    [Senate Hearing 115-530]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-530

    THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S EFFORTS IN THE FIELD OF QUANTUM INFORMATION
                                    SCIENCE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
                                  __________

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    32-266                     WASHINGTON : 2020

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
      Brianne Miller, Senior Professional Staff Member and Energy Policy
                                    Advisor
                 Dr. Benjamin Reinke, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Scott McKee, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from Illinois..............     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Dabbar, Hon. Paul M., Under Secretary for Science, U.S.
      Department of Energy...........................................     4
    Guha, Dr. Supratik, Professor, Institute for Molecular
      Engineering, University of Chicago, and Director of the Center
      for Nanoscale Materials and Senior Science Advisor, Argonne
      National Laboratory............................................    13
    Holmdahl, Todd, Corporate Vice President, Quantum, Microsoft
      Corpo-
      ration.........................................................    18
    Siddiqi, Dr. Irfan, Faculty Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National
      Laboratory, Professor, University of California, Berkeley, and
      Director, Berkeley Quantum.....................................    33

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Carter, Emily A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    89
    Dabbar, Hon. Paul M.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     6
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    71
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Guha, Dr. Supratik:
        Opening Statement............................................    13
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    74
    Holmdahl, Todd:
        Opening Statement............................................    18
        Written Testimony............................................    20
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    79
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Siddiqi, Dr. Irfan:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    36
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    84

    THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S EFFORTS IN THE FIELD OF QUANTUM INFORMATION
                                    SCIENCE

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Senate
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We will come to
    order as we convene for a hearing on quantum information
    science (QIS).
        As I came into the hearing room the hallways were packed
    with reporters and I thought, yes, we are finally here.
        [Laughter.]
        We have such excitement and enthusiasm about quantum
    information science. We do have a full committee room, and I
    think that is good.
        I welcome each of you as experts in this area, an
    opportunity for us to learn more. We are here because our
    nation has never shied away from tackling the world's biggest
    scientific challenges. Whether mapping the human genome or
    landing on the moon, we have seen how committed research
    efforts can truly change the world.
        Today we face another outsized scientific challenge. As
    computing power nears the realization of Moore's law, newer,
    faster, and more efficient means of computing will be required.
    That is where quantum computing, and the broader field of
    quantum information science, comes in. Quantum promises to
    revolutionize the speed and the scale at which we process data
    which could enable discoveries and advances that border on
    science fiction.
        The potential reward from investments in quantum are
    tremendous, and we are hardly the only ones to recognize that.
    A number of other countries and the European Union (EU) are
    devoting significant sums to develop this technology, none more
    so than China which recently announced a $10 billion
    investment.
        But I think we know here in this country that we always
    want to stay ahead of the curve. To that end the Department of
    Energy (DOE) is exploring ways to leverage resources and form
    partnerships to solve these challenges and that is a reflection
    of how we chose our witnesses today, with the Under Secretary
    for Science joined by representatives from the labs, university
    and industry.
        We are very glad to have all of you here today, although I
    will note that it was another company, it was Intel, who caught
    my attention on this based on their decision to name a new
    superconducting test chip after a chain of lakes in Alaska.
    This is Tangle Lake, which is also a reference to the extreme
    cold temperatures and snarled state that quantum bits desire to
    function.
        The technology is complicated, so I am going to leave those
    details to you and ask you to help educate us, again, as our
    expert witnesses. But, I think, also recognizing opportunities
    that exist with quantum are also easy to understand, quantum
    science could allow for breakthroughs in energy, medicine,
    communications and almost every other facet of our lives. So
    great possibilities here.
        I am proud to be working with the House Science Committee
    and the Senate Commerce Committee on quantum legislation. I am
    glad to see strong interest in this subject, as evidenced by
    the Administration's summit on quantum which was held yesterday
    at the White House.
        We have a lot of work in front of us and, as that proceeds,
    I want to make clear that funding for quantum is not a
    replacement for the investments that we need to make in
    supercomputing and exascale computing. Instead, we should see
    quantum as a tool that will augment and improve our nation's
    computing capability and work in tandem with more traditional
    computing capabilities.
        Again, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
    panel. I will turn to Senator Duckworth this morning for her
    opening comments. Thank you for being here this morning and
    filling in for Senator Cantwell.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
    you for scheduling this important hearing to examine the
    Department of Energy's efforts in the field of quantum
    information science.
        The only thing I know about quantum information is I can
    spell it.
        [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. We are learning.
        Senator Duckworth. We are learning, we are learning.
        But it certainly is vital to, not just science, but our
    economic competitiveness on a global scale.
        Quantum information science is a wide-ranging area of
    research that is expected to lay the groundwork for the next
    generation of computing as well as an array of other innovative
    technologies. Quantum technologies can result in breakthroughs
    with applications in sensing, communications, computing and
    simulation. They also have potential to address some of the
    world's most challenging problems and the United States is
    poised to be a leader in this development.
        Researchers at private companies, universities and national
    labs across the country, but especially in my home State of
    Illinois, are leading in the development of quantum
    technologies. Although most states do not have any national
    labs, Illinois is blessed with two. Both Fermi and Argonne are
    global leaders in the area of quantum information science. For
    example, in Illinois we have the Chicago Quantum Exchange which
    is a collaboration between the University of Chicago, Argonne
    and Fermi for advancing academic, industrial and governmental
    efforts in the science and engineering of quantum information.
    These partnerships between the private sector, universities and
    national labs create efficiencies for research and they must be
    well funded to continue making progress in this field.
        I am pleased that the Department of Energy plans to invest
    just over $100 million in quantum-related research next year.
    And just yesterday, I am pleased to announce that DOE announced
    $218 million in funding in this field. DOE should continue and
    expand its quantum research program for both fundamental
    science and providing access to the necessary science
    infrastructure. Quantum information science research is
    primarily basic, fundamental scientific research at this stage,
    and there is a clear federal role in making these science
    investments. These investments will be pivotal in maintaining
    U.S. leadership for quantum technologies and ensuring that the
    United States' competitiveness while other countries like China
    are also investing billions in research. As we continue to
    invest more into research and infrastructure of quantum
    sciences, it is clear that there will be an increasing need for
    people to perform jobs in this growing industry. This is the
    future. The Department of Energy should work with other federal
    agencies and these existing regional collaborations to develop
    a program to ensure that there will be a qualified and trained
    workforce for future quantum development.
        I would like to end my remarks by extending a warm welcome
    to all of the witnesses and to give special thanks to Dr. Guha
    who is testifying today on behalf of Argonne National
    Laboratory. Dr. Guha is a Senior Science Advisor at Argonne
    National Laboratory and the Director of the Center for
    Nanoscale Materials there. He is also a Professor at the
    Institute for Molecular Engineering at the University of
    Chicago. Dr. Guha came to Argonne at the University of Chicago
    in 2015 after spending 20 years at IBM Research where he was
    Director of Physical Sciences. While there, he pioneered the
    Materials Research that led to IBM's high dielectric constant
    metal gate transistor, one of the most significant developments
    in silicon microelectronics technology. Dr. Guha has
    specialized in the discovery science of new materials for
    information processing (IP). I am personally thrilled he is
    with us today.
        So, once again, I thank the Chair for holding this very
    important hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our
    witnesses.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        We will begin with our panel which will be led off this
    morning by the Honorable Paul Dabbar, who is the Under
    Secretary for Science for the Department of Energy. Welcome
    back to the Committee.
        He will be followed by Dr. Supratik Guha, who has just been
    introduced by Senator Duckworth, who is jointly associated with
    the University of Chicago and Argonne National Lab. Welcome.
        Mr. Todd Holmdahl is the Corporate Vice President, Quantum,
    with Microsoft.
        Rounding out the panel we have Dr. Irfan Siddiqi, who is
    the Director of Berkeley Quantum. This is a strategic
    partnership between Berkeley Lab and UC Berkeley.
        We welcome each of you to the Committee. We ask that you
    try to keep your comments to about five minutes. We will have
    an opportunity for questions and your responses following that.
        Under Secretary Dabbar, if you would lead us off.

    STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL M. DABBAR, UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE,
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Acting
    Ranking Member Duckworth and members of the Committee, I'm
    pleased for this opportunity to discuss the emerging field of
    quantum information science to highlight the potential for our
    nation's continued economic competitiveness and national
    security.
        First, I would like to thank this Committee and the whole
    Chamber for the support on innovation in sciences. The amount
    of focus of resources that have been applied are at an all time
    high, and we very much appreciate the leadership of this
    Committee and the others on the investment and innovation for
    this country.
        QIS represents a new frontier in information technology.
    Unlike today's computers, which rely on transistors, quantum
    applications use elementary particles like photons or electrons
    to store and use data. Such applications are challenging but
    they also open new opportunities.
        They are needed because Moore's Law, which was predicted by
    Intel's co-founder, Gordon Moore, that the computing capacity
    would double on a regular basis is slowing down due to physical
    limitations. Transistors are now down to the size of three
    atoms. It's becoming increasingly difficult for us to go even
    further. That's where the Department comes in since we have a
    long history as a global leader in computing as well as in
    particle physics which are the two enabling technologies.
        This past June our summit supercomputer at Oak Ridge was
    named the fastest supercomputer in the world and the most
    powerful artificial intelligence machine in the world. Today,
    we're actively pursuing exascale. The promise of quantum
    computing is complementary to classical information systems
    while holding the potential to do some computations more
    successfully and more speedily than classical systems.
        There are three main types of QIS applications: Quantum
    Computing, Quantum Networking and Quantum Sensing. Let me give
    you one example of each. In Quantum Computing, utilizing the
    properties of individual photons or electrons to store
    information can dramatically increase calculations. If we hit a
    50-qubit computer, for quantum computers we will have the
    capabilities equal to the current capacity of our high-end,
    high-performance computers, and we are on track to potentially
    produce machines that are more than double that target which
    would lead to computers with 10 to the 15th more computing
    power than what we currently have--very large number.
        Quantum Networking would allow us to transmit quantum
    entangled data through the quantum internet, and Quantum
    Sensing technology will enable detection of physical properties
    such as magnetic fields at very small scales such as at the
    individual cellular level of a human's body. We might be able
    to map every individual cell in a human, leading to jumps in
    medicine that are vast such as individual cell, cancer cell,
    targeting.
        Yet, developing quantum information systems presents
    challenges of physics and physical sciences. The national labs
    are leaders in basic research in these areas. As you may
    remember, 40 percent of all the world's Nobel prizes in physics
    were awarded to researchers who did work in our national labs.
        To accelerate our efforts, we announced yesterday $218
    million in funding for 85 projects at our national labs and in
    universities at yesterday's White House event. Among those are
    the creation of two quantum test beds which will operate in
    similar ways to our national lab user facilities. As a part of
    that effort we will continue to work with our sister agencies,
    the DoD, NSF and NIST.
        We continue to achieve these goals can be done by creating
    cross-cutting technology centers and the DOE has done that, as
    was mentioned by the Chairman, in such past grand challenges as
    the Manhattan Project and the Human Genome Project.
        Similarly we have been reviewing setting up quantum centers
    and we believe that setting these up allow a diverse set of
    bidders, including national labs, universities and private
    industry consortiums, to allow for the best competition of
    ideas.
        The National Quantum Research Information Center set forth
    in the draft bill holds great promise. We previously pioneered
    this model of research of centers across our national lab
    complex. While it is important for us to sustain our research,
    in addition, at individual and small research efforts like we
    announced yesterday, establishing three to five national
    quantum centers would anchor the national program to ensure
    discoveries would rapidly translate from technological
    advances.
        Moore's Law is bringing us to the limit of conventional
    computing but the DOE's national labs specialize in
    breakthrough boundaries and opening possibilities so, with our
    partners, we intend to open new frontiers in quantum
    applications and build a stronger nation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Dabbar.
        Dr. Guha, welcome to the Committee.

       STATEMENT OF DR. SUPRATIK GUHA, PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR
     MOLECULAR ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, AND DIRECTOR OF
    THE CENTER FOR NANOSCALE MATERIALS AND SENIOR SCIENCE ADVISOR,
                      ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Dr. Guha. Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Duckworth
    and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today to discuss the status of quantum
    information sciences and the role and efforts of the U.S.
    Department of Energy national laboratories in this regard.
        I'm Supratik Guha, a professor at the Institute for
    Molecular Engineering at the University of Chicago and Director
    of Argonne National Laboratory's Center for Nanoscale Materials
    Facility supported by the DOE Office of Science.
        Quantum information sciences exploits the unique properties
    of quantum mechanics to rapidly explore information spaces in a
    connected manner, rather than the sequential manner of
    conventional information processing. Building machines and
    devices that exploit this property, we then expect enormous
    advantages in certain types of computing such as codebreaking,
    in the design of molecules for areas such as drug discovery and
    in the secure transmission of data.
        Advances also extend to the measurement, with unprecedented
    accuracy, of physical parameters important in areas such as
    geo-positioning, as well as the basic sciences, a field known
    as quantum sensing. The potential impacts are remarkably broad,
    from sensing within living cells to using highly precise atomic
    clocks to try to answer the fundamental questions, for
    instance. Are some of the physical constants we assume in
    science to be constant really constant?
        The time to significantly expand our efforts in quantum
    information is now, because this technology will offer critical
    differentiating advantages to the leader. And what is needed is
    an effort that is broad in scope, spanning science as well as
    engineering.
        This is where the DOE national laboratories come in. They
    have the size, the massive experimental capabilities and the
    multidisciplinary skills from computing systems to physics and
    material science under one roof as well as the professional
    staff and management skills to deliver on large, complicated
    projects. Working in close collaboration with industry and
    academia, which is essential, the national labs can be anchors
    for future research in quantum information sciences. The DOE
    labs have a proven track record. From the 1940s through the
    1960s, Argonne played a major role in developing nuclear
    reactor technology. More recently, the DOE national labs,
    working with computer companies and academic partners, anchored
    the development and scientific utilization of supercomputing.
        The science community is a strong supporter of the DOE
    laboratory system and is well connected historically through
    the laboratories' various user facilities such as the light
    sources, the Nano Science Research Centers and the computing
    facilities and the neutron sources.
        Quantum advances will require a multidisciplinary vision
    and a new workforce of quantum engineers who are intimately
    familiar with quantum mechanics. This philosophy is behind the
    newly-formed Chicago Quantum Exchange, a collaboration between
    Argonne, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the
    University of Chicago involving over 60 scientists from these
    three institutions.
        As an example, the Chicago Quantum Exchange recently has
    begun research, funded by the DOE, on establishing a 30-mile
    optical fiber link between Argonne and Fermilabs as a testbed
    for studying quantum entanglement and teleportation for secure
    information transfer. This is not something a university could
    have done on its own and highlights the unique benefits to such
    national laboratory-university partnerships.
        Aiming to create a workforce, the Chicago Quantum Exchange
    has begun a program, funded by the National Science Foundation,
    to match students and their academic advisors across the
    country with industrial and national laboratory members, and
    this is with students graduating from universities all across
    the United States. The nearly 20 University of Chicago faculty
    attached to the Quantum Exchange are some of the world's
    leading experts in quantum science, and they administer one of
    the first Ph.D. programs in quantum engineering in the world.
        It is also almost certain that quantum information sciences
    will bring many applications that are as yet unknown, but which
    will significantly affect our lives. It is, therefore,
    important to have breadth in our activity going forward, in
    sharing information and data and drawing from the intimate
    connections between thought leaders in academia, industry and
    the national laboratories.
        Thank you for your time and attention. I will be happy to
    respond to any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Guha follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Guha.
        Mr. Holmdahl, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF TODD HOLMDAHL, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT, QUANTUM,
                         MICROSOFT CORPORATION

        Mr. Holmdahl. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Duckworth,
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    share Microsoft's perspectives on quantum computing.
        My name is Todd Holmdahl. I run the Quantum Computing Group
    at Microsoft. We've been investing in quantum computing for
    over the last 15 years. We've amassed a team of computer
    scientists, scientists and engineers in order to produce a
    scalable, commercial, quantum computer.
        Now, quantum information science is a very big topic. We
    are specifically focused on building a scalable, commercial,
    quantum computer built on a high quality, high fidelity qubit.
    The benefits of quantum computing are many. You can see
    benefits in terms of energy, food production. You can see it
    also in terms of climate change, different materials
    optimization.
        One area where we believe that quantum computing can solve
    a big problem is in terms of producing artificial fertilizers.
    Today, three percent of the natural gas produced in the world
    is used to produce artificial fertilizers. The process we use
    is 100 years old. It was started in the 1900s. It's at a very
    high temperature and a very high pressure. But we know that
    there are microbes in the world that can do the exact same
    thing at a much lower temperature and a much lower pressure,
    and we believe that a quantum computer can figure out the
    secrets of what those microbes are doing so that we can produce
    the same fertilizer at a much lower energy and a much lower
    cost.
        Now everything that's hard needs investing in, in order to
    realize its full potential. We recommend that the Committee
    look at investing in quantum computing in three different ways.
        First, invest in the quantum workforce. We have very few
    people who are ready to produce quantum computers. You need
    engineers. You need scientists. You need computer programmers
    in order to do that. We recommend that industry, academia and
    universities develop curriculum that can be posted online or be
    taught at universities. We recommend on-the-job training for
    engineers that are already in the field. Many of these
    engineers have the foundation, but they don't have all the
    skills necessary to join the quantum workforce and on-the-job
    training would help that. And the third thing we recommend, is
    looking at a national program for quantum computing. I've done
    many products at Microsoft. This is by far the most interesting
    science and technology out there.
        The second recommendation we have for the Committee to look
    at is in basic research around the fundamentals of quantum
    computing, particularly in looking at a scalable qubit. The
    qubit is the fundamental computational element of a quantum
    computer. It's very fragile. Most of these qubits are operated
    at 20 millikelvin at almost Absolute Zero, and we need to
    develop the materials and the fabrication and the manufacturing
    processes in order to make these things stable so that we can
    have these big, large-scale quantum computers.
        The third thing we recommend is the development of quantum
    software algorithms. The algorithms that you run on a quantum
    computer are completely different than the algorithms that you
    run on a classical computer. But even though we don't have
    quantum computers today, we can learn about these algorithms if
    we do a couple of things. One, we recommend that we take large,
    classical computers and simulate a quantum computer on these
    large, classical computers with simulation, and with a quantum
    development kit we can start working on these algorithms today
    so that when we have the quantum computers, the algorithms will
    be developed and built to be able to process and solve these
    big problems. The second thing we recommend is partnerships
    between academia and industry and the government. We, today,
    are in a partnership with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
    and we're working specifically on solving some of their big,
    tough, chemistry problems. Quantum computers look like they
    will help solve these big problems and we're making incredible
    progress so that when we get the actual quantum computer, we
    can test it out right away.
        An amazing space to be working in, the most exciting thing
    I've done in my career and, like anything else though, you need
    to invest in it in order to realize its potential.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Holmdahl follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Holmdahl.
        Dr. Siddiqi.

      STATEMENT OF DR. IRFAN SIDDIQI, FACULTY SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE
        BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
          CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, AND DIRECTOR, BERKELEY QUANTUM

        Dr. Siddiqi. Chairman Murkowski, Senator Duckworth, all the
    honorable Senators and members of the Committee that are here,
    I would like to thank you for giving me the chance to tell you
    about why I think quantum is so exciting this morning.
        I will start off by saying I started working in this domain
    before there were superconducting qubits. So for more than 20
    years I've been thinking about quantum mechanics, and my role
    is really both as a physics professor at UC Berkeley and also
    someone that works at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
        I want to start off by asking, why quantum? Why now? You
    know, I just taught 200 quantum mechanics students over the
    last three weeks, the mathematics of this theory which is more
    than 100 years old. Right? So why now? Why are we, sort of, now
    figuring out what to do with this?
        And, moreover, what's rather striking is that quantum
    theory is the backbone of most modern technology, whether it's
    lasers or computers or MRI scanners or CT scanners. But what's
    amazing is we still have not really tapped into quantum yet.
    And the reason for that is we spent 100 years trying to figure
    out if a cat can be asleep and awake at the same time. Really,
    right? And I think the verdict is out. We believe that cats can
    do this.
        [Laughter.]
        Right? And that's an amazing philosophical statement
    because if cats can do this then bits can do this. Right?
        And the point is that systems that we observe, in fact,
    have an inherent complexity which goes well beyond what we
    observe. To the point that if you have even a modest array of
    quantum bits, the number of parameters you would need to
    explain or describe that array is more than the particles in
    the universe. That's true.
        So the idea is if I really have a small chunk of quantum
    matter, quantum bits, a computer or simulator, then in fact, if
    I can harness it, it's extremely powerful. Right?
        And we can list some of the applications that my honorable
    colleagues were mentioning, but I would say the best of quantum
    is still yet to come. Right? Because we have not really even
    thought about what are the full implications, in fact, of
    having this technology.
        So really the task at hand for all of us is to manage
    intellectual capital in an efficient way, without knowing
    actually the full potential of that capital just yet. But with
    having that little glimmer of hope that says, for sure this
    will be transformative because now we know how the world really
    works.
        Staying to the subject of today's discussion, the role of
    the Department of Energy in such an endeavor. We are still in
    the discovery phase, and the Department of Energy has a rather
    critical, crucial role to play in discovery-driven science.
        In particular, progress in quantum information science
    hinges upon critical advancements in materials that sustain
    quantum behavior, engineering advances to control quantum
    machines and new ideas in computer science to find the most
    impactful implications. DOE labs have core expertise in exactly
    these three areas. In fact, they have a long history of
    shepherding discovery-driven research that is ultimately needed
    to bring quantum in every home. Alright? That's something we
    still need to think about and how to implement.
        In particular, if we are really serious about training the
    next generation workforce, and I see them every day, then we
    need to have projects for them to engage in. Right? Where will
    all our Ph.D.s go when they finish working on this subject?
        In fact, academia and industry, to me, represent two
    particular areas but there's a big area in the middle where, in
    fact, DOE labs can shepherd all these nascent scientists. And,
    in fact, it's a great place to hone your skills and become a
    professional scientist at a DOE lab.
        Of course, as was mentioned by other Committee members, the
    DOE labs do not exist in a vacuum. Right? They are a critical
    part of the quantum ecosystem that has partners in both
    academia and industry. What I would like to say is that each of
    these entities has a unique role to play in this process, and
    greatest progress is made when competitive overlaps are turned
    into synergistic partnerships.
        National labs can naturally extend the reach of the
    university researcher while identifying the most promising
    technologies for commercialization. The DOE brings continuity
    and stability to the picture. Progress in quantum technologies
    extends well beyond the life of one graduate student, and
    extends beyond the life, in fact, of a very near-term
    industrial endeavor.
        As for the structures of these centers, perhaps the hybrid
    approach is best, where we have both vertical integration and
    horizontal integration. Vertical integration on a particular
    technology brings everyone in the same room so we all speak the
    same language. There's nothing that's lost in translation
    between engineers and scientists and physicists and computer
    scientists. We also identify those gaps where we need to fill
    and really make progress. Horizontal integration, amongst
    common topics, has its natural benefits.
        Moreover, I feel that these centers could be endowed with
    the ability to have deeper partnerships with industry which go
    beyond simply using nascent technologies. We are still trying
    to identify the technologies that are most important for us.
    They could have the ability to grant fellowships to students
    and postdocs to keep them in the field and to sponsor community
    building activities, both between workers in this field and
    also to sponsor that we are all engaged with.
        At Berkeley we have started Berkeley Quantum, a partnership
    between the lab and the university, and we are now endeavoring
    with the help of the Department of Energy to seed, if you like,
    the analog of a light source or a particle accelerator for
    quantum information technology, specifically superconducting
    qubits, so we can look at all the fundamental questions as a
    community and move forward from there.
        I thank you again for giving me the opportunity to share
    these remarks, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Siddiqi follows:]

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Dr. Siddiqi, thank you. I have to admit, I am
    still thinking about the cat.
        [Laughter.]
        So this is all about education and we certainly are
    benefited by your comments this morning, and really, your
    leadership in an area that is quite exciting. I think you put
    it into context quite well at the end. This is not something
    new and yet it is breathtakingly new in terms of its scope and
    its possibilities.
        Let me ask, because I think almost all of you have
    mentioned the necessity, as we move forward with these
    extraordinary opportunities, that we have the workforce and how
    we build that, how we develop the engineers, how we are able to
    partner, and I appreciated the mentoring program at Chicago
    Quantum Exchange Mentoring Program. But let me ask the
    question, in terms of our level of preparedness. I appreciate
    what was announced yesterday at DOE with $218 million in the
    research awards. I think that is significant. But when we think
    about what is happening around the world, I mentioned and it
    has been mentioned, the incredible investment that China has
    put forth--$10 billion. The EU has a quantum manifesto to move
    forward with a $1.1 billion flagship initiative. The UK has
    invested $440 million in a national quantum technologies
    program. There is Australia. There are other nations, the
    Netherlands.
        As we compete for these individuals that will help us
    advance, are we growing our own? Are right-focused individuals
    being wooed away by other nations that are, perhaps, investing
    more in this initiative? Help me out in understanding, kind of,
    where we are in competing for the best and the brightest, and
    how we can do more to ensure that everything lines up in terms
    of our opportunities. And I throw that out to the whole panel.
        Mr. Holmdahl, if you want to start?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Yeah, we've been developing a team, again, for a number of
    years and we're all over the world right now. We have labs in
    the Netherlands. We have a lab in Copenhagen. We also have a
    lab in Sydney, Australia. We happen to have labs in Purdue and
    Santa Barbara as well and then, of course, in Redmond.
        There was no way that we were going to be able to get
    enough physicists to come to Redmond, so we had to go
    throughout the world in order to staff our program.
        I would say, in my humble opinion, that the rest of the
    world seems to be a little bit ahead of us in terms of
    generating the next level of workforce. A lot of kids in
    physics and a lot of kids in engineering there.
        What we're able to do as a multinational company, at
    Microsoft, we're able to attract these resources and have them
    work on the programs that we've been working on. I would say we
    do, and I will try to outline it. We do need to continue to
    work on this quantum workforce. We don't have enough people
    coming from our universities yet and there are not a lot of
    great schools, again, in my opinion, that are pumping out the
    type of people that we're going to need for this quantum
    economy. Because it's going to be big, and you're going to need
    people to build the machines. You're going to need people to
    fabricate the machines. You're going to need people to engineer
    the machines, people to program the machines, and it's a whole
    list of different opportunities out there.
        And the more that we can get the universities built up, the
    more that we can go down into the high schools and develop
    programs, the more that we can do on-the-job training, the
    better opportunity we'll have to do it in the United States.
        The Chairman. Dr. Siddiqi?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Let me address the question in two parts. The
    first one is about our colleagues, right, in other countries
    and their investment in this particular subject. I think the
    good news for us is that I still get hundreds of applications
    for graduate students and postdocs that want to work with us.
    So we must be doing something right.
        In particular, we focus in our academic system on creative
    ideas and developing that talent. So we are raising the plants
    properly. The question is, what happens when they want to leave
    and get a job, right? Is there an opportunity there? And that
    was what I was alluding to in my remarks.
        What I have seen amongst graduate students is that, first
    of all, they're much smarter than I am and have ever been.
    They're the real reason we do any successful work in the lab.
    That means that we must treat them really as equals, and be
    honest with them and say, what are the right career choices?
    Where can you go, you know, with that talent? And I must say,
    before quantum really took off in this particular phase, I
    would have many different suggestions for them, perhaps in
    biotech or someplace else, because physics is a way of
    thinking. There are many things you can do with that degree.
        But I think it's very exciting to now have this endeavor
    take off. I think the critical part will be to not only train
    these folks, but also give them a way, honestly, that they can
    actually contribute positively to the ecosystem. And they are
    very smart people. They know where to go and how to work with
    their careers. In fact, they are at some level a commodity, but
    at some level human beings. So it's critical to make sure that
    there's honesty in the endeavor and there are things that they
    can be productive in as they go forward.
        The Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Dr. Guha and then we will go to Under Secretary Dabbar.
        Dr. Guha. Just a couple of quick comments.
        First of all, yes, I think we are noticing over the past
    some years that there's increased recruitment of bright
    students who are being given a lot of facilities and resources
    and being hired in other countries. But I think that is fine. I
    mean, that is the way, you know, the research world is
    progressing, as long as we are also able to recruit them from
    outside and back into here, I think it's fair game.
        In terms of the workforce, there is a need for a quantum
    trained workforce, essentially engineers who know how to do
    quantum mechanics. And we need to be smart in the way we do
    this. Today, for instance, most of the people involved in
    quantum information sciences come with physics backgrounds,
    chemistry backgrounds, and the material science community is
    just getting into it, the computer science community is just
    getting into it. But this now also needs to include the
    electrical engineers, the mechanical engineers, the packaging
    research people. So that whole ecosystem needs to be pushed
    out. That is not happening right now and we need to consciously
    work toward that.
        And finally, I will say that the, you know, the coupling
    between the educational establishment and the national
    laboratory system and industry, in my experience, is probably
    the strongest in the United States still today. And the U.S. is
    still in a leadership position, particularly in quantum
    information sciences.
        So we need to simply build on these. A lot of the other
    countries are essentially trying to, you know, grow from a
    position that's below, in terms of the sophistication. So, I
    think, if we do this smartly with our investments, I think we
    can continue to be ahead.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Under Secretary Dabbar, I am well over my time, but since
    everyone has brought this up I will certainly allow DOE to
    weigh in here.
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman.
        So, I think, just to state a few facts. The United States
    is the leader in particle physics in the world. As I mentioned,
    40 percent of all the Nobel Prizes in the world in physics are
    from people who were just in our national labs, so not even
    counting people who have not. People still want to come to this
    country and people are very excited about this topic. So I'm
    very--every day when I sit and talk with my labs and talk about
    where we are in technology versus others, I think we're in a
    very positive place. I can tell you that there are people
    around the world who would rather know what's going on at
    Argonne and at Berkeley than what they're doing themselves. I
    can say that with a high degree of confidence. So I think we
    are in an excellent place for the beginning of a long journey.
        When it comes to workforce, I can say that having toured a
    lot of the major universities--MIT, Caltech and Stanford, and
    Chicago--over the course of this last year, there's a
    tremendous rush of interest of students.
        And so the point is, is how do we build upon some of the
    points that was just discussed which is, how do we provide
    support for research, and how do we provide connections with
    the private sector? I am very positive about that
    interconnection. Yesterday was a good additional step forward.
    The dynamic interaction between universities, the national labs
    and the private sector in this is unparalleled in this country.
        So what can we do more? We could do more by, I think, some
    of the things that are being proposed by the bill, in part, led
    by the National Science Foundation where they're specifically
    looking at rolling out some workforce development. So that's
    part of the bill, and we very much support that.
        And then, as our role as part of this is continuing to fund
    the research. Actually, we go hire PIs and at the end of the
    day they go higher in number of students to support them. So
    there is seed money, to use a venture capital term, an effect
    that we cause for the rest of the sector.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to, sort of, dig a little bit into what Dr.
    Siddiqi had mentioned. But I am going to address a question at
    Under Secretary Dabbar.
        You know, when we talk about this competition for this
    talent, and Dr. Siddiqi talked about where does this talent go
    once they are trained. I understand that the private sector,
    who will lead the way in commercialization for the discoveries
    made at our laboratories, face bureaucratic road blocks to
    entering public-private partnerships with our labs. My question
    really is, how do we grow those public-private partnerships?
    How do we help industry and entrepreneurs to get into this and
    be able to work with our national laboratories? What steps are
    you taking to simplify and expedite the process of entering
    into these types of partnerships between the national labs and
    private sector and what are you doing to really promote
    industry, whether it is a Microsoft or even a venture,
    something, two physics students are graduating, how do we grow
    this? Because as Dr. Siddiqi rightly states, they have to go
    somewhere, and I would rather they go to U.S. companies that
    are working directly with our labs in a very symbiotic way.
        Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Senator. So I think there's two
    parts to answer your question.
        First of all, is how do we actually bring additional
    private sector involvement in with the work at our labs? That's
    not just this area, I could actually apply it to pretty much
    any of the research areas but, in particular in this area, a
    lot of people in this industry have not worked with national
    labs on a commercial level. We have more interaction with
    biotech and high-performance computing.
        And so, I think yesterday was a good first step of reaching
    out to the private sector and explaining our capabilities and
    that the private sector uses our national labs, as you know,
    labs in your state, a tremendous amount of private interaction.
    And for them to realize what we're there--and to figure out how
    we can make the connections of doing work to support them and
    also to figure out which specific dollars that you budget for
    us to go spend will make the biggest impact.
        So that's the Pasteur's quadrant to a user-inspired
    research philosophy that we're very much a part of and very
    much pushing. As a part of that, doing specific events to
    connect more with people. So we just did one on battery
    research out at Stanford this last week.
        When it comes to specific administrative aspects that you
    effectively touched on, I completely agree with you. The
    biggest challenge with the DOE lab complex is that we, as a
    principal, have all sorts of legal requirements and in order to
    step through, and reviews, which many times in a large entity
    is slow and it's hard for private industry to work with. I
    agree with you. It's something we've been attacking on a broad
    basis, including in this sector, and we're actually
    implementing a number of specific areas which make it easier.
        I'll comment on one which was asked previously here which
    was delegating authority for smaller agreements, below about $1
    million to the national labs with proper oversight in terms of
    auditing. But we're going to be making it easier, especially
    for involvement with anyone in the private sector, in any
    sector, in order for the labs to take the lead without having
    all the different bureaucracy that comes from Forrestal. We
    have analyzed that 50 percent of all the commercialization
    discussions with the private sector will be covered by this
    delegation of authority and should accelerate it significantly.
        Senator Duckworth. Wonderful. Thank you.
        I do see that this workforce development and really
    exploiting this field is a three-legged stool, right? You have
    the national labs, you have private industry, and then the
    third is, of course, our universities.
        Dr. Guha, welcome, again and thank you for testifying
    today. My question to you is going to deal with that last leg
    of the stool. And as you cite in your testimony, university
    researchers, like those at University of Chicago and University
    of Illinois, benefit from the national laboratory's
    infrastructure. You are also eligible for funding from DOE's
    Office of Science which allocates grants directly to university
    researchers in a variety of areas of quantum research for the
    universities. Can you discuss how university-based quantum
    research complements the work performed at the national
    laboratories and how these three legs come together? Because I
    do think that you need all three in order to continue to grow
    this workforce, grow the field.
        Dr. Guha. So there are several ways in which there is
    synergy between the universities and the national labs.
        First, as we've talked about the workforce development
    piece, a lot of these students end up getting trained in the
    national labs. For instance, just at Argonne there's about
    1,000 students and postdoctoral scientists who come by every
    year. And the number, I would say, is typical for the other DOE
    national labs as well. I just happen to know the numbers for
    Argonne.
        A lot of the academia and researchers use the user
    facilities, which is a jewel for the national lab systems, the
    light sources, the nanoscience research centers, neutron
    sources, the computing facilities. Just as an example again,
    the advanced photon source has about 6,000 users annually, most
    of them from, you know, university researchers across the
    world.
        The nanoscience research centers, there are five across the
    nation, on average have about 500 users, often 500-600 users,
    something like that per nanoscience center. So those are--so
    that type of engagement is a second way of engagement.
        And the third is, you know, we--the universities and the
    national labs together, when they work together along with
    industry, there's a diversity of thought that's required. As I
    mentioned, I believe we don't really know a lot of the uses of
    quantum information right now that will be useful to us in the
    years going forward, and this diversity of thought, this
    sharing of information, looking at it from different angles, is
    very, very important. I think that's a third area where the
    university, lab and industry interaction can happen.
        So it is very important going forward for research, not
    just in quantum information, but other areas such as artificial
    intelligence, for instance, needs to be purpose-driven. You set
    an agenda, then you put the team together, you know, be it
    universities, industry, academia and have it across different
    disciplines, multidisciplinary, computer sciences to
    engineering to science, and that's where this type of
    interaction really shines.
        Thanks.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am over my time, Madam
    Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Gentlemen, it is with trepidation that I
    ask a technical question, but nonetheless, I feel as if I must.
    As I gather from reading about qubits, they are inherently
    unstable and only at a certain temperature, et cetera, will you
    be able to have that. What if somebody pulls the plug out of
    the machine? I gather that in our current system the data is
    stored and you put the plug back in.
        Now, of course, I am speaking metaphorically, I am not
    speaking literally. But what if there is a disruption in how
    the data is being processed/stored, and how do you do a quality
    review to make sure disruption did not occur since the
    complexity and speed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
        Whomever would wish to speak to that, please do.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Thank you, Senator Cassidy, for the question.
        So quantum mechanics has some very interesting features,
    right? To directly answer the question, how do we ensure that
    the machine has not lost functionality, has not drifted or has
    some other difficulty along the way?
        Senator Cassidy. Even for a nanosecond.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Even for a nanosecond we can run calibration
    sequences and they're part and parcel of making sure that the
    machine is functioning at its optimal performance.
        There are very specific tests in quantum mechanics. Some
    that we know now, others that we are developing within the
    domain of what's called verification and validation. There's a
    whole field of quantum verification and validation where you
    run this particular set of algorithms to make sure that your
    machine, for example, has not----
        Senator Cassidy. Ensuring you know the results of those
    algorithms would be beforehand and if the result comes out as
    you anticipate then----
        Dr. Siddiqi. Correct. And, in fact, they're on very solid
    footing because they are predicted by quantum mechanics itself.
        Senator Cassidy. So then let me ask you, how do you store
    the data? Because if there is a problem then everything you
    have worked on prior to that point is ``poof.''
        Dr. Siddiqi. Right. I think an important point to also
    bring up here is how quantum technologies complement classical
    technologies, right? In particular, this combinatorial space
    that you can access with quantum is really the power of quantum
    but things like storing numbers, adding numbers, minimizing
    things are perfectly well done on classical machines. So, in
    fact, most of the near-term applications really use a hybrid
    model where the quantum is used only for the little quantum
    step and all the other steps are classical. In fact, the new
    gains to all the benefits of what you're seeing in classical
    technologies and----
        Senator Cassidy. So then, let me ask, seeing how all this
    is, kind of, a great unknown as to how we are going to pull
    this off, will those who develop it have a proprietary--if
    Microsoft is the one that answers this question, would
    Microsoft then have the ability to restrict other people's
    access to the technology without a license fee, et cetera, et
    cetera, et cetera?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Well, what Dr. Siddiqi was saying is
    absolutely true, that in today's world most of the algorithms
    that we're looking at are a combination of classical and
    quantum and they would sit in some sort of data center so you
    could access that information through a data center.
        We are actively building a--what we're calling a scalable,
    stable, quantum computer built on a qubit that's highly stable
    and highly scalable. We are doing a lot of IP that, it will--
    we're writing patents around it and it will ultimately belong
    to Microsoft. These algorithms will ultimately run in our data
    centers so customers will have access to it through our data
    centers.
        But it is something that we're putting a lot of Microsoft
    people on to develop something that we can--believe that will
    solve a lot of problems both, you know, commercial and non-
    commercial problems.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, so the way I would separate this is
    that there's still basic research that will be open access.
    That's a lot of what the universities and national labs do that
    will be applicable to anyone who is trying to commercialize a
    particular product.
        And then, obviously, there is a wide array, growing
    exponentially it seems like, in terms of private industry,
    around all the different three major applications. They will
    develop their technologies and each one will have their
    particular way of attacking, computing and sensing, and so on,
    that will be dynamic. I think it's a good thing for the
    country.
        I would make a comment around hybrid computing. Besides
    being in basic research, the Department of Energy is a major
    consumer of high-performance computers, right? We build Summit,
    we build exascale, and they have been--we've actually pioneered
    hybrid systems. The GPU system, which is a hybrid, which is
    what the current high-end performer systems are which is
    classical, CMOS chips plus graphics processors to pick out
    which areas we pioneered and is part of our computers.
        We expect that, I think it was just said, that future
    computers, instead of having graphics processor units plus
    traditional CMOS might have attached quantum computers with a
    traditional classical computing system that will transfer data
    back and forth, memories and saving data and optimizing which
    should be calculated into which part of the computer.
        Senator Cassidy. Very good.
        Dr. Guha.
        Dr. Guha. I'd like to make a quick point that quantum
    information, you know, this is not the x+1 development of an
    existing form of computing that we know about very well like
    classical computing. This is a case where we're not so sure
    about the hardware, the software, the algorithms or the use
    cases.
        So there needs to be, in my view, a large component of open
    basic research. There is a time for black box research, and
    there's a time when a lot needs to be open----
        Senator Cassidy. I totally accept that, but I think
    Microsoft is more interested in black box----
        Dr. Guha. There needs to be a balance somewhere.
        Senator Cassidy. I didn't mean to throw----
        Mr. Holmdahl. No, let me answer that.
        We do--we have--we work with a lot of universities and we
    have a tiered program where we do basic research with the
    universities, and then also--which they own that IP and we have
    access to it. And then we also do some specific research, which
    you call black box, that's specifically dedicated for the
    product or the solution that we think, as Dr. Guha was saying,
    that we think is going to enable quantum computing. So we're
    doing actually both of those.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes.
        Yes, sir.
        I am over, am I allowed?
        The Chairman. Go ahead, Dr. Siddiqi.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Just a very small comment to, sort of, link
    all of these different ideas together. There will be a time
    where quantum computers outperform classical ones. So how do
    you know that the answer from the quantum one is reliable? In
    precompetitive research, at the moment there's tremendous value
    in performing the same computation on a quantum machine and a
    classical machine so we can verify that the quantum one is
    working the way we think it is. And we're very much, deeply in
    this phase at the moment.
        I think there is quite a period of time where we can, sort
    of, learn about these machines, vet them, so on and so forth
    and then, of course, there will be different roads by different
    consumers of this product whether it's in the civilian or
    military disciplines and so on and so forth.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all
    of you for being here today.
        I wanted to speak about rare earth elements, or rare earth
    minerals, which I am sure are being used and needs to be used
    as far as in this type of technology for quantum computing.
        WVU, West Virginia University, and then also the Department
    of Energy's National Energy Lab you have in Morgantown, have
    really been on the forefront of looking at how we can be able
    to develop our own supply which right now I understand we do no
    mining at all. We depend on outside sources, mostly China for
    this, for what assets we need.
        I had a bill last year, Senate bill 1563, which put $20
    million into research and extending that because we know there
    is enough for mine drainage, acid mine drainage, that has
    enough of these rare earth elements that could carry us well
    into the future.
        Do you all agree that we are in jeopardy of not having our
    own supply and could be held hostage? I think, Mr. Dabbar, the
    Department of Energy is where this lies right now. Do you all
    look into this? Are you exploring this? Has it been brought to
    your attention?
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, yes, I mean, of course, critical
    materials is an important part of DOE. We obviously have a
    focus on that at a number of our labs, including the one in
    your state. And----
        Senator Manchin. Were you aware of what they have done in,
    basically, research right now in conjunction with WVU on
    showing that they can recover these rare earth elements, rare
    earth minerals?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, in terms--yes, Senator, in terms of
    different recovery, yes, absolutely. And to link it back to, I
    think, the sort of research that might be helpful here in terms
    of materials research. Clearly a lot of materials are quantum
    systems. That's a little bit of materials and mechanical
    engineering. And at the end of the day the sort of research
    that we could do on the material side, on quantum systems, with
    these, sort of, with quantum systems could make critical
    materials. We could identify how to utilize them better and
    possibly reduce our risks.
        Senator Manchin. Well, not just this, not just what we are
    talking about just for quantum computing. Do you believe it is
    a risk for the United States of America to be held in jeopardy
    from not having our own supply and we are relying on outside
    sources in other countries?
        Anybody want to comment on that?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, I will. I do think it's a risk. You
    know, right now----
        Senator Manchin. I don't hear anybody raising it----
        Mr. Holmdahl. No, it is a risk and, you know, what we're
    actually doing, and I can't comment on whether it's rare earth
    materials or indium or antimony or arsenic, but we are actually
    doing an extensive look at our supply chain right now and
    looking at what it takes to build a quantum computer from the
    qubits to the cryogenic layer that controls the qubits until
    the helium that you need in order to keep everything cold. So
    that's an exercise that's just started with us, but we realize
    the importance of the supply chain and we are diligently
    working through that and trying to figure out where all these
    things come----
        Senator Manchin. Let me follow up with my second question
    here and I will go right to you on this second question. I
    think it is your sweet spot.
        The Federal Government has been conducting quantum
    information science research and development since the mid-
    1990s. We have been at it for a while. However, it has not
    explicitly made advancements in quantum information science a
    priority. The overall annual federal budget is spread across
    many departments and it is estimated to be $200-250 million.
        Now, the South China Morning Post has reported that China
    will invest approximately $10 billion, $10 billion, in a
    national laboratory focused on QIS that is expected to open in
    2020, and technology in the facility would be of immediate use
    to the armed forces. It has also been reported that China has
    created a new form of quantum radar capable of defeating the
    electromagnetic stealth technologies employed in the $1
    trillion F-35 program. In addition, Chinese technology
    corporations like Alibaba and Baidu are investing heavily in
    quantum computing.
        Do we run a risk of falling behind the curve with China and
    also the threat of our nation being at risk?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Thank you, Senator Manchin, for the question.
        So the way I approach this particular subject is I would
    often have to remind my students how we, sort of, started
    working in this field. Looking at coherence times--this is a
    metric, for example, that tells how well your quantum computer
    is working. We have a team of four, right, on this particular
    topic and, in fact, other entities had teams of hundreds. In
    fact, we still have some of the most respectable times in the
    field.
        Senator Manchin. Are you concerned just strictly about
    China superseding us and leading in this technology?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Right. So I think my statement is that our
    ability to, sort of, be agile and maneuver will always keep us
    ahead of anything and that particular spirit keeps it going.
    But we must worry, of course.
        Senator Manchin. Do you believe we are ahead right now?
        Dr. Siddiqi. I think it's difficult to say what is ahead
    and what's behind. We are all trying to figure out what's----
        Senator Manchin. We do not seem to be prioritizing it and
    China put $10 billion to prioritizing for armed forces.
        Dr. Siddiqi. I would very much say that we should
    prioritize this research for all of the reasons that have been
    mentioned, and with our capability to be creative we will, no
    doubt, be leaders in this as in many other fields.
        Senator Manchin. Dr. Guha, do you have----
        Dr. Guha. Yeah, I think we need to increase our sustained
    investment in this field. If you look at the way China is
    investing, China also invests in focused centers across the
    nation. I know the European Union, sort of, spreads it around,
    roughly. My own feeling is that our investments need to be
    focused around centers, and we really need to ramp up our
    investment in this area. The U.S. has the lead today. I think
    that's very clear. But in order to maintain it over the next
    five years or so, we really need to invest.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks to
    the witnesses for being here today.
        We have talked about the amount of money that the Federal
    Government is spending through laboratories and other research
    agencies on quantum programming, computing. Do we have any idea
    what the private sector is spending in this area of research as
    well?
        Mr. Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, we have very good connections in terms
    of our research with the leaders in this sector. We have--it's
    not completely visible about exact dollars that they're
    spending against it. I think we have a very good view of which
    universities and which private sector entities and which
    specific technologies that they're approaching.
        I would agree with the comment that was just said, that the
    energy and the diversity both, across all three different
    areas--private, universities and national labs--is a winning
    bet.
        Senator Gardner. Do we have an idea of roughly what that
    is? Not the exact amount but, I mean, is it a billion? Is it
    billions? Is it hundreds of millions?
        Mr. Dabbar. I would say that it's definitely in the
    billions if you add up all those different areas. I'm not
    certain if it would add up to ten, but it's--if you add up
    everything, it's quite large.
        Senator Gardner. And we have talked a lot about the work
    that is being done at DOE, the work that is being done in the
    labs, the work that is being done through the DOE lab system,
    NIST, NSF, DoD. How are you coordinating those dollars, those
    research dollars, and is there an adequate flow of information
    between everybody who is touching this research?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
        I would say that the fact that this chamber and the one
    next door's efforts have stepped up our efforts in terms of
    coordination. We regularly get together with NSF, DOD and NIST
    on this topic now. We follow your lead in terms of your
    interest and your focus and also with other defense-related
    agencies. And so, that's accelerating. And I think with the
    advent of this bill which actually, you know, has this to
    coordinate, I think that will continue to progress.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        In terms of the partnerships with the private sector, you
    mentioned the work that is being done in the lab systems with
    the private sector. China's work, they are working with the
    private sector, so to speak, as well. Correct?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Gardner. Are they working with U.S. companies in
    China on quantum computing, quantum information issues?
        Mr. Dabbar. I'm not familiar. It wouldn't surprise me if
    they weren't, but not that I know of.
        Senator Gardner. Mr. Holmdahl, has China worked with
    Microsoft on quantum information science?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, so we, like--not in my group, in
    particular. My group is all outside of--it's in, again, it's in
    Santa Barbara. It's in Purdue. We have a team in Sydney,
    Redmond and two in Europe.
        I do believe that Microsoft has, I know they do, they're a
    big multinational company and they do have a research center in
    China. And my understanding is that they have looked at some
    quantum stuff, as would a big research center in India, but
    that was all public information.
        Senator Gardner. Dr. Guha, you talked about some of the
    national security implications of quantum. Can you talk a
    little bit more of concern about this area if we fall behind
    protecting the information? What would we do should somebody
    get ahead of us from a national security perspective?
        Dr. Guha. Yes, so this is an area where I think China has
    made a lot of progress. As you may know, they have demonstrated
    a quantum link from a satellite to ground over roughly, I
    believe, about 1,000 kilometers or so. I don't believe they
    broke any scientific barriers here, but it was an engineering
    tour de force. I think we have to give it to them. There are
    issues with this technology. Data rates are slow, et cetera, et
    cetera. But the fact that they were able to do this should
    alert us.
        And you know, the entities that are able to do this sort of
    secure communication, there's two things: one is a quantum
    link, to be able to send data that if somebody tampers you know
    about; and the other is decrypting data or decoding data that
    somebody else is trying to send. These are two ways that you
    can address the security issues. And if anybody has this
    superiority, it will be a landmark change in the way we
    transmit data. So we should take this very, very seriously.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Are all of you convinced that we have to support the
    development of quantum information science to stay competitive
    with countries like China? That we do not have a choice in this
    matter, we need to move forward? Are all of you convinced of
    that?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Yes.
        Senator Hirono. What about Russia's capability in this area
    because in the defense space China and Russia are our major
    competitors. Where is Russia in terms of their development of
    quantum science?
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, thank you for the question.
        In general, if you look at the number of the enabling
    technologies associated with quantum, whether it's in RF,
    whether it's in cavities, whether it's in cryo, whether it's in
    algorithms--in general, they are much farther behind as a
    country in this particular technology.
        I can tell you that there are definitely researchers who
    are experts in physics individually in Russia and many of which
    end up coming to the United States. But in terms of a national
    footprint, the Russians have a much smaller footprint than
    many, many countries in the world.
        Senator Hirono. Okay, thank you, including of course, the
    countries of the EU.
        We care a lot about internet security, and this is for Dr.
    Guha. How would a quantum computation-based internet enhance
    the security of information we send on the internet, and when
    do you expect a nationally-deployed quantum internet could be
    available to the public?
        Dr. Guha. So if you had a quantum secured internet,
    there's--you would be guaranteed secure communication in the
    sense that if you sent some data and somebody was eavesdropping
    on it, you would know. And so that would make it failsafe.
        As to when there will be a quantum internet, it's difficult
    to say. I would prefer not to look into the crystal ball and
    give a number.
        But I think, I mean there are companies already who are
    close to having products over, say, a few hundred-kilometer
    lengths. Those might be expensive. They might be only for very
    specific purposes. So it's certainly not going to be of broad
    usage. But that type of technology, we're only a few years away
    from seeing this across the world, but specific instances of
    few hundred-kilometer lengths.
        Senator Hirono. It sounds as though quantum computer
    systems, computer science, can be a huge benefit in terms of
    security of a lot of our systems as we deal, especially as I
    sit on the Armed Services Committee and on this Committee,
    infrastructure--they are all vulnerable. Our space
    infrastructure, all of these are very vulnerable to
    cyberattacks. Would you say that quantum science could play a
    big role in ensuring the safety of these systems? Yes?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
        Yes, very much so, because I think as my colleague, Dr.
    Guha, was mentioning, that in quantum mechanics if you make a
    measurement, you know that that's happened. So that fundamental
    principle is different than classical physics.
        That applies in many, many things, right? For example, if
    someone copies your credit card number you will not know until
    they use it, right? But that's not the case in quantum
    mechanics. So having that fundamental change of how information
    and measurement works together, that applies not only to
    communication but also to storage and so on and so forth. So
    there is very much a need there.
        And I wanted to maybe make a brief comment about the
    previous question that you'd asked about Russian involvement
    and other entities. I have many colleagues from all around the
    world, be it Russia or China or Japan and so on and so forth,
    and I think to summarize the last few questions that were
    coming out, you know, how much have we invested, how far are we
    ahead? I think all large nations have made some investment of
    some quantity, right? And they've, sort of, all come up to the
    same level saying that we realize that quantum can do
    something. It's very powerful. The question is, who is going to
    then invest in the next huge lift after that to bring it to
    market? And some have started to invest in this and they have
    been named so far. So I think having funds is not necessarily
    the most needed thing for success, but if you don't have an
    investment then I can guarantee you will not have it, right?
        So I think it's very critical for us to make that
    investment and move forward and, in fact, not worry so much
    necessarily about what's happening, just make sure that we can
    do the best job that we can because we really do have the
    resources and the workforce to do it. But that does require an
    investment.
        Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. I hope the Chair will allow me to go over a
    little bit.
        So another question for you, Dr. Siddiqi. Your testimony
    mentioned the potential application of quantum simulations to
    solar energy technologies and Hawaii is really at the forefront
    in the use of solar energy. Could you elaborate on how quantum
    computers could help develop new solar technologies and how far
    in the future such developments could take?
        Also, I was so intrigued by two of you mentioning that we
    can use quantum computing to make fertilizer and how far in the
    future would that be because, of course, making fertilizer
    using less energy would have major impacts on food production
    across the world.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Absolutely. Let me briefly comment on the
    science behind both of those.
        So, for example, plants take in light and turn out energy
    at the end of the day in photosynthesis. And solar cells are
    not so different, right? Light comes in, it excites something
    whether it's electronic or vibronic, some kind of motion in a
    particular solar cell that converts into energy. The thought is
    this conversion of photonic or light energy into electrical
    energy can then be enhanced by having some sort of quantum
    coherence. The first step in this is to run a simulation to see
    how that energy transfer happens, right? And that's, sort of,
    the current state of simulations in this field. If we are able
    to figure out the optimal recipe for taking light and turning
    it into electricity, then one could imagine this type of
    application. And so, that comes under the title of artificial
    light harvesting, right? We'd like to harvest light, not
    exactly as plants do but in, perhaps, some inspired way for
    doing this.
        The issue with fertilizer production, of course, we're
    referring to the Haber process developed by Fritz Haber, where
    one brings together nitrogen and hydrogen at 400 degrees
    Centigrade and 200 atmospheres pressure and this does consume,
    like the numbers we heard, quite a significant part of the
    world's energy budget. As a gardener I know the legumes
    underground do this at ambient temperature, but they do this,
    in fact, using an iron-molybdenum catalyst, right? And to
    understand the structure, the chemical structure and dynamics
    of this catalyst is really beyond anything classical computing
    technologies can do at the moment. So the picture at hand is if
    we are able to simulate now these chemical processes, we would
    be able to understand something about catalysis.
        So in our own work we've done hydrogen, others have done a
    few more atoms. There's a few more atoms to go to get up to
    iron but, you know, we're working on it.
        Senator Hirono. So how far in the future do you think
    before we can create fertilizer in the method that you
    described?
        Dr. Siddiqi. I would say near-term quantum devices have
    tremendous potential in the next 5 to 10 years, or a few years
    to 10 years, because one other thing which is very interesting
    about this is what if the answer from your computation is fuzzy
    but still useful?
        For example, we're not able to figure out the exact
    structure, but nonetheless we can guide chemists to say, you
    know, this is the phase space you should look in, this is the
    combinatorial space you could look in. That's already extremely
    valuable. We wouldn't be looking for a needle in a haystack. We
    could, sort of, narrow down, well, the haystack is over here,
    right? And one could have, you know, a classical effort to find
    it. That's another level of technology that may come out of
    this.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chair Murkowski, thank you. I have not had
    this kind of conversation since my chemical engineering days.
        [Laughter.]
        This is great.
        Thank you for holding this hearing today, Chair Murkowski.
    It is probably not customary for this Committee to dive into
    something as technical as quantum computing or that we have
    Microsoft testify here in front of us, but for me, this is a
    fascinating and very important topic.
        I spent 28 years with my chemical engineering degree in the
    private sector before coming to Congress, but 12 of those years
    were in the cloud computing business. We helped build a company
    that was a little startup that grew to about 1,100 employees,
    at cap was about $1.8 billion. We took the company public and
    it was acquired by Oracle.
        So I have had a chance to see a startup from the early
    stages, before the cloud was even called the cloud then, and
    grew it to a large company that had, at present, 17 offices of
    33 languages, offices around the world.
        I have also seen the challenges of what it takes to build a
    business like that, how hard it is to build a technology
    company, the issues of innovation, of hiring, of expansion. And
    I believe that quantum computing faces many of the same hurdles
    that we faced a decade before regarding investment and a
    trained workforce.
        I do believe we are making good strides. And by the way,
    Montana--this company I told you about was headquartered in
    Bozeman, Montana, with offices in London and Tokyo; Sydney,
    Australia; Chicago; Dallas; Washington, DC. And we have some
    Montana companies actually leading the way.
        My alma mater, Montana State University, proud of--many of
    the leading quantum and photonic companies are growing right
    there in Bozeman, Montana, and around our state.
        But I do fear--one of the things that keeps me awake at
    night, is we are falling behind China. I spent six years
    working in China with Proctor & Gamble. I was in Guangzhou back
    in the '90s and leading the startup there for P&G. So I keep a
    close eye on what is going on competitively. This is a race
    that I don't think we can lose. It would not only have
    implications on our economy and academia, it could have serious
    implications for national security.
        Mr. Holmdahl, Microsoft is one of the top companies
    investing and working in quantum computing. As an international
    company, you also have a unique view of the global quantum
    race. I have heard from experts in the field, on the ground in
    China, on the ground in Hong Kong and other places, on the
    ground in Menlo Park, that we are losing this race to China.
    Where do you see the U.S. in the quantum race?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Senator Daines, it's a great question. I
    think there are a couple of ways to look at it. I think that if
    you look at the commercial sector, the big U.S. companies are
    doing good work. Microsoft, Intel, Google, IBM are all doing
    good work. We have--you're starting to see the startup
    community get into the quantum race as well. Rigetti is being
    funded by Andreesen Horowitz.
        That said, I do worry, again, and I said in my opening
    statement that the quantum workforce is going to be--and you
    hit the nail on the head, we have to build a complete end-to-
    end system, you know, all the way from the qubits that are down
    for us at the bottom of the refrigerator to the cryogenics
    controlling it, to the software to control all that, to the
    applications and the algorithms. And that is where I really
    worry that our workforce today is not necessarily, is not
    skilled in order to be able to jump into this quantum economy.
    We do need to do more work at the university level, on-the-job
    training, more partnerships. There are other countries out
    there that are investing in it. I don't know about China
    specifically, but I do know that for us to be successful we
    need to continue to invest in the workforce and continue to
    invest in research and then continue to look at other
    partnerships.
        Senator Daines. On this workforce question, look at the
    graduation numbers of STEM grads coming out of U.S.
    universities versus STEM grads coming out of Chinese
    universities. I think the number, it is a seven to eight time
    factor. The scale that is being built in terms of innovation
    ecosystem in China is remarkable.
        So follow, what do you see as the national security
    implications, and I think Senator Gardner touched on this a
    little bit as well earlier, of China taking the lead in the
    quantum information space?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Well, you'd be happy to know both my kids
    graduated with machine learning degrees so I'm trying to
    contribute to that.
        Indeed, yeah, there are obvious security issues with
    somebody, any country, getting the ability to decrypt,
    essentially, our encryption algorithms. You know, RSA-2048
    has--it's no secret that people with a big enough quantum
    computer can crack that. I would think it would be in our best
    interest to make sure that we have the ability to do that
    before others and that we also, and like Microsoft and others
    are working on, develop post-quantum crypto algorithms so that
    when quantum computers are out there we're no longer using the
    encryption methods that we have today.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. I am out of time.
        We touched on there that the commercial side, certainly
    long-term competitiveness for our nation, but also the national
    security implications of breaking encryptions and so forth and
    where this all goes and the importance of this topic. I want to
    thank you, Chair Murkowski, for bringing this to light in this
    Committee and for the experts here to help us articulate what
    the challenges are going forward.
        Thanks.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to take a step back and maybe give
    folks a little bit of a window into why some of these
    principles exist that we are talking about and what is so
    unique about quantum with regard to observation and
    applications like secure communications.
        Dr. Siddiqi, could you talk a little bit about just what is
    quantum entanglement and what does that mean for those
    applications?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Sure. Thank you, Senator Heinrich, for the
    question of what is quantum entanglement which, in reality, is
    the resource that makes quantum systems unique and powerful.
        If I'm allowed to use my pencil I will use this as an
    illustrative tool, right? So there's a property called spin,
    for example, right? So an electron which has charge can also
    have spin which we know points up or down. But the debate that
    Einstein and Bohr had is how does a spin know which way to
    point until you measure it, right? It's only when you measure
    along this axis will it be up or down because up or down
    doesn't have meaning until you define what's up and what's
    down. The idea then is that the spin, in fact, can be in any
    state. This is the same principle as the cat. It could be
    asleep or awake. It can be in any state until you define that
    axis.
        Now let's imagine I have two pencils. We'll assume this is
    a pencil. If I have two pencils or more, then the number of
    combinatorial states that they can be in grows exponentially,
    right? So that's entanglement.
        The idea that I can't write this as just one object,
    individual objects and, in fact, it's one combined object is
    entanglement. And that's what adds the power to computation or
    communication, et cetera. But then, of course, the critical
    part is you have to have the right algorithm to take advantage
    of this.
        Senator Heinrich. But you can also separate those two
    particles over vast distances and still what you observe in one
    applies to the other.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Correct.
        Senator Heinrich. Which is----
        Dr. Siddiqi. Correct. This is what is known as----
        Senator Heinrich. ----what makes this so powerful.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Absolutely. This is the question of Einstein,
    Podolsky and Rosen, right? The idea that you can separate out
    these two and quantum mechanics would exist all over the
    universe and all tests show that it does.
        Senator Heinrich. So that has obvious applications in
    things like communications.
        I am going to resist the urge to ask you about the
    potential for entanglement of your cats and move on to an
    engineering question for Dr. Holmdahl.
        What should we be doing now in our engineering schools to
    prepare the workforce that is actually going to take all of
    this basic research in physics and begin to apply it to the
    applications that we will really need to make this a utility in
    the future?
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, that's a great question, Senator.
        I think there are like three main areas, at least three
    main areas, that we need to work on.
        One is just in basic quantum physics and the materials
    associated with that. I don't think we have the answers to how
    these qubits are going to look, and we need to make sure that
    we have that workforce that can not only figure out what the
    right materials are and the right designs are, but how to
    manufacture and fabricate those. It's--we used to say in the
    engineering world, it's kind of easy to build one of something,
    but trying to build a million is much harder. And so, you have
    to have a manufacturing and design at the same time.
        The second part is that the engineering of these, in most
    cases, is done at cryogenic levels----
        Senator Heinrich. Right.
        Mr. Holmdahl. ----you know, 4K and below and we need, like,
    we're trying to hire many cryogenic engineers and they're just
    not out there today. And so, more work and that might probably
    be in the mechanical engineering side of the things. If the
    universities could up the level of cryogenic engineers they
    have that would be a big help.
        The third bucket is in programming the quantum computer,
    the paradigm is a completely different paradigm than a
    classical computer and the algorithms are different. We need to
    develop that next level of programmers, quantum programmers, in
    order to be able to solve some of these tough problems.
        Senator Heinrich. Why do you think there has not been more
    interest in land grant universities in jumping out to start,
    you know, filling the pipeline for these sorts of educations?
        Mr. Holmdahl. You know, I don't personally know. I think
    this is the most amazing topic. I came to it later in my life,
    like the last two or three years, but it's incredibly
    inspiring.
        I think being in the QIS meetings yesterday, it sounds like
    universities are starting to really grasp the power and
    excitement around this. I'm hopeful in the next few years
    you're going to see more and more of it.
        Senator Heinrich. Great.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for this hearing today.
        Gentlemen, thank you so much, very enlightening testimony.
        Let me start with Under Secretary Dabbar. I am reviewing
    the National Strategic Overview for Quantum Information
    Science. Let me ask you this--the NSTC Subcommittee on Quantum
    Information Science--are you comfortable that that subcommittee
    members contain all of the federal partners that are necessary
    to address this issue and work with private sector, academia
    and the national labs on this issue, on QIS?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yeah. Yes, Senator, I am.
        It has been a very inclusive process that OSTP ran and it
    includes all the--from the basic sciences to the applied
    applications across the federal agencies.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Is there anything that you are
    hearing today from the private sector and the national labs
    that you think needs to be addressed, or taken back to this
    subcommittee, in addition to the recommendations that they have
    made or more information that they should be aware of?
        Mr. Dabbar. So the short answer is yes. And between today
    and the meetings that we had yesterday at the White House and
    earlier before that this last week, is that we've been
    soliciting input across the whole spectrum of private and
    public, and there's a number of key takeaways.
        It's around infrastructure that, obviously, this Committee
    has a lot about building out infrastructure at our national
    labs. It's about connections, and I think that came up here
    earlier today, that the Chairman asked about earlier. And it's
    also about how do we help private sector transition? So all
    these conversations here in the near-term have also been very
    helpful input for us.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And then, let me just say, I echo all of the questions that
    have been asked. I mean, this has been a great conversation
    today.
        Let me ask you three gentlemen: What should we be doing at
    the federal level? What should we be prepared to address for
    the future that was not talked about so far when it comes to
    the use of QIS? I will start with Dr. Siddiqi.
        Dr. Siddiqi. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto, for the
    question.
        What I want to talk about is something very mechanical in
    terms of how we fund programs, how we evaluate programs. So on
    the surface, of course, we have many great programs for
    graduate fellowships, for industry engagement with the SBIR
    program and all things that normally would look like they are,
    sort of, building the linkages that we need but, in fact,
    dedicating some subset of them and removing the bureaucratic
    difficulties of getting those through and dedicating them for a
    quantum initiative would be tremendously beneficial, right?
    Because in my mind, a center that has the ability to give out
    those fellowships to, sort of, build those linkages with
    industry rather than saying that we will be one of the 12
    topics that compete for very precious dollars would be a
    tremendous investment and a tremendous step forward. So any
    mechanical methods which, in fact, streamline this process of
    bringing together these three entities, both in communication
    and funding, would be tremendously appreciated.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Mr. Holmdahl.
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, one thing that I would point out. I'm a
    big believer in doing these grand challenges and grand
    strategies and there's--certainly, you want to have a lot of
    individual research going on but I would like to see us do our
    moonshot, whether it be quantum computing or the quantum
    network, and try to rally all the resources that the country
    has in commercial and in universities and academics and put
    that together because these are multi-disciplinary systems that
    require people from physics, from computer science, from
    mechanical engineering, from electrical engineering, from
    business, all to come together, and it's going to take a lot of
    people to do one of these big things. And when you go through
    that process you learn an incredible amount, and everybody has
    this vision and this goal in their mind and they know what
    they're doing and why they're targeting it.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Dr. Guha.
        Dr. Guha. Thank you, Senator.
        So, very quickly, I think I would ask that you view this as
    an area that is a priority for investment, that it is really
    time we invested in this. And I would also request
    consideration of focused centers of excellence instead of
    spreading things around and diluting it.
        And then there is the workforce part. There are areas of
    the workforce that need to get on this field, you know,
    traditional engineering areas, et cetera. So that investment
    should also be done astutely.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Gentlemen, thank you.
        Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for the conversation today.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I apologize for being late. The schedule around here needs
    a quantum system----
        [Laughter.]
        ----in order to figure out how we can be in two places at
    once. If you could work on that.
        This may be an obvious question, but give us the strategic
    implications of this. How will this change the world? What are
    we talking about?
        Doctor.
        Dr. Siddiqi. It's a great question, Senator King.
        And you know, physicists, we look at the 50-year time
    scale. Where will we be when we think about these technologies?
        I think it will radically change, first of all, in the
    grandest scale, the way we think about the world and what our
    theories, in fact, tell us about what the physical world is
    like, at the grandest levels. Because, in fact, it's these
    machines that may tell us what entanglement is in the universe.
    What's the fabric of the universe? What are black holes? What
    are theories of this type of grandeur, and how does one think
    about that?
        So that has deep implications for everything in terms of
    theoretical aspects of physics that enter in material science
    and----
        Senator King. It worries me that you are headed for Douglas
    Adams' most elaborate and scary torture machine ever devised,
    the total perspective vortex.
        Dr. Siddiqi. That's right.
        Senator King. Which looks like a phone booth and when you
    step in it shows you your true place in the universe.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Siddiqi. That's right.
        We will like to--I will defer to my colleague from
    Microsoft for building.
        [Laughter.]
        But indeed, that's sort of a very grand vision, right?
        But in terms of----
        Senator King. Give me specifics. How will it change life?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Yeah.
        So for specifics, it will change the way we synthesize
    materials, right? I am also a chemist-in-hiding, a little bit,
    I have a chemistry degree. So quite often this is discovery-
    driven rather than by rational synthesis. So that's a radical
    change in thinking about how we think about new materials and
    classes of materials and catalysts, and so on and so forth.
        In the computing domain, right, it's very different in
    terms of optimization from that we simply cannot access at the
    moment. In particular, for example, how does one think about
    logistics of very large operations in systems that have many
    moving parts. So that's a very applicable thing.
        Going again in terms of atomic systems, how do we think
    about technologies at the atomic scale, right, very different
    views of what sensors are like, right, what communication tools
    are like.
        It's really across-the-board thinking from the smallest
    scales of the atom, the photon, so on and so forth, all the way
    to the grandest scales which are what is the model of the
    universe. I view it really as a transformative technology.
        Senator King. Mr. Dabbar, are we in an arms race in terms
    of this technology? We are competing. As I understand it, both
    the Chinese and the Russians are making significant investments
    as is the EU. What are the implications of not getting there
    first?
        Mr. Dabbar. So I would split it up between economic and
    security, that particular question.
        From an economic point of view, you could characterize it
    as how important is the computing and the semiconductor
    industry is to this country and everything that applies to our
    phones, to our computers, how we communicate, how we make
    inventions, is vast. And so, this could be a major jump in
    that.
        In sensing--I gave a comment earlier about life sciences.
    The impact of quantum sensing potential to health in this
    country to replacements for MRI machines at levels that would--
    you talk to any doctor about those implications and they hear
    about it and they look at what impact they could have on
    various aspects of life sciences, is actually hard to bound.
        So there's a lot of basic science, a lot of economic value
    that we've already seen----
        Senator King. Decrypting is one of the possibilities. Is
    that not the case?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
        So on defense I would hit on two, there's many examples but
    let me hit on two.
        The first one is, obviously, for crypto. Right now,
    obviously, many things in the world, including on the defense
    side, are coded and there's been some work done by professors,
    one in particular, about the ability to use high qubit machines
    to be able to break current codes at the most highest level,
    which has broad implications. And so, for us to be able to do
    that--and by the way, that's not just a defense topic, it's
    every single credit card payment, everything in the financial
    system, you know, that's currently encrypted has implications.
        And then there's another one that's also very important,
    which is clocks. And right now, we use atomic clocks to code to
    do very specific timing for both security and for financial
    reasons. And there's risks around, we were talking about
    earlier, around space and satellites and so on, around how
    that's currently done today, in terms of clocks. And,
    obviously, if we have the capability of that, it certainly
    provides for greater security around that topic.
        Senator King. Where do we stand in the international
    competition?
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, so the way I would characterize it is
    I will always bet on America and, meaning that I think the
    diversity that you see here of private industry and
    universities and the federal complex is more dynamic and comes
    up with more ideas. We haven't had time to talk about all the
    different technologies that are being developed across many of
    the different areas, but it is a very dynamic space.
        But I worry that we need to put more resources against that
    to leverage all this different input that we have. There's one
    certain country that likes to put a tremendous amount of money
    into a particular topic. That's a command and control
    dictatorship way of trying to invest. And many times they bet,
    whenever you have command and control, it looks like a lot of
    money. We should be worried for the reasons both economically
    and defense. We should be focused on it.
        But I think, with the focus of this body and the nation
    across all the different areas, I have a high degree of
    confidence for this country.
        Senator King. Madam Chairman, I am out of time but could I
    ask one question that follows up on that?
        The Chairman. You may. You missed my long series of
    questions.
        Senator King. Okay, thank you.
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Senator King. So the question is how do we organize? And
    this would go to any or all of you. How do we organize our
    approach to this problem? Is it a Manhattan Project--a focused
    government-led project with private sector and all those
    people--or is it a diverse, Caltech does something, MIT does
    something, Microsoft does something and, hopefully, we get
    there?
        Dr. Siddiqi. So being at Berkeley with the Manhattan
    Project idea, I'd like to comment that, I think, we need a
    balance of both, right? Certainly, we need vertical integration
    that brings all the elements that we've been talking about, the
    computer scientists, the physicists, into one room so we can
    really fill in those technology gaps and build the products
    that we're looking for.
        At the same time, there are very deep and difficult
    theoretical questions that we could all benefit from. So there
    may be a tiling of the phase space with some horizontal
    integration as well.
        Senator King. But I would think that would be something you
    all could help us with is to suggest how this should be
    organized, because that is a function that the Federal
    Government can supply as the organizational principle here.
        Yes?
        Dr. Guha. So, if you look, you know, 30, 40 years back, a
    lot of the technologies that we use today like
    telecommunications, silicon, microelectronics, a lot of the
    basic early work was done by companies such as Bell Labs and
    IBM. Those business models don't exist today anymore. And
    research is also much more expensive today for industrial R&D
    to do it alone.
        My own feeling is that something like this, with this sort
    of national importance and wide breadth, needs to be centered
    around the national labs working very closely with academia and
    industry. So there has to be learning on both sides over here.
        But I do feel that the national labs have the
    infrastructure and the, you know, just the breadth and the size
    of equipment and the capabilities and the outreach to academia
    and industry that this, you know, these are the places where we
    should be doing the research of the future.
        Senator King. Okay, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thanks so much to the witnesses for being here and your
    testimony. We have tried to follow it from afar here as we've
    been doing other things. I so appreciate, particularly, the
    focus on workforce which I do want to ask about.
        Madam Chair, again, thank you for having this hearing, it
    is such an important topic. I think DOE is more in the
    forefront of what we need to do to better skill our
    competitiveness as a nation, secure us on cybersecurity and do
    so many things. I think today is another example that, really,
    this Committee can do a lot in bringing attention to those
    investments and strategies.
        I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Duckworth, for
    filling in earlier for me and, I guess, you and she both did
    ask questions about workforce. But I will get back to that in a
    second.
        Mr. Holmdahl, thank you so much for being here and for your
    leadership. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about the
    relationship between Microsoft and the Pacific Northwest
    National Lab and what you are doing in collaboration? Dr.
    Siddiqi mentioned chemistry, I don't know if that's the main
    focus, but if you could elaborate on that, it would be so
    helpful.
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, sure, Senator Cantwell.
        One of the things about quantum computing is the algorithms
    are very different from the algorithms that you find in
    classical computing. And so, we already have a team of people
    that are going out and talking to people in the government
    space as well as the enterprise space, like, you know, figuring
    out what their tough problems are and how might quantum
    algorithms solve those problems. So one of the things that we
    think that a quantum computer can solve are quantum chemistry
    problems. It, kind of, fits right into the wheelhouse of the
    quantum program.
        So we've been working with the Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory for over probably a year now. They have, you know,
    some of the best chemists in the world. I think there are 4,500
    people that work there.
        We have been exploring, like, what are their tough problems
    that they're trying to solve? How might a quantum computer
    solve those problems? We've continued to engage in those
    discussions. They're very fruitful discussions.
        I think the thing that really helps, too, is as we design
    our quantum computer and we know what problems they have, it
    informs how we design that computer going forward so that when
    we get this computer complete, it will solve real problems that
    people have. And I look at this as an example that industry and
    the government as well as universities can have coming together
    in trying to solve these with all three bodies working
    together.
        Senator Cantwell. It reminds me of, you know, in other
    areas of science where we're applying data and information,
    like on the human genome project and others.
        Dr. Siddiqi, since you represent a lab, did you want to
    weigh in here about what that relationship between labs can do
    for us?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Absolutely, thank you, Senator Cantwell, for
    the question.
        Perhaps the easiest way is to give an example of what we're
    doing in our domain. A small example of how, in my mind, real
    partnerships are built between national lab elements, academic
    elements and industry is really through our industrial
    incubator program, called Cyclotron Road, at Lawrence Berkeley
    Laboratory.
        So, in particular, we have a company that's willing to
    develop various technologies in the quantum domain, and we have
    partnered with them. And, in particular, their task at the
    near-term is to build the packaging, all the boxes and wires
    that go around the chip and we are very good at producing the
    chip. So we had a real discussion saying that, what are you
    comfortable sharing with us and what are we comfortable, you
    know, sharing with you? And it was a great discussion, right?
    So we've now handed over to them our chips and said, please go
    ahead and design what you think is the package, and we have
    some ground rules, right, about what to talk about, what not to
    talk about, so that they remain competitive and we also remain
    happy.
        So I think these partnerships can very much be nucleated.
    They start with, as Dr. Guha was saying, you know, the model of
    R&D has changed over the years. So I think it'd be very
    critical for us to identify what's the space of that basic
    research and we're, sort of, sharing what's the space that
    becomes competitive research, so on and so forth.
        And as an academic I think about the fact that, you know,
    we should be giving talks and different sessions and
    conferences, right? There are sessions that are really academic
    questions. There are sessions that are, sort of, basic science
    at the larger scale and, really, industrial sessions.
        So in my own field I'm actually an engineer that works on
    RF stuff by training. There's big conferences that have these
    things split up in three sections, right? There's the
    fundamental science section. There's the large-scale science
    and what have you. So I think that would be very healthy in the
    quantum domain so that we can all sit down and figure out how
    to tile the phase space in a very synergistic way.
        Senator Cantwell. But, no doubt, you welcome the
    partnership and you welcome DOE's role?
        Dr. Siddiqi. Absolutely.
        Senator Cantwell. So that brings up--listen, I have been
    involved with tech transfer a long time and it is always an
    interesting question about what actually gets done in tech
    transfer. Obviously we could have a whole hearing, probably a
    week, on tech transfer from our national laboratories if we
    wanted to but, for today, this notion of the workforce issue
    and on-the-job training. What do we need to do here to make
    sure--I just think about what we have been able to do at the
    Washington Technology Center as it related to the University of
    Washington and Boeing. That partnership let them focus on a lot
    of things and, in the end, they ended up focusing on composite
    manufacturing and solving some of the big problems that were
    going to be in the future of composite manufacturing. But when
    everybody is there working on the job, you know, I have met
    these young students years later and now they are the leaders
    within Boeing because they got the on-the-job training as the
    technology was just cutting-edge.
        I see everybody nodding. So what do we need to do to make
    sure that happens?
        Mr. Holmdahl.
        Mr. Holmdahl. Yeah, I think an interesting parallel might
    be the machine learning explosion that we've had in the last
    couple of years. You saw a lot of engineers that hadn't gone to
    school with machine learning backgrounds but, not only the
    companies themselves, but universities started doing a whole
    bunch of work in offering, like, either online classes or all-
    day classes or 12-week classes in order to get the engineering
    populations up to speed on what's going on in machine learning
    and AI.
        If you look at today's workforce, the problems you need to
    solve in quantum are varied. Again, they go from manufacturing
    all the way to cryogenics to new computing algorithms.
        I do think that the fundamental engineers that we have in
    the force can be taught to do the work necessary for quantum,
    but it's like taking a mechanical engineer and making sure that
    they have the right training around cryogenics either from a
    university or from some training center or from a company that
    allows them to know more about cryogenics.
        Superconductivity is another big one that's important. You
    need, typically, superconducting circuits to control your
    quantum qubits. Engineers have the background, but they need
    that additional training. We put all of our engineers through
    like 10 weeks of training in order to get them up to the
    superconductivity speed.
        The other one that we're doing a lot around is these
    quantum algorithms that we talked about. We've put out a kit, a
    quantum development kit, that teaches you how to program a
    quantum computer. And we've also developed a bunch of katas
    which are like short learning exercises for developers. And you
    know, it's unbelievable how many developers are inspired by
    being part of the quantum revolution, and now they have an
    opportunity to learn very quickly with these little, simple
    katas on how to develop quantum algorithms.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes, Mr. Dabbar.
        Mr. Dabbar. Senator, so I would like to highlight something
    that's in the bill that's before you that I think is very
    interesting, and we certainly support the structure as proposed
    in the bill which is around the quantum centers and allowing
    who can be allowed to bid for the particular centers. The bill
    specifically says that as a centers as we, assuming it gets
    passed by this body, that the three to five centers would, the
    people who could bid could be national labs, universities,
    private sector or consortiums thereof. And I certainly expect
    that as we potentially go out and do that, that there will be
    groups of that, that very much along the lines of your question
    regarding having some people probably part of a consortium from
    a private partner, from an industry, from a national lab and
    from a university and bringing people together and how they
    actually approach, to your Boeing example, how they approach a
    particular problem, how do they train people. And I think it's
    going to be very interesting as we get those groups together.
        And the one thing that I could say about this particular
    point in the bill which we support, is that the ripples, even
    though it's not passed, I can tell you that the number of
    national labs talking to private industry, talking to
    universities today, basically, trying to partner up to figure
    out that when this bill gets passed, what the centers are going
    to be, what the focal points of each are going to be which is a
    longer conversation, and then who is going to partner with who
    between the private sector, universities and national labs is
    already happening in this country. It's very exciting to be
    part of that conversation.
        Senator Cantwell. But you definitely believe that DOE
    should play a role in helping us get workforce training in this
    particular area?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, yes, Senator.
        A big part of what we do, so out of the 85--I'll give an
    example. We announced 85 different grants yesterday for $218
    million. Not only does the money go to a PI for a particular
    topic, they go hire a bunch of, you know, juniors at their
    particular lab or their university who are still studying. And
    so, there's an effect as we go through it and it's very much
    part of our thought process when we go fund particular areas,
    including this one yesterday.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I just happened to run into a bunch
    of Sea Grant fellows, Madam Chair, on the way here. I don't
    know where we would be in the United States Congress on
    maritime and fishing policy if we did not have Sea Grant
    fellows.
        I am just a big believer in an information age that we do
    everything we can, particularly on cutting-edge technology and
    transformative areas, of also bringing the workforce along with
    us. I think we definitely need to do that in cyber. I
    definitely think we need to do it here. DOE can play that role.
    I hope they will.
        I hope we will think about how we, as I said, having
    witnessed this from the university and tech transfer
    perspective to now see them, you know, working in the field,
    particularly a lot of young women, who have gone into composite
    manufacturing. It has been very heartening to see that we
    established those environments in which they could learn and
    earn and get educated on cutting-edge technology at the same
    time.
        So thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Cortez Masto, the two of us have had
    10 minutes. Would you care to ask anything final?
        Senator Cortez Masto. The only one I would have a follow-up
    with is Under Secretary Dabbar.
        I noticed you were going to have a comment to Senator
    King's question about what the structure should look like. Were
    you able to answer that with the last question?
        Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        Mr. Dabbar. I think the comment I just gave about the
    structure of the centers addressed, I think, similar to his
    question.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your comments this morning. It has
    been encouraging. It has been exciting.
        As we think about how we grow a workforce, there are things
    that we can do at the federal level. There are incentives that
    we can put in place, but I guess my experience is that young
    people are really smart and they are going to go where they
    think that there is a level of opportunity, that it is
    exciting, that it is cutting-edge, that they are making things
    happen. And so, if we send the right signals that we are
    leading in this, that we are where you want to be, I do think
    that just generates that level of enthusiasm and we are able to
    do more when it comes to developing that good strong workforce
    and then keeping them here with those opportunities. It is the
    keeping them here part that, I think, when somebody mentioned
    ``are we in an arms race here'' in terms of who is going first.
    It is important, the investment that is being made. But again,
    I think as long as young people believe that there is greatest
    opportunity here to be pushing out in these areas, I think this
    is how we stay ahead.
        I appreciate all that you have contributed to this
    conversation. I admit that I have learned a great deal more in
    the two hours that we have been sitting here. It has been great
    from my personal advantage, and I thank you for that, but thank
    you for sharing with the Committee.
        I think, between what we have been doing here and then the
    hearing that we had a few weeks back on block chain and crypto
    currency, we are doing fun, forward-thinking things here. So
    watch the Energy Committee.
        Thanks so much and we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]