[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







                         SCIENCE AND ENERGY
                     RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

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

                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 27, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-54

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

                                     
                                     
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
				                                         
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov  
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
47-350PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                         Subcommittee on Energy

                 HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             RANDY WEBER, Texas, 
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan                  Ranking Member
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     JIM BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California    










































                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             April 27, 2022

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee 
  on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    10
    Written Statement............................................    12

Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    13
    Written Statement............................................    15

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    16

Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    17

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and 
  Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy
     Oral Statement...............................................    18
    Written Statement............................................    20

Discussion.......................................................    29

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Under Secretary for Science and 
  Innovation, U.S. Department of Energy..........................    50

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Statement submitted by Representative Deborah Ross, Subcommittee 
  on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives
    ``Science and Energy Research Infrastructure Needs of the 
      U.S. Department of Energy,'' the American Society of Civil 
      Engineers..................................................    74

 
                           SCIENCE AND ENERGY 
                     RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m., in 
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamaal 
Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Bowman. This hearing will now come to order. 
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess 
at any time.
    Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that, 
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I 
want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the 
conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff who are 
attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a 
requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive 
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask 
while present.
    Members who are attending virtually should keep their video 
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are 
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your 
microphones muted unless you are speaking.
    Finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for 
the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose 
email address was circulated prior to the hearing.
    Good morning, and thank you to Under Secretary Richmond for 
joining us today to discuss the science and energy research 
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy (DOE). We're 
holding this hearing to examine the goals and impacts of the 
DOE's budget request for 2023, with particular attention to 
impacts on the construction and upgrade of user facilities and 
large-scale experiments managed by the DOE Office of Science 
(SC). That said, questions concerning programs and activities 
carried out by other DOE offices will of course also be 
welcome.
    I want to start off by emphasizing that we are in a climate 
emergency, as the most recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change) report has reminded us yet again. In response, 
we need urgent, transformative action from Congress and the 
Administration. We need a clean energy revolution. I thank the 
White House and DOE leadership for the important steps they are 
taking to restructure the agency, think outside the box, and 
mobilize our resources and expertise to kickstart that 
revolution.
    This is evident in several aspects of the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2023 budget request, and I would specifically like to note my 
appreciation for the integrated approach to research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment that is shaping 
strong investments at the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy (EERE), for example. And from solar 
manufacturing to home electrification, we need to center the 
communities that have been most harmed and neglected by the 
fossil fuel economy. I also welcome very strongly the continued 
emphasis on equity and implementing Justice40. Let's keep going 
bigger on all of this. And I strongly believe that to achieve 
our goals and reach our full potential as a society, we need to 
invest as ambitiously as possible across the entire science, 
technology, and innovation ecosystem.
    Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2023 request underinvests in 
one crucial part of that ecosystem: DOE's Office of Science. 
The Office of Science is the lead Federal agency supporting 
scientific research for energy applications and is the Nation's 
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. This 
agency has two principal thrusts: direct funding for scientific 
research and the development and operation of large-scale 
experiments and scientific user facilities. These assets and 
activities collectively serve tens of thousands of 
investigators across hundreds of different entities, both 
domestically and internationally.
    In doing so, they play a pivotal role in driving 
advancements in transformative new clean energy technologies, 
while also helping unlock the science behind some of our most 
fundamental mysteries, including the very nature of matter, 
energy, space, and time. For example, the office's light source 
facilities enable detailed characterization of new materials 
for next generation batteries. The office also leads the U.S. 
contribution to the international ITER (International 
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) project, which could 
greatly accelerate progress toward the realization of fusion 
energy generation. In short, the Office of Science provides the 
bedrock on which DOE develops a broad range of advanced 
technologies.
    The health of the Office of Science is a top priority for 
the Energy Subcommittee, and the Committee as a whole. We have 
passed numerous pieces of bipartisan legislation concerning the 
office during the 117th Congress, including a comprehensive 
authorization, that seeks to leverage the office's assets to 
unleash innovation and tackle the problems of our time. In 
addition, we have held several hearings examining the office's 
portfolio and conducted oversight through other channels, 
including briefings and meetings with DOE and White House 
officials to convey the important role the office will play in 
achieving the Administration's goals on climate, clean energy, 
and more.
    This is why I am concerned by and disappointed with the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2023 budget request for the 
office. Under this proposal, many current major construction 
projects would not be supported at levels that are needed to 
maintain their project schedules and minimize their total 
costs. This problem is pervasive, affecting projects relevant 
to many scientific fields from particle physics to fusion 
energy and at numerous national labs, including the Electron--
excuse me, the Electron-Ion Collider and future upgrades to the 
National Synchrotron Light Source-II at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory in New York.
    The resultant delays and increased price tags caused by a 
lackluster budget impede scientific progress and deny DOE's 
internal and external research communities' access to the most 
up-to-date instrumentation. Furthermore, they raise alarm among 
the Department's contractors and collaborators, both domestic 
and international, about its commitment to these projects. 
Budget requests that propose cuts, stagnation, or slow growth 
to the office's top line also cause downward pressure on the 
research programs, which is leading to adverse long-term 
effects.
    The Office of Science plays a key role in advancing 
scientific discovery here and around the world, and it is a 
major contributor to the work force pipeline that enables DOE 
to fulfill its mission and that is needed to address the 
climate crisis. I also believe these research programs are a 
powerful tool for broadening participation and increasing 
equity in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics), which is an issue I am particularly passionate 
about.
    With that in mind, I would like to see future budget 
requests from the Administration that employ the same approach 
taken by the Committee in the Department of Energy Science for 
the Future Act, which formed one of the cornerstones of the 
America COMPETES Act. Our top priority, executed in a 
bipartisan manner, was to provide policy direction and 
authorize funding levels that would empower the Office of 
Science to adequately meet the financial requirements inherent 
to both its research and construction portfolios. These bills 
would enable large-scale construction projects to be completed 
on time and on budget and would expand the office's research 
enterprise in a way that would encourage more young people to 
enter scientific fields and diversify the Department's work 
force. I'll note that the Administration wholeheartedly 
endorsed both of these bills, and so I hope that going forward 
they will match rhetoric with action.
    Thank you again, and I look forward to this discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you to Under Secretary Richmond for 
joining us today to discuss the science and energy research 
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy.
    We're holding this hearing to examine the goals and impacts 
of the DOE's budget request for 2023, with particular attention 
to impacts on the construction and upgrade of user facilities 
and large-scale experiments managed by the DOE Office of 
Science. That said, questions concerning programs and 
activities carried out by other DOE offices will of course also 
be welcome.
    I want to start off by emphasizing that we are in a climate 
emergency, as the most recent IPCC report has reminded us yet 
again. In response, we need urgent, transformative action from 
Congress and the Administration. We need a clean energy 
revolution. I thank the White House and DOE leadership for the 
important steps they are taking to restructure the agency, 
think outside the box, and mobilize our resources and expertise 
to kickstart that revolution. This is evident in several 
aspects of the FY 2023 budget request, and I would specifically 
like to note my appreciation for the integrated approach to 
research, development, demonstration, and deployment that is 
shaping strong investments at the Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, for example. And from solar manufacturing 
to home electrification, we need to center the communities that 
have been most harmed and neglected by the fossil fuel economy. 
I also welcome the continued emphasis on equity and 
implementing Justice40.
    Let's keep going bigger on all of this. And I strongly 
believe that to achieve our goals and reach our full potential 
as a society, we need to invest as ambitiously as possible 
across the entire science, technology, and innovation 
ecosystem. Unfortunately, the FY 2023 request under-invests in 
one crucial part of that ecosystem: DOE's Office of Science.
    The Office of Science is the lead federal agency supporting 
scientific research for energy applications and is the nation's 
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. This 
agency has two principal thrusts: direct funding for scientific 
research; and the development and operation of large-scale 
experiments and scientific user facilities. These assets and 
activities collectively serve tens of thousands of 
investigators across hundreds of different entities, both 
domestically and internationally. In doing so, they play a 
pivotal role in driving advancements in transformative new 
clean energy technologies, while also helping unlock the 
science behind some of our most fundamental mysteries, 
including the very nature of matter, energy, space, and time. 
For example, the Office's light source facilities enable 
detailed characterization of new materials for next generation 
batteries. The Office also leads the U.S. contribution to the 
international ITER (pronounced ``eater'') project, which could 
greatly accelerate progress toward the realization of fusion 
energy generation. In short, the Office of Science provides the 
bedrock on which DOE develops a broad range of advanced 
technologies.
    The health of the Office of Science is a top priority for 
the Energy Subcommittee, and the Committee as a whole. We have 
passed numerous pieces of bipartisan legislation concerning the 
Office during the 117th Congress, including a comprehensive 
authorization, that seek to leverage the Office's assets to 
unleash innovation and tackle the problems of our time. In 
addition, we have held several hearings examining the Office's 
portfolio and conducted oversight through other channels, 
including briefings and meetings with DOE and White House 
officials to convey the important role the Office will play in 
achieving the Administration's goals on climate, clean energy, 
and more.
    This is why I am concerned by and disappointed with the 
Administration's FY 2023 budget request for the Office. Under 
this proposal, many current major construction projects would 
not be supported at levels that are needed to maintain their 
project schedules and minimize their total costs. This problem 
is pervasive, affecting projects relevant to many scientific 
fields-from particle physics to fusion energy-and at numerous 
national labs, including the Electron-Ion Collider and future 
upgrades to the National Synchrotron Light Source-II at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. The resultant 
delays and increased price tags caused by a lackluster budget 
impede scientific progress and deny DOE's internal and external 
research communities access to the most up-to-date 
instrumentation. Furthermore, they raise alarm among the 
Department's contractors and collaborators-both domestic and 
international-about its commitment to these projects.
    Budget requests that propose cuts, stagnation, or slow 
growth to the Office's topline also cause downward pressure on 
the research programs, which is leading to adverse long-term 
effects. The Office of Science plays a key role in advancing 
scientific discovery here and around the world. And it is a 
major contributor to the workforce pipeline that enables DOE to 
fulfill its mission and that is needed to address the climate 
crisis. I also believe these research programs are a powerful 
tool for broadening participation and increasing equity in 
STEM, which is an issue I am particularly passionate about.
    With that in mind, I would like to see future budget 
requests from the Administration that employ the same approach 
taken by the Committee in the Department of Energy Science for 
the Future Act, which formed one of the cornerstones of the 
America COMPETES Act. Our top priority, executed in a 
bipartisan manner, was to provide policy direction and 
authorize funding levels that would empower the Office of 
Science to adequately meet the financial requirements inherent 
to both its research and construction portfolios. These bills 
would enable large-scale construction projects to be completed 
on time and on budget, and would expand the Office's research 
enterprise in a way that would encourage more young people to 
enter scientific fields and diversify the Department's 
workforce. I'll note that the Administration wholeheartedly 
endorsed both of these bills, and so I hope that going forward 
they will match rhetoric with action.
    Thank you again, and I look forward to this discussion.

    Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening this hearing on this important topic.
    We are facing serious threats to our country's energy 
security, its reliability, as well as affordability. Just ask 
anyone who has filled up their car with gas recently or 
suffered through a power outage in freezing weather. These are 
complex problems, but we will not solve them unless we are 
willing to confront the underlying basic scientific questions 
and technical roadblocks. And there is no one better positioned 
to do that than the United States Department of Energy, and 
that's why we're glad you're here.
    The Department's Office of Science is our country's largest 
supporter of basic research in physical sciences and takes on 
today's toughest fundamental challenges in physics, in 
chemistry, in materials science, biology, and computer science. 
DOE's 28 scientific user facilities house the advanced 
equipment required for cutting-edge research such as high-
powered lasers, particle accelerators, and advanced 
supercomputers. These are capabilities that only the Federal 
Government is set to provide. If we fail to sustain our support 
for these tremendous resources, we are not only squandering our 
previous investments but putting our clean energy future, our 
national security, and our international competitiveness at 
risk. The Chinese Communist Party is open about their ambition 
to replace the United States as the world's scientific, as well 
as economic, leader.
    Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine have sparked global 
instability and economic uncertainty. If we allow our research 
infrastructure to fall behind, our international rivals will 
gain control of the most crucial emerging industries, and we 
will no longer attract top international talent to our 
institutions.
    Folks, I have championed the importance of basic research 
throughout my time on the Science Committee. I would say that I 
feel like a broken record, but it still appears that nobody's 
gotten that message. For Fiscal Year 2023, the Department of 
Energy has requested a less than 5 percent increase for the 
Office of Science. Let that sink in, less than 5 percent. 
Meanwhile, the Department has requested a 56 percent increase 
for ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) and 
includes massive increases for activities within EERE like a 44 
percent increase for the Vehicle Technologies Office and 84 
percent increase for the Solar Energy Technologies Office and a 
whopping 200 percent increase for the Wind Energy Technologies 
Office. I fear that this request is not sufficient to support 
the numerous construction projects and upgrades required to 
maintain the Office of Science's top-of-the-line facilities and 
address emerging challenges for these projects.
    Instead, the proposal appears to be more focused on Green 
New Deal talking points than on what we call mission-critical 
Department of Energy needs. How many clean energy innovations 
will come from increased funding for corporate support programs 
in solar energy soft cost production? I can answer that. None. 
Dare I say they won't see the light of day.
    I look forward to hearing more about this request and how 
the Department plans to maintain its commitment to our critical 
research infrastructure and user facilities. We cannot shy away 
from asking those tough questions and pushing for specific 
answers at these hearings. We have a responsibility to our 
constituents to ensure our Federal agencies are stewarding 
their hard-earned dollars responsibly.
    Additionally, while we have done a lot of good work in 
Congress and at this Committee the Chairman talked about to 
support the Department's research enterprise, failure to invest 
our Federal funds wisely will actually undermine that 
progress--process. I'm sorry, progress and process.
    I'm also looking forward to learning more about the myriad 
changes announced for the Department. To date, Congress has 
received few details on how the departmentwide reorganization 
will actually impact coordination between program offices and 
how newly created program offices will cooperate with existing 
ones to administer R&D (research and development) programs and 
prevent duplicative efforts. Cross-cutting issues such as grid 
security and critical mineral availability require efficient 
communication and seamless cooperation among program offices, 
so we must come out of this hearing with a clearer view of this 
new structure.
    Under Secretary Richmond, we want to say thank you for your 
testimony today, and I'm especially glad to see you here in 
person with or without a mask. I look forward to working with 
you to maximize the value of our Federal R&D investments. And, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Bowman. And thank you for convening 
this hearing on this important topic.
    We are facing serious threats to our country's energy 
security, reliability, and affordability. Just ask anyone who 
has filled up their car with gas recently or suffered through a 
power outage in freezing weather. These are complex problems, 
but we will not solve them unless we are willing to confront 
the underlying basic scientific questions and technical 
roadblocks. And there is no one better positioned to do that 
than the U.S. Department of Energy.
    The Department's Office of Science is our country's largest 
supporter of basic research in physical sciences and takes on 
today's toughest fundamental challenges in physics, chemistry, 
materials science, biology, and computer science.
    DOE's 28 scientific user facilities house the advanced 
equipment required for cutting- edge research, such as high 
power lasers, particle accelerators, and advanced 
supercomputers.
    These are capabilities that only the Federal government can 
provide. If we fail to sustain our support for these tremendous 
resources, we are not only squandering our previous investments 
but putting our clean energy future, national security and 
international competitiveness at risk. The Chinese Communist 
Party is open about their ambition to replace the United States 
as the world's scientific and economic leader. Russia's 
aggressive actions in Ukraine have sparked global instability 
and economic uncertainty. If we allow our research 
infrastructure to fall behind, our international rivals will 
gain control of the most crucial emerging industries and we 
will no longer attract top international talent to our 
institutions.
    I have championed the importance of basic research 
throughout my time on the Science Committee. I would say that I 
feel like a broken record, but it still appears that not 
everyone has gotten the message.
    For Fiscal Year 2023, the Department of Energy has 
requested a less than five percent increase for the Office of 
Science. Meanwhile, the Department has requested a 56 percent 
increase for ARPA-E, and includes massive increases for 
activities within EERE (E-E-R-E), like a 44 percent increase 
for the Vehicle Technologies Office, an 84 percent increase for 
the Solar Energy Technologies Office, and a whopping 200 
percent increase for the Wind Energy Technologies Office.
    I fear that this request is not sufficient to support the 
numerous construction projects and upgrades required to 
maintain the Office of Science's top-of-the-line facilities and 
address emerging challenges for these projects. Instead, the 
proposal appears to be more focused on Green New Deal talking 
points than on mission-critical DOE needs.
    How many clean energy innovations will come from increased 
funding for corporate support programs and solar energy soft 
cost reduction? I can answer that: none.
    I look forward to hearing more about this request and how 
the Department plans to maintain its commitment to our critical 
research infrastructure and user facilities. We cannot shy away 
from asking tough questions and pushing for specific answers at 
these hearings.
    We have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure our 
federal agencies are stewarding their hard-earned dollars 
responsibly. Additionally, while we have done a lot of good 
work in Congress and at this Committee to support the 
Department's research enterprise, failure to invest our federal 
funds wisely will undermine that progress. I am also looking 
forward to learning more about the myriad changes announced for 
the Department.
    To date, Congress has received few details on how the 
Department-wide reorganization will impact coordination between 
program offices, and how newly-created program offices will 
cooperate with existing ones to administer R&D programs and 
prevent duplicative efforts.
    Crosscutting issues such as grid security and critical 
mineral availability require efficient communication and 
seamless cooperation among program offices, so we must come out 
of this hearing with a clearer view of this new structure.
    Under Secretary Richmond, thank you for your testimony 
today, and I'm especially glad to see you here in person. I 
look forward to working with you to maximize the value of our 
federal R&D investments.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
    Is Chairwoman Johnson present? We will----
    Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, may I take a personal privilege? 
We want to say to our great Chairwoman of the Full Science 
Committee that we hope the best for her and want the best for 
her. We're sorry that she's not here and that we're praying for 
her, and I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you for that, Mr. Weber.
    If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 
point.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning everyone, and thank you, Under Secretary 
Richmond, for appearing before us today. As you know, this 
Committee has jurisdiction over all of the Department of 
Energy's essential science and energy research and development 
activities, laboratories, and facilities. So I very much look 
forward to working with you over the rest of this Congress.
    I want to focus my remarks this morning on the DOE Office 
of Science. During my tenure on the Science Committee, I have 
observed that the Office of Science often flies under the radar 
amongst policymakers and the public alike. This has always 
surprised me because the Office, which was funded at around 
$7.5 billion in Fiscal Year 2022, is the lead federal agency 
supporting scientific research for energy applications and the 
nation's largest supporter of research in the physical 
sciences.
    Not only does the Office support research directly, it also 
supports the development, construction, and operation of a 
broad portfolio of large-scale experiments and unique, open-
access scientific user facilities. These facilities are 
critically important for the development of new technologies 
and for exploring the frontiers of our scientific understanding 
by researchers from both academia and industry. In carrying out 
its mission, the Office of Science also has stewardship of ten 
of the seventeen DOE national laboratories.
    So why does the work of this Office sometimes get 
overlooked by policymakers and the public? I think it's easy to 
get lost in the details and gloss over the importance of some 
of these scientific tools. However, the fact remains that the 
activities that the Office of Science supports are vital to 
improving our competitiveness and decarbonizing our country. 
The activities supported by this office are essential to 
advancing transformative industries that are important to all 
of us and our national security, from next generation batteries 
and microelectronics to quantum science and carbon-free fusion 
energy systems. It should also be mentioned that the Office of 
Science supplies the nation with isotopes that are essential to 
everyday life, with uses ranging from cancer treatments to food 
sterilization.
    Dr. Richmond, I know that you share my belief in the 
importance of this Office. Yet the reality is that successive 
Administrations, including the current one, have repeatedly 
presented budget requests to Congress that would underfund the 
Office of Science relative to the activities the nation has 
tasked it to undertake. While I support the Administration's 
goal of additional funding for the Office and it is certainly 
appreciated, the level of growth proposed for Fiscal Year 2023 
is simply not sufficient for the current needs of the world-
class user facilities, research programs, and national 
laboratories stewarded by the Office, as expressed to the 
Committee by the Department itself.
    As an example of these deficiencies, the Fiscal Year 2023 
request for the Office of Science's fusion program would amount 
to a 1.4% increase over the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriated 
level. If enacted, this would effectively be a cut to the 
program when annual research cost inflation levels are taken 
into account. Ironically, this funding level was announced 
shortly after the White House held a three-hour summit in March 
to announce a new fusion energy initiative and discuss the 
progress and potential benefits of improved support for fusion 
research and development. You and the Secretary both provided 
quite eloquent and encouraging remarks at this event, so you 
can understand my puzzlement at the budget request for fusion.
    More broadly, I believe you know that this Committee has 
prioritized reauthorizing the work of the Office of Science for 
some time now, and there now exists bicameral and bipartisan 
support in the form of companion DOE Science for the Future 
bills in the House and Senate. The House also included this 
bill in the America COMPETES Act of 2022, which was endorsed by 
the Administration. I intend to continue to press for a healthy 
funding level of for the Office of Science when Congress acts 
on DOE's budget request later this year. And I urge the 
Administration to consider the importance of additional funding 
to support some of our nation's most important science and 
energy research programs and facilities as you start your work 
to prepare next year's request.
    With that, I would like to thank you again for being here, 
and I look forward to working with you.

     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this important 
hearing, and thank you Under Secretary Richmond for your time 
and testimony this morning.While the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology has jurisdiction over all of the 
Department of Energy's civilian R&D programs, as well as the 17 
DOE National Laboratories, this hearing with the Under 
Secretary will focus on the Department's fiscal year 2023 
priorities for several key programs within this broad 
jurisdiction--such as the Office of Science, the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Office of 
Nuclear Energy.
    DOE is the nation's largest federal sponsor of basic 
research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in 
technology development and innovation.
    As such, it plays an essential role in the U.S. research 
ecosystem. On the Science Committee, we recognize that this 
ecosystem must help us overcome our two most significant 
immediate challenges: the need to address global climate change 
and the need to maintain U.S. leadership in science and 
technology.
    We know that DOE is uniquely positioned to meet both 
challenges, particularly through its Office of Science. The 
Office of Science supports the kind of fundamental research 
that will not only enable the development of next-generation 
clean energy technologies but will also support U.S. 
competitiveness in science and establish our global leadership 
in industries of the future.
    The best part is that investing in this basic research 
spurs our economy without duplicating work that can and should 
be done by the private sector. It's the most efficient way for 
the government to support American scientific progress.
    Last summer, the Science Committee worked together to pass 
H.R. 3593, the DOE Science for the Future Act, in the House 
with 351 votes. If enacted, this overwhelmingly bipartisan 
legislation would be the first comprehensive authorization of 
the Office of Science. It includes detailed program direction 
and substantial funding for DOE basic research programs and 
critical research infrastructure at the DOE National 
Laboratories.
    In February, the Senate introduced S. 3699, the DOE Science 
for the Future Act of 2022, a direct companion to this 
legislation which includes robust investments for Office of 
Science programs across the board.
    Yet, despite the broad, bipartisan, and bicameral support 
for sustained Office of Science growth, this Administration 
continues to demonstrate a lack of commitment to this office 
and its world- leading facilities. I am surprised and deeply 
concerned to see that, while the Department's budget request 
includes funding increases as high as 60% for other program 
offices, it includes just a 4.3% increase for the Office of 
Science and inadequate funding profiles for its high priority 
National Laboratory research facilities.
    The Office of Science is the engine that drives 
breakthrough scientific discoveries. As I said earlier, it 
conducts the basic research that allows for new, more efficient 
and cleaner energy technologies. Why then is DOE underfunding 
it?
    EERE and the Loan Program Office, for instance, invest in 
mature technologies and community projects. While there is 
certainly a role for this kind of work at DOE, we're shooting 
ourselves in the foot when we prioritize these over DOE's clean 
energy innovation work. We're sacrificing future discoveries 
for feel-good policies today.
    So I'd like to hear from the Under Secretary just how DOE 
plans to adequately support the Office of Science's 
infrastructure and research programs with such a constrained 
budget.
    I know many on this committee and in the research community 
are looking for answers.
    This is just one of our areas of concern this morning. As 
all of my friends here know, last Congress, the Science 
Committee worked together to pass the Energy Act of 2020, the 
first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy in over a 
decade. It includes more than a dozen bills from this committee 
and focuses on competitive clean energy solutions driven by 
research across DOE's applied energy offices.
    Last May, this committee heard from Secretary Granholm 
about DOE's plans to fully implement this legislation. A lot 
has changed in since we spoke with the Secretary last year. The 
Department received over $62 billion through the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). And to accommodate this 
overwhelming influx of taxpayer dollars, DOE has undergone a 
major restructuring, established several new offices, and has 
announced a plan to hire 1,000 new workers through the Clean 
Energy Corps.
    I led a letter to Secretary Granholm last week asking for 
more information about this hiring spree. I'm concerned that 
this initiative lacks strategy and foresight, and that it could 
end up duplicating or undermining other important work by the 
Department to advance clean energy technologies.
    I hope to hear more about that program today. I also look 
forward to receiving an update from the Under Secretary on the 
Energy Act authorized activities under her purview, like the 
enhanced geothermal systems demonstration and FORGE activities, 
the low dose radiation research program, and U.S. contributions 
to the ITER project. Additionally, I hope this hearing touches 
on her plans to coordinate with the Undersecretary for 
Infrastructure on management of clean energy demonstration 
projects and grid R&D activities within this committee's 
jurisdiction.
    I want to thank Under Secretary Richmond for her testimony 
today, and for outlining her plans to support our federal R&D 
enterprise in fiscal year 2023 and beyond. I look forward to a 
productive discussion.

    Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce 
our witness. Dr. Geraldine Richmond is the Under Secretary for 
Science and Innovation at the Department of Energy. In this 
role she oversees DOE's Office of Science, as well as research 
and development in renewable energy, nuclear energy, carbon 
management, energy efficiency, and grid modernization, among 
other areas. She also oversees DOE's national laboratories and 
their facilities.
    Dr. Richmond is currently on leave from the University of 
Oregon where she holds the Presidential Chair in Science and 
Professor of Chemistry. She has been honored by many awards, 
including the National Medal of Science, the Priestley Medal 
from the American Chemical Society, and the Linus Pauling Medal 
Award. She has served two terms as a Presidential appointee to 
the National Science Board and has also been President of the 
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.
    A long--a career-long advocate for underrepresented groups 
in STEM fields, she is the founding Director of a grassroots 
organization called the Committee on the Advancement of Women 
Chemists, or COACh, that has helped over 25,000 women 
scientists and engineers in career advancement in the United 
States and in dozens of developing countries around the world. 
Thank you for joining us today.
    As our witness should know, you will have 5 minutes for 
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included 
in the record for the hearing. When you have completed your 
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
    Dr. Richmond, please begin.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. GERALDINE RICHMOND,

          UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND INNOVATION,

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you. It's a pleasure 
to be here personally today, too. We've been quarantined for so 
long, and I wish health to all Members who might be under the 
weather with whatever's going around.
    So as Members of this Committee know, the Office of 
Science, or SC, is the cornerstone of the U.S. research system. 
Through basic and use-inspired research, the Office of Science 
is making critically important advances, as you pointed out, in 
science and technology that support our economic and national 
security, including a just and equitable clean energy and 
climate change transition.
    SC is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the 
physical sciences and takes the lead in fundamental scientific 
research for our energy future. I myself have been blessed with 
having funding for my own research program at the Department of 
Energy for over 30 years, so I appreciate the Office of Science 
very much for all the students that that's produced now that 
have gone further.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget request for science 
grows investments in Administration priorities, including the 
basic research we still need to meet challenges in the areas of 
climate change and clean energy, artificial intelligence (AI), 
machine learning, and bio-preparedness.
    This supports the launch of three new research initiatives: 
Science Energy Earthshots; Funding for Accelerated Inclusive 
Research, FAIR; and the Accelerated Innovations in Emerging 
Technologies, or Accelerate. It also supports continued funding 
for priorities areas including microelectronics, critical 
minerals, quantum information science, exascale computing, 
fundamental science to transform manufacturing, and accelerator 
science and technology. And the Office of Science request for 
Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce, RENEW, is doubled 
from the Fiscal Year 2022 appropriation to expand targeted 
efforts to diversify the scientific work force, and may I point 
out, especially at HBCUs (historically Black colleges and 
universities).
    At the same time, these investments position the Office of 
Science to operate across programs and beyond traditional silos 
and help build a science work force that looks like America. At 
the same time, this proposed budget balance is competing 
priorities across the Office of Science portfolio. It supports 
research to advance frontiers of science, as well as the 
construction and upgrade of world-leading scientific user 
facilities and their operation and maintenance.
    This request supports the next generation of scientific 
tools to maintain U.S. leadership in scientific discovery and 
technology development to support our Nation's economic 
competitiveness and to foster our national security.
    So with that, I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Under Secretary Richmond 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Under Secretary Richmond. I 
will begin the round of questioning. And just to let you know, 
I have three questions. We're going to try to get through all 
of them as quickly as possible.
    Thank you so much for being with us today. As I laid out in 
my opening statement, the President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget 
request for the Office of Science raises concerns for this 
Committee. It is simply not enough to support the current needs 
of the office's facilities, research programs, and national 
laboratories that it stewards. My understanding is that 
underinvestment in the Office of Science has been a longer 
trend that my colleagues have been observing and asking about 
for several years now, though of course we know that you have 
only recently begun your tenure at the DOE. Can you walk us 
through how the Administration arrived at only a 4.3 percent 
increase for the Office of Science, especially in comparison to 
the major increases proposed for DOE's applied energy programs 
and the National Science Foundation (NSF)?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that 
question. Again, I am a new--bit of a newbie to the process, 
and--but I must say that we still consider this a strong budget 
request. And it does follow the priorities of the 
Administration--the Biden Administration in putting forth 
funding for--especially for climate change and equity issues. 
And so in developing that funding request, which is really just 
a blueprint, we--given to the Administration, we really look 
forward to being able to make progress in many of the areas we 
continue to be in the forefront of with the existing budget 
request and look forward to working with you to see how we can 
even go further with regards to making sure that we have a 
strong and robust Office of Science budget and facilities and 
search and operations.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. It is also my 
understanding that because of the persistent budget constraint 
issues we are seeing in the President's request for the Office 
of Science, the office's strategy for estimating project costs 
involves annual self-editing of the project funding profiles to 
fit within a relatively low arbitrary topline funding level for 
the office that DOE believes is achievable. In other words, 
this hasn't been a bottom-up process where you look at the 
obligations, needs, and research opportunities of the office 
and base a budget request on that but more of a top-down one. 
Are you aware of this strategy, and do you know if the 
Department has plans to improve it? Can you commit to improving 
this process?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you for that question. This 
is a really important issue that you raise. And again, coming 
into the Department now as new, I've been working with the 
Office of Science to do real baselining, the actual costs of 
being able to understand--and the reason this is important not 
only for the issues that you raise, with regards to whether 
it's changed practices or not, but we have just been through 2 
years of COVID. That has changed the way we even think about 
how we operate our facilities or need to operate our 
facilities, whether it be adding AI to the way that we do 
things at our facilities, as well as remote. But we still have 
to have the staffing to do that.
    And so I've been working diligently with the Office of 
Science to re-baseline all of the facilities and the operations 
from the bottom up so we know truly what number we need to be 
going into. And so I absolutely am committed to this, and I 
thank you for raising the issue and also looking forward to 
working with you on this. This is really important.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you for that answer, very exciting 
to hear that. My colleagues may have further followups, but I'd 
like to switch gears a little bit.
    One of my priorities as Chair of this Subcommittee has been 
advancing a vision for energy justice, and we have spent a good 
deal of time examining and legislating on how to apply that 
vision to our country's scientific and climate research 
activities specifically. I want to commend the Department for 
recently rolling out a new research initiative involving urban 
integrated field laboratories. This initiative will fund new 
observational modeling and simulation studies to improve the 
accuracy of community-scale climate research and inform 
equitable climate solutions, including simulation of the 
benefits of deploying those solutions in marginalized 
communities across the country.
    I am pleased to see that funds will be going out this year 
and also that the Fiscal Year 2023 budget request proposes 
additional funds for this initiative. Can you talk to us about 
how you see energy justice reflected in this budget request, 
and what are your priorities when it comes to implementing the 
Justice40 initiative?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that 
question, too. As you noted, I've spent many years of my 
career, several decades working on issues of equity in STEM. 
But this goes beyond that. And I'll continue to push for that, 
and I'm glad I have many alliances in the Department of Energy. 
But this goes beyond that. What the Office of Science is doing 
and DOE is doing is truly committed to Justice40 and really 
making a concerted effort in everything we do to make sure that 
we are making up for the mistakes, can I say, in the past with 
regards to where we put our energy resources, where we provide 
opportunities for those to advance in their careers in ways I 
have never seen before. I mean, I've been involved with 
leadership activities in the Department of Energy and NSF for 
several decades, and I have never seen the issues of equity 
and--of our energy resources all over the country, in urban 
areas, in rural areas like where I come from, I've never seen 
that before. And it just is so exciting to be in nearly every 
meeting and have the Justice40 issue raised, whether that has 
to do with the grid, whether that has to do with scientists we 
have in our national laboratories or using our facilities or 
who gets solar energy panels or, for example, in tribal 
communities. I mean, that's--some of the resources in our 
tribal communities remind me of things that I've seen in 
Africa. This is not acceptable. This is not acceptable. And 
it's--I just have to say I'm deeply proud of where the Office 
of Science is going and DOE in general on these issues. It 
makes my heart pitter patter.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Dr. Richmond. I now 
recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Under 
Secretary Richmond, for being here and being real. I know when 
you were reading your remarks, blah, and you kind of--and I 
don't know how you spell that, but I--you know, my tongue--my 
tang gets tungled, too, every now and then, so thank you for 
being here and being real. Your excitement and enthusiasm 
shows.
    Secretary Richmond--Under Secretary Richmond, it's my 
opinion, and I think I can safely say the opinion of many in 
this room, that the DOC research facilities like those 
sponsored by the Office of Science and the Office of Nuclear 
Energy are truly the crown jewels of our Federal research 
infrastructure. Glad to hear that you've spent many years--I 
mean, you don't look old enough to spend that too many years.
    You know, we know that maintaining and advancing these 
world-leading facilities is absolutely essential to our global 
leadership in science, as well as technology. That's why it's 
so important that when we in Congress authorize construction of 
a new facility, it's completed in a timely manner. So it should 
come as no surprise that I am concerned about something in the 
past, what I--the future Versatile Test Reactor (VTR), after 
all, it was my bill that helped our great Committee here, the 
Nuclear Innovation--Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities 
Act--we call it NEICA--of 2017--that first authorized to the 
Versatile Test Reactor's construction. But here we are 5 years 
later and VTR's completion has been stalled and then tied to 
the success of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, 
ARDP, a program just recently authorized in 2020.
    So my question, Under Secretary Richmond, can you please 
share with us, being as detailed as possible, an update on the 
status of the VTR, Versatile Test Reactor, and your plans to 
ensure its timely success?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that 
question. Both of them are incredibly important to us. I don't 
have all the details in front of me. They're in these pages 
somewhere, but I'd love to be able to get back to on this 
because this is really important, both of these are for our 
future. So if you--I'd love to work with you on it----
    Mr. Weber. Yes.
    Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. Continue to press me 
on it to get back to you on it, but all I can say is that we're 
still committed to both of these. Some things just take a 
little bit longer than we would hope.
    Mr. Weber. Well, a couple of questions upfront. You know 
that Russia is outstripping us in that endeavor, right? They're 
way ahead of us, No. 1. And second question, you know that 
Russia is not our friend. In fact, right about now I would say 
that Russia is hardly anybody's friend, so that's a great--I 
would appreciate your commitment to doing that.
    Let me ask you this. What role would the ARDP and more 
specifically TerraPower's Natrium project play in the 
completion of the VTR, Versatile Test Reactor?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, I think they are coupled. I 
think they absolutely are coupled and we need one in order to 
get to the other. So, again, I'd be happy to get back to you on 
this----
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. And you're certainly 
committed to this.
    On your issue with regards to Russia, this has really 
changed the landscape of a lot of our programs and concerns in 
the Department of Energy. In my programs--and I'd be happy to 
talk more about that if questions arise, but this is--we are at 
a bit of a phase transition right now with regards to how we 
are viewing some of our resources and some of our--both the 
adequacies and inadequacies of some of our resources that we 
critically need that the Office of Science has been key to for 
so long but some of them sort of on the back burner.
    Mr. Weber. Well, I'm glad to hear that. How--in that vein, 
how will you plan to coordinate with the Under Secretary for 
Infrastructure in the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations on 
this very work?
    Under Secretary Richmond. So thank you for asking that 
question, too, because, you know, when I first came into this 
role, I was Under Secretary for Science and Energy. I had a 
broad portfolio and part of that going on to S3 over the 
infrastructure. That said, the person Kathleen Hogan, who is 
now the acting Under Secretary for Infrastructure, she was the 
one that was helping in my position before I came. We are 
connected at the hips if I can say that. We meet every morning, 
discussing how we can align our programs as closely as possible 
on all clean energy. And in fact, it's not just the applied 
programs, whether it be fusion or nuclear or whatever it is in 
the applied programs but also in the deployment, so this is 
just this way. But then I've also been working very hard on 
getting the Office of Science more connected better to the EERE 
and the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management) 
and the applied areas.
    As we put money into these different pockets, whether it be 
the Office of Science, the applied areas, or the deployment, I 
call them pockets but we're trying to make it one big seamless 
bucket and not only because if we're going to have success, we 
can't be siloed. And DOE has had a history of being siloed. And 
so I am working very hard to make sure that both the--in the 
applied and infrastructure area that we're tied very closely 
and making sure that everything that happens in the 
demonstration gets taken onto deployment.
    Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that. And as you continue 
down that path in cooperation and--with your colleague, I 
appreciate that, will you keep us updated on the progress? 
Because I'm very concerned about the VTR and we'd love for you 
to keep us updated.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes, and I can appreciate why you 
would be concerned about that because it's very important. And 
I promise you----
    Mr. Weber. Yes.
    Under Secretary Richmond [continuing]. We will.
    Mr. Weber. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from California, Mr. McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this 
hearing, and I thank the witness, Ms. Richmond, for your work 
in this area. And, as a scientist, I couldn't be more excited 
about these issues than you are.
    But I've noticed that a lot of the numbers are lower than 
what we'd like to see. A lot of the increases are lower than 
what we'd like to see, and I'm sure that that'll come out 
during the rest of the hearing, but I want to focus on a couple 
of issues.
    The DOE's Biological and Environmental Research division is 
doing critical work to both improve understanding of aerosol 
and cloud interactions with the Earth's atmosphere and to 
reduce uncertainty in climate models. I was glad to see 
specific mention in the budget of equipment refresh for the 
Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) research facility to 
collect observational data and to initiate operations for ARM 
aerial capability. Dr. Richmond, can you elaborate a little for 
me, please, on DOE's plan for expanding cloud aerosol science 
and reducing uncertainty, including through expansion of ARM's 
research and observational capability?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you very much for 
that question. You actually hit on an area of research that I 
myself have worked on with regards to atmospheric issues and 
also issues with regard to aerosols, so this is a really 
important topic that the Office of Science is taking on 
because, as you know, a lot of the climate issues are related 
to what's happening with aerosols, so being able to get more--I 
mean, the bottom line is we need to get a lot more--better 
predictions with regards to what's going on in the atmosphere, 
and that's been a challenge for a very, very long time. And in 
fact when I started Science, we figured that most of the 
chemistry that was going on in atmosphere was a bunch of little 
atoms and molecules bouncing off one another, but in fact we 
know today that most of the chemistry is happening actually in 
these aerosols. And so what's--and they're almost like little 
chemistry factories in there. And so if we don't understand 
what those aerosols are doing and what's happening even at 
their surfaces, we are not going to make progress on having 
predictive power.
    Now, how is that connected to predictive power? Well, that 
really comes down to computer modeling and being able to even 
use AI to advance our understanding of what's happening in the 
atmosphere and also in the climate. And I think--I'm just 
really excited to see more emphasis being put on this because 
there are some phenomenal scientists in this country. I know 
many of them who are far smarter than I am that really just do 
amazing work, and they are anxious to be able to take it to the 
point of being able to really help on the climate change issue, 
so I want to thank you very much for that question. And we 
continue to want to work with you as much as we can on this.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I've got two more questions. 
Within the Office of Science stewarded national labs, almost 1/
2 of the buildings and 2/3 of the supporting infrastructure are 
rated as substandard. At the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, which is 
near my district, 30 percent of the total space has a seismic 
rating of poor or very poor. Now, this presents a real danger 
to employees and guests. In your written testimony, you 
acknowledge that there's a backlog of more than $880 million in 
deferred maintenance which directly impacts the mission and 
staff. Given the significant backlog, can you discuss the 
budget request for the science laboratory's infrastructure 
program, which at $225 million would represent a 12 percent 
decrease from Fiscal Year 2022?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, this is indeed a critically 
important issue with regards to infrastructure, and we're 
really trying very hard to make way with this, but, you know, 
it's a problem that's been here for a long time. But we also 
know that while we've strived to maintain a balanced portfolio 
that includes optimal funding for facilities projects, tough 
decisions had to be made, and these tough decisions and funding 
tradeoffs are what we have here with regards to supporting the 
Administration and the Department's priorities.
    With that said, the Administration really is trying very, 
very hard to think about and certainly the Department of Energy 
think very hard about how we tackle these infrastructure issues 
because they are impacting our facilities in ways--and other 
projects that are just really hard to manage. And in fact I 
remember that there was an estimate if we continue to 
increase--even though we've--this is what--the best that we 
could do in this budget period. We know that we have to do 
much, much more if we're going to take care of this backlog. 
But again, there was a tradeoff between really trying to 
catalyze a lot of these climate change issues, to catalyze----
    Mr. McNerney. Let me interrupt you because I only have a 
few seconds left and I can barely see the clock against the 
yellow background. Do you believe the Administration on fusion, 
something I'm also very excited about--do you believe the 
Administration's proposed budget of $3 million is sufficient to 
support the development of inertial fusion for energy 
applications even though this is called out in the language?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes. Well, I just actually got 
back late last night from an ARPA-E fusion event in San 
Francisco, and the excitement around fusion is just incredible, 
and the amount of money, now private money that's being pumped 
into new ideas of fusion is very exciting.
    So what we're doing is following the White House Fusion 
Summit held on March 17th. I've set up a fusion crosscutting 
team and a leader in my office to coordinate the efforts across 
the Department with regard to fusion, and future budgeting 
requests will be coordinated across the whole department to 
support the decadal vision. So we are heavily committed to 
fusion, and we are following the advice of the--the FES Fusion 
Energy--I shouldn't say society, anyway FES, their advisory 
committee for fusion energy, their workshop in 2022 that will 
be held to define the science and technology thrust for the IFE 
(inertial fusion energy) program with the Office of Science. So 
fusion energy science is healthy and--but we need to be able to 
see how we can go further in fusion energy given the big 
changes that we've had in even recent months with regards to 
accelerating the need for clean energy in areas like nuclear 
and also in fusion.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
indulgence.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. 
Ross, is now recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Ranking 
Member Weber for holding this hearing today. And of course 
thank you to Dr. Richmond for being with us today to share your 
insights about the Department of Energy's budget needs, which 
are considerable.
    The hearing serves as a reminder that one of the most 
important end results of the COMPETES USICA conference process 
should be robust funding for DOE. DOE's Office of Science 
projects at various stages of maturity have already been 
inhibited or stalled by the COVID pandemic, as we've heard from 
Dr. Richmond. And additionally, large-scale projects are 
especially vulnerable to the fluctuation in annual budget and 
appropriations processes. As we move forward with the FY 2023 
appropriations, funding levels should be cognizant of these 
specific challenges.
    And, Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record a statement 
from the American Society of Civil Engineers.
    Chairman Bowman. Without objection.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few questions for Dr. 
Richmond.
    As we know, all industries have experienced supply chain 
issues as a result of the pandemic. If DOE is not funded 
adequately, what will this do to an already compromised supply 
chain? How will this impact the Office of Science construction 
and research projects?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you very much for 
that question, and it is one that we are very concerned about. 
Again, we do believe that with this strong budget request that 
we will be able to address many of these supply chain issues. 
There are, however, even in the recent weeks, these changes 
that we see particularly in the area of, for example, in 
isotopes where isotopes and also minerals where the Office of 
Science has spent a lot of time and energy over the years in 
terms of coming up with new radionuclides and also their 
applications in a number of different areas.
    It's only been in the last few weeks that with the fact 
that we're not going to build able to get many of these from 
Russia any longer, it's putting us in a critical state that 
this--that was not so apparent when this budget was put 
together. So there are concerns about our ability to meet the 
needs of many of--for medical uses, as well as technology as we 
go forward, and I hope to keep you abreast of these--or 
continuing thinking about this, but again, it was--we're in the 
midst of this now, and it really precedes putting in with the 
budget.
    But I do have to say that, as we go forward, that we really 
hope to be able to see the reconciliation bill go across the 
finish line since that last iteration included strong funding 
for lab infrastructure and also facilities, which could augment 
dollars, which would be enormously helpful. And so we thank all 
of you for the efforts that you have put into this and hope for 
some positive news coming out of that so that's just a followup 
to your question. Happy to work with you further on this.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, and happy to be helpful.
    Last year, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Congressman 
Meijer, who's also on this Committee but not this Subcommittee, 
to leverage Federal resources to grow technology transfer 
programs and public-private partnerships to address climate 
change. It addresses how universities in the private sector 
could capitalize on DOE's research to accelerate the commercial 
application of clean energy technologies. And I serve the 
Research Triangle area in North Carolina, so this is so 
important to us.
    Can you speak to the importance of increasing government 
cooperation with our colleges, universities, and companies to 
catalyze clean tech innovation and how this also affects your 
budget?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes, well, thank you for that 
question, and you come from a beautiful part of the country, 
too. I've been there many times to visit and love it very much.
    I believe that what we are doing here is we have a number 
of different activities that are tying closely to trying to 
take scientific discovery into--by accelerating scientific 
discovery into entrepreneurship, as well as going into academic 
institutions and also working with industry to make their 
science go further. And the Office of Science has really opened 
its doors more widely than I've seen them before with this 
budget in order to try to accelerate they--what's--the research 
that's coming out of our universities into industry and even 
starting companies.
    You know what really excites me in this area is that--just 
how many young people get really excited about wanting to go to 
graduate school and then start their own companies. And they're 
learning how to do that with programs that allow them such as 
the Office of Science that allows them to think more broadly 
about what they are doing beyond their own research. The Office 
of Science funds the basic research, but it also fosters those 
that are interested in also applying for patents and so forth.
    The message that I have been sending since I came into this 
position is that what we want to do in the Office of Science is 
to make sure that our science has true impact and that that 
impact is not just measured by simple metrics of publications 
and citations, that it truly is impact. And that I believe 
opens up the door for even our faculty and universities, as 
well as in our government laboratories to be thinking that, oh, 
I don't have to do the science, but if my metrics are only 
based on publications, then should I be spending some of my 
time looking at entrepreneurial activities? And I've sent the 
very strong message that we went to embrace all of that because 
if we're going to move forward, we need to have our science 
have an impact.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you for the responses, and I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. I need to make a 
slight course correction here. First of all, I want to 
apologize to Mr. Weber and my Republican colleagues. I was 
supposed to alternate questioners between Democrat and 
Republican, so to course-correct we're going to go back-to-back 
Republicans and then I'll fix the order going forward.
    So the gentleman from California, Mr. Garcia, is now 
recognized. Sorry about that, sir.
    Mr. Garcia. Oh, no problem, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
No offense taken at all. I apologize for not being there in 
person myself.
    Well, Dr. Richmond, first of all, thank you for the 
testimony. I'm a little bit concerned and I'll share the 
sentiment of my constituents as well. I come from California, a 
beautiful part of the country, north L.A. County, but 
unfortunately, we're being absolutely crushed right now with 
energy prices. I'm concerned and frankly I'm a little more 
concerned even after your testimony that we as a nation after 
our population has nearly doubled over the last 40 years, our 
organic production of energy to meet the demands of that 
population in terms of energy consumption has not kept up.
    I'm extremely concerned and even more so today that we have 
become more dependent on other countries such as Russia, 
Venezuela, Middle Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia for our 
energy needs because we've committed to those more on American 
energy without having alternatives in place to meet the demands 
that the current fossil fuel industry is meeting right now.
    And we're seeing massive problems in terms of affordability 
here in our own country. We're seeing gasoline prices in 
California that has a lot of gasoline within its borders and 
underneath its ground, lots of oil reserves at $6 to $6.50 a 
gallon. We're seeing even solar panels and solar leases 
skyrocketing, our electricity bills are anywhere from $300 to 
$800 depending on the size of the house. These are massive 
problems in an inflationary period that is absolutely 
backbreaking to our constituents and frankly I think Americans 
around the country because we don't have the adequate resources 
and in my opinion the adequate infrastructure needed to meet 
the energy demands of our people.
    We're also suffering from a lot of debt at the national 
level, $30 trillion worth of debt, and I see increasing budgets 
across the board. I hear complaints today in this Subcommittee 
hearing about not increasing enough in certain areas, but I 
haven't heard where we've made cuts. I haven't heard what 
programs have been sacrificed so that we can pay the programs 
that are needed or where synergies or efficiencies have been 
gained in the last year and a half to 2 years out of DOE so 
that we can afford other technologies and investments in those 
technologies.
    And I feel like we're investing in some archaic designs, 
archaic technologies that frankly have proven that they can't 
meet the demands, and I haven't heard how we're going to 
address our dependency on China, our dependency on Russia. I 
haven't heard anything about next-generation nuclear 
capabilities, alternative fuel cycles for those next-generation 
nuclear capabilities, and we're seeing relatively anemic 
investments and increases in the investments for the actual 
sciences relative to some of these other political platform 
issues that we've been discussing today.
    So can you help me alleviate some of these concerns and my 
constituents? How are we going to get pricing down for our 
energy costs? How are we going to compete with Russia, who has, 
you know, developed 20 new nuclear reactors in the last few 
years? They now got $133 billion in back orders. And what are 
we doing to invest in new technologies that actually allow us 
to recycle nuclear waste, recycle plutonium so we can have 
alternative fuel cycles in support of next-generation nuclear 
capabilities? Because frankly, right now, the sum of the parts 
don't add up. We don't have enough energy to meet the demand, 
and we continue to consume as a nation but fail to invest in 
capacity on the energy production side. So can you please help 
mitigate this concern that I have, and what's the long-term 
vision for this Administration?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for all those 
questions. There are a lot of them. I wish I could take up 
every single one of them. So let me just start big picture 
first because, as you lose sleep over this, there are a lot of 
us that lose sleep over it, too, especially how quickly things 
are changing. And what we're trying to do at the Department of 
Energy is to be smarter and more agile than we have ever been 
before.
    And so with this budget I believe that this is helping us 
be a new DOE. And I truly believe that, that this is a new DOE 
because we are absolutely--can I say this--hell-bent on making 
sure that we can take the discovery science as quickly as 
possible to the applications and demonstration and then to 
deployment. And with the--my--the infrastructure bill that went 
through, law that went through, it's really helping us--
everyone see what the mission is but what the pathway is so 
that we can get further along.
    With regards to nuclear and fusion, you know, I could talk 
about those singularly. We are absolutely on board with this 
with regards to clean energy by nuclear as well as fusion. With 
the issue--with the supply issues, we are working very 
diligently on making sure that we have enough of the nuclear 
fuel to not only keep our current nuclear facilities going but 
also for the future and that also goes for security, what we 
need for our security--our security needs also but also all the 
critical minerals. So even though I said this is a really 
phased transition from these last few weeks, it isn't as if 
we've had our head in the sand on these for a long time. The 
Department of Energy has been working very hard.
    That said, because all that we do in the Office of Science 
is competitively decided on who gets funding, it means that the 
best ideas, the new ideas that can transform the way we're 
going into energy and electricity, they are the ones that are 
being funded. They are the ones that are being funded. And now 
we have the capacity to move them further down the line to 
try--to get to some of the solutions that we all have but you 
in southern California are particularly being hit by this 
particularly in oil prices.
    So I guarantee you that every morning we have a huddle with 
the Secretary, the leadership team, and these are all the 
issues that we talk about. The gas prices, what they are today 
and what we're anguishing over this and how we're going to make 
sure that we can transition to achieve the Administration's 
goals in the long run to be at net-zero carbon.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Dr. Richmond. I look forward to 
seeing a solution soon. And, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Obernolte, is recognized.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Richmond, 
thank you very much for your obvious passion on these topics.
    I thought it was pretty remarkable in listening to the 
opening statements from both the Chair and the Ranking Member 
of this Subcommittee in that they both expressed almost exactly 
the same sentiment, which is a concern that this budget request 
underinvests in the Office of Science. And I think everyone on 
this Subcommittee shares a passion for what your office does. I 
know you share that passion as well.
    Let's start talking about inflation, which obviously has 
been front of mind for a lot of us in Congress. I imagine that 
you prepared this budget with some estimates of inflation and 
its impacts. What were those estimates?
    Under Secretary Richmond. That was at a time where I wasn't 
onboard yet so I don't know what those estimates were, I'm 
sorry, but I'm happy to get back to you on what those estimates 
were.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. So the Office of Science is 
requesting a 4.3 percent increase for this coming fiscal year. 
Currently, inflation, the March figures are about 8.5 percent, 
so I'm concerned that this budget actually represents a real--a 
decrease in real dollars for the Office of Science based on the 
year before. Would you agree or disagree with that 
characterization?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, I believe that this is a 
strong budget, and these inflation numbers are very serious and 
in some respects have come very quickly upon us. I think that 
this--that it follows the priorities of the President's budget, 
and it is a framework. So I do look forward to working with you 
all and thank you for the support of the Office of Science and 
helping us to get further down this with these new challenges 
that we have. And again, I thank this Committee for pushing so 
hard for the Office of Science as we take on these new 
challenges.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Well, I mean, with respect to--
the question I asked was does this represent a real dollar 
decrease in the budget for the Office of Science? I think the 
answer--my answer to that question is yes, I think it does. No 
one knows with certainty what inflation will do next year, but 
it seems pretty clear that it's going to be on average more 
than 4.3 percent. So I know that you're in a difficult position 
here. You're a passionate advocate, as we are, for these 
programs, but yet you have to come and defend the 
Administration's budget. We recognize that. But, I mean, I 
think what you're seeing--hearing on a bipartisan basis is 
please ask us for more money because these programs are vitally 
important. And we think that they need to be properly funded.
    Talking specifically about fusion energy, I appreciate you 
saying that you're heavily committed to fusion. I think a 
majority of the people on the Subcommittee would agree that 
that's going to be key to us meeting not only our climate 
change reduction goals but also the antipoverty goals that we 
have for our constituents.
    One of the things I'm concerned about in this proposed 
budget is the funding for some of our user facilities. 
Particularly one in California is dealing with the computation 
of support for fusion research, the National Energy Research 
Scientific Computing Center in California. You proposed a 
decrease in their budget--I mean, a decrease in actual dollars, 
which is a substantial decrease in real dollars, and these are 
facilities that are just struggling to stay open as it is. This 
is--this particular one is the fifth fastest computer in the 
world. It's used by thousands and thousands of researchers. Can 
you tell us why you're proposing a decrease in their budget?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, this is indeed difficult. 
First of all, I'm a numbers person, too, and I see those 
numbers. But again, it was a matter of balancing out the 
priorities of the Administration with regards to climate 
issues. The facilities issues, again, we were trying to 
maintain a strong balanced portfolio that puts optimal funding 
for the facilities and the projects, tough decisions having to 
be made. That said, by going through and very carefully re-
baselining a number of these facilities, we hope to be able to 
come up with a better idea of what the actual cost, even taking 
into account current inflation.
    We do--I love the facilities. I could go on and on about 
what the amazing facilities are doing not only in computational 
areas but also in issues of COVID, what we just did. And 
every--you know, every pill that has to be put out on the 
market has to use one of our light source facilities in order 
to get OKed. You know, who--it was just so important. And so 
we've had to make a balance with regards to coming up with a 
budget that fits within the Administration's priorities.
    So, again, I want to say thank you for seeing the--look 
forward to seeing the reconciliation bill come through and 
other support that you're doing to make sure that we can get 
more funding for infrastructure.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, I thank you for the testimony and I 
see I'm out of time. But please, if you would, take this 
message back to the Administration. We, on a bipartisan basis, 
think that you are underinvesting, and we would like to see you 
ask us for more money, which is not something that you hear 
Congress saying very often. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you. Thank you, thank you.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, 
is recognized.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Dr. 
Richmond. I'm a big fan of the Office of Science, a one-time 
beneficiary back in my research days, and I appreciate all that 
you do.
    I think you're going to hear a broken record. You heard it 
from Mr. Obernolte. I think we're going to stay on this trend. 
But I want to just share a story. When I first got on this 
Committee, the 116th Congress, the former President issued a 
budget that was basically one page long. And I remember sitting 
here in this room and listening to Secretary Perry justify that 
budget. And Mr. Perlmutter, who was sitting up here, asked him 
how he justified zeroing out huge parts of our space program. 
And his answer was, well, because we knew you'd restore it. And 
it was disappointing. I remember sitting there thinking as a 
new Member of Congress that doesn't sound like you did your 
job, but at least he told us what his ambition was.
    And my concern in listening to your testimony is that the 
Presidential budget, the purpose is to describe your ambition. 
And hearing that this was constrained because of assumptions 
about fiscal tradeoffs, that's our job. It's a hard job, but 
it's our job. Tell us what your ambition is. And I can't tell 
from this budget what the ambition is.
    The--you know, I'm really concerned about the impact of 
this budget on large-scale experiments and user facilities. We 
know that there's things that only DOE can do. You can use the 
light source to develop some wonderful new material that might 
be used as a cathode chemistry and a battery, and then some 
other lab can figure out how to turn that into a whole piece of 
chemistry and another lab can figure out how to integrate. You 
can only do that at DOE labs. And if I'm reading this budget, 
you don't have any accounting for the construction of major 
user facilities or large-scale experimental capabilities.
    So can you explain the Department's logic in how those 
investments will get done without any budget increases?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that 
question, and it certainly is one that we've thought about a 
lot. In fact, I could go through the details of almost all the 
constructions because we've looked at those and we believe that 
they will be able to go forward with this budget. There are 
some that may be slowed down a bit because with this budget but 
other ones that have to again be re-baselined. I might put DUNE 
(Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment) into that category.
    But on the other hand, we believe that we will be able to 
go forward on all of the projects that we have in place. Some 
may be slowed down a bit, but they will go forward. Again, that 
was the--again, having to set priorities.
    With regards to our labs and particularly our facilities, 
there may need to be a cutback in support in some of the 
staffing that happens if we--unless we can figure out ways to 
have flexibility to be able to keep them going. But this is a--
you know, this is, again, setting priorities that are hard to 
do and very painful to do and tough decisions and tradeoffs.
    Mr. Casten. Well, if I could, I've spent my entire career 
focused on climate. If we decide that the best time to act on 
climate is tomorrow, then we've repeated the mistakes of 
everybody who has ever held this job before. When I--you know, 
the Argonne National Lab is right in my district----
    Under Secretary Richmond. I know.
    Mr. Casten [continuing]. Just south of my district.
    Under Secretary Richmond. I know.
    Mr. Casten. The--when I've spoken with them, they have said 
that basically the--if they followed the President's budget, 
they will be cutting back on use at the Advanced Photon 
Facility. I think you just said it. They will have to lay off--
they will have to slow down experiments. Do we care about 
climate or not? And again, put your ambitions out. Let us 
figure that out. But I sit here and say--and if your answer to 
this is you need Congress to please upgrade your ambition, just 
ask. We'll do it. But I would like the President's budget to 
articulate that ambition, not to say that our goal in this 
moment in time is to kick the can down the road. We've been 
there, we've done that, we've proven it doesn't work.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that comment, 
and thank you all--everyone else that's spoken to this issue 
with regards to concern about the Office of Science budget. On 
the climate issue because--and that's where we are. And we do 
believe that it's a strong request, but it requires setting 
priorities.
    Specifically on the issue of climate, we're not backing off 
on climate. The Office of Science has a lot of really 
fundamental research associated with climate, whether it be new 
materials for batteries. You know these issues, new materials 
for batteries, anything having to do with the atmosphere or 
especially right now with regards to supply chain issues and 
materials but also fusion and nuclear. We're trying to go as 
hard as we can on these issues, too. We are absolutely 
committed to the issue of trying to save the planet to be quite 
frank.
    Mr. Casten. And I'm out of time but I think just to state 
the obvious, if the people at Argonne are saying that this 
budget means we are going to shut down beam lines, that means 
we are going to slow the pace of discovery. And it's 
inconsistent with what you just said. Please be ambitious. Let 
us know how we can help. And I yield back.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you. I look forward to 
working with all of you, believe me.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gimenez, 
you are now recognized.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    You know, our allies France and the U.K. routinely recycle 
their nuclear fuel while they do not have geologic repositories 
either. They don't have the dispersed nuclear waste problem 
that has saddled greater deployment of nuclear power in 
America. In the face of recent energy crunch in Europe due to 
the underperformance of weather-dependent renewables and 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, France recently announced that 
they would be deploying 14 new reactors, the first of which 
will be coming online in the early 2030's. The U.K. has also 
joined the race and declared that they will add eight new 
reactors, which will supply 25 percent of their anticipated 
demand growth.
    Meanwhile, Russia and China are racing to develop nuclear 
recycling facilities. China is constructing two demonstration 
plants right now. We don't have any say over their safeguards' 
implementation, and without serious commitment in such 
technology development and commercialization here at home, we 
won't have any say when other nations--and what other nations 
will seek to do with that in the near future.
    It's time that we reinvigorate our nuclear recycling R&D in 
the United States. In largess of our Federal budget such R&D 
spending won't amount to, say, more than $50 million annually. 
This is quite small compared to the, you know, plus $1 billion 
that the Federal Government spends annually in liability 
payments due to its failure to take custody of nuclear waste.
    I want to add that the Department's ARPA-E office has shown 
great courage and foresight in funding nuclear waste recycling 
R&D in the last couple of years.
    So what sort of infrastructure and spending levels are 
necessary to seriously reinvigorate this research and 
development in the United States?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Thank you for that question. Yes, 
thank you for that question. So we are taking very seriously 
the issue of the need for nuclear energy and more--and 
expanding our nuclear capabilities for power plants. In fact, 
we have just a phenomenal new leader in our nuclear energy 
area, Katie Huff, and she has really been pushing on how we not 
only put forth new demonstration nuclear projects, as well as 
to be able to plan forward for keeping our nuclear power plants 
in place. These don't happen of course overnight, and in fact 
to be able to have the smaller modular nuclear power plants 
that we hope to have, we need to do a demonstration project in 
order to do that. At that we're working very actively on.
    We know that the issue of nuclear waste is a huge topic 
that we need to be concerned about and are actively working on 
that, too. Their--our environmental management group is working 
very hard on this as well as in the areas of both the Office of 
Science and the applied programs to it sort of across the 
spectrum.
    So we've--we're on it. We're working hard on it. Again, 
there's--it's a complex issue with regards to where things get 
sited, as well as working with different companies that want to 
be involved in doing this, and that's what we're putting a lot 
of our energy into now is to be able to find partners that we 
can work with in order to advance our nuclear program in the 
country.
    Mr. Gimenez. How quickly do you think you can get some of 
these demonstrations up and running?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, we're hoping in the next 
several years, in the next couple of years because, you know, 
it really depends a lot on, in some respects, our ability to 
produce HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium), which we're 
going to need for the smaller demonstration projects. And that 
then goes back to the issue of limited uranium--limiting our 
uranium supplies from Russia, so it's something I've been 
actively working on both with the Under Secretary for NNSA 
(National Nuclear Security Administration) as well as myself, 
too, in order to work on that problem right now, which is what 
we're really--we really need to figure out for both HEU 
(highly-enriched uranium) as well as LEU (low-enriched uranium) 
as well as HALEU. And so I'm hoping we can make progress, but 
we first have to make sure that we've got the fuel to--in place 
that will allow us to run these demonstration projects.
    Mr. Gimenez. Now, in regards to the companies developing 
the technology for the handling of the waste, how can we make 
sure that companies developing these technologies are not 
hindered by the lack of facilities which the Federal Government 
should be making available in our national laboratories?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, that--that's another 
complicated issue, too, and I'd be happy to work with you and 
others to figure out the best solution on this as we go forward 
because you are--Congress is an important player in this, too, 
because this is really a national issue, as well as this is a 
site-specific issue.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, ma'am. My time is out, and I yield 
back.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, 
is now recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Bowman and Ranking Member 
Weber.
    Dr. Richmond, it's great to see you again. And our Nation 
is fortunate to have you in this critical role, but I have to 
say that you are certainly missed at the University of Oregon.
    So I want to commend the Department for announcing the $84 
million for the new research initiative involving urban 
integrated field laboratories. I know the research will partly 
focus on stimulating--simulating the benefits of deploying 
climate solutions in historically underserved communities. And 
this work is particularly important for Oregonians. As you 
know, we had an unprecedented heat dome in the Pacific 
Northwest last year, so I'm pleased to see that the Department 
hopes to award funding for this initiative in this Fiscal Year 
and also that the FY 2023 budget request proposes additional 
funds for this program. And I know you heard the support here 
on both sides of the aisle for investing in your Department.
    So what other steps is the Department taking to incorporate 
environmental and energy justice in the climate-related work it 
supports? And additionally, how can we make sure that that 
research is reaching the communities that need it the most?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, thank you for that 
question. And it's great to see you again, too.
    You know, there's one thing I have not really highlighted 
in telling you what we're doing, and this gives me an 
opportunity to do that, and that is the Earthshots. And so 
these Earthshots are really what--you know, we've set as a 
priority in the Office of Science, and these Earthshots are to 
be able to solve in a decadal timeframe critical technical 
issues around climate change. And so we have three of these 
Earthshots that we have announced, carbon capture from the 
atmosphere, long-term storage, and--long-term storage and--oh, 
God, I sleep with this every day--and hydrogen, H2, 
and hydrogen. And all of these three--and these are major 
projects that go all the way across the Department of Energy, 
but they're based in the Office of Science. And in all of these 
three we are working environmental justice into all of these, 
in all of the roadmaps that we're developing, which go from 
very fundamental research to applied research that we are 
taking into account, environmental justice and urban-related 
issues. And I apologize to hydrogen for----
    Ms. Bonamici. No worries. In fact, I want to followup on 
one of those. We know that storage is so key to maximizing 
renewable energy use and decarbonizing our economy. So the 
Energy Storage Grand Challenge, I know that's a crosscutting 
effort to help us achieve this goal by accelerating the 
development and commercialization of next-generation storage 
technologies. So can you give us an update on the status of 
that program and summarize future plans for the Energy Storage 
Grand Challenge? And then also, I'd like an update on how the 
exascale initiative is going.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Well, the--with regards to the 
long-term duration storage, that again as being one of the 
Earthshots means that we are highlighting it as much as 
possible in the science that's done in the Office of Science. 
In fact, we're starting a series of requests for Energy 
Frontier Centers--energy centers that will allow us to put 
together groups of teams from the national laboratories, as 
well as universities, in order to go forward on this long-
duration storage.
    And this will take people that are not only working on what 
new materials could be used in order to make effective long-
term battery storage but also just, you know, the fundamental 
issues, but also taking it to the applied areas where then they 
can actually be developing prototypes or different ways in 
which you can use these new materials in batteries and then 
test them out.
    You know, one of the big challenges is to--is lithium, and 
so what we--lithium in the batteries. And in fact what we've 
been working on a lot is--and this goes back to critical 
minerals; it's all tied together--is how we can--the United 
States can produce its own degree of lithium rather than being 
dependent on many other countries.
    So that's sort of a sidebar, too, but it shows how all of 
these things are interconnected that we're talking about with 
regards to the issues of the Office of Science but also in the 
applied areas. And so we would be happy to work with you to 
keep you abreast of what's going on with long-duration storage, 
as well as any of the other ones. But I'm really, really 
excited about these Earthshots. I've worked very hard on these 
because I think that they are--these are the three areas, and 
others to be announced later, which are crosscutting across the 
agency which we have put--we have added considerable funding in 
the Office of Science.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And in the remaining few seconds, 
how is the exascale initiative going?
    Under Secretary Richmond. Oh, the exascale initiative is 
continuing to proceed really, really important as we look to 
both beef up our capabilities in the national laboratories, as 
well as across the academic area. And again, an exciting--
another very exciting area for exascale computing for us.
    Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And just a few seconds left, so I 
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Meijer is 
now recognized.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, is now recognized.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I--well, first off, 
I'm just going to repeat the broken record here about the fact 
that the--you know, the budget here is not adequate. You know, 
when people worry that we're falling behind other countries, 
the metric that they point to is the fraction of GDP (gross 
domestic product) devoted to R&D, the so-called research 
intensity. And this is the fair and the correct metric.
    So if you look at the situation in the United States, GDP 
growth is not the problem. And we're seeing 5.7 percent GDP 
growth, real GDP growth under Biden, faster than China. And in 
fact I think most of us were amused to see President Xi 
ordering all of his underlings to cook the books to make 
China's growth at least appear a little bit better than the 
United States under Biden.
    The wealth and debt in the U.S. is not a problem. Since the 
start of the Obama recovery, the wealth of Americans has 
increased from $60 trillion to $150 trillion. That's an 
increase of $90 trillion, trillion, not billion, trillion. And 
of course most of this is piled up in the pockets of the 
wealthiest among us. In fact, the top 10 fortunes, if you look 
at the top 10 fortunes, 9 out of 10 of those are directly 
attributable to federally funded technology. And yet we somehow 
can't seem to find a way as a society to allocate the same 
fraction of GDP to federally funded research that other 
countries that are starting to outperform us do.
    And I think Representative Obernolte, Ranking Member 
Obernolte, my Ranking Member on our Subcommittee, was correct 
in pointing out that the 4.3 percent budget increase for Office 
of Science after an 8.5 percent inflation represents a cut. You 
don't have to--you know, you don't have to--I think it's a 
mathematical fact.
    And in fact doubling the budget of the science enterprise 
in this country is not enough in--if inflation continues that 
way. You know, if it's 8 percent inflation for a decade, that 
is a factor of two. So we could succeed in doubling the budget 
of science and not even tread water. So the goal should be to 
double the budget as a fraction of GDP, and we should always 
frame it that way and we should deliver it that way. That 
should be the responsibility of everyone on both the 
authorization and appropriations Committees.
    Now, when you--I was in--really very happy to see you 
mention that you were going to be re-baselining all these 
projects because they got planned with a certain--to deliver a 
certain scientific scope and under a certain real budget and 
then got walloped by COVID, by, you know, the--all the supply 
chain delays, by the standing army problems just related to--as 
well as unexpectedly high inflation. So when you re-baseline 
them, I would request that you please re-baseline them to 
restore the original scientific scope, OK? That's not going to 
be the first reaction because the numbers are going to be 
significant when you restore the full scope and a healthy 
project contingency, which is another way that you might be 
tempted to scrimp. So please do that honestly.
    And then another request, which we'll never be able to 
followup and oversee you on, is that, you know, there's an--
internally to the Administration and the agencies there's this 
pass-back procedure which at least used to happen around 
Thanksgiving, and I don't know how it's going these days. But 
the--but in those situations when the Administration proposes 
high-level allocations to you, you have--your job is to 
honestly deliver, to tell them what you can really deliver for 
that allocation and then come back to Congress and make sure 
you have a consistent picture, that the budget decisions that 
are made are at least consistent with reality. And, you know, I 
think that's been slipping a little bit under--in the last 
decade that it's--but it's very important for us to know that 
if we don't allocate enough money, we're going to have a 
second-rate science program and some projects that will fail 
for sure to deliver themselves on time and on budget.
    And so that--so be--you know, show some--well, if not some 
stiffness of spine, some--at least some viscosity of spine in 
these negotiations with the Administration because I know 
they're really tough. But it's an important part of your job to 
make sure that the Administration, you know, is dealing 
honestly with the sacrifices that they're asking you to make 
when they tell you to stand up and deal with a 4.3 percent 
increase that doesn't cover inflation.
    So, anyway, I think I've pretty well used up my time here, 
but if--I just want to thank you for the tough job you've come 
on and, you know, fight like heck. We're on the same----
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. We're all on the same side here.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes. Yes. No, I'm--I take your 
advice. I will take it back, and I'll fight like hell, too.
    Mr. Foster. OK.
    Under Secretary Richmond. I'll fight like hell, too.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Under Secretary Richmond. You know, but can I just say for 
a minute that, you know, our facilities, our labs really are 
the jewels in the crown, and we have to make sure that they 
stay that way. While other countries such as China are 
emulating what we have in our facilities and our labs, we can't 
lose that. We can't lose that.
    Mr. Foster. I agree completely.
    Under Secretary Richmond. Yes.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Foster.
    Are there any Members who would like to participate in a 
second round of questions?
    OK. Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank 
Dr. Richmond for testifying before the Committee today. The 
record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements 
from the Members and for any additional questions the Committee 
may ask of the witness.
    The witness is excused, and the hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]