widespread. Many of these departments won't hire faculty that
    are doing research in this field. And I think Dr. Franklin
    mentioned the National Science Foundation is taking an active
    role in trying to change that by instituting new grant programs
    that foster the development of quantum computer science for
    instance.
        So that is on the university side. On the industry side, it
    is a tough nut to crack, because this new technology as I
    mentioned involves very exotic type hardware that industry
    doesn't have so much experience with. And it reminds me of, in
    history in the 1950s, when semiconductor devices were being
    developed and scaled, the people who did this over the many
    decades that gave rise to Moore's law including Gordon Moore,
    who founded who Intel, these were not vacuum tube engineers who
    had instituted the previous generation of computers. So it
    takes time, and it takes risk, and it takes funding from these
    corporations to do that.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And my time is about
    to expire, so I am going to yield back and recognize the
    gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I am starting to understand the much-used
    phrase taking a quantum leap, because really what you are
    talking about is of all the things that I think we have heard
    about the most disruptive, in a good way, and in a challenging
    way to the future. And so, I wanted to talk to Dr. Franklin
    about things I think I know more about, which is about
    education. And I do want to hear more about EPIC and the things
    that you are doing.
        But first, I want to hear about your efforts with younger
    students in a minute, but I want to first hear about what is
    happening at the graduate and undergraduate level. What I am
    hearing really from all of you is that workforce capacity is
    really a challenging issue. And if we are going to be
    competitive, and if we are going to keep up with countries that
    are making the EU and also China, then we need to get serious
    about making these public investments. But I am wondering if
    you can talk to me a little bit about the urgent need?
        Ms. Franklin. Yes. So I think Dr. Monroe mentioned that
    computer science hasn't had as much quantum in it. And I think
    it all comes back to those funding lapses, because our group
    and other groups started and the way courses get created is
    that graduate students get trained in a field, they go out and
    become professors, create classes and train more students.
    Those students need to be able to have jobs in order to make it
    worth it for them to take those courses. If no Federal
    funding--if a program gets canceled and you are two of six, and
    all of the Federal funding goes away, and then graduate
    students get put in other fields, you are not going to have an
    education program, and so that is what happened twice is that
    the Federal funding went completely away for the computer
    science portion of quantum computing. And so, groups that were
    active in getting into the field left the field.
        And so now, with this new stack funding and the new EPIC
    program that we have, and we are planning educational
    initiatives at all levels, including tutorials for
    professionals, we have a tutorial in June and a tutorial in
    October for professors and graduate students who are already in
    the field who want to transition to quantum computing. There is
    an initiative in the institute for molecular engineering at
    UChicago that has an undergraduate degree with a quantum track.
    We are partnering with them to create some computer science to
    add to that hardware track. And there is a program----
        Ms. Schakowsky. Is that the quantum engineering degree that
    you are talking about?
        Ms. Franklin. Yes. There is a quantum track of the
    molecular engineering degree, yes. And they also have a program
    to embed graduate students that are working in all areas of
    quantum with with companies. And so, we are participating in
    that. So we are trying to train other research groups so that
    they can start doing research in quantum.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Given the potential, it seems to me that we
    have to have some sort of almost like a moonshot mentality
    about investment. And you are so right about all kinds of
    research. If it is not steady and consistent, then we either
    have a brain drain, people go elsewhere, or that research app
    grinds a halt.
        But do tell me a bit about some of the things you are
    working on in the primary and high school level. That is also
    under your bailiwick, too, right?
        Ms. Franklin. Right. So at the elementary and middle school
    level, we are looking at not doing quantum computing per se,
    but computer science in general, because in order to have a
    quantum computer scientist, you need a computer scientist
    first. And so efforts like CSforALL are critical in getting
    computer science early because in science, anyway, if a student
    isn't thinking about becoming a scientist by sixth grade, they
    are statistically very unlikely to become a scientist. And so
    we believe the same thing may be true for computer science. So
    we want to have those initiatives early.
        On the physics side, we are looking at what are the aspects
    of quantum computing that are unintuitive when you get there?
    And one of them is this idea of measurement, Chris Monroe said
    that all the operations work fine until you look at them. And
    it is an issue that the measurement device actually perturbs
    the state. For example, if you had Matchbox cars and you wanted
    to see how fast they were going, you could put your hand out
    and feel how hard it hits your hand. But now that stopped the
    car. And so this idea that your choice of measurement actually
    affects the system. And in quantum computing you have no other
    choices. For a car you could video it and then calculate which
    one was faster, but we don't have that opportunity in quantum
    computing. And so those sorts of things that are very
    unintuitive can become intuitive if you just give the right
    examples at young ages.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I am pretty much out of time. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields lack.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, the
    vice chairman of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding.
    Thank you all for being here. I can understand about 50 percent
    of the things you say, so.
        Mr. Brett, in your testimony you stated that quantum
    computers will allow us to solve some of the most intractable
    and valuable computational problems that exist. Can you explain
    how doing so will benefit everyday Americans?
        Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman. There are some problems
    in computer science that as we add more variables to them, or
    more factors to them, become exponentially more difficult to
    solve. And so that means that the time that is required to
    solve that problem doubles every time we add a new variable to
    it. And so, we can reach a limit of our computational capacity
    to solve those kinds of problems very, very quickly, even with
    circuit computers and cloud computing that is available today.
        So for everyday Americans that are problems like how do we
    optimize our financial portfolio in our 401(k) where the amount
    of computational work that is required to do that is already
    immense. But if we want to include more factors involved in
    that and get the most efficiency for our portfolio, the scale
    of computational challenge increases exponentially and so
    quantum computing can help with that. We can take on more
    complex and more difficult problems and solve them in a much
    shorter time with a new type of machine.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Now I am going to be honest Dr. Putman,
    I really don't know what I am going to say here, so I am going
    to say it and hopefully you understand the question. OK.
        When you measure a qubit, it immediately changes its value
    to either a solid one or zero. So as I understand, which I
    don't, to manipulate a quantum computer, the operator needs to
    be able to make measurements indirectly without a qubit
    observing you doing so. How do you do that? And how does that
    match the capabilities of classic electronic computers and
    processors with billions of transistors?
        Mr. Putman. This is one I feel like I should have one of
    the quantum computing experts answer. This is something that
    occurs in physics that has been measured for many, many years.
    So how it is implemented becomes our greatest challenge, and
    there are several different ways to do it. Generally, you want
    to be in a situation where you control the atmosphere. While it
    is observable in nature, it is not as controllable as dealing
    with information series stringing of zeros and ones which just
    adds up in sums. I think I would like to have someone else
    explain the actual technology of how it might work. Dr. Monroe?
        Mr. Monroe. Sure. First I would like to add that you are in
    good company because Albert Einstein never accepted quantum
    mechanics. He didn't think it was complete.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So I am basically like Albert Einstein.
    Thank you, sir. I agree.
        Mr. Monroe. Analogies do wonders in all of science,
    especially in quantum mechanics. I agree with Dr. Franklin's
    statement that finding analogies, you can teach the concepts to
    young children in elementary school. I totally believe that.
        Here is an analogy for a qubit. It is a coin, imagine a
    coin, when we flip a coin, it is in a definite state all the
    time, but we might not know what it is or want to know all the
    details, but if you think of a coin as being quantum in, say,
    both heads and tails at the same time. Imagine now it is in a
    black box and you are not looking at it, so it is both heads
    and tails at the same time, but I want to control that coin, I
    want to maybe flip it. Let's say it is a weighted coin, so it
    is 90 percent heads and 10 percent tails. I want to flip the
    odds to be 90 percent tails and 10 percent heads. Well, we can
    do this from the outside world by just turning the box around,
    in a sense.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Actually, that makes sense.
        Mr. Monroe. So we don't know what the state was, we didn't
    measure it, we didn't betray the quantum system but we
    controlled it. And so to Dr. Putman's point, this is pretty
    exotic hardware, because the quantum stuff is inside and we
    have to keep our distance when we control it. We have to do
    things without looking and put quotes. What it means is that
    the system is so extremely well isolated that we don't get the
    information out. So a quantum computation involves
    manipulations like that. They can be much more complicated.
    Flip one qubit depending on the state of another, for instance,
    without looking--and it is possible to do that in a very small
    group set of technologies. Then at the end of the day, you
    unveil, you open the box, and you measure only one state, but
    it could be lots and lots of bits and that one answer could
    depend on exponentially many paths, exponentially many inputs
    in the device. As Mr. Brett mentioned, this can be put to use
    for real world problems, and logistics, and so forth.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Awesome. Well, thanks. Nice work. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. That is a large statue of Albert Einstein down
    the street, Mr. Vice Chairman, in front of the State
    Department. So you might get your statue there some time.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
        That was a good example. I am trying to understand this and
    move it forward. This is kind of in my family. I didn't get any
    of the genetics, but have a nephew at the University Chicago in
    the physics department going to CERN this summer. So he is in a
    different league than I am. So some of the discussion we hear
    is like he and my son talking to each other during Thanksgiving
    or whatever, he is a computer science and math person as well,
    working in Chicago, but in the financial industry.
        So I guess I am trying to figure out, or take in the
    theory, not really theory but the things that you are talking
    about that is hard to understand and make it to the real world.
        So first, Mr. Brett, I will go to you. Can you tell us a
    little bit about what your company is doing in the financial
    services area? That is where my son is in, in algorithms. He is
    in one of the quant guys, I guess, in hedge funds, but how
    quantum computing would be an improvement over classical
    computing. What difference does this make, I guess? And what is
    your firm doing in financial services to be better than what is
    currently there?
        Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman. The financial services
    sector is already a huge user of cloud compute technology. So
    they are using immense amounts of computational work, either on
    public clouds, like AWS or Microsoft, or their own private
    service. And it is important to understand that quantum
    computers won't replace classical computers. They will exist
    side by side in the cloud. And quantum computers will run some
    the algorithms that they are most efficient at. So in a mixed
    compute environment of financial services company will run
    their daily operation around compliance, portfolio,
    optimization, understanding risks, but send some of the
    algorithms that are in the program to the quantum computer to
    be most efficiently run.
        Mr. Guthrie. So what does that do different? In what way?
    How is that?
        Mr. Brett. So a quantum computer cannot allow us to solve
    some particular algorithms that cannot be solved on a classical
    machine in a useful timeframe. So we might be able to solve it
    over many, many years, or decades even, but what if we need the
    answer today? A quantum computer can help give us that speed
    advantage.
        Mr. Guthrie. So why wouldn't it completely replace the
    classical update if it gets to that?
        Mr. Brett. It is too expensive, and also, there are some
    problems that quantum computers can't do. So quantum computers
    aren't particularly good, for example, at addition or
    subtraction, so we leave those to classical computers to do
    that work, and quantum computers specialize in what they are
    good at, which is optimization problems.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. This is a little harder for my mental
    capacity to understand something that can't do math, but can do
    other things, but simple math, I guess. So I am at addition
    subtraction level. I am not an Einstein like my friend, Mr.
    Kinzinger.
        So Dr. Putman, in your testimony--I am trying to get back
    to reality--you did find the problem scarcity as one that
    quantum computing could help solve. And how might quantum
    computing disrupt traditional models of how resources are
    created and distributed in an economy?
        Mr. Putman. Thank you, Congressman.
        Often, there is an enormous amount of waste in the way that
    we currently produce anything. This is not due to humans caring
    to produce waste, or a problem with this in general, it is due
    to our inability to comprehend and to simulate and to build.
    The more precise we are on a molecular level, the better we are
    at being able to do that. The examples that I used such as
    fertilizer, for instance, or of material science, a classical
    computer gets very rough examples of how to actually build
    something and understand what is going on molecularly. The more
    we are able to do that in ways that quantum computing allows,
    the more we can explore the space of possibilities. When we
    explore that space and understand it, it gives us a chance to
    create it. This just is not possible with humans alone, or with
    our classic computing systems. This applies to many areas that
    we could go on about.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Mr. Putman. But certainly in manufacturing, it creates an
    entirely different way of doing manufacturing when we are
    precise.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. When we are doing votes in the cloakroom,
    I am going to let Adam further explain this to me. So I am
    willing to do that moving forward. Thanks.
        I understand it is just such a difficult concept for people
    not in your space to understand, but it is exciting stuff. I
    have about 30 seconds. But Dr. Monroe, I know Dr. Putman
    mentioned about qubits, how many in quantum computers. But here
    is a question, is what is the signal-to-noise ratio per qubits?
    For which I mean, how many qubits does one need for a useful
    quantum computer? And of those, how many would actually be
    performing calculations?
        Mr. Monroe. Ah, thank you for the question. I probably
    won't answer it to your liking.
        Mr. Guthrie. To my understanding. Probably to my liking,
    just not to my understanding.
        Mr. Monroe. We don't know yet how many qubits are needed
    for something useful that can displace conventional computers.
    However, a relatively small number of about 75 or 100 qubits is
    enough to show certain, very esoteric and narrow, maybe not
    useful, problems can be solved that cannot be solved using
    conventional computers. That doesn't mean they are useful. And
    so it is sort of a proof of principle, and that is going to
    happen very soon. But then the question after that happens,
    once we are beyond that milepost, the idea is to find something
    useful. And I think the only way to find something useful is to
    put these devices in the hands of people that don't know or
    care what is inside the devices, sort of like my smartphone. I
    don't really want to know what is inside. And to build these
    devices, I use the word ``exotic'' a lot; it is exotic hardware
    to build these devices. It takes a new generation of engineers.
    And it may be that we need hundreds, it may be that we need
    thousands or more of these qubits for something useful.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
    this important hearing. Thank you to our panelists today for
    being here. From what I can tell, all of you clearly believe in
    the future of quantum computing, that is great. Still, there
    are some very smart people out there who are skeptical that
    quantum computing won't ever become a practical reality. They
    say for instance that quantum computers are too unstable and
    error-prone to be harnessed for real world problem-solving.
        Dr. Franklin, and anybody else who wants to comment on
    this, how do you respond to those skeptics? And what do you see
    as the biggest hurdles to a real world application for quantum
    computing?
        Ms. Franklin. Well, I think that if we made decisions based
    on that assumption then we clearly won't build a quantum
    computer. And if we are wrong, the stakes are far too high,
    because other countries will make one, and then they will be
    able to decrypt all of the messages--there are so many
    advantages, if it can be realized, that we don't want to be the
    ones who decide early and then are wrong. And we are making
    great strides.
        Yes, right now, quantum computers are very small and very
    error-prone. And so physicists like Dr. Monroe are working on
    making them more stable, larger, longer running. And then there
    is the piece in between. It used to be that classical computers
    were very large in size, but very few bits and couldn't do very
    much. What we could do in the 1980s in supercomputers is on
    your smartphone now. And so we don't know what can be done, and
    we need to put the resources in to see where we can go, because
    the stakes are just too high.
        Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Monroe.
        Mr. Monroe. I would add on to that, I think, the question
    the same technology we used to build quantum computers is also
    used for quantum communication and quantum sensors. And these
    are real-world applications that can be and are deployed right
    now.
        On the sensor side, the ability to detect signals remotely,
    the optical techniques, or to detect mass, which means if you
    are underwater, you need to know where you are to navigate. If
    you are exploring for oil, you need to know what is underneath
    the rock. Is it oil? Is it water? Those sensors, the limiting
    signal to noise in those sensors is given by quantum mechanics,
    we actually exceed those seemingly fundamental limits, in some
    cases. I mention this because that same type of technology is
    used in quantum computers. I do believe that quantum computers
    are most disruptive of all these technologies, but along the
    path toward that, there will be other spinoffs.
        Quantum communication is largely photonic, optics as we
    communicate now over long distance. You can also do this with
    single particles of light, photons. And photons can--these are
    wonderful quantum bits that can be used for quantum computing
    in some cases, but they can also be used to send data in ways
    that are hack-proof. If somebody tries to observe it, they
    change it, they can cut the line always, they destroy your
    communication, but they can't intercept it and understand it.
    So what does that have to do with quantum computing? If you are
    going to build a big quantum computer, it is going to be a
    network. It is going to have optics that fiberize little
    modules on a computer. None of this hardware really exists
    today to couple those photons to quantum memories in qubits. I
    would hang my hat on quantum computing being the most
    disruptive of all of them, but along the way many other
    technologies related.
        Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Franklin, you started to get into
    something that I wanted to ask--have got about 1 minute and 15
    seconds left or so--encryption and the application of quantum
    computing to encryption and the potential for it to render in
    encryption obsolete. Can you talk me through that and what is
    the reality of that?
        Ms. Franklin. Yes, so encryption is all based on the idea
    that doing one operation is much harder than undoing it. It is
    a lot easier to multiply two numbers than it is to divide or
    factor a number. And so there is a quantum computing algorithm
    that actually takes a lot this and so that is not one of the
    near-term applications, but that makes it so that factoring the
    very numbers that are used to create those keys that are
    required to encrypt and decrypt, can be broken down very easily
    to their components, and their components are necessary to
    decrypt. And so if we get a quantum computer of that size, we
    are going to have to figure out completely new encryption
    algorithms that use mathematical functions that a quantum
    computer cannot do quickly.
        Mr. Kennedy. And is that time horizon, can you put a time
    horizon that actually takes a lot on that.
        Ms. Franklin. Chris?
        Mr. Monroe. So this factoring problem, it is among the
    hardest out of there. You probably need tens of thousands of
    qubits, quanta bits and millions, or more, maybe even billions
    of operations. I will say, however, the problem is so important
    that you need to know--you don't want a quantum computer just
    to break messages. You want to know when one exists, that
    impacts how you encrypt now. We are talking political time
    scale, so if a computer exists in 30 years, that could impact
    how you encrypt things now, so you may want to be ahead of the
    game and change the encryption standards based on when a
    quantum computer will exists, and it is very, very hard to
    predict 30 years in the future what technology will bring us.
        Mr. Kennedy. If you can predict what is going to happen
    tomorrow, we should hang out more. Thanks very much. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it. I will be as brief as I can to get everyone else
    in.
        Mr. Brett, in your testimony, you identify three classes of
    applications that are possible in the near term, and I know you
    talked about these earlier.
        Can you briefly explain why you expect those to be the most
    possible in the near term?
        Mr. Brett. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        With the earliest quantum computers, like the type that
    Chris Monroe is building at the moment, the first versions of
    these won't have error correction on them. And so the kind of
    applications that we can build need to able to accommodate
    errors and the potential imprecisions that come along with
    that. And so the kind of applications that are best suited to
    early stage quantum computers are those which are the most
    tolerant or resilient to error. And those are things like
    optimization problems, working with chemical simulation and
    machine-learning-type problems because the kind of algorithms
    we run on there are based on probabilities. And so we already
    get a probabilistic-type answer from classical computers out of
    that, and a quantum computer best matches what is possible
    there.
        So the early stage applications are those that are more
    probabilistic, more resilient to error. And then, as the
    computers become more capable and better, we will be able to
    take on the harder type problems that require error correction
    around that.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you.
        This next question is for the panel. Will quantum computers
    be something that anyone can use, which is important, or will
    it require a highly sensitive operating environment, such as
    that only a handful would be able to operate?
        Why don't we start from over here, from afar, please.
        Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Congressman.
        It has to be something that has user interfaces that are
    possible for everyone in order for it to be incredibly
    relevant. The physics and the hardware behind it, just like the
    hardware and the physics behind everything else we do, will
    have a lot of specialists involved with it. But it is important
    for us, it is a challenge and important for us that this is
    something that is in the hands of anybody.
        So I think absolutely.
        Mr. Bilirakis. So it is not going to require additional
    training or anything like that----
        Mr. Putnam. Well, only to the extent that everything we do
    requires some amount of training until it becomes so
    commonplace that it becomes natural.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
        If you could comment on that, please.
        Mr. Monroe. Sure. Thank you for the question. I will be
    very brief.
        I think the answer is it will be very much like current
    computers. The use of current computers to program in certain
    languages takes some training. It will be a different type of a
    language.
        But the fact that there are individual atoms in the device
    at the end of the wire will be lost on the user, and it should
    be. They don't need to know that. They need to know the rules,
    the programming language, and what it can solve.
        So I think the answer will be affirmative.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
        Ms. Franklin. Yes. I think there are sort of three levels.
    One is the hardware. We are seeing quantum cloud computation,
    so I think it is likely that you won't buy one and maybe have
    it in your pocket. But at least the cloud resources will be
    there.
        And as a user, you may not even know that you are using a
    quantum algorithm. The services that you use will have
    programmers who have made a combination of quantum algorithms
    and classical algorithms and send that computation to the
    cloud. When you do a Google search, something like a hundred
    programs respond off for that one search to figure out, is it
    an airline, is it a mathematical--all these different things.
        In terms of the ability to program it, that is where the
    most work has to come in. Right now, the amount of expertise
    needed to program these is insane. It is a high level of
    expertise. But that is how it was when the first women
    programmers were given a spec of the first computer and said,
    ``Here. Program this,'' right?
        They did it from the hardware. That is essential where we
    are. It is very tied to the hardware. So we need to figure out
    what are those abstractions that are still useful computingwise
    but also understandable to people who are the current level of
    a traditional computer scientist or even an application
    developer.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good.
        Please.
        Mr. Brett. Thank you for the question.
        I fully agree with my fellow panelists that we believe that
    you shouldn't need to have a degree in quantum physics to
    program a quantum computer. And so that is exactly what we are
    doing at QxBranch, is building the software that enables
    regular software engineers and computer scientists to create
    applications and to do so without needing to know the
    intricacies of what exactly is happening down at the molecular
    scale.
        I will also point out that quantum computing is already
    becoming accessible. So, in the cloud today, IBM, for example,
    have released a quantum computer that we can all access. It is
    at IBM.com/quantum. We can go there this afternoon, do a short
    course on quantum computing programming, and start to build up
    that knowledge and understanding of what is possible and start
    to build those skills for the future.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
    Virginia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, again, thank you for continuing to put before us in
    our hearings some very provocative thoughts and through this
    disrupter series. We have dealt with, over the past 2 years,
    some very curious and innovative and, for me, as one of two
    engineers in Congress, exciting possibilities where we might go
    with this. So I am fascinated with it, but I am also--I am
    sorry that the other side of the aisle didn't show up today.
    But I was curious to hear more of what Kennedy was talking
    about, the skepticism, because when I looked a little into
    that, there is some skepticism. And one of the articles I was
    reading a couple days ago had to do with reliability of the
    results.
        So I know from doing my own engineering calculation that we
    can--at the end of the day, we know whether that result makes
    sense. But what happens when we use quantum computing if we
    get--and I think, Monroe, I think you might have said if they
    are error prone, do we rely on the result? How do we question
    it? If we are relying on our computers to give us the answer
    and then we get the answer, how do we know it is wrong? Or how
    do we know it is right because of all the variables that you
    have all talked about here?
        Do you want to answer that?
        Mr. Monroe. Yes. Thank you for the question. A very good
    one.
        I think it speaks to the--so far, the limited research of
    what a quantum computer is useful for. There exist problems,
    like the factoring problem; you can easily check it. Fifteen is
    equal to five times three. When that 15 is a huge number, you
    can't do it using regular computers, but you can multiply your
    answer together to check and see if it worked.
        Mr. McKinley. Talk about encryption.
        Mr. Monroe. Yes. If you can factor large numbers, you can
    break the popular types of encryption algorithms out there now.
    And if you think you have a code breaker, you can check it
    quickly.
        And so almost all applications of quantum computers, they
    are either checkable against some standard, or they could be
    better than any classical approach. Say, for instance, in the
    financial market or some logistics problem where there is a
    cost function, it is in real dollars, and you are trying to
    minimize the cost subject to an uncountable number of
    constraints and configurations of the marketplace, for
    instance.
        Well, if your quantum computer comes up with a result that
    has lower costs than any conventional computer could compute,
    then you found a different solution.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. A couple quick points here to follow back
    up.
        I can see there is a lot more--again, fascinating. I want
    to read more. This whole idea has triggered me to do a little
    bit more research in this as well.
        But let's talk about the timetables. Right now, yes, some
    elementary units are out there. But what is the metric? Where
    is the goal? Where do we want to achieve? And how do we know
    whether we are there? And, secondly with that, what is the role
    of Congress on this?
        Is this just more money into research? You talk about
    building plants or facilities so that we could build these
    qubits? Is this what it is? What role is government?
        Mr. Monroe. Well, thank you for the question.
        Again, I mentioned the idea of a national quantum
    initiative and the crux of that initiative is to establish,
    indeed, a small number of hub laboratories. They are not new
    buildings.
        Mr. McKinley. These are hub zones or hub lab--yes.
        Mr. Monroe. Yes. Quantum innovation laboratories. They
    could be at existing university, Department of Energy, or
    Department of Defense laboratories, collaborations with
    industry, hubs where students and industrial players are all in
    the same sandpit.
        And each of these hubs--there will be a small number of
    them--they would focus on a very particular aspect of quantum
    information or sensing or quantum computing. Maybe develop
    particular brand of qubit, for instance.
        And the point here is to foster the generation, a new
    generation, of engineers in that particular technology.
    Industry will be able to connect more vitally with the
    university and a potential workforce. Students could have ----
        Mr. McKinley. Are we trying to develop a standard qubit?
        Mr. Monroe. I think it is too early to do that now. I think
    we have several different technologies, and they will probably
    all find different uses. Sort of like now we have a CPU on a
    computer. We have memory. There are all kinds of different
    components, different hardwares that are good for different
    things. And we will probably see that in quantum as well.
        Mr. McKinley. OK. Again, what is the timetable?
        Ms. Franklin. Well, I think it depends on the application.
    Encryption might be 30 years off. But we have got 50 qubit
    machines now that are growing. And so these near-term
    applications, like optimization, are on the horizon, maybe 5
    years. The hardware is coming along very quickly. I think
    that--and some software, but this is the first I have heard of
    a software company. I am very excited.
        But that middleware. There is software that needs to be
    created that makes it so that algorithms that assume perfect
    hardware can be modified to use this near-term hardware so that
    we don't have to wait as long and can help close that gap
    between the assumptions of the software and the realities of
    the hardware.
        Dr. McKinley. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you for being here. It is a
    fascinating subject. I was a surgeon before, so I am kind of a
    scientist. I am interested in this. My daughter is sophomore at
    Cornell in computer science. So she is, obviously.
        I am going to take a little different pathway here on
    questioning and stay away from the technical stuff and go
    toward research funding. And I was on a committee before that
    had jurisdiction over National Science Foundation. I am from
    Indiana. I went to all the universities and talked to the NSF
    funded researchers. And the one thing that I found is--first of
    all, I support that, right? I am a big supporter of research.
    One thing I found is, if I said, ``Hey, tell me why what you
    are doing should continue to get funding from the National
    Science Foundation.'' Just a simple question, right? I found
    probably 90 percent of the people that I spoke to couldn't, in
    a really tight way, explain that. And for me, they can explain
    it in complex way. And I am like, ``Oh, yes. I get it.''
        But people like me have to explain this to 700,000 people
    that we represent in a way that if we are going to justify
    Federal dollars and taxpayer dollars, we have to be able to
    give a so-called elevator speech and say--and one example, I
    think this is 4 or 5 years ago that was kind of in the press
    was about a funded researcher--and this is not a criticism--
    that was having seniors play video games. And so it got in the
    press, and people said, ``Well, why would you fund that?''
        Well, as it turns out, it was Alzheimer's research. You see
    what I am saying? And very valid, very important research. But
    to try to explain that, when it is written in a line,
    government funds video game; having people be better video game
    players doesn't play very well, and so people like me have a
    hard time explaining that.
        So I guess what I am getting at is--and I guess this will
    be primarily for the people from the universities--is what is
    your pitch for more funding for quantum computing? That is
    something, you have already explained it to me, and I get it.
    But if we are going to explain it to the broader Members of
    Congress and our constituents, how do we explain that, why we
    should do that?
        Does that make sense?
        Mr. Monroe. Yes, it does. Thank you for the question,
    Congressman.
        Yes. I did speak at length about these very targeted type
    hubs. And it should be sort of self-evident what these are
    about. They are developing technology. They are more technology
    centers.
        But there must be an undercurrent of foundational research,
    and this is something the National Science Foundation, they are
    a very special agency in that regard. Fundamental research is
    very inefficient, and we can never tell what is around the
    corner. And you can never predict what is going to hit and
    what----
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes. You don't know what you don't know,
    right?
        Mr. Monroe. Yes. That is right.
        And as the Science Foundation takes all-comers and they
    will have to play an important role in any national quantum
    initiative in the future, because there may be quantum
    technologies that don't exist now. And maybe in 10 years, due
    to some surprise and some weirdo material, we see that, oh,
    they behave as wonderful qubits.
        So, again, it is too bad that it is inefficient, but the
    home runs are far reaching, and this field will probably rely
    on those in the coming decades.
        Mr. Bucshon. Dr. Franklin.
        Ms. Franklin. Yes. It depends on how long you are in the
    elevator. I think the pitch for quantum computers starts with
    the killer apps of drug design for Alzheimer's, right? It is
    projected that 40 percent of the Medicaid budget is going to go
    toward Alzheimer's by 2040.
        So, these are real problems. And if we could model the
    molecules and figure out exactly how nitrogen gets fixed and
    put into fertilizer, we could have much lower energy, food
    production. And so these are big deals, right? And those are
    things that can't be done with classical computing.
        Then the next step is you have to tie the researchers to
    those problems. And that is what sometimes researchers aren't
    good at conveying. But that is why I do think that the calls--
    we are at the cusp of commercialization, and it might be an
    appropriate time for even the NSF funding to be looking at the
    broader impacts more. So our group is making tools that
    everyone can use, and so that is something that we can hang on
    to, right?
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. The other thing I am interested in is
    technology transfer, obviously, because that is, as you know, a
    huge problem, not only in this area but across the research
    fields. What percentage of research goes, that is probably
    potentially commercially useful. It just goes into a black
    hole.
        And I know I am short on time, but maybe, Mr. Brett, you
    can comment, how we can do better on technology transfer
    because it is a pretty big problem, really.
        Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman.
        And we agree. As a small business that is looking to
    commercialize some of these innovations, how do we get access
    to some of the great work that is being done at the
    universities and to incorporate that?
        Mr. Bucshon. Because it is proprietary, right, sometimes?
    That is some of the problem maybe, right? People are willing--
    if they put the research out there, they are worried somebody
    will steal it, so to speak, right?
        Mr. Brett. An approach that has been particularly
    successful for us is being able to partner with universities on
    research grants and so for--as an R&D business to also
    participate in the collaboration of that research and
    contribute to the science and the publication around that and
    share some of that intellectual property on a joint project
    together. And I think that that cross between the commercial
    sector and the research sector working together on funded
    proposals will enable a lot of that technology transfer.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. My time is up.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, the gentleman yields back.
        And I first want to thank our panel for being here today.
    One of the great things about serving on this committee and
    because we do have such wide jurisdiction, I always say it is
    like looking over the horizon 5 to 10 years, that we hear it
    here first. And we want to make sure that our nation is on that
    cutting edge.
        And I am going to say something about some of our folks
    that were asking questions. They were a little bit on the
    modest side. I have a former Air Force pilot, a West Point
    grad, an engineer, and cardiothoracic surgeon over here. So
    they are not limited in knowledge.
        But what you gave us today was very, very informative
    because, again, we have to make sure that, as we go forward as
    a committee, that we are making the right decisions as we go
    on.
        And the gentlelady also would like to make a comment too.
    So I just want to thank you all. But I will finish up the
    ending, but I will let the gentlelady right now.
        Ms. Schakowksy. Thank you.
        China is building a $10 billion quantum lab right now. And
    they expect to be finished by 2020. And the EU is investing
    about $2 billion in advanced quantum technology. So I think one
    of the answers in terms of why we should be serious about
    making investments may be decryption is--and encryption is--
    some decades away. But from a national security perspective, I
    think that there are a lot of reasons that we should take this
    seriously and make the investments. And, of course, all the
    practical things about agriculture and pharmaceuticals, et
    cetera, is very, very important, disease cures.
        But it seems to me that, despite maybe some skepticism,
    there is enough evidence right now that really ought to be an
    important priority. So I just want to thank you very much. You
    really did enlighten me.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        And seeing that we have no further members that are going
    to be asking questions today, pursuant to committee rules, I
    remind members that they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses
    submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of
    questions.
        And, without objection, the subcommittee will stand
    adjourned.
        Thank you very much for attending today.
        [Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
    before the subcommittee today to discuss quantum computing and
    your work in the field. Part of our job at the Energy and
    Commerce Committee is to explore ideas and issues that have the
    potential to radically alter the way Americans work and live.
        Our Disrupter Series allows us to spotlight the emerging
    technologies that might one day fundamentally change the status
    quo. Quantum computing is just one such innovation that is
    still on the cutting edge of development.
        Quantum computers could one day revolutionize materials
    simulation, data analysis, medicine, machine learning,
    communications, and countless other fields. At the same time,
    challenges remain to the development of quantum computers
    because of their complex and unique operational needs.
        Nevertheless, the race is on and the stakes are high. The
    U.S. is locked in competition with China, Russia, and Europe to
    develop a practical and commercially available quantum
    computer.
        Research into this promising technology is happening across
    the country. America's universities are leading the way, with
    advanced research taking place at dozens of institutions
    nationwide.
        One such effort is at my alma mater, the University of
    Oregon, where Nobel-prize winning physicist David Wineland and
    other members of the physics department are wrestling with this
    complex project. Just last month it was announced that
    researchers from U of O, along with those from Duke, UC
    Berkley, MIT, Johns Hopkins, and others, have received funding
    from the U.S. Army Reserve Office to help develop quantum
    technologies. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://edgylabs.com/lsu-receives-federal-grant-to-develop-
    quantum-technologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The mind-bending ideas inherent to the physics of quantum
    computing are difficult to grasp.
        Particles that exist in multiple states simultaneously--
    light and matter existing as both particle and wave; entangled
    atoms that can share their physical connection even when
    separated across the universe --these are complicated topics.
    As the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr has been quoted as
    saying, ``Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not
    understood it.''
        This makes it all the more remarkable that efforts to
    harness these principles for widespread use are well underway.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how far we
    have come in developing a practical quantum computer, and how
    far we have yet to go.
        The experts before us today will help the committee gain a
    better understanding of the complicated physics that underlie
    these efforts, and how important it is that America remains at
    the forefront of this innovation.
        The entrepreneurial spirit of the United States has no
    equal. Here at the Energy and Commerce Committee, it is our
    goal to support U.S. innovation and the jobs and economic
    growth produced as a result. Every day, American innovators
    accomplish things that were previously thought unimaginable.
        I thank the witnesses for your time today, and the
    important work you are doing.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
                                  ----------

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        I do not pretend to understand some of the concepts at the
    core of quantum computing. It is reassuring to me that even
    Einstein struggled with these ideas.
        Fortunately, I do not need to be an expert to understand
    that quantum computers may someday be able to perform
    calculations far beyond the capacity of even the fastest
    supercomputers. I also appreciate that these computers have
    great potential to solve many now- unsolvable real world
    problems.
        The development of life-saving drugs is just one example.
    Today, new drug development takes years, produces many false
    leads, and costs billions of dollars. A quantum computer could
    be used to predict how molecules, proteins, and chemicals
    interact with each other and with human cells. The result:
    safer more effective drugs, for treating Alzheimer's, cancer,
    or opioid addiction, get to market sooner and at more
    affordable prices.
        The technology has many other promising applications for
    agriculture, climate study, financial analysis, supply chain
    management, traffic control, and more.
        At the same time, quantum computing could open a Pandora's
    Box for security, rendering all modern encryption obsolete. In
    theory, a quantum computer could someday crack codes in mere
    seconds that would take a traditional computer thousands of
    years to decipher. That milestone would completely change the
    global balance of power.
        I am looking forward to learning more from our panelists
    about just how theoretical these applications are, and how long
    it will take for them to become a reality. Despite dramatic
    progress in the past two or three years, there are still major
    hurdles to overcome before fully functional quantum computers
    are solving real-world problems.
        We may not know with certainty when quantum computing will
    be a reality. We may not be able to predict all of its
    potential uses. We can, however, identify and address current
    obstacles to progress. Two clear obstacles are funding and
    workforce training.
        The federal government must support quantum computing
    research as well as basic scientific research. And those
    dollars must be continuous and predictable.
        We also must be mindful that other countries are investing
    heavily in quantum computing and we must stay globally
    competitive. China, for instance, is building a 10 billion-
    dollar national lab by 2020, and the European Union plans to
    invest two billion euros over the next 10 years.
        People are just as essential as dollars, but right now
    there is a profound gap in education and training. The field
    needs more computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers
    with a solid grasp of quantum mechanics. Undergraduate and
    graduate programs that combine these disciplines, however, are
    rare. And students of all ages must be exposed to the
    principles of quantum computing from an early age all the way
    through graduate programs. We are fortunate to have Professor
    Diana Franklin here today to speak to the education and
    training gaps. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from her
    and all of our witnesses.
                                  ----------

                                     [all]