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


                        INVESTIGATING THE NATURE
                   OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME

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

                                                                          
                                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
                               __________

                             JUNE 22, 2022
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-61
                               __________

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

                                     
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                                                                                               
                                     
       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
47-810PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022        
       


              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

                             June 22, 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.......................................    14
    Written Statement............................................    15

Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    16
    Written Statement............................................    18

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    19

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Asmeret Berhe, Director of the Office of Science, Department 
  of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    21
    Written Statement............................................    23

Dr. Brian Greene, Director of the Center for Theoretical Physics, 
  Columbia University
    Oral Statement...............................................    38
    Written Statement............................................    40

Dr. Lia Merminga, Director, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
    Oral Statement...............................................    53
    Written Statement............................................    55

Mr. Jim Yeck, Associate Laboratory Director and Project Director 
  for the Electron-Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory
    Oral Statement...............................................    63
    Written Statement............................................    65

Mr. Michael Guastella, Executive Director, The Council on 
  Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals
    Oral Statement...............................................    74
    Written Statement............................................    76

Discussion.......................................................    85

              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Lia Merminga, Director, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   106

Mr. Jim Yeck, Associate Laboratory Director and Project Director 
  for the Electron-Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory..   107

Mr. Michael Guastella, Executive Director, The Council on 
  Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals.........................   109

 
                        INVESTIGATING THE NATURE
                  OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022

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

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 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 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 our panel of esteemed 
witnesses for joining us today to discuss the research and 
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy (DOE) in the 
exciting fields of high-energy physics and nuclear science. As 
part of the discussion today, we will examine the critical 
research and facilities supported by DOE's Office of Science 
Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs, as well as 
related work in its Accelerator and Isotope programs. I 
especially want to welcome the newly Senate-confirmed Director 
of the Office of Science, Dr. Berhe, to her first appearance 
before Congress since being confirmed. I look forward to 
working with you, and congratulations.
    As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, I often reflect 
on how the work we do here will prepare us for a better and 
brighter future for everyone. Experts such as yourselves help 
us to understand and fight for better policies here in Congress 
that will enable a healthier and safer world through 
innovations in science and technology. We need to keep these 
big-picture goals top of mind with everything we do. We need to 
continue to take urgent action to make these goals a reality. 
This starts with supporting robust funding across our 
scientific enterprise.
    In April, I chaired a hearing in which DOE's Under 
Secretary for Science and Innovation, Dr. Geraldine Richmond, 
testified on the importance of strong Federal science programs 
to maintain our scientific leadership and tackle the problems 
of the 21st century, including the climate crisis. We discussed 
the lackluster Fiscal Year 2023 budget request from the 
Administration for DOE's Office of Science at length and the 
impact that will have on our goals by insufficiently supporting 
large-scale scientific experiments, research, and associated 
facilities. We need to do much, much better.
    But the budget request is not the sole focus of today's 
hearing, though I'm certain it will be part of the discussion. 
We are here to discuss the fields of high-energy physics and 
nuclear physics, which probe some of the biggest unanswered 
questions on the most basic nature of our world. What is the 
universe made of? Why is the universe made of something rather 
than nothing? And how do the materials that make up the 
universe stay together? We are able to push the frontiers of 
human knowledge on these topics through cutting-edge research 
and large experiments that attract international participation, 
including by supporting a diverse scientific work force that is 
necessary to the success of these programs.
    A related area of nuclear science that we'll be discussing 
today is on nuclear isotope research, development, and 
production. Isotopes are materials that we use every day to 
enhance our lives. Dozens of isotopes are produced worldwide 
for unique applications, ranging from cancer research, to 
powering batteries in space exploration, to making the food we 
consume safer. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, many 
isotopes have a single source in the entire world, and many of 
those rely on Russia in some part of the supply chain. Like 
many commodities, the Nation's isotope supply is at risk due to 
the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Even without policy action banning 
the isotope trade between the U.S. and Russia specifically, our 
supply is threatened by the impacts we are already seeing in 
the banking and shipping industries. We need to have these 
conversations to better enable a secure and resilient U.S. 
isotope supply.
    Before I close, I want to acknowledge the important role 
that these fundamental scientific fields play in enhancing our 
well-being. Humanity has always been driven to understand the 
nature of the universe and our place within it. Thanks to 
Federal support for this kind of research, unprecedented 
discoveries are within our grasp.
    Another huge benefit of fundamental research is the 
applications it can have on the Nation's health, prosperity, 
and security. For example, the research supported by the Office 
of Science in these high-energy and nuclear science fields 
contribute to advanced technology development, such as 
artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information science. 
The materials, properties, and interactions we discover in 
these programs are directly applicable to the development of 
microelectronics, which in turn are used to strengthen the 
experiments these programs steward. These are crosscutting 
areas of scientific importance to our country's future.
    I just want to emphasize this point to my colleagues here 
in Congress as we work to support robust and historic 
authorizations for these Federal science programs in 
bipartisan, bicameral conference negotiations on national 
competitive policies.
    With that said, thank you all again for being here today, 
and I look forward to this discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you to our panel of esteemed 
witnesses for joining us today to discuss the research and 
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy in the 
exciting fields of high energy physics and nuclear science. As 
part of the discussion today we will examine the critical 
research and facilities supported by DOE's Office of Science 
High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs, as well as 
related work in its Accelerator and Isotope programs. I 
especially want to welcome the newly Senate-confirmed Director 
of the Office of Science, Dr. Berhe, to her first appearance 
before Congress since being confirmed. I look forward to 
working with you.
    As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, I often reflect 
on how the work we do here will prepare us for a better and 
brighter future for everyone. Experts such as yourselves help 
us to understand and fight for better policies here in Congress 
that will enable a healthier and safer world through 
innovations in science and technology. We need to keep these 
big picture goals top of mind with everything we do. We need to 
continue to take urgent action to make these goals a reality.
    This starts with supporting robust funding across our 
scientific enterprise. In April, I chaired a hearing in which 
DOE's Under Secretary for Science and Innovation Dr. Geraldine 
Richmond testified on the importance of strong federal science 
programs to maintain our scientific leadership and tackle the 
problems of the 21st century, including the climate crisis. We 
discussed the lackluster FY 2023 budget request from the 
administration for DOE's Office of Science at length, and the 
impact that will have on our goals by insufficiently supporting 
large-scale scientific experiments, research, and associated 
facilities. We need to do better.
    But the budget request is not the sole focus of today's 
hearing, though I'm certain it will be part of the discussion. 
We are here to discuss the fields of high energy physics and 
nuclear physics, which probe some of the biggest unanswered 
questions on the most basic nature of our world. What is the 
universe made of? Why is the universe made of something rather 
than nothing? And how do the materials that make up the 
universe stay together? We are able to push the frontiers of 
human knowledge on these topics through cutting-edge research 
and large experiments that attract international participation, 
including by supporting the diverse scientific workforce that 
is necessary to the success of these programs.
    A related area of nuclear science that we'll be discussing 
today is on nuclear isotope research, development, and 
production. Isotopes are materials that we use every day to 
enhance our lives. Dozens of isotopes are produced worldwide 
for unique applications, ranging from cancer treatment, to 
powering batteries in space exploration, to making the food we 
consume safer. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, many 
isotopes have a single source in the entire world, and many of 
those rely on Russia in some part of the supply chain. Like 
many commodities, the nation's isotope supply is at risk due to 
the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Even without policy action banning 
the isotope trade between the U.S. and Russia specifically, our 
supply is threatened by the impacts we are already seeing in 
the banking and shipping industries. We need to have these 
conversations to better enable a secure and resilient U.S. 
isotope supply.
    Before I close, I want to acknowledge the important role 
that these fundamental scientific fields play in enhancing our 
well-being. Humanity has always been driven to understand the 
nature of the universe and our place within it. Thanks to 
federal support for this kind of research, unprecedented 
discoveries are within our grasp. Another huge benefit of 
fundamental research is the applications it can have on the 
nation's health, prosperity, and security. For example, the 
research supported by the Office of Science in these high 
energy and nuclear science fields contribute to advanced 
technology development, such as artificial intelligence and 
quantum information science. The materials properties and 
interactions we discover in these programs are directly 
applicable to the development of microelectronics, which in 
turn are used to strengthen the experiments these programs 
steward. These are crosscutting areas of scientific importance 
to our country's future. I just want to emphasize this point to 
my colleagues here in Congress as we work to support robust and 
historic authorizations for these federal science programs in 
bipartisan, bicameral conference negotiations on national 
competitiveness policies.
    With that said, thank you all again for being here today, 
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.
    The title of today's hearing is ``Investigating the Nature 
of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.'' That certainly sounds 
like a daunting task. However, there are three programs within 
the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are doing 
exactly that. The High Energy Physics (HEP) Program probes the 
fundamental characteristics of matter and energy, including 
interactions through the study of particle physics. This 
program supports research and development (R&D) activities that 
involve investigating the nature of dark matter, accelerating 
particles to the highest energies ever produced by man and 
colliding them to study the results, and then using particle 
beams and detectors to discover new physics.
    As you can imagine, studying the smallest building blocks 
of matter requires cutting-edge facilities. Fermi National 
Acceleratory Laboratory, the particle physics and accelerator 
laboratory within the Department's national laboratory complex, 
hosts thousands of scientists from all over the world. Their 
accelerator, detector, and computing facilities are some of the 
best in the entire world, and more exciting new projects are 
under construction.
    One such project, the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility 
(LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), or 
LBNF/DUNE, will be the first large-scale international science 
facility in the United States. It will help us answer some of 
the most fundamental questions we have about our universe, 
including why matter exists. This is valuable science that will 
continue to support our position at the cutting edge of 
discovery.
    However, building these facilities will take a steady 
funding stream commitment. And recent budget requests from the 
Administration are low and would actually extend the completion 
dates, which will risk our international advantage.
    We will also discuss the progress of the Office of 
Science's Nuclear Physics Program, which provides approximately 
95 percent of the United States' investment in fundamental 
nuclear physics research. To support this work, the Department 
has initiated construction of the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), 
located at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The Electron-Ion 
Collider will collide high-energy electrons with high-energy 
protons and nuclei to produce a view of these particles' inner 
structure.
    Last but not least, we will access--assess the Office of 
Science's Isotope Research and Development Program and its role 
in preventing shortages of the stable and radioactive isotopes 
needed for essential activities such as medical treatments, 
industrial processes, and explosive detection, just to name a 
few. In addition to conducting research and development on 
isotope production and processing techniques, this program 
produces and distributes critical isotopes that are in short 
supply or that no domestic entity can produce.
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance 
of this program and the risks of reliance on foreign supply 
chains for critical isotopes. And let me opine kind of 
parenthetically that that's true in so many instances. We need 
to be producing things here. We need to have that--our supply 
chain right here in the good old United States of America. For 
example, we currently rely on Russia's State nuclear energy 
corporation and its subsidiaries to supply us with a number of 
critical medical and industrial isotopes. We must pursue 
domestic production solutions to counter this disturbing 
vulnerability and a whole lot of others I just mentioned.
    We will not effectively address our most urgent energy-
related challenges such as lowering household energy costs or 
reducing dependence on foreign supply chains if we neglect the 
fundamental research and development required to unlock the 
next generation of technologies. Additionally, if we do not 
demonstrate a commitment to maintaining and modernizing our 
research infrastructure, we actually risk losing our seat at 
the head of the table when it comes to international scientific 
standing.
    For those reasons, I am proud to be part of the Science 
Committee's ongoing bipartisan effort to get H.R. 3593, the DOE 
Science for the Future Act, enacted into law. This legislation 
authorizes robust funding for all three Office of Science 
programs I highlighted, as well as LBNF/DUNE, the Electric-Ion 
Collider, and other critical infrastructure projects. This 
legislation is absolutely critical to supporting the future of 
U.S. research and development, and I'm hopeful we can move it 
forward as we negotiate our competitiveness legislation with 
the Senate.
    I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. Dr. 
Berhe, I offer my word of congratulations also on your recent 
confirmation as Director of the Office of Science, and we are 
delighted to have you appear for the first time before the 
Committee today. Please don't make it your last. So I look 
forward to working with you to ensure the success of the 
Office. And I want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 
back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
    The title of today's hearing is, ``Investigating the Nature 
of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.'' That certainly sounds 
like a daunting task. However, there are three programs within 
the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are doing 
just that.
    The High Energy Physics Program probes the fundamental 
characteristics of matter and energy, including interactions 
through the study of particle physics. This program supports 
research and development activities that involve investigating 
the nature of dark matter, accelerating particles to the 
highest energies ever produced by man and colliding them to 
study the results, and using particle beams and detectors to 
discover new physics.
    As you can imagine, studying the smallest building blocks 
of matter requires cutting- edge facilities. Fermi National 
Acceleratory Laboratory, the particle physics and accelerator 
laboratory within the Department's National Laboratory complex, 
hosts thousands of scientists from all over the world.
    Their accelerator, detector, and computing facilities are 
some of the best in the world and more exciting new projects 
are under construction. One such project, the Long- Baseline 
Neutrino Facility and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, or 
``L-B-N-F / DUNE'' will be the first large-scale international 
science facility in the United States.
    It will help us answer some of the most fundamental 
questions we have about our universe, including why matter 
exists. This is valuable science that will continue to support 
our position at the cutting edge of discovery.
    However, building these facilities takes a steady funding 
commitment. And recent budget requests from the Administration 
are low and would extend completion dates, risking our 
international advantage.
    We will also discuss the progress of the Office of 
Science's Nuclear Physics Program, which provides approximately 
95% of the United States investment in fundamental nuclear 
physics research. To support this work, the Department has 
initiated construction of the Electronic-Ion Collider, located 
at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
    The Electronic-Ion Collider will collide high-energy 
electrons with high-energy protons and nuclei to produce a view 
of these particles' inner structure.
    Last, but not least, we will assess the Office of Science's 
Isotope Research and Development Program and its role in 
preventing shortages of the stable and radioactive isotopes 
needed for essential activities such as medical treatments, 
industrial processes, and explosive detection.
    In addition to conducting research and development on 
isotope production and processing techniques, this program 
produces and distributes critical isotopes that are in short 
supply or that no domestic entity can produce.
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance 
of this program and the risks of reliance on foreign supply 
chains for critical isotopes. For example, we currently rely on 
Russia's state nuclear energy corporation and its subsidiaries 
to supply us with a number of critical medical and industrial 
isotopes. We must pursue domestic production solutions to 
counter this disturbing vulnerability.
    We will not effectively address our most urgent energy-
related challenges, such as lowering household energy costs or 
reducing dependence on foreign supply chains, if we neglect the 
fundamental research and development required to unlock the 
next generation of technologies.
    Additionally, if we do not demonstrate a commitment to 
maintaining and modernizing our research infrastructure, we 
risk losing our seat at the head of the table when it comes to 
international scientific standing.
    For those reasons, I am proud to be part of the Science 
Committee's ongoing bipartisan effort to get H.R. 3593, the DOE 
Science for the Future Act, enacted into law. This legislation 
authorizes robust funding for all three Office of Science 
programs I highlighted, as well as LBNF/DUNE, the Electric-Ion 
Collider, and other critical infrastructure projects. This 
legislation is critical to supporting the future of U.S. 
research and development and I'm hopeful we can move it forward 
as we negotiate our competitiveness legislation with the Senate
    I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. Dr. 
Berhe (``bear-hay''), congratulations on your recent 
confirmation as Director of the Office of Science, and we are 
delighted to have you appear before the Committee for the first 
time today. I look forward to working with you to ensure the 
success of the Office.
    Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

    Chairman Bowman. Thank you, 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:]

    Chairman Bowman, thank you for holding this important 
hearing today, and thank you to our esteemed panel of witnesses 
for being here.
    We are here to examine the Department of Energy's role in 
advancing our understanding of the foundational underpinnings 
of matter, energy, space, and time. DOE supports research in 
these areas through the Office of Science's High Energy and 
Nuclear Physics programs. We will also use this occasion to 
highlight how progress in these fields can be translated into 
technologies, such as particle accelerators and isotope 
production systems, that improve the health and welfare of 
American citizens across the nation. The latter has become a 
particularly salient issue due to Russia's war on Ukraine and 
its impact on the supply chains for several important isotopes.
    The High Energy Physics program studies fundamental 
particles and their interactions with each other to gain 
insight into the very nature of our universe. This program 
pursues this mission through research at universities and 
national labs, and through its stewardship of unique scientific 
facilities and large-scale experiments.
    Many other scientific disciplines and economic sectors have 
benefited from the advanced technologies, research tools, and 
analysis techniques pioneered by this program. For example, the 
superconducting magnet technology first developed for this 
research now comprises the core of MRI machines, which as we 
all know have significantly enhanced our medical diagnostic 
capabilities.
    Of equal importance is the Department's Nuclear Physics 
program. This program aims to discover, explore, and understand 
all forms of nuclear matter observed in nature, and translate 
that knowledge into technologies that can benefit society in 
the areas of commerce, medicine, and national security.
    This program has led to practical outcomes that benefit 
Americans every day, including advances in nuclear power, 
medicine, and environmental and geological sciences.
    Also of note, until recently, DOE's Isotope R&D and 
Production program was a part of its Nuclear Physics program, 
and it still benefits immensely from that research. The Isotope 
program develops production methods and supplies critical 
radioactive and stable isotopes for a variety of uses. These 
isotopes are high-priority commodities of strategic importance 
because of the essential role they play in medical diagnosis 
and treatment, discovery science, national security, and a host 
of other areas. As we will hear today, this program is a vital 
source of isotopes that are in short supply or that we are not 
yet capable of producing domestically.
    As illustrated by a slate of recent hearings, other 
oversight activities, and current legislation including the 
America COMPETES Act, a top priority of this Committee is the 
overall health of the DOE Office of Science, especially in 
light of its lackluster budget requests over multiple 
Administrations. This is particularly true of its portfolio of 
construction projects and user facilities, each of which is a 
unique resource that drives scientific progress and serves as a 
magnet for international research talent. I look forward to 
discussing these issues and more with our witnesses here today.
    Thank you. I yield back.

    Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce 
our witnesses. Dr. Asmeret Berhe is the Director of the Office 
of Science at the Department of Energy. She is on leave from 
the University of California Merced where she is a Professor of 
Soil Biochemistry and holds the Ted and Jan Falasco Chair in 
Earth Sciences and Geology. Dr. Berhe's scientific leadership 
has been recognized by multiple national awards, including the 
Joanne Simpson Medal from the American Geophysical Union, the 
Bromery Award in the Geological Society of America, and she was 
selected as a new voice in science from the U.S. National 
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in 2018. Dr. 
Berhe also is a founding investigator of the ADVANCEGeo 
Partnership, a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded effort 
to empower geoscientists to transform their workplace climate 
through interventions to reduce harassment, discrimination, and 
bullying.
    Dr. Brian Greene is a Professor of Physics at Columbia 
University and Director of Columbia's Center for Theoretical 
Physics. He is recognized for a number of groundbreaking 
discoveries in his field of superstring theory, including the 
discoveries of mirror symmetry and topology change. Dr. Greene 
has written four New York Times bestsellers that explore 
physics for general audiences. He also co-founded the World 
Science Festival, which aims to cultivate a general public 
informed by science and take science out of the laboratory and 
into the streets of New York City and beyond.
    Dr. Lia Merminga is the Director of Fermi National 
Accelerator Laboratory and a renowned accelerator physicist. 
She previously led the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) 
project at Fermilab that will enable the world's most intense 
neutrino beam for the lab's flagship Long Baseline Neutrino 
Facility and a Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, LBNF/DUNE, 
and drive a broad physics research program. Dr. Merminga has 
held leadership roles at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory 
in California; TRIUMF in Vancouver, Canada; and the Thomas 
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia. She is a 
Fermilab distinguished scientist and a Fellow of the American 
Physical Society and a graduate of the Department of Energy's 
Oppenheimer Energy Science Leadership Program.
    Mr. Jim Yeck is the Associate Laboratory Director and the 
Project Director for the Electron-Ion Collider at Brookhaven 
National Laboratory. He has over 30 years of project managing 
experience, including serving as the Director General of the 
European Spallation Source. He has also previously served as 
the Department of Energy's Project Manager for the Relativistic 
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and a U.S. contribution to the Large 
Hadron Collider (LHC). As Project Director for the construction 
of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, and as the Deputy Project 
Manager for the National Synchrotron Light Source II facility 
at Brookhaven. Mr. Yeck serves as Chair for numerous advisory 
committees for large projects supported by DOE, NSF, and 
international funding agencies.
    And last but certainly not least, Mr. Michael Guastella is 
the Executive Director of the Council on Radionuclides and 
Radiopharmaceuticals Inc., or CORAR. CORAR is a trade 
association that represents developers, manufacturers, and 
distributors of radiopharmaceuticals and radioisotopes. Prior 
to CORAR, he worked in the nuclear pharmacy industry with both 
SENCOR International Corporation and Cardinal Health, holding a 
number of leadership positions over 18 years. Mr. Guastella has 
served on the CORAR Board of Directors for 10 years. Thank you 
all for joining us today.
    As our witnesses 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 all have completed your 
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
    We will start with Dr. Berhe. Dr. Berhe, please begin.

                TESTIMONY OF DR. ASMERET BERHE,

               DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE,

                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member 
Weber, and the distinguished Members of the Committee. It's 
with great pleasure that I join you today to represent the 
Department of Energy at this hearing on the Office of Science.
    As Members of this Committee know, it was only a little 
over a month ago that I was sworn in as the Director of the 
Office of Science. But I have a long history with the 
Department of Energy, dating to my time as a graduate student 
when I was a Ph.D. student at Berkeley when I conducted 
research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab, both Office of Science stewarded 
laboratories, and I'm deeply familiar with the research goals 
of the Office of Science.
    Perhaps the deepest and most awe-inspiring questions 
humanity asks are about the nature of matter, energy, space, 
and time. Today, world-leading research into these questions is 
being conducted by scientists supported by the Office of 
Science's programs on high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and 
isotope research and development and production.
    The Office of Science is crucial to progress in these 
fields. We provide approximately 85 percent of the funding in 
particle physics research and 90 percent of the funding in 
nuclear physics research in the United States. As Director, it 
is my priority to ensure that these and all other Office of 
Science programs are robustly supported and maintain their 
world-leading status.
    High energy and nuclear physics, as much as any scientific 
endeavors, demonstrate that scientific research is evolving 
more rapidly perhaps than most time since the scientific 
revolution. Science in these fields is also becoming more 
reliant on large-scale, cutting-edge facilities and 
technologies is becoming more data-centric and more democratic. 
The Office of Science is uniquely positioned to support these 
transformations and to unlock the future of science and 
technology.
    Large-scale, multi-institutional, multidisciplinary science 
is a core competence of the Office of Science. Research we 
support, including in high-energy and nuclear physics programs, 
require some of the largest and most complex experimental 
facilities ever designed and built. The Office of Science makes 
these projects a reality.
    We are--we not only support the construction and management 
and operation of the facilities but also the research and 
development of new technologies needed to realize their 
scientific potential. Science in the fields of high-energy 
physics and nuclear physics also prioritizes the production, 
dissemination, and analysis of massive amounts of data in both 
fields experiments. Experiments that are done in both fields 
have tens of millions of events that are generated in the 
largest and most complex scientific instruments ever designed. 
The resulting big data must be captured, curated, stored, 
shared among scientists and analyzed using the fastest 
supercomputers and most sophisticated algorithms in the world.
    The Office of Science uniquely has the expertise and 
infrastructure needed to achieve these Herculean tasks. 
Enormous data repositories, the fastest data transfer networks, 
the world's fastest performance computers, including Frontier, 
the Nation's first exascale computer at Oak Ridge National Lab, 
and the expert staff needed to leverage these tools for 
discovery.
    Further, many of these technologies end up benefiting 
society outside the lab in fields as diverse as national 
security and medicine. The Department of Energy's Isotope R&D 
and Production Program stewarded by the Office of Science 
supports world-leading research and development to create novel 
and more efficient isotope production and processing 
techniques. Isotopes are vital for ensuring the Nation's 
security and prosperity and enabling components and 
technologies used for numerous mission-critical applications.
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine has significantly impacted the 
availability of many critical isotopes, given Russia's outsize 
role in isotope production and distribution in the world. 
Removing U.S. dependence on Russian isotopes is a long-term 
project for the Department, one we began 5 years ago and 
continue today. We are committed to building the needed 
infrastructure to produce critical isotopes domestically, and 
we'll continue to work tirelessly with our Federal industrial 
and academic partners to help alleviate the challenge with 
isotope supply in the near term.
    Across all scientific areas we support, the Office of 
Science is committed to training, recruitment, retention of 
highly skilled work force that draws from the best minds across 
the full spectrum of backgrounds and cultures within the 
Nation.
    In closing, the DOE's Office of Science is supporting 
science that continues to push the frontiers of knowledge today 
and will enable discoveries of tomorrow. DOE Office of Science 
is uniquely capable of providing the physical, human, and 
intellectual infrastructure needed to do big, multi-
institutional, multidisciplinary science and do it well. And we 
deliver the science and technology needed for building the 
cutting-edge science and experimental facilities and for 
training the diverse and talented STEM (science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics) work force that the future will 
demand. With support for infrastructure and continuing programs 
for developing the diverse and highly skilled work force, the 
Office of Science will continue to provide insights into the 
fundamental nature of matter, energy, space, and time.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with the 
Subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Berhe follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much.
    Next, we will have Dr. Greene.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN GREENE,

        DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS,

                      COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Greene. Thank you so much for this privilege to speak 
about some of the vital issues of science as it relates to the 
future of United States. Now, in my professional life I 
actually wear two related hats. First, I direct the Center for 
Theoretical Physics at Columbia University where I undertake 
mathematical research to investigate nature's forces and to 
determine what the insights that reveal can tell us about the 
fundamental structure of space and time, the goal being to 
answer some of the questions we've already heard. What is 
matter made of? Does space go on forever? What happened before 
the Big Bang, questions that puzzle young children and even 
adults who have an interest in understanding their place in the 
cosmic order.
    My second professional preoccupation is related but 
distinct, bringing cutting-edge scientific insights to broad 
swaths of the general public through books and articles, 
television documentaries, live public events, performances, 
activities that can reach and have reached hundreds of millions 
of people worldwide. And while I'm happy to share in the 
question period relevant insights from either of these 
pursuits, research or public engagement, as my distinguished 
colleagues on the panel will speak directly to various and 
vital research efforts, I'm going to focus my remarks on the 
impact of public engagement with science has on the health and 
vitality now and in the long run of our country and the world.
    Now part of this impact is manifest. We've already heard 
some of it. I suspect at least a few of us are old enough to 
think back to our own experiences with rotary telephone, 
electric typewriters, bottles of Wite-Out, and for those of us 
who are technically savvy in that earlier era, large stacks of 
computer punch cards ready to be loaded into card readers, 
delivering instructions to massive computers that filled entire 
rooms. And while I can personally testify to having experienced 
all of that, and they are fond memories I admit, I can't 
imagine going back to those days. And historians, of course, 
can trace with great detail the roots of our modern electronic 
age.
    But the coarse yet sufficiently accurate summary is that 
the modern era emerged from breakthroughs in the very subjects 
we're talking about here today, understanding the constituents 
of matter and the forces that govern these constituents. And 
briefly put, if you want to manipulate matter on small scales, 
the very capacity at the core of everything from cell phones to 
the relatively tiny computers sitting on our desks, you have to 
understand matter on small scales.
    And here is the amazing thing. In the 1920's, as 
researchers were feverishly rewriting our understanding of 
matter on subatomic scales--it's a body of work known as 
quantum mechanics--they had no idea what impact the revelations 
would one day have, or the scientific titans of those early 
pursuits who have testified here. And were you to have asked 
them how their work would impact the world, most would have 
focused on things like human curiosity, the human urge to 
understand, with barely a mention of the far-off and, at that 
time, difficult-to-envision applications.
    And yet, fast-forward 100 years, and a non-trivial portion 
of the gross national product of the United States can be 
traced back to those seemingly esoteric investigations into the 
heart of matter, forces, and energy, which is a wonderful 
demonstration of how the fundamental science of one era can 
become the economic engine of the next.
    And of course, the impact goes well beyond economics. As my 
colleagues today will no doubt mention, sophisticated and 
lifesaving medical diagnostics and medical treatments have also 
emerged from these foundational scientific works. So it is 
anything but hyperbolic to describe these scientific pursuits 
is having radically transformed both life and death.
    Now, this is heavy stuff. These are profound impacts. Yet 
to leave the discussion there would be to miss what I consider 
an even more important aspect, which is this. The reason 
science really matters is because science is a way of life. 
Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us 
from confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise, 
predictive, and reliable, a transformation for those lucky 
enough to experience it that is empowering and emotional. To be 
able to think through and grasp explanations for everything 
from why the sky is blue, to how life formed on Earth, not 
because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal 
patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, well, I must 
tell you, that is one of the most precious of human 
experiences.
    Now to be sure, as a practicing scientist, I know this from 
my own work and study. But I also know that you don't have to 
be a scientist to experience the transformative power of 
science. I've seen kids' eyes light up as I've told them about 
black holes and the Big Bang, and I've spoken with high school 
dropouts, who stumbled on popular science books and then 
returned to school with newfound purpose. I've received letters 
from soldiers on the battlefield and incarcerated prisoners 
seeking in the beginning----
    Chairman Bowman. I'm sorry, Dr. Greene, you're a few 
seconds over. We'll come back to you on questioning.
    Dr. Greene. Oh, OK, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Greene follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you.
    Next, we will have Dr. Merminga.

            TESTIMONY OF DR. LIA MERMINGA, DIRECTOR,

             FERMI NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY

    Dr. Merminga. Thank you. Energy Subcommittee Chairman 
Bowman and Ranking Member Weber and other distinguished Members 
of this Subcommittee, I'm Lia Merminga, Director of Fermilab 
since 2 months ago, an honor to speak with you today about 
high-energy physics.
    As we meet here today, the U.S. high-energy physics 
community is getting ready to assemble in Seattle for what is 
called Snowmass, the decadal planning exercise that outlines 
the future vision of particle physics. From Snowmass, the 
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, or P5, will 
produce a 10-year plan that prioritizes major projects and 
experiments to maintain the United States' global leadership in 
the field.
    Particle physics research probes from the smallest 
constituents of matter to the entire cosmos, in pursuit of the 
most profound questions of humanity. How did our universe come 
to be? How does it work? And why are we here? But investing in 
physics research goes beyond helping us understand such 
fundamental questions. We also push the boundaries of knowledge 
and develop technologies that improve lives.
    The crosscutting nature of our research fosters 
applications beyond particle physics. Emerging technologies 
such as quantum science, artificial intelligence, and novel 
microelectronics find great synergy with our core HEP mission. 
This has engendered new frontiers well beyond their initial 
scopes. MRIs, proton therapy, X-ray lasers, and the World Wide 
Web have all resulted from particle physics research and 
collaboration. Continued investment in HEP, including in 
research, infrastructure, and people, are critical to driving 
major discoveries and new technologies in the future.
    HEP is a powerful training ground that attracts and 
inspires young minds and helps build the best and most diverse 
STEM work force. HEP students and researchers develop state-of-
the-art technologies, build tools to handle massive data, and 
cultivate the creativity to bring the imagined into reality, 
whether in HEP or in other STEM pursuits.
    And particle physics is a global endeavor. We work with 
almost every country in the world, and our flagship projects 
are great examples of this collaboration. The 2014 P5 report 
recommended Fermilab to host the largest and most complex 
neutrino research program ever undertaken. The Long Baseline 
Neutrino Facility, or LBNF, will provide the infrastructure for 
the massive Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, or DUNE, 
largest international scientific project on U.S. soil.
    LBNF crews are now excavating caverns a mile underground at 
the Sanford Lab in South Dakota, while 1,400 DUNE collaborators 
from over 35 countries are building the cutting-edge detectors 
that will fill these caverns starting as early as 2024. LBNF/
DUNE will be powered by Fermilab's new superconducting 
accelerator known as PIP-II, the first built with significant 
international contributions. In fact, together, LBNF/DUNE and 
PIP-II have attracted more than $1 billion in in-kind 
contributions from international partners, including CERN, the 
European Particle Physics Laboratory, marking its first time 
investing in physics outside Europe. Twenty-one hundred U.S. 
scientists use CERN's Large Hadron Collider for their research. 
Since its startup, more than 2,000 scientific results have been 
published, including the Higgs Boson discovery in 2012. Ongoing 
LHC upgrades will enable scientists to unlock key questions in 
particle physics for decades to come.
    LBNF, DUNE, PIP-II, and LHC upgrades are our highest 
priorities at Fermilab. The projects are proceeding well, and 
we are incredibly grateful to the Department of Energy for 
their support thus far, particularly in helping us to address 
the challenges of LBNF/DUNE and accelerating its schedule. Our 
international partners have seen the United States' ongoing 
commitment and investment in these efforts, and this has 
resulted in expanding contributions and our sustained global 
leadership in the field.
    I thank the Members of this distinguished Subcommittee for 
your attention. Your continued support of the DOE Office of 
Science means we can continue to pursue our--the mysteries of 
the universe and improve lives, both here in the United States 
and around the world. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Merminga follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much.
    Next, we will have Mr. Yeck. And, Mr. Yeck, let's try to 
make it in 5 minutes.

                   TESTIMONY OF MR. JIM YECK,

                 ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR

      AND PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER,

                 BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

    Mr. Yeck. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you today. My name is Jim Yeck. I have 
participated in and led big science projects around the world, 
as noted in my introduction by Chairman Bowman.
    I'm here today as Project Director for the Electron-Ion 
Collider, or EIC, a nuclear physics research facility being 
built at Brookhaven Lab in New York in partnership with 
Virginia's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, and 
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. I 
thank the Committee for authorizing the EIC as part of the 
America COMPETES Act of 2022.
    Today, all our technologies and much of our economy depend 
on what we've learned about the atom and its orbiting 
electrons. Experiments on the behavior of electrons in the last 
century led to the development of batteries, semiconductors, 
smart materials, and more. With an EIC, we will be able to look 
inside the atom nucleus to image its constituents, the quarks 
and gluons. EIC experiments will reveal how the strong nuclear 
force drives interactions among completely massless gluons and 
nearly massless quarks to buildup the mass, structure, and 
properties of visible matter in the universe. Like the 
discoveries of the last century that power today's electronics-
centered society, new discoveries about gluons could lead to 
the like technologies of tomorrow.
    Tools we are developing for the EIC could also lead to new 
innovative accelerators for making and testing computer chips, 
killing cancer cells, and designing drugs and new materials; 
detector technologies for medicine and national security; and 
computational tools that can be applied to modeling climate 
change, global pandemics, even financial markets.
    EIC planning has been underway for more than 2 decades. The 
nuclear science community and the National Academies consider 
its scientific promise to be timely, compelling, and worthy of 
investment. Our field has a strong track record of delivering 
on the goals laid out through this careful planning process and 
for delivering projects within budget.
    As a Project Leader, my key ingredients of success include 
ensuring the project remains a priority of the science 
community, securing funding commitments, and establishing a 
strong role of the host funding agency and laboratory, 
appointing project leaders who enable the success of all 
stakeholders, encouraging collective ownership of problems and 
solutions, establishing realistic goals, making the most of the 
team's experience, and sustaining energy and enthusiasm over 
the decade required to construct the project. To make the EIC a 
reality, we need all of these ingredients.
    I'm confident that we have the scientific and technical 
knowhow, the team, and other ingredients in place, but I'm 
concerned about the current funding realities. EIC construction 
cost estimates range from $1.7 to $2.8 billion. That investment 
will create thousands of jobs in construction, materials, and 
manufacturing in New York State, Virginia, and beyond, and 
hundreds of highly skilled technical jobs over the EIC's 
operational lifetime. Brookhaven Lab was selected as the EIC 
site in part to capitalize on the $2 billion-plus already 
invested in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider or RHIC, the 
only operating collider in the United States. RHIC and its team 
of talent will serve as a backbone for the EIC after RHIC's 
scientific mission is complete in 2025. Reusing components of 
RHIC and leveraging its highly trained work force with its 
decades of experience will reduce the overall EIC project costs 
and ensure the handoff of knowledge from today's scientists, 
engineers, and technicians to the next generation critical to 
building and operating the new facility.
    But without several years of sufficient, dedicated funding 
to ensure a smooth transition from RHIC to EIC, we anticipate 
layoffs impacting those same individuals. To date, funding has 
been well below the levels required to keep the project on 
course and on budget. Funding constraints also affect our 
ability to attract the next generation of American physicists, 
technicians, and engineers and will compromise U.S. leadership 
and competitiveness in accelerator science and nuclear physics. 
And those constraints will also impact our international 
partnerships. Currently, a robust EIC user community of about 
1,300 scientists from 250 institutions around the globe have 
been helping to develop the science program.
    Finally, a word about education. Brookhaven Lab takes great 
pride in its internship programs with a 50/50 gender diversity 
mix and nearly 40 percent of our students coming from 
underrepresented groups. These populations are developing the 
diverse work force of the future. The EIC will be a unique 
resource for driving that progression.
    I hope this testimony convinces you of the enormous value 
an investment in Electron-Ion Collider will deliver to our 
Nation and the need for sufficient funding to make it a 
reality. EIC will extend the frontiers of discovery, lead to 
benefits to science and society, and maintain our Nation's 
undisputed leadership and competitiveness in nuclear, 
accelerator, detector, and computational science, areas 
essential to economic advancement, national security, and 
technological development for decades to come.
    Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Yeck follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Yeck.
    And finally, we will have Mr. Guastella.

              TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL GUASTELLA,

                EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE COUNCIL

           ON RADIONUCLIDES AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS

    Mr. Guastella. Good morning, Chairman Bowman, Ranking 
Member Weber, and Members of the Committee. I'm Michael 
Guastella, the Executive Director of the Council on 
Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals. We're an association of 
companies that manufacture and distribute radioactive sources 
and medical isotopes here in the United States. Thank you for 
the opportunity to provide the Committee with our comments on 
the current supply of radioactive and stable isotopes.
    Our supply chain issues have been the focus of several 
government efforts over the last 15 years to address the lack 
of a reliable and sufficient supply of domestic medical and 
industrial isotopes. And the recent invasion--Russian invasion 
of Ukraine highlight further these issues. The problem is 
significant. And my member companies are appreciative of the 
Committee's interest in these issues and our suggestions on 
what needs to be done.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 
Weber, for your support and assistance over the last several 
years. Your Committee has recognized the importance of medical 
and industrial isotopes, and you have advocated for Federal 
policies that would ensure that our patients have the isotopes 
necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.
    Nuclear medicine involves the injection of medical 
radioactive isotopes and radiopharmaceuticals into a patient's 
body to diagnose and treat disease. Nuclear medicine is 
integral to the care of patients, and we estimate that there 
are 20 million nuclear medicine procedures performed annually 
for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's 
disease, and Alzheimer's disease.
    Now, let me update the Committee on U.S. isotope supply 
challenges and opportunities. There are over 40 stable and 
radioactive isotopes that we have identified that are important 
for medical or industrial purposes, and that the United States 
relies largely on Russian companies to supply. For example, to 
serve U.S. patients, a significant portion of the molybdenum-99 
supply chain relies on uranium-235 that is sourced from Russia. 
Several other isotopes sourced from Russia include stable 
isotope zinc-68, which is used for the production of 
therapeutic--the therapeutic radioisotope copper-67, 
gadolinium-153 for calibrating medical devices, and krypton-85 
using industrial-sealed sources to measure thickness and 
density.
    Various companies are currently developing reactor and 
nonreactor capabilities to help scale up domestic production of 
essential isotopes. However, these commercial activities may 
not be adequate to address the immediate risks to the 
radioactive and stable isotope supply chains posed by the 
Russian invasion of Ukraine and potential sanctions being 
considered on Russian suppliers by the United States and our 
allies.
    DOE especially plays a critical role in producing and 
distributing isotopes needed in scientific research and for 
initial medical, clinical development, and industrial purposes 
when there are not sufficient commercial incentives for 
production of such isotopes. CORAR and its member companies 
believe that, where commercially feasible, medical and 
industrial isotopes should be produced by the private sector. 
However, for a number of these isotopes where commercial 
domestic production has not been established or is not 
sufficient to meet U.S. medical and industrial needs, the DOE 
Isotope Program can potentially provide a bridge to ensure 
domestic supply.
    CORAR would recommend that the Committee continue to 
support the DOE's research, development, and production 
activities. CORAR supports your Committee's work contained in 
section 311 of the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Provisions of 
the COMPETES Act will improve the mission of the DOE Isotope 
Program, including the establishment of a new Advisory 
Committee and the authorization of appropriations for the DOE 
Isotope Program to be used to support the new DOE isotope--the 
DOE Stable Isotope Production and Research Center, Radioisotope 
Processing Facility, and the Clinical Alpha Radionuclide 
Producer Project. However, the current level of funding 
supports project completion timelines that stretch to the early 
2030's. CORAR encourages the Committee to consider accelerating 
the authorization of appropriation rate for the DOE Isotope 
Program that would allow these projects to be completed on an 
accelerated timeline, ideally over the next 4 to 5 years.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
would be pleased to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guastella follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Bowman. At this point, we will begin our first 
round of questions. The Chairman now recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    My first question goes to Mr. Yeck. It's for you as the 
Director of--the Project Director of the Electron-Ion Collider, 
which is funded and supported by the DOE Office of Science 
Nuclear Physics Program and located in my State of New York. I 
understand from your testimony that research at this facility 
will not only continue to advance our fundamental understanding 
of matter and reality but could also pave the way for further 
breakthroughs in medicine, electronics, advanced computing, and 
much more. Can you please elaborate on how the Electron-Ion 
Collider is envisioned to contribute to maintaining our 
country's leadership and innovation in these and other critical 
technology areas?
    Mr. Yeck. Thank you. One of the features of the Electron-
Ion Collider is that it's an extremely challenging and complex 
machine, which requires innovations in accelerator physics. And 
the result that we're pursuing in performance parameters that 
push the envelope in terms of the energy of the collisions, the 
luminosity, the polarization of the beams. All of these 
techniques have been used in the past to benefit other fields. 
So it's basically the development of accelerator science and 
technology which is motivating the interest of collaborators 
around the world. And the detector technologies are also quite 
challenging. And if history is any guide, as was discussed 
earlier in other testimony, this is made available to these 
other fields. Thank you.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Dr. Berhe, can you comment on 
this as well?
    Dr. Berhe. Yes, I agree with Mr. Yeck that, you know, the 
Electron-Ion Collider represents an important--and thank you, 
first of all, for your question, Congressman. And, as I said, I 
agree with Mr. Yeck on the importance of this incredibly 
exciting facility that the science community is looking forward 
to. And I also agree that even though some of these research 
questions that the facility might address might be more 
fundamental, there are significant advances and benefits that 
we can look forward to from these facilities. And I think it's 
a really good reason why there is a widespread support for this 
facility and the science that it will enable across the board 
in the Office of Science.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you. My next question is for Dr. 
Greene. Thank you for your testimony. Here on the Science 
Committee, we have delved deep into how to better involve 
students in STEM around the country, from K to 12, to the 
university and graduate level.
    In your written testimony, you state that the American 
education system has failed to teach science effectively. You 
go on to say that, as a society, we are too focused on what 
science can do for us instead of valuing science for how it can 
change the way we understand and see the world. Can you 
describe this educational failure? How can we here on the 
Science Committee and in Congress in general address that 
problem?
    Dr. Greene. Yes, thank you for the question. Briefly put, 
we focus in the classroom on teaching kids the details of 
science so that they can regurgitate it back on an exam so we 
can evaluate them. But science is not simply the details. 
Science is the big ideas, as we've already heard in the 
testimony from many on the panel today. And if you can take a 
kid out to the stars and reveal to them the wonders of the 
cosmos and the wonders of life and the wonders of mind, this 
can inspire them to want to learn the details.
    So I think there needs to be a fairly significant shift in 
the way that we teach science to the young and the way we bring 
adults and families into the scientific enterprise because, 
ultimately, what we're doing is continuing a journey that our 
species has been on for thousands of years. And we have, as a 
species, tried to understand ourselves and the cosmos, and it's 
perhaps the most exciting of adventure stories.
    So what we need to do is extol science as something vital 
to life and fun, the ability of scientists to go out into the 
world and spread the message of how these ideas can help us 
shape our place in the universe.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. I yield back the 
balance of my time and now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We can all agree that isotopes are strategic commodities 
that are essential to the Nation's economic, scientific, 
medical treatments, industry, national security is not 
negotiable or replaceable. Therefore, I'm extremely concerned 
about DOE's solution or dare I say the lack thereof to the 
instability of isotope supply chain resulting from the Russian 
aggression in Ukraine.
    So Dr. Berhe, welcome once again here. We'll give you one 
of the hard questions first. I'll ask you. What exactly is 
DOE's short-term outlook here, and do you believe that the 
Department's plan to build both a Stable Isotope Production and 
Research Center and a Radioisotope Processing Facility will be 
quick enough and sustainable enough in the long term to avoid 
the short--the supply shortage that is already appearing 
absolutely inevitable?
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
agree with you that the importance of isotopes is clear, as was 
elaborated by my colleagues on the panel and the urgency of 
this matter is also very, very clear. One thing I could say is 
the fact that contingency planning for scenarios like what 
we're experiencing right now actually started at the DOE about 
5 years ago, so we've been anticipating and planning for 
something like this and disruptions. And, as a result, we've 
been able to actually speed up production in facilities that 
are existing, but also are continuing to push for newer 
facilities to come online as soon as possible. And we 
appreciate the bipartisan support that we've received from your 
Committee on this area.
    And as, you know, it was discussed earlier, the two Stable 
Isotope Facility, as well as the Radioisotope Production 
Facility that are in construction, are going to be very 
critical for helping us address the needs.
    I want to be clear also about the fact that this is an 
extremely technically challenging area, so there's not going to 
be any very, very quick fixes in the matter. But I think, as 
has been demonstrated in the last several months, the DOE 
facilities and the personnel involved in this work and the 
partnerships that we have with both universities and the 
industry have been able to limit the impact of the supply chain 
disruptions because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And we'll 
continue to work with the Congress, as well as these different 
stakeholders, to make sure that we address these issues.
    In the short term, there might be some challenges, 
obviously. But I think continuing to receive support for these 
upcoming facilities will definitely help us bring them online 
faster in the timelines that hopefully can alleviate even more 
significant----
    Mr. Weber. Well, let me ask you two questions to follow up 
with that, Doctor. And that is No. 1. If that process was 
inevitable 5 years ago, where are we in that process, No. 1? 
And the second question is, how long are you on loan from the 
university?
    Dr. Berhe. Well, to answer your first--second question 
first, I'm in this position for--you know, I'm a Presidential 
appointee, so--but I think--rest assured, though, this is not 
about me or one person, right? Obviously, there's a program and 
dedicated staff with DOE.
    Mr. Weber. Is there an administrator to that process?
    Dr. Berhe. Yes. Yes, there is----
    Mr. Weber. Who is that?
    Dr. Berhe. There is a program--Joann Gallon--Gillian--
sorry----
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Dr. Berhe. The last name, I'm butchering it a little bit. 
But Jehanne Gillo is the Program Manager for Isotopes. And I 
should also mention that the scientific community in this area 
has been very invested, as you heard. They're trying to set up 
their own advisory committee actually outside NP and 
continuing----
    Mr. Weber. And if I may interrupt, and that answer, do we 
think that we have to build a facility like this each time or 
could we get the private industry on board as quickly as 
possible, have them taking this over?
    Dr. Berhe. I think, as has been demonstrated, there's 
multiple different pathways that could be followed in the long 
term. Obviously, many of us have been engaged in the short term 
trying to address with the facilities that we already have and 
ones that have been planned and are currently under 
construction. But there are obviously possibilities around the 
world to do this in different ways.
    Mr. Weber. OK, thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is now 
recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Chairman 
Bowman, and Ranking Member Weber, and thank you for our 
witnesses for being here this morning.
    I'm honored to be selected as a Member of the Conference 
Committee tasked with negotiating a bipartisan innovation 
package. And as part of the House-passed version of this 
legislation, the Science Committee included a provision 
authorizing nearly $1 billion over 5 years to establish a 
development, demonstration, and commercialization program at 
the Department of Energy to strengthen our global 
competitiveness in the field of microelectronics. The House-
passed bill would establish microelectronics science research 
centers to address the foundational challenges in design, 
development, and manufacturing.
    So the district I represent in northwest Oregon is often 
referred to as the Silicon Forest. It's particularly affected 
by innovation in microelectronics. Thousands of my constituents 
and more than 40,000 Oregonians currently work in the 
semiconductor industry.
    So I want to ask Dr. Merminga, in your written testimony 
you note that Fermilab was a leader in advancing science and 
technology that drive advancements in microelectronics 
capabilities. So will you please expand on the interplay 
between the DOE's High Energy Physics Program and 
microelectronics development and offer your perspective on why 
our national labs are uniquely positioned to accelerate 
progress in advanced microelectronics research and development?
    Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much for this question. So 
Fermilab experiments create massive streams of data at very 
high rates. Just to give you an idea--excuse me--the data 
generated per second in just one large collider physics 
experiment like the LHC is equivalent to the average internet 
traffic across North America. Now, in order to monitor these 
data and make decisions about what events to read out, the 
readout must be located on the detectors themselves. So this 
creates naturally a need for microelectronics code design, 
which is a prerequisite to allow us to interpret and monitor 
the data that we produce in our large-scale particle physics 
experiments. It's part of our business.
    In addition, our applications of microelectronics have 
additional cutting-edge requirements, for example, cryogenic 
operation, ultralow power consumption, and radiation hardness. 
It turns out industry now is interested in all of these 
challenges. Their requirements are easier than ours. We have 
more stringent requirements. And industry is very interested in 
working with us to codevelop a lot of these capabilities.
    To give you an another idea, we were the first laboratory 
in the complex to put AI on a chip. And so advances now----
    Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Merminga, I'm sorry to cut you off, but I 
want to get a couple other questions in and I don't have much 
more time.
    Dr. Merminga. Sure.
    Ms. Bonamici. I'm sorry to cut you off. I want to ask Dr. 
Berhe, briefly, how can basic research fields like high-energy 
physics and nuclear physics more effectively support work force 
issues and help our U.S. high tech industries? And if you can 
summarize and then I want to ask, Dr. Greene, thank you for 
your work, how can we better communicate the importance of what 
we do to the general public?
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congresswoman. So this is a very 
important area for me personally and the Department and the 
Administration. And we are currently actually working on a 
comprehensive plan that would allow us to support a diverse, 
dynamic work force that we could develop and support right here 
in the United States so that we are, you know, providing the 
best training possible for the scientists that will go on to 
make the discoveries of the future, but also the work force 
that will be needed for these highly technical industries out 
there.
    And you know, both the HEP and NP programs, for example, 
support a significant part of the training of the skilled work 
force in these areas, and so providing the support, being very 
intentional about recruitment, being intentional about also--
oh, OK, sorry, the buzzing sound--being very intentional about 
the training, recruitment, and retention of staff and--is a 
very important priority area and that's how we think it's--this 
is going to work. Thank you.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Dr. Greene?
    Dr. Greene. So in 13 seconds I would simply say that public 
engagement is cheap. So with a little bit of funding, you can 
have an army of scientists who are out there talking to the 
public and getting the public excited about these key ideas.
    Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that and appreciate all your 
efforts to bring science to the people of this country and the 
world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is 
now recognized.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte, is now 
recognized.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you to all the witnesses. This has been a fascinating hearing.
    I'd like to continue the line of questioning that Ranking 
Member Weber had started. Like him, I am very concerned about 
the supply chain issues that have arisen in our radioisotope 
production. Mr. Guastella, I found in your written testimony 
some of the things that you had to say about that extremely 
interesting. You had pointed out that it's possible to use 
commercial power reactors as neutron sources for the creation 
of radioisotopes, but you also pointed out that, currently, 
power reactors in the United States lack the technology to 
irradiate a target, which is really what you'd need to make 
this work.
    So a number of us here on the Committee have been vocal 
advocates for next-generation nuclear, both fission and 
upcoming fusion, but the--you know, really, as we confront the 
problem of global climate change and decarbonization, nuclear 
energy is probably at this point the cleanest energy that 
mankind knows how to produce. And, you know, we think it's 
gotten a bad name. Next-generation nuclear has amazing promise 
and much lower failure modes.
    So as you see these next-generation nuclear programs and 
the modular reactors come on board, is there a possibility for 
some synergy of designing in the technology to be able to 
create these radioisotopes as we develop these new reactors?
    Mr. Guastella. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 
question. And yes, as you've acknowledged, some of the power 
reactors in Canada, generally CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) 
reactors, are using--they're using the power reactors as 
neutron sources for moly production, as well as lutetium-177, 
which is a beta-emitting isotope. The current power reactors in 
the United States, unfortunately, generally don't have the same 
type of technology that allows them to irradiate these targets 
while they're online.
    We have one member TerraPower, a Bill Gates company, who 
was looking at a next generation, a small modular reactor. 
They're going to test it in Wyoming. As far as I know--and 
we've asked this question--TerraPower does not plan to include 
medical isotope production into their mission and into the 
design of the reactor. I'm not aware of any of the other 
projects right now that are including medical isotope 
production, unfortunately, but----
    Mr. Obernolte. What would be the technical barriers to be 
able to--to adding that kind of capability?
    Mr. Guastella. To be honest, I'm not quite sure. We can 
certainly look into that a little bit more and maybe provide a 
response as a question for the record. But in asking 
TerraPower, who is looking at actinium-225 production in 
partnership with the DOE, they've basically said the design of 
their reactor does not allow right now for the--a production of 
medical isotopes, but not sure of some of the other projects 
that are currently in development.
    Mr. Obernolte. Do you know if any other countries are 
planning on building in this technology? It just seems like an 
incredible missed opportunity if we're having the supply chain 
pressure not to take advantage of the fact that we're deploying 
this next-generation technology currently?
    Mr. Guastella. Yes. Well, as far as next-generation 
technology, I'm not aware. Obviously, there are projects in 
Europe right now, research reactor projects that are on the 
books right now and with the design of medical isotope 
production as part of their mission. So there are some 
projects. I'm not aware of any--of the next-gen small modular 
reactor projects involving medical isotope production at this 
time.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you. Well, let me ask you, Dr. 
Berhe, is this something that your department is pursuing, 
perhaps talking with the Office of Nuclear Energy as you 
interface between the Radioisotope Program and this upcoming 
technology?
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We 
all agree that this is an important area. It's also fast-moving 
in terms of the technical advances that are happening. And I 
think your--the point that you make is an important one, and 
the Isotope Program at DOE Office of Science continuously works 
with the nuclear energy side of the house and other 
stakeholders to figure out what is--what other things that we 
should be thinking about because it's not just a production 
program, right? It's also a research and development program so 
that we are thinking ahead about what are the new technologies 
that we're developing. So in consultation with the scientific 
community and the different stakeholders, they are continuously 
assessing what needs to be the next goal that we target.
    And just to mention one, the Radioisotope Production 
Facility at Oak Ridge National Lab that's, you know, in 
development will actually have capacity to add a number of the 
isotopes that we currently source from Russia that are produced 
on a reactor, and obviously will help accelerate the 
availability of a number of radioisotopes that are critical, 
including in the medical field.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. I see I'm out of time. but I'd 
like to encourage you to continue to have those discussions 
because it would certainly be a missed opportunity if we didn't 
build that capability into the new commercial power reactors 
that are in development.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamb, 
is now recognized.
    Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start off 
with a question for Mr. Yeck about the facility being built at 
Brookhaven. I was wondering if you could kind of compare that 
for us to similar facilities around the world if they exist in 
direct comparison. In other words, you know, how urgent is it 
for us to complete and maintain that facility in order to 
maintain an edge over competitor nations, or are we merely 
matching them by building the facility at Brookhaven?
    Mr. Yeck. Yes, thank you for the question. So the EIC, when 
it's constructed, will be a unique facility in the world. And 
there's worldwide interest in the realization of the facility. 
It's been a priority, obviously, in the United States but also 
in the European community, and participation is encouraged.
    There is potential competition. I mean, China is interested 
in building an electron-ion collider. They've made plans. We're 
ahead. We have a unique opportunity, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, with the successful conclusion of the RHIC program, 
which will end in 2025, with a work force that can be mobilized 
immediately into the construction work of the EIC. The timing 
here is absolutely critical. We cannot lose these people. We 
need these people in addition to our partnerships and 
collaboration with Jefferson Lab and other laboratories and 
universities. So the timing is now for the realization of the 
Electron-Ion Collider, and it will maintain U.S. leadership in 
this field with creating a facility that will have 
international interest and participation. Thank you.
    Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that. Thank you.
    And, Dr. Behre, to kind of enlarge that to all 28 of the 
user facilities under your purview, can you maybe update us on 
the the overall state of those 28 in comparison to the 
portfolio of other nations? And has that changed over time? 
Like in other words, are we pulling ahead? Are other nations 
catching us in terms of the concrete user facilities that we 
have?
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
think it's fair to say that the United States remains one of 
the strongest, you know, kind of nations with respect to the 
user facilities that we have, the capabilities that--and the 
science that they enable. And many of the research programs 
that enable and support the facilities remain one of the 
strongest, anywhere, really.
    But I think it's important also to acknowledge that there 
are in fact nations out there, as we just heard, that are, you 
know, also making similar investments in their institutions. 
And so there is competition coming down the pike. I think 
that's widely acknowledged. But continuing, I think, efforts to 
support these facilities is--I think, again, it will ensure 
that the United States remains preeminent on top of our--you 
know, on top of the field across many areas. These user 
facilities, as you mentioned, there are many, they're diverse, 
they're some of the most renowned in the world in the areas of 
research that they enable, and they remain important priority 
areas that are supported and have widespread support by the 
Office of Science.
    Mr. Lamb. I agree. Thank you.
    And Dr. Greene, last question for you. You know, you've 
referenced several times some of the really important 
scientific and particularly physics discoveries of the 20th 
century. And, you know, my limited knowledge of that story is 
that a lot of the most important characters started off in 
Europe and found refuge in the United States around the time of 
World War II and made many other discoveries here as a result. 
Do you think that we are still seen around the world as a 
refuge and a destination of that type? And are these 
investments we're talking about today critical to our ability 
to continue that way?
    Dr. Greene. Yes, I think we're definitely still seen as a 
center of forefront research and a place where scientists who 
aspire to great things will want to spend time here at American 
universities, at our national labs, and so forth.
    But, you know, I think the the more important lesson to my 
mind is that science is a worldwide effort. Sure, it's 
important for American competitiveness, we want to be the 
leaders and so forth, but ultimately, the questions that we're 
asking transcend national boundaries. And if I was going to use 
one model for the way the world could be a better place, we 
scientists, we speak to each other across national boundaries. 
It doesn't matter where you're from. What matters is the work 
that you do, the contributions that you make, the insight that 
you provide. And that, to me, is an inspiring message that 
really transcends national considerations and is a global 
concern that should drive us all.
    Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Baird, is now recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my question goes to 
Dr. Yeck. You know, Purdue University is in my district, and 
it's just one of the institutions that have participated in 
research with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. So I 
appreciate your testimony and your update on the Electron-Ion 
Collider, the EIC. So here's my question. You noted in your 
testimony that funding for the EIC has been well below that is 
required for most efficient construction models and schedules. 
How would such delays impact academic users in institutions 
anticipating the use of the EIC facility? Dr. Yeck?
    Mr. Yeck. Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question. The 
impact is profound. I mean, the delays and the realization of 
the EIC result in a gap as there are many users involved, as 
you mentioned, from your district that are involved in the 
science of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and are planning 
for the science that will come with the Electron-Ion Collider. 
And so the plans that we've laid out and the funding plans that 
are proposed minimize the gap between the conclusion of RHIC 
operations and the start of operations and the data-taking with 
the Electron-Ion Collider. This is an issue that the plans have 
addressed. That funding is clearly identified what is needed to 
minimize that gap. And so I think it is--the answer is it's 
profound. I mean, we need to move forward on the EIC now so 
that we can move the people that are interested in the science 
into the program in as graceful a way as possible. Thank you.
    Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. And Dr. Merminga, a number of 
news stories in recent months have featured concerns about--and 
it's along the same vein of this last question--about the 
progress of the LBNF and DUNE, so including the cost in recent 
years, extended completion times, and the decision to split 
this project into subprojects. So in your new role, how do you 
plan to reassure international and institutional partners 
regarding Fermilab's and the Department's commitment to 
completing this project in a timely and cost-effective manner?
    Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much for this question, and 
thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight. The 
splitting in phases was something that was envisioned in the 
2014 P5 report originally. It is not a recent development. LBNF 
and DUNE, the DUNE experiment was going to--came in two phases. 
Phase 1 was the installation of two detectors in the first 
South Dakota sight and beam power from PIP-II equal to 1.2 
megawatts. And then phase 2 was the installation of the 
remaining two detectors in South Dakota and increasing the beam 
power to 2.4 megawatts. That was originally conceived.
    Now, the LBNF experiment is proceeding on track. The first 
side excavation is already more than 30 percent, the excavation 
complete. Eight hundred thousand tons of rock is being 
excavated right now. And furthermore, delays would be very, 
very detrimental to the project. However, a couple of months 
ago, the Office of Science reaffirmed their commitment in front 
of our international partners in a funding--international 
funding agency forum their commitment to LBNF and DUNE and 
announced a new funding profile that increases funding in 2024 
to 2027 and allows completion of the project in early 2031, 2 
years compared to the earlier profile, 2 years earlier, and in 
alignment with the original P5 expectations.
    So the way I'm going to convince the communities who are 
doing--still--were--the science is profound from LBNF and DUNE. 
We are managing the cost. The cost has been stable to around $3 
billion since 2019. We are delivering the project on schedule, 
and we're accelerating in order to win the competition as well.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. I appreciate the witnesses 
and their expert testimony. I yield back.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. 
Ross, is now recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member 
Weber, for holding this hearing and to all of our witnesses for 
joining us.
    What's clear from the witness testimony today is the far-
reaching impact of particle and nuclear physics research. And 
I'm proud to say that my district is home to the world's first 
nuclear reactor used for teaching, research, and public service 
at the North Carolina State University School of Engineering. 
Nuclear engineers at NC State University are at the forefront 
of research on neutrino detection to advance nuclear 
nonproliferation, food irradiation--you guys are going to have 
to help--irradiation to prevent the transmission of pathogens, 
and nuclear forensics and medical imaging. That work and the 
work of researchers at academic institutions across the country 
is more important than ever as we face both energy shortages 
and the ever-present potential for nuclear conflict.
    So, Dr. Greene, as the only panelist today representing an 
academic institution, what are your thoughts on the interplay 
between the research community and these large-scale 
experiments funded in the range of hundreds of millions to 
billions of dollars? And how do you think the Federal 
Government can better nurture relationships with our academic 
institutions, as well as improve partnerships with 
universities, national labs, and international projects?
    Dr. Greene. Great, thank you. Thank you for the question. 
There's an enormously fruitful interplay between the national 
labs and academics at universities. Ever since I was a graduate 
student, the number of my colleagues both as students and then 
when I was a faculty member as well, who freely move between 
the university and various of the national labs. That's a 
commonplace occurrence. There are many graduate students at a 
given university, including my own, who spend most of their 
time at a national lab where their thesis work is part of the 
laboratory's work, part of the undertaking of that facility.
    So I think it's a very fruitful interplay between the two. 
And it's a vital one because, look, the charge of a university 
is different from the charge of a national lab. We're seeking 
to both educate broadly, as well as be a research institution. 
Managing a large-scale facility is usually not within the 
purview of most universities, so I think it's a very symbiotic 
relationship between the labs and the academic universities in 
America. Thank you.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. And Dr. Merminga, I 
understand that one of the areas of cutting-edge research in 
nuclear nonproliferation is the use of antineutrino detectors 
to monitor nuclear power plants from long distances. And North 
Carolina State University's Dr. John Mattingly is part of the 
team of researchers working on this potentially game-changing 
research. Could you speak a bit to the promise of this approach 
and other novel approaches to nonproliferation research?
    Dr. Merminga. I'm sorry, I don't think I can speak to this.
    Ms. Ross. OK. Anybody else?
    Dr. Merminga. I will get back to you though.
    Ms. Ross. Does anybody else on the panel know anything 
about nonproliferation research? OK. Well, then I'll move to my 
last question, and hopefully, Dr. Merminga, you can speak to 
this. I was recently in Japan, which is moving rapidly on a 
competing project known as Hyper-K, which is similar to LBNF/
DUNE. Can you briefly comment on the difference between the 
scientific approaches favored by LBNF/DUNE versus Hyper-K?
    Dr. Merminga. I'm very happy to speak about this, and thank 
you for the question. So Hyper-K is an experiment that aims at 
similar scientific goals as the DUNE experiment. However, it 
follows fundamentally different approaches. Simply put, DUNE 
brings together exceptional capabilities due to the following 
key characteristics of the facility and the experiment. And I 
will draw the difference between DUNE and Hyper-K. These 
experiments are called long baseline experiments because the 
distance--because of the long distance between the source where 
neutrinos are produced and where they are being detected at the 
far side. So for DUNE, the distance is 1,300 kilometers and for 
Hyper-K is 295 kilometers. Furthermore, the DUNE experiment is 
going to be--to have the most intense beam of neutrinos ever 
built in the world. Already the Fermilab complex delivers today 
the most intense beam of neutrinos with nearly 900 kilowatts of 
beam power today. And for DUNE, we're going to go to 1.2 
megawatt, eventually to 2.4 megawatt. And importantly, this 
beam of neutrinos is wideband. It has a wide band of energies 
that covers the oscillation spectrum. And the neutrino 
oscillations is a key scientific objective of these 
experiments.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Merminga. And third----
    Ms. Ross. I see my time has expired. And, Mr. Chair, I 
yield back. But thank you so much for that explanation.
    Dr. Merminga. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. 
Stevens, is now recognized.
    Ms. Stevens. Our Chair strikes again, an amazing hearing on 
investigating the nature of matter, energy, space, and time. 
Five amazing witnesses. I cannot believe what we are hearing, 
the quiet murmurs of the Science Committee ringing across the 
universe. One testimony alone from Dr. Berhe, neutrinos, quote, 
``Neutrinos may hold the key to why matter exists at all in the 
universe, as opposed to nothing,'' quote, ``a broad range of 
the epochs of the universe,'' end quote, in your testimony. 
That alone is just absolutely remarkable. And we could spend 
all day with every one of you, so thank you so much for your 
expertise and your time.
    We are certainly in a competitive moment. My colleague 
referenced our work in microelectronics and the chip shortage 
and supply chain disruptions, but this is broader, this is more 
international, and this is, dare we say, universal. So in terms 
of what we're looking at with--and my--you know, there's just 
so much to unpack here. But in terms of what we're looking at 
with isotopes--and this is of importance to us in Michigan--
we've got this new isotope research lab, the FRIB (Facility for 
Rare Isotopes Beams) that--the Department of Energy's Michigan 
State University Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. And just last 
month, everyone was all together, and we certainly want to talk 
about the importance of these programs. But I actually--I would 
like to hone in, you know, in the testimony of Dr. Berhe, you 
were talking about how we compare with Russia, and how the war 
in Ukraine is impacting our abilities, and that the U.S. and 
Russia are the only two in this type of space. How do you feel 
as though we are measuring up today as it relates to the 
pandemic, a war, inflation, access to materials? And let me let 
me pause on that question. I'm going to come back and ask about 
CERN as well. Thanks.
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congresswoman Stevens. I definitely 
share your excitement about the importance of this area and the 
questions. And also, you know, I think everybody shares your 
excitement about the FRIB facility that was newly opened in--at 
Michigan State University, which I might say is my alma mater, 
too.
    So to kind of answer your question about where do we stand 
in terms of, you know, kind of the--our ability to produce and 
supply these isotopes, though, I think it's fair to say we are 
in a much better place now than we would have been if we didn't 
have a lot of the contingency planning in place, but I think 
this problem is pretty widespread and, unfortunately, affects 
not just us, but it basically affects the whole world, as a lot 
of the isotope supply systems had been concentrated in Russia 
for a long period of time.
    But right now, you know, again, even though we're not 
expecting--and we're pretty--everybody's pretty clear about the 
fact that there are no quick fixes, the--there's actually quite 
a lot of improvements that have been made. There are roughly, 
for example, 31 radioisotope supply chains in which the United 
States had dependence on Russia, and 19 of them are--have 
experienced some disruptions. But of those, the DOE Isotope 
Program has developed capabilities to produce 19, and another 
11 of them are at various stages of development. So that says 
that we're doing OK, but we're continuing--we're going to have 
to continue to work on this.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, in Mr. Guastella's group, which is 
talking about this association of companies in the U.S. and 
Canada and what we manufacture, you know, I do Manufacturing 
Monday. Every Monday, I go to a small manufacturer and geek out 
with them. That and this Committee will keep you sane in the 
Congress in these polarized times. But we signed a trade deal, 
as you know, we renegotiated NAFTA (North American Free Trade 
Agreement). Are you seeing us--are you seeing that help us--
helping us compete in terms of what we're talking about here? 
Obviously, we've got a global, you know, race going on here. 
But is that benefiting some of the work in the space that your 
association is focused on with radionuclides and 
radiopharmaceuticals?
    Mr. Guastella. Well, thank you for the question. The--most 
of the radio isotopes--and I'd say well over 90 percent are 
sourced either from Europe, Russia, South Africa, Australia. 
And we do obviously work with Canada, some of our member 
companies, obviously work with manufacturers in Canada. The 
actual impact of the trade agreement I can't speak to, but I 
can say that we've had a long relationship with organizations 
in Canada. And in fact, we have some organizations within CORAR 
that are based in Canada. So we have a nice cross-relationship 
between the two countries.
    Ms. Stevens. A fantastic border and a fantastic part of our 
supply chain and thank you. With that, I'll yield back, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster, 
is now recognized.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses. I--
first, I'd like to echo my congratulations to Dr. Berhe and to 
Dr. Merminga on your new roles. And I'd like to thank the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member for their opening statements, 
which articulated very clearly the strong bipartisan support, 
both for the flagship Department of Energy facilities that are 
essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in fundamental 
science, and the DOE's contributions to immediate concerns like 
medical isotopes.
    We've also been very encouraged recently to hear President 
Biden lament the fact that the R&D intensity, the fraction of 
GDP (gross domestic product) that we devote to R&D has dropped 
precipitously from its historic levels. So at a time when our 
Nation's GDP is growing strongly, faster than inflation, fixing 
that should mean significant real increases in the research 
budgets of DOE's Office of Science and should in fact be 
growing even faster than our GDP.
    But when we see the budget proposals, both from the 
Administration and from our Appropriations Committees, which 
for many accounts do not even cover inflation, we realize how 
far short of the mark we're falling, and perhaps gain some 
insight into the mechanisms that have promoted the short-term 
thinking that got us into this situation that really is putting 
our scientific leadership at risk.
    Now, as a Member of the House Science Conference Committee 
on the COMPETES Act, I'm confident that we will be authorizing 
a budget envelope to begin restoring R&D intensity to historic 
levels, but these must be followed through by appropriations. 
You know, for example, Dr. Berhe, in your testimony you wrote 
in depth about the DOE national lab infrastructure and some of 
the needs of the network of labs that Office of Science 
oversees.
    Last year, Senator Lujan and I introduced the Restore and 
Modernization Our National Labs Act, which authorizes $30.5 
billion in funding for the National Laboratories to address 
this critical shovel-ready backlog of overdue infrastructure 
repairs and improvements. I was very pleased that we were able 
to include this legislation in the America COMPETES bill as an 
amendment and hope that it survives the Conference Committee.
    So, Dr. Berhe, could you speak a little bit about how 
funding to--specifically directed at laboratory infrastructure 
would assist your ability to prioritize and execute the series 
of projects that really are essential to maintain a healthy 
enterprise?
    Dr. Berhe. Thank you very much, Congressman Foster. I first 
would like to start by thanking you and the Committee for the 
support that we've received in this area. As you've articulated 
very well, we all agree that the--maintaining the 
infrastructure and the facilities and operations at the 
national labs is critical for the science that we conduct. It's 
also critical for us to be able to, again, train, recruit, and 
retain the next generation of scientists that will take on the 
next challenges, both in--you know, in research as well as in 
industry.
    So, you know, we're constantly evaluating the needs in 
consultation with the national labs and figuring out how to 
prioritize, obviously, the infrastructure projects that cannot 
wait that will lead to even bigger problems if they're not 
addressed or ones that are urgent, so figuring out basically 
all the ways that we have at our disposal to balance the 
different--many different competing needs.
    But I think we're all on the same page about the need to 
address infrastructure and facilities ops, and all very, very 
supportive of have you all as partner, as we address the--as we 
seek more support and funding to address these challenges, 
which I think are extremely important. And----
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. And Dr. Merminga and Mr. Yeck, could 
you just describe briefly what it's like being a project 
manager of something where--in a laboratory where there's a big 
backlog of overdue infrastructure repairs, and that a lot of 
these infrastructure repairs get offloaded onto your project 
and making your project look more expensive than it might 
otherwise have to be? It's--I'm sure it's a universal 
experience, and so if you could start--we'll start with Dr. 
Merminga.
    Dr. Merminga. Thank you, Mr. Foster. I must say that, as 
the Project Director of the PIP-II project, we were very 
fortunate to have some GPP projects, general----
    Mr. Foster. Infrastructure.
    Dr. Merminga [continuing]. Infrastructure projects.
    Mr. Foster. Infrastructure projects.
    Dr. Merminga [continuing]. That were complementary and 
necessary for the PIP-II project to advance. And so these were 
executed, were mostly funded by the SLI (Science Laboratories 
Infrastructure) program and were executed in time--on time, and 
so that was very helpful for us.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, and my time is up, but I would get--Mr. 
Yeck, if you'd just acknowledge that you've had comparable 
experiences in managing projects, I'd----
    Mr. Yeck. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. My time is up. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if 
it was feasible, I'd be interested in another round of 
questions if the witnesses and our time can accommodate.
    Chairman Bowman. So I'm going to ask--I'm going to begin 
another round of questions if that's OK with the witnesses. 
Thank you very much. Yes, just--yes. So I'll start. And my 
question is for Dr. Greene.
    Dr. Greene, your expertise is in the area of research 
called string theory, which hundreds, maybe even thousands of 
physicists around the world are currently studying. If proven, 
it could fulfill Einstein's dream of having a theory of the 
universe, a set of mathematical formulas that explains all of 
our physical laws. But is such a theory even provable? Are 
there extremes of nature that we can never achieve and examine 
up close to test these theories?
    Dr. Greene. Yes, thank you for the question. Indeed, your 
summary is correct. There are many of us in America and around 
the world who are trying to realize the dream that Einstein 
initially articulated of a single set of mathematical laws that 
would govern the entire universe, the big, the small, and 
everything in between. So it is a hugely ambitious undertaking. 
Remarkably, we have a theory on the table, the one you 
mentioned, string theory. That may be the theory that Einstein 
was looking for, but the key question you ask is, is it 
testable? And we don't know. As of today, our technology and 
our understanding is probably too limited to be able to specify 
a test that could establish the theory right or refute it. But 
that's what research is all about. We are working intensely on 
the mathematical aspects of the theory to try to bring our 
understanding to a point where we can make predictions that 
perhaps some of the machines that we're hearing about on the 
panel might one day be able to test.
    So we would not be working on the theory if it were somehow 
fundamentally philosophically unprovable, but it's a challenge 
to prove a theory that manifests its distinct characteristics 
at enormously high energies and incredibly small distances. So 
the answer probably is best summarized as not yet, but 
hopefully in the future.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much. I now yield to the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, for a question.
    Mr. Weber. Oh, gosh, that was quick. Thank you. I 
appreciate that. I can answer a part of that last question. 
That is, as long as I do what my wife says, things add up. And 
if I don't, not so much. That's the most important answer for 
me.
    Mr. Guastella, in your written testimony, you state that 
your organization's members support private sector production 
of important isotopes. What are some of the major barriers to 
the domestic commercial production--this is going to be kind of 
a three-part question--of important medical and industrial 
isotopes for which we currently rely on other countries or DOE 
production? What are some of the major barriers to domestic 
commercial production of those? What suggestions do you have 
for the DOE Isotope Program for encouraging and supporting 
private-sector production, No. 2? And then No. 3, does it 
concern--should we be concerned--in earlier testimony, one of 
the things about the EIC, for example--or ECI--I can't read my 
own hen scratch--was that it was motivating the interest of 
collaborators all around the world. Do we trust that? How do we 
vet them? How do we know that they're not here just to steal 
our information? And I'll yield to you?
    Mr. Guastella. Well, Congressman Weber, thank you for the 
question. First of all, Dr. Berhe has mentioned on a few 
occasions that the technology can be somewhat complicated and 
certainly capital-intensive. So I would say with some of the 
newer isotopes, and depending on the opportunities, if you 
will, for commercialization, those can create barriers. And 
that's why in certain instances industry has relied on the DOE 
Isotope Program, and the DOE Isotope Program has been a great, 
great partner.
    Mr. Weber. Let me ask something real quick. Does the NRC 
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission) get involved in that process 
that you're describing?
    Mr. Guastella. Absolutely. And we deal with not only the 
NRC, but the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the DOT 
(Department of Transportation), international organizations 
like the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). So when 
you're talking about manufacturing and transporting radioactive 
materials, obviously, you have to satisfy regulations from all 
those regulatory bodies.
    I mean, we have several suggestions that I've included in 
our testimony, one mentioned earlier, and that is fully fund 
the Stable Isotope Production and Research Center and the 
Radioisotope Processing Facility. The DOE, from my 
understanding, is in desperate need of additional processing 
capabilities, and having those facilities come online sooner 
rather than later would be very important to increase the 
ability to have those isotopes produced in the United States.
    Also came up a----
    Mr. Weber. But there are entities in your group that stand 
ready, willing, and able to get onboard with that if that 
becomes a possibility.
    Mr. Guastella. Absolutely. I think, though, that kind of 
leads to my response in the second part of your question, and 
that is kind of to introduce, if you can, opportunities to 
expedite production commercially. And that may be in providing 
public-private type opportunities. Now, I understand right now 
that the DOE Isotope Program is not part of their mission. But 
public-private funding opportunities in the future could 
accelerate the introduction of commercial production of some of 
these isotopes that we're relying on Russia right now. So that 
would certainly be another opportunity.
    You know, another thing I would mention is what I hear 
sometimes is that the importance of isotopes may not be fully 
realized through the government and the Administration. And 
we've also suggested and requested that the Administration 
institute a White House-level supply coordinating effort. We 
found that to be very successful when we had issues with 
molybdenum. Molybdenum is an important isotope. The daughter 
isotope of molybdenum is technetium-99, which basically is used 
in about 80 percent of all nuclear medicine procedures. And the 
DOE obviously was very involved in helping to move toward 
domestic production of moly, but we found that the coordination 
within the Administration and the OSTP (Office of Science and 
Technology Policy) was also helpful and brought to light a 
number of issues that needed to be addressed as we were moving 
toward domestic production.
    Mr. Weber. I'm running out of time. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I'm going to yield back. And unfortunately, I have 
another meeting that I have to leave for. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Guastella. Thank you.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you. The Chair now yields to Ms. 
Stevens from Michigan.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. As it pertains to CERN and our 
collaboration with the European Organization for Nuclear 
Research--and this is also the Large Hadron Collider that we've 
all been reading about for the balance of a decade and 
recognizing as the world's largest and highest energy particle 
collider--I was just actually wondering if any of you could 
shed some light on how that collaboration is going? How 
prominent is the United States in that collaboration? How much 
will we receive from that collaboration and its benefits? Why 
is it located in Europe and not the United States for the kids 
watching at home? Yes, Dr. Merminga, we'll start with you.
    Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much. So I would say CERN is 
our most important partner in high-energy physics in the United 
States right now. As you know, particle physics is--the 
experiments and the facilities and infrastructure are of such 
great scale that in order to realize our collective ambition 
worldwide, we have split, if you like. And so Europe has the 
energy frontier with a Large Hadron Collider. and the United 
States participates in great numbers in those experiments at 
the LHC, as well as we participate in the upgrades to the LHC, 
both the accelerator----
    Ms. Stevens. And who's paying for that? Is it moneys to 
your agency or how is that being supported?
    Dr. Merminga. DOE is supporting the upgrades to the LHC. 
And at the same time, CERN is contributing to our DUNE 
experiment because the neutrino science is in the United 
States. And our aspiration with the completion of LBNF and DUNE 
is that the Fermilab and the United States becomes the world 
center for neutrino science. And CERN for the first time in its 
60-year history is investing in infrastructure into DUNE. And 
in fact, they're contributing the two cryostats for the two 
detectors that will go in South Dakota for the DUNE experiment. 
And they're paying for this, so it's truly a reciprocal 
relationship. And--yes.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Berhe.
    Dr. Berhe. I would completely agree with Lia on this point. 
Both at CERN and the--you know, the ongoing projects at LBNF/
DUNE, they're both collaborative in that the United States 
contributes financially to making the CERN experiments happen, 
but our scientists in turn get a huge part of the benefit and 
they get to participate and be, you know, leaders in the 
science in the areas of CERN. And once, you know, the LBNF/DUNE 
is realized and it's completed, then the European scientists 
will also be important partners here in the United States. And 
this field, as you've heard, is a very highly international, 
multidisciplinary--collaborations are what makes it possible.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. And so we just want Fermi to have the 
same attention that, you know, CERN is getting in many 
respects. I mean, we want to be seen as the leader. And it 
appears from both of your responses that we have the human 
capital, we have the trained and ready scientists who we can 
send over to CERN. You know, we've spent a lot of time on this 
Committee--and I'm a Subcommittee Chair for Research and 
Technology on, you know, our scientific research enterprise, 
our STEM education work force, making sure we're not leaving 
our own talent behind. But some of that is so dependent on 
these global exchanges, right?
    And so, you know, if we've got people going over there, 
they've got folks coming over here--and let's just--again, for 
the folks watching back home--and obviously, it should be 
everyone's homework to read these testimonies because they're 
brilliant--but what are we getting out of that partnership? I 
mean, how is this going to impact industries of scale or even 
our economy as it's appropriate to ask? Because it's not just 
research for research sake. I mean, this has got wide-ranging 
applications into how we live, conduct business, transport 
ourselves, and on if I'm right. Yes.
    Dr. Merminga. I just wanted to say, in addition to training 
our work force, we're getting--as I mentioned earlier, AI on a 
chip was first tried for the CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) 
detector, which is a detector of the LHC. And so 
microelectronics also originate from research in order to sort 
out data collected by the LHC and quantum computing as well. So 
a lot of these advances have then societal applications.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, yes. Yes----
    Dr. Merminga. Transfer to technology.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you.
    Dr. Berhe. Yes, as both Dr. Merminga, as well as Dr. Greene 
and others have spoken to, we get a lot of benefits from these 
fundamental science experiments. They may be curiosity-driven, 
trying to understand the fundamental processes and nature of 
matter and other issues. But eventually, we get sometimes even 
benefits that we didn't even realize they're going to be 
possible, right, benefits that are byproducts of the--you know, 
the scientists working on the process itself.
    But I think we don't even have to go far, as Dr. Merminga 
just explained. We've already realized a lot of benefits for 
society, for, you know, for industrial applications and others. 
And I think the field is rich. We will only continue to benefit 
going forward.
    Ms. Stevens. Right. Well, and, Dr. Greene, too, we 
appreciate you being here. You are right in the room with us 
and it's--look, this is just so exciting. It's really wide-
ranging. And I think even to the point about where we're going 
with nuclear, you know, there's, again, energy benefits. And so 
we can come back on more hearing topics on this front. Our 
Chair is totally focused on these subject matters. And I think 
in terms of it's budget season, and how we're funding our 
agencies and making sure your work is funded, this couldn't be 
more timely.
    So with that, Mr. Acting Chair, I'll yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Foster [presiding]. Well, thank you. And as Chair pro 
tem of this Committee, I will now recognize myself for the 
final 5 minutes of questions here.
    You know, I've always found that Congress understands well 
the near-term needs like, you know, supply chain, medical 
isotopes, and things like that. We have a lot of trouble 
understanding the--you know, the benefits of fundamental 
research that are harder to explain and the payoff is much 
longer term. Dr. Merminga, you sit on the--stand on the 
shoulders of giants at your laboratory, Dr. Wilson, Lederman, 
Peoples, Witherell, Oddone, Lockyer. But your first 
predecessor, you know, your--you know, Dr. Wilson, the founder 
of Fermilab, when he was pressed by a Senator in front of a 
Committee many decades ago about of what use the research--the 
fundamental research that's done at Fermilab is, that--you 
know, what exactly does Fermilab's research have to do with 
national defense? He responded with some--with a response which 
I think which echoes today. So when he was asked what is it 
that Fermilab's research has to do with national defense, say, 
or whatever the question of the day is, do you recall his 
answer?
    Dr. Merminga. Absolutely. It has nothing to do with 
national defense, but it makes the country worth defending.
    Mr. Foster. That's right. And that is the correct answer. 
It's also important to remember that when we think about the 
the difficulties of international collaboration, Robert Wilson 
always was proud that in the depths of the cold war when 
Fermilab was founded, when, you know, Russian soldiers were 
shooting antiaircraft missiles at American pilots in Vietnam, 
we--at the same time, one of the first experiments that was 
conducted at Fermilab had Russian collaborators. And the--you 
know, so it's a two-edged sword. We have to be very careful to 
protect our real national interest, but the benefits of 
international collaboration are not just the dollars that come 
in to experiments.
    Mr. Yeck, is there a significant international interest in 
the Electron-Ion Collider?
    Mr. Yeck. Yes, thank you. The user community, which was 
formed in 2016 and now reaches over 1,300 members from 250 
institutions, is about half U.S. and half worldwide. And so 
there's significant interest--and they together developed a 
report on the planned science that the EIC can deliver and how 
best to deliver it with the detectors. It's fully 
international. So I would say the EIC will be an international 
facility. Thank you.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, Dr. Merminga?
    Dr. Merminga. I'd like to also add a couple of more points 
on this. As you said correctly, to my opinion, it's the 
benefits from international collaboration go--are a lot more 
than just the monetary benefits, in-kind contribution to the 
facility. We've--in the case of PIP-II and LBNF/DUNE, we really 
gathered from around the world the world's best experts in the 
corresponding technologies. And those experts contribute their 
expertise, their capabilities, their own facilities in their 
own countries, to develop infrastructure that's going to be 
housed in U.S. soil, on U.S. soil, to enhance our scientific 
infrastructure here in the United States.
    And I'd like to point out that Fermilab has taken 
international collaboration to the next level through the 
recent LBNF/DUNE and PIP-II with more than $1 billion in 
contribution, as I mentioned earlier. Thank you.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. And, Dr. Greene, I will be asking 
you a question for the record about the implications of Wick 
rotations on lattice gauge theories, which always seemed to me 
to just fundamentally alter the locality and causality of these 
theories because of the--trying to hide the granularity from--
after the Wick rotation. And so I'll be asking you about that.
    But more immediately, you know, you and I both struggle 
with the difficulty of explaining complex science in simple 
terms to the public and particularly doing that without 
simplifying it too much so that it makes this--your scientific 
friends cringe at the oversimplification. Could you say a 
little bit about what you found the effective techniques for 
that is? Because it's crucial.
    Dr. Greene. Yes, I think you're absolutely right, and thank 
you for the question. It is part of the art of trying to find 
the right language, the right visual metaphors for 
communicating some of the most abstract of ideas to the general 
public. And you don't want to turn your explanation into a 
cartoon or a caricature. The goal is to find the core 
understanding and find a bridge between the unfamiliar and the 
familiar so you can cross that bridge and bring these insights 
to the general audience.
    And if I was going to give one lesson learned, it would 
simply be this. If we teach and communicate science as a 
narrative, as a story, as a human endeavor, not just the cold, 
hard facts that make it into the textbook, not just the 
equations, but if we give the narrative of discovery so that 
you see the human part of the journey, then the drama of 
scientific adventure comes across in a sparklingly clear way. 
And I find that that's the most powerful way of inspiring the 
general public with these ideas.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. And as someone who brings, you know, 
all the charisma of the typical physicist to this job, I really 
appreciate it when an artist like yourself gets involved in 
this. Thanks much. I will yield back to the Chairman.
    Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Before we bring the hearing to 
a close, I want to thank our witnesses 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 witnesses.
    The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Lia Merminga

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Mr. Jim Yeck

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Responses by Mr. Michael Guastella

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]