[Senate Hearing 117-121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-121

    THE LEADING ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN AMERICAN ENERGY 
   INNOVATION AND HOW ITS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND 
   DEPLOYMENT PROGRAMS MAY BE ENHANCED TO FURTHER BOOST THE ECONOMIC 
                  COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 15, 2021

                               __________



                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
               
               

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


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


                                ______
                                 
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

44-469                    WASHINGTON : 2022











               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman

RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
             Luke Bassett, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                 Brad Williams, Republican INL Detailee
                     Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................    32

                               WITNESSES

Mason, Dr. Thomas, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory......    33
Dabbar, Hon. Paul M., Former Under Secretary for Science, U.S. 
  Department of Energy, and Chairman and CEO, Bohr Quantum 
  Technologies...................................................    40
Ladislaw, Sarah, Managing Director, U.S. Program, RMI............    45
Pierpoint, Dr. Lara M., Director, Climate, Actuate...............    59

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................    32
    Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 
      Office of the Director of National Intelligence, dated 4/9/
      2021.......................................................    73
    New York Times article entitled ``Vast Dragnet Targets Theft 
      of Biomedical Secrets for China'' by Gina Kolata, dated 11/
      4/2019.....................................................   124
    Unclassified Federal Bureau of Investigation report entitled 
      ``China: The Risk to Academia''............................   132
Chertoff, Michael and N. MacDonnell Ulsch:
    Opinion in the Washington Post entitled ``AI companies are 
      enabling genocide in China,'' dated 4/12/21................   170
Dabbar, Hon. Paul M.:
    Opening Statement............................................    40
    Written Testimony............................................    42
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   155
Ladislaw, Sarah:
    Opening Statement............................................    45
    Written Testimony............................................    47
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   163
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
    Letter for the Record from the National Laboratory Directors' 
      Council....................................................     4
Mason, Dr. Thomas:
    Opening Statement............................................    33
    Written Testimony............................................    35
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   147
Moniz, Hon. Ernest:
    Testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space and 
      Technology on 4/15/2021....................................    10
Orbach, Hon. Raymond L.; Koonin, Hon. Steven; Orr, Hon. Franklin; 
  and Dabbar, Hon. Paul:
    Letter for the Record........................................   172
Pierpoint, Dr. Lara M.:
    Opening Statement............................................    59
    Written Testimony............................................    61
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   165

 
    THE LEADING ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN AMERICAN ENERGY 
   INNOVATION AND HOW ITS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND 
   DEPLOYMENT PROGRAMS MAY BE ENHANCED TO FURTHER BOOST THE ECONOMIC 
                  COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    Over the past few weeks, there has been growing 
conversation around the role research and development (R&D) 
plays in global competitiveness. I think it goes without saying 
that this Committee welcomes that discussion. The Department of 
Energy (DOE) and national laboratories and even the science 
agencies at the Department of the Interior engage in scientific 
research and discovery on a daily basis using the world's 
finest equipment, programming and, most importantly, the best 
and brightest minds. In particular, DOE and the 17 national 
labs, as well as their countless partners in universities and 
the private sector, formed the premier energy research 
development and commercialization enterprise in the world. As 
Chairman, I am committed to identifying the programmatic needs 
of DOE and the labs, building on their strengths and clarifying 
their roles in the broader federal R&D landscape. The United 
States leadership in global R&D and the technologies that come 
from those activities is not guaranteed, and simple solutions 
to maintaining or strengthening our competitive edge are hard 
to come by. Nevertheless, this Committee has proven tireless in 
its efforts to do just that.
    Innovation and the economic activities that it drives are 
more than just a political buzzword. They are critical tools to 
economic revitalization, national security and environmental 
responsibility. They span the country and touch all aspects of 
American life and they underpin our ability to address global 
problems, maintain competitive advantages and strengthen 
alliances and trade relationships. For all of these reasons, we 
are here today to discuss the absolutely vital role the 
Department of Energy and national labs play as our nation's 
foremost federal R&D organizations in American competitiveness.
    Given our Committee's focus, it may appear that federal R&D 
activities are limited to a short list of energy technologies, 
but I would like to paint a broader picture. We have a 
responsibility to think across the Federal Government when 
considering how to advance our research, development and 
commercialization agenda so that we can identify the strengths 
and weaknesses at various agencies. Starting with the Manhattan 
Project, the national labs and the early agencies that became 
the Department of Energy developed several proven models of 
basic research leading to applied projects. Other models of R&D 
were developed, including those that champion fundamental 
scientific research at universities like the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) or those models closely aligned with specific 
industries such as pharmaceuticals or defense R&D.
    Over time, DOE's mission grew into a network with other 
federal research agencies in which the Department and labs 
provide both expertise and 28 user facilities, including to 
over 36,000 users annually, a number of whom are funded by the 
National Science Foundation, drawing on federal funding for 
equipment from lasers to particle accelerators and world's 
fastest computers. DOE and the labs have been able to tackle a 
broad variety of challenges facing the nations because they 
have continued to excel across the R&D spectrum from basic to 
applied research and commercialization. For example, just last 
week discoveries made by Dr. Chris Polly, a researcher at 
Fermilab in Illinois, and his international team of 200 
colleagues may have turned the entire field of physics on its 
head. The Office of Science also directly funded university 
research of approximately $1 billion in Fiscal Year 2020. At 
the commercialization end, ARPA-E has just announced a new 
program investing $35 million in high potential methane 
emission reduction technologies. It is a critical set of 
solutions for domestic and international industries in the 
context of climate change. These advances have both increased 
the importance of DOE's role as a coordinating research agency 
and a platform for computational power, public research 
infrastructure, and a deep pool of experts around the country. 
Other research agencies may have a higher public profile like 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or a stronger 
relationship with the ultimate end users of technology it 
develops, like DARPA.
    But DOE and the national labs excel at the diversity of 
research subject areas and the breadth of technological 
development they pursue. That said, we all recognize that the 
United States is not alone in the pursuit of technologies that 
will make or break the future. Friends and adversaries alike 
are either catching up or eating our lunch at several stages of 
technological investment and in many subject areas. Colleagues 
of ours have rightfully called attention to several 
technologies critical to our national security addressing 
climate change and our export potential.
    Let me be clear: I fully support strengthening our domestic 
supply chains, expanding the portfolio of the technologies we 
are researching, enhancing their commercialization, and 
pursuing every opportunity to advance the United States' 
competitive advantages abroad. That will require a clear 
coordinating role and a responsible consideration of funding 
across the Federal Government. And I would argue that efforts 
to strengthen our R&D foundation and technology development 
ought to start with the Department of Energy and national labs. 
I will repeat that, I would argue that efforts to strengthen 
our R&D foundation and technologies development ought to start 
with the Department of Energy and national labs. We should not 
be reinventing the wheel or duplicating programs and missions, 
especially when we need to be inventing the newest and best 
technologies. As this conversation around the domestic R&D 
global competitiveness grows, I urge my colleagues to continue 
to stand strong in support of R&D funding and coordination led 
by the Department and its national labs.
    Before I turn to Senator Barrasso for his opening 
statement, I would ask unanimous consent to submit two items to 
the record.
    Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    First, all 17 national laboratory directors submitted a 
letter to the Committee outlining the strengths of the national 
lab system with regard to key technology areas and in 
partnership with other federal research agencies.
    [The letter from the directors of the national labs 
referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Secondly, former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz is 
currently testifying before the House Science Committee on the 
topic of innovation and given that Secretary Moniz has appeared 
before this Committee as well, I believe his written testimony 
will support our discussion of this topic going forward.
    [The referenced testimony of former Secretary of Energy 
Ernest Moniz follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Chairman. With that, I will turn it over to Ranking 
Member Barrasso for his opening remarks.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Much of what I want to say echoes the wonderful comments that 
you just made. Thank you for holding today's hearing. It is 
very, very important.
    In our experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, if that 
experience proves anything, it proves that innovation is not a 
luxury, it is a necessity. It is hard to imagine managing this 
pandemic without innovations in human gene mapping, in advanced 
computing and in vaccine development. Likewise, it is hard to 
imagine addressing environmental challenges like climate change 
without further innovations in energy production, in 
consumption. Innovation is a source of strength and a key 
advantage in our geopolitical competition with China. The 
Department of Energy is our country's preeminent agency for 
driving innovation in technology. It has made significant 
contributions to the energy sector. It has been a leader in our 
critical areas of basic and applied science. The Department's 
research helped bring about hydraulic fracturing, the 
technology to extract oil and gas from dense rock formations 
called shale. This technology has made the United States the 
world's top producer of oil and natural gas. It has created 
millions of high-paying jobs, and it has given Americans among 
the lowest energy prices in the industrialized world.
    The Department offered early support to Tesla, now the 
world's most valuable car company. The Department's national 
labs developed the fuel necessary for NASA's deep space 
missions, including missions to Mars and Pluto. The Energy 
Department has contributed to the discovery of a number of new 
elements and has helped revolutionize the fields of electronics 
and quantum computing. The Department's 17 national labs are 
America's and the world's crown jewels of science and 
technology innovation. Two of the world's three largest, 
fastest supercomputers are located at national labs. Using 
these computers, the Department played a significant role in 
helping us understand and treat COVID-19. In partnership with 
the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy 
played a leading role in helping us understand DNA and the 
structure of human genes. The Department also plays a leading 
role in advanced manufacturing and does critical work on 
cybersecurity.
    With a track record like this, you wouldn't think the 
Department would have to worry about Congress giving its 
mission to another federal agency. Yet, that's exactly what is 
being contemplated. Majority leader Schumer wants to take up 
legislation that would duplicate much of the Department's 
mission at the National Science Foundation. Schumer's bill 
would give the Foundation $100 billion to create a new 
technology directorate. The directorate would duplicate and 
compete with the Department of Energy. To make matters worse, 
the legislation would explicitly prohibit our national 
laboratories from competing for this funding. Mr. Chairman, 
before the Schumer bill gets Floor consideration, we should be 
asking some basic questions, including how is this duplication 
of effort a responsible use of taxpayer money? How does such 
duplication help us compete with China? What kind of message 
does it send to the Department of Energy's researchers, who 
have devoted their lives to innovation? And what does it mean 
for the future of this Committee's work on science and 
technology?
    Make no mistake, the Department of Energy can make 
improvements in its R&D programs, but I would like to see more 
investment in building research capacity at universities in 
rural states, including Wyoming. Radically expanding another 
federal agency's mission and funding to compete with the 
Department is not the answer.
    Our competition is with China. We should stay focused on 
China instead of creating wasteful rivalries between federal 
agencies.
    Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very 
important hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    Today's witnesses include experts with direct and detailed 
knowledge of the Department, the national labs, and the private 
sector partners and their global competitors. I would like to 
welcome all of you to the Committee for this important 
discussion on the role of the Department of Energy and national 
labs and American energy innovation and how its research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment programs may be 
enhanced to further boost the economic competitiveness of the 
United States.
    We will hear first from Dr. Tom Mason, the Director of Los 
Alamos National Laboratory and the former Director of Oak Ridge 
National Lab. Dr. Mason, welcome to the Committee.
    Second, we are going to hear from Dr., I want to make sure 
I get it correct, Mr. Paul Dabbar, the CEO of Bohr Quantum, the 
former Under Secretary for Science of DOE. Welcome, Mr. Dabbar.
    We want to also thank Ms. Sarah Ladislaw. Ladislaw, did I 
get it right? Good. Ms. Ladislaw is the Managing Director of 
the U.S. Program, RMI.
    Welcome, very much, all three of you. We will start with 
Dr. Mason for your opening statements.

           STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS MASON, DIRECTOR, 
                 LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

    Dr. Mason. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 
you for inviting me to testify on how our national labs----
    The Chairman. Doctor, I am sorry, one thing I forgot--and 
finally, we have Dr. Lara Pierpoint and she is the Director of 
Climate at Actuate and I think she is on, she will be on web 
with us.
    Go ahead, sir, I am sorry.
    Dr. Mason. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to 
testify on how our national laboratories contribute to 
scientific innovation and the scientific tools needed to 
maintain our competitiveness. I've prepared some longer remarks 
and would request that my entire statement be entered into the 
record.
    I've spent most of my career within the Department of 
Energy national laboratories, but also spent time as a faculty 
member at a public research university, in industry and at a 
European national lab and this gives me a great appreciation 
for the technological harnessing that only the U.S. Federal 
Government can foster. The Department of Energy national 
laboratory system has delivered scientific advances in 
technology solutions for the nation in such areas as nuclear 
power, satellite communications, medical imaging, 
supercomputing, advances in energy efficiency and initiation of 
the human genome project. The U.S. dominated for decades in 
these and other fields, but our competitors have not been 
sitting still. Today, technology innovation remains the key to 
economic growth and national security. While we're still a 
major player today, we are no longer a uniquely dominant force 
globally. Innovation is emerging around the world and we can no 
longer take our leadership for granted.
    Our global competitors are investing significant funds into 
their scientific and national security research institutions. 
In fact, they're modeling those institutions off our national 
lab system. President Xi Jinping stated that China's success is 
dependent upon a national laboratory system and it's no 
accident that the Chinese believe that investing in basic 
scientific research and the creation of a national lab system 
that's explicitly modeled on ours, will lead to science and 
technology (S&T) innovation breakthroughs. While we have a 
multi-decade head start, much of the research infrastructure in 
the U.S. is aging. If we're to compete for the leadership role 
of the future, the U.S. must both revitalize its physical and 
human capital infrastructure and have a coordinated approach 
between the many agencies, institutions and private industry 
that are currently working in key emerging technology areas.
    The laboratories build and maintain unique, large-scale and 
world-leading research tools that are utilized broadly by 
academic and industrial researchers. They also serve as an 
irreplaceable, on-the-job training ground for students, faculty 
and early career scientists. Universities educate and train 
scientists, engineers and teachers and generate new ideas by 
performing cutting-edge research, supported by the National 
Science Foundation which is the only federal agency charged 
with the promotion of scientific progress across all science 
and engineering disciplines. This research has led to 
transformative discoveries that have reshaped our world. The 
role of industry is critical to moving basic ideas and early- 
and mid-stage applied research to products that are ready for 
the marketplace. Industry drives commerce and innovation 
through in-house research and by harnessing scientific advances 
and technology developed at universities and national 
laboratories.
    Significant integrated investments across our nation's S&T 
assets is needed if we are to remain competitive across the 
international stage because the whole of this system is greater 
than the sum of its parts. Universities, national laboratories 
and industry are all needed. Americans' innovation ecosystem is 
the envy of the world which is why so many of the other nations 
are trying to copy our model. And I would just add, it's 
actually the diversity of our approaches, the variation in the 
mission drivers in different government agencies that is really 
one of the signature strengths of the U.S. system.
    So thank you for your attention, and I look forward to the 
discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Mason follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.
    Our next presenter, we have this in order here, is going to 
be Mr. Paul Dabbar.
    Mr. Dabbar.

 STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL M. DABBAR, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR 
SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND CHAIRMAN AND CEO, BOHR 
                      QUANTUM TECHNOLOGIES

    Mr. Dabbar. Thank you, Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member 
Barrasso. Thank you again for having me before this Committee. 
It's an honor to discuss the role of the Department of Energy 
in its leadership role of research, development and deployment 
of technologies to advance the country. I would like to start 
by thanking this Committee for its leadership and historically 
high investment in DOE and the national lab complex. Your 
passage of the Energy Act of 2020, the Office of Science 
reauthorization and the National Quantum Initiative have made 
large differences in discovery and innovation. America is 
pushed forward by those on the frontier and my colleagues at 
the national lab complex are able to do that because of the 
leadership of this Committee.
    But rather than discuss the past, I would like to comment 
about the future. During this session there have been proposals 
for further investment in the nation's R&D to support economic 
growth and national security. With all the proposals before the 
Senate, the House, and from the President, I want to add my 
support and the whole research community's support for 
additional investment into R&D. But in addition to support for 
the broad R&D increases, to better position ourselves globally 
versus the likes of communist China, I also want to advocate 
for DOE to have a leadership role in any final proposal passed.
    As you are aware, DOE has stood up the Manhattan Project 
from the successor organizations and as a result, mission-
driven science has been at the core of DOE since the beginning. 
Most of the areas targeted for further investment including 
artificial intelligence, high-performance computing, quantum, 
genomics, cybersecurity, materials and advanced energy are 
areas that DOE has been a leader, if not the leader. Highlights 
of DOE leadership include, in 2019 the U.S. became a net energy 
exporter for the first time since the 1950s while concurrently 
driving down energy costs for the American people and leading 
the world in emissions reductions. These dramatic 
accomplishments were driven by the American--by American 
innovation supported by DOE and the national labs, including in 
nuclear power, solar and enhanced oil and gas production, DOE-
supported researchers won the Nobel prize for lithium-ion 
chemistry leading to revolutions in electric vehicles and grid-
scale batteries; and DOE has the successful ARPA-E program with 
its recent large success of QuantumScape, a solid state battery 
company first funded by ARPA-E and is now worth $17 billion.
    DOE has held the global leadership and high-performance 
computing for decades. Examples including the commissioning of 
the then number one and number two supercomputers at Summit and 
Sierra and the Exascale computing program. DOE is the largest 
funding agency for the National Quantum Initiative, building on 
decades of the national labs in high energy physics, computing 
and materials. DOE provides cybersecurity and cyber operations 
leadership as the lead agency for the power sector as well as 
support for national security. And DOE has had a very important 
role in biotechnology and genomics, including the founding of 
the Human Genome Initiative which led to the Human Genome 
Project. And Berkley Lab was an early funder of Nobel Prize 
winner, Dr. Jennifer Doudna, who invented gene editing and her 
efforts were supported by light sources at a number of the DOE 
national labs. DOE has significant experience in driving 
discovery to applications and has provided significant 
leadership in most of these areas that have been proposed.
    DOE is also moving forward with leadership in these areas 
including in carbon capture, post-Exascale high-performance 
computing, fusion, and quantum networks. We therefore urge that 
any final bill include DOE leadership along with Commerce and 
NSF in new efforts. In addition, the ability of DOE to manage 
both open science and classified applications concurrently will 
make it very valuable. DOE has a long history of many dual-use 
technologies. Given high-performance computing, quantum, AI and 
many of the other areas proposed have significant classified 
aspects, DOE is best positioned to balance those areas.
    And finally, I would recommend that this Committee have 
direct responsibility for authorizing and for oversight for the 
new efforts from the labs such as NETL and in areas such as 
nuclear power and oil and gas technologies and for you to 
consider this topic further within your Committee and with 
other members of the Senate, I would ask you to find a role for 
DOE in any final proposal.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Next, we are going to have Ms. Ladislaw.

        STATEMENT OF SARAH LADISLAW, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       U.S. PROGRAM, RMI

    Ms. Ladislaw. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today. 
The last time I testified before this Committee was in April 
2019. In that testimony I stated my view that the United States 
is one of the most energy-advantaged nations on the planet. Not 
only do we have every conceivable tool at our disposal to chart 
a viable pathway to a net zero-emissions, resilient energy 
system at home, but we also have the unparalleled ability to 
provide global leadership in the strategies and technologies 
that can bring sustainable and affordable energy supplies to 
the world. We just have to decide to do it. I still believe 
that this is true today and I'd like to revisit the issue of 
energy innovation and U.S. competitiveness to explain what more 
needs to be done and the important role that the U.S. 
Department of Energy, along with other agencies, can play. I'd 
like to make three key points.
    First, the clean energy opportunity is simply enormous and 
represents one of the most promising and important markets of 
today and of the future. BloombergNEF estimates companies and 
consumers spent over $500 billion on the energy transition in 
2020, up nine percent from 2019. According to the IEA, under 
its sustainable development scenario, investment in low-carbon 
energy resources could reach $2.6 trillion per year on average 
between 2026 and 2030. And while over 70 percent of that 
investment is needed to meet that scenario comes from the 
private sector, government investment, policy and regulation 
play a critical role in mobilizing the financing and technology 
and deployment of those technologies.
    Second, clean energy competition is, in fact, heating up, 
but its early days. Concern over the decline in U.S. 
competitiveness in the field of innovation is not a new theme, 
but it's increasingly focused on the U.S. position relative to 
China. Indeed, China has established a commanding lead in 
certain energy technologies like solar PV, wind, nuclear and 
electric vehicles. My written testimony discusses this in a 
great more detail. More and more countries though are 
introducing plans that include funding proposals, policies and 
targets to help cultivate national competitiveness in the 
future of clean energy technologies like the UK ``Ten Point 
Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution,'' Korea's $144 billion 
``Green New Deal'' and the European green new deal. According 
to the International Energy Agency fully half of the 
technologies needed to reach net zero emissions goals by 2050 
need further development to either improve performance, reduce 
costs or both. Compared to the more established markets of wind 
and solar and EVs today, the relative competitiveness of each 
country around the world is less developed and the positioning 
to compete in these technologies of the future is getting 
underway in earnest right now.
    Third, the U.S. needs innovation and coordination. The 
government needs an overwhelming innovation strategy, excuse 
me, an overarching innovation strategy to address the 
shortcomings and needs of the economy as a whole, across 
technologies and throughout the federal lab and university 
complexes and programs, but the U.S. energy innovation and 
competitiveness strategy needs a more dedicated direction and 
focus. First, we need to define the areas where the U.S. wants 
to compete. Second, we need to increase our R&D relative to the 
size of the energy market. Third, R&D is not enough. We need to 
think about the markets that we're creating to take up these 
technologies. And finally, the United States needs to focus on 
becoming a manufacturer to ensure that the technologies of the 
future are produced here at home in the United States.
    All of this points to the need for greater planning and 
coordination across government agencies to execute a much more 
deliberate strategy that mobilizes the innovation forces of the 
private sector as well. To that end, it seems important to 
establish a lead agency to coordinate the kind of 
multidimensional planning and more assertive clean energy 
industrial strategy or clean energy innovation strategy 
requires. DOE should be a major player in such a strategy 
because it is responsible for or involved in the majority of 
energy-related R&D funding, manages the ongoing relationship 
with the national laboratory system, is the home of innovative 
programs and is also the only agency with deep expertise in 
energy policy, technology, market and geopolitical factors that 
are essential for meeting this challenge.
    A good first step would be to have DOE undertake a Clean 
Energy Competitiveness Review to identify areas where the U.S. 
can best compete in developing and deploying clean energy 
technologies of the future, taking into consideration the 
national security issues unearthed by the supply chain 
resilience review underway and also prioritizing areas where 
there's a need to reduce dependence on certain technologies or 
materials or build domestic capacity to manufacture certain 
technologies or components. Finally, this review can and should 
include recommendations on the combination of investments, 
partnerships, incentives, both demand and supply, policies, 
standards and other measures that are necessary to reach the 
competitive potential of certain technologies.
    Clean energy innovation is a very important part of U.S. 
competitiveness. The market for clean energy technologies has 
grown and is only going to get larger and as countries adopt 
more and more ambitious climate policies, it will continue to 
grow. China's approach to clean energy technology development, 
while far from perfect, delivered some important success for 
Chinese economic competitiveness and other countries are 
starting to advance similar models of clean industrial strategy 
to advance more ambitious climate policy in some instances and 
capture economic potential in others. The United States can do 
well with this burgeoning clean energy competition if it 
chooses to focus its efforts.
    Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Finally, we are going to hear from Dr. Lara Pierpoint.
    Dr. Pierpoint.

         STATEMENT OF DR. LARA M. PIERPOINT, DIRECTOR, 
                        CLIMATE, ACTUATE

    Dr. Pierpoint. Thank you, thank you so much.
    Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso and 
members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you 
today.
    I have devoted my career to energy and climate technology 
innovation and infrastructure deployment. I've done so from 
many positions: first, from academia; second, as a Science 
Fellow for this Committee in 2013; from DOE, itself; from 
Exelon, a Fortune 100 electricity utility where I ran the 
technology R&D program. Now I'm doing so from the vantage of a 
non-profit called Actuate where I seek to accelerate greenhouse 
gas emissions reductions. In each of these roles I have worked 
extensively with the Department of Energy and I've learned a 
lot about DOE's strengths and weaknesses. I think as we talk 
about innovation and competitiveness today, it's important to 
anchor in the question of why we innovate. In my world, it's to 
help save the climate, but I think we can all hopefully 
acknowledge that whatever our opinions on climate, the fact of 
the matter is that the world is beginning to demand products 
and services that enhance sustainability. As the United States 
we have a choice. We can participate in that economy and reap 
the benefits of the jobs and everything else that comes along 
with that or we can sit this out.
    Today, I'll do two things. First, I'll describe how the 
Office of Science is critical to this mission of 
competitiveness and innovation. Second, I will highlight three 
things the Department of Energy can do at the later stages of 
the technology innovation pipeline to build on the work of this 
Committee and the great infrastructure already at DOE for 
technology transfer and impact.
    The Office of Science truly matters. It's important to 
robustly fund science and basic science in particular because 
this is where new ideas come from. Ownership of that piece of 
the value chain is critical for the United States. Fusion here 
represents a very important example in the process of playing 
out before our eyes as we speak. Sustained investments by the 
Office of Science over decades have led to scientific and 
engineering breakthroughs in recent years that are making 
fusion energy more possible than it has ever been, but we need 
to do more to help get technologies like fusion across the 
finish line. This is why the Department of Energy must do more 
to move beyond the paradigm of technology transfer into 
holistic technology impact. Many of us live with a great 
American fantasy that the government supports basic science and 
technology development and then throws those technologies over 
the transom for the private sector to pick up and 
commercialize. It almost never works that simply.
    At Exelon, I had a very unique set of resources to bring to 
bear on commercialization challenges. It started, most 
importantly, with leadership at Exelon that had strong vision 
toward innovation and how innovation could be valuable for the 
company. With that, I was able to manage a team with deep 
technical expertise. I had a mandate to place small bets and 
make investments in technologies of potential value to the 
company and I was able to sign overarching research agreements 
with several institutions, including universities and national 
labs. But still, even with all these resources to bring to 
bear, which are unique among utilities, we faced challenges 
finding technologies in which to invest and we faced challenges 
taking even the best ones across the finish line to really reap 
commercial value from them. The specific issues varied across 
technologies, but these included challenges finding researchers 
and institutions with commercial mindsets, issues where the 
cost of taking the next step was too high, challenges in that 
it took a year and sometimes more to negotiate contracts with 
Department of Energy and the labs and that was just to get 
started and silos that abound both within our companies and 
within the Department of Energy.
    I know that this Committee sees these challenges and I 
applaud all of you for authorizing the Office of Technology 
Transitions in the Energy Act last year. There's still work to 
be done so I offer suggestions to continue to build on the 
incredible infrastructure DOE has to have technology impact. 
First, I would suggest that DOE does more to encourage 
partnering and also potentially to set metrics, specifically 
related to the potential for commercial value among the 
research it sponsors. Second, I recommend that the Department 
of Energy overhaul its contracting systems. I understand it's 
important for us to protect the taxpayer in the context of 
these negotiations, but the taxpayer benefits far more from 
commercialized technologies and jobs than it does from things 
like DOE ownership of intellectual property. Finally, I suggest 
that the Department fund a much more complete suite of entities 
to universities and labs, but also non-profits and others that 
can really bring to bear holistic pieces of the solution. This 
is what we do at Actuate, where I am now. We work on greenhouse 
gas reduction by bringing a full suite of actors under the tent 
to demonstrate systems level solutions.
    While these recommendations by themselves won't solve all 
of our technology commercialization challenges, I think they're 
an important start, again, for building on the infrastructure 
at DOE. With that, I thank you and look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Pierpoint follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Pierpoint.
    Now we are going to begin with our questions.
    My first question is going to go to both Dr. Mason and Mr. 
Dabbar. So, the Department of Energy and national labs bring 
incredible expertise, as you all just pointed out, 
infrastructure, and resources to bear on many technological 
challenges facing our country. Our Committee often discusses 
the application of their R&D activities to energy issues, but 
we know that their capabilities extend far beyond energy. So, 
my question would be for each of you. Of the following 
technologies could you please state whether DOE or the national 
labs work on these ten R&D areas? The first one would be 
artificial intelligence.
    Dr. Mason. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
    The Chairman. Yes, okay.
    Quantum computing?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
    The Chairman. High performance computing and 
semiconductors?
    Dr. Mason. Core competencies for us, yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Robotics, automation and advanced 
manufacturing?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Natural or human-caused disaster prevention?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Advanced communications technology?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Biotech, genomics and synthetic biology?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Cybersecurity and data storage?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Advanced materials science and engineering?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. Advanced engineering and industrial 
strategy--efficiency?
    Dr. Mason. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes.
    The Chairman. And this one could be for the entire panel 
and we will just start with Dr. Ladislaw and whoever wants to 
answer.
    Over the past decades the most innovative technologies have 
come out of agencies that have worked together toward common 
goals, that includes DoD, NASA, NSF and DOE and their networks 
including the national labs, defense labs and our outstanding 
universities and partners in the private sector. Each agency 
has harnessed its strengths and combines federal funding and 
private capital to successfully pair fundamental research with 
commercialization efforts. In the context of global 
competition, I want to see each federal agency, research 
agency, made stronger, funded adequately for the challenges we 
face and well-coordinated across government and I want to avoid 
reinventing the wheel at any one point. So, from each of your 
perspectives, can you highlight the role DOE and the national 
labs have in technology development and commercialization and 
how that contrasts with the role that the National Science 
Foundation currently plays?
    Mr. Dabbar. I'll go ahead and start, Senator.
    The Chairman. Okay, go ahead.
    Mr. Dabbar. So the way I would characterize the National 
Science Foundation versus DOE, the National Science Foundation 
has a much broader, but also much more focused on early, early 
investment, especially within university systems, to a large 
degree. And so, they're more on the academic and a bit more on 
the discovery side. DOE strengths, certainly the national lab 
complex is probably the biggest core. The national labs allow 
scale for facilities and for research that not even Harvard and 
Stanford with their endowments can even come close to 
replicating in terms of the facilities and the capabilities. 
And those facilities allow for focus for people from all over 
the country and even all over the world to come together and to 
use those facilities to drive things in those particular areas 
that you asked for.
    The Chairman. Let me be more direct. Dr. Thomas, if $100 
billion is invested in the National Science Foundation would 
they be able to use that or would they be duplicating what has 
already been done or would it just basically be trying to 
reinvent the wheel?
    Dr. Mason. I think it's really important to understand the 
differences in nature of how these agencies operate. The 
National Science Foundation is outstanding at funding a very 
diverse range of activities in a very much bottoms up, 
individual investigator-driven mode. That's the great strength 
of the American academic research enterprise.
    The Department of Energy and the national labs and actually 
many other government agencies that have, you know, mission 
areas, where they have to deliver outcomes to the American 
taxpayer, you know, focus on those mission activities and use 
them to, you know, drive the development of science and 
technology, particularly as you get closer to the point of 
application that mission focus is really important. Obviously, 
with DOE its energy, its national security or nuclear deterrent 
and we work with those outcomes in mind. I'd like to say at Los 
Alamos, it always starts with the science, but we don't stop 
with the science. We don't stop with the publications. We have 
to get things deployed, whether it's deployed into the energy 
sector or deployed in the form of a deterrent that is handed 
off to the Department of Defense. And that is a fundamental 
difference in how the agency approaches things and when you 
look at the scale of the problems, the list that you just 
outlined, these are really, really tough problems. We need to 
mobilize all of the R&D assets, recognizing the different 
strengths of the agencies involved, coordinating to make sure 
that we've got the right assignments in the right places.
    And I think if we do that, then we will be very well 
positioned for the future.
    The Chairman. Ms. Ladislaw, do you have anything you want 
to add to that?
    Ms. Ladislaw. The only thing I would add is--money is good, 
but strategy is better. So it's not enough just to pay 
different places to do different things. It's what's--what are 
we going to do to actually be competitive in deploying these 
technologies? And I think putting the, sort of, you know, the 
full suite of the energy innovation ecosystem on the table in 
terms of planning is really what's important here.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to follow up on that exact same line of questioning 
and start with Mr. Dabbar because yesterday the Commerce 
Committee discussed a proposal to establish this new 
directorate of technology at the National Science Foundation. 
This directorate is going to focus on ten fields including--and 
it's the things that Senator Manchin just mentioned here--
advanced energy, high performance computing, cybersecurity, 
advanced manufacturing, materials science and engineering. You 
can see all the things that are listed there and people on the 
screen can see them as well. These are fields that the 
Department of Energy is already doing significant work in, as 
illustrated right here by this chart.
    In your view, is duplicating the work of the Department of 
Energy an efficient and responsible use of taxpayer dollars?
    Mr. Dabbar. I do think that if DOE or any other agency is 
already heading down the road on, for example, lots of advanced 
energy proposals, I would argue that DOE's pretty good at 
advanced energy, amongst many of the other areas, that trying 
to find the strengths associated with each is better. I think 
an example of what this Committee has done well, and the 
interagency, has been the National Quantum Initiative where 
everyone found a role. DOE had a role, Commerce had a role, and 
NSF had a role, and there was no duplication.
    Senator Barrasso. Dr. Mason, is there anything you would 
like to add to that in terms of does it make sense to duplicate 
the work of the Department of Energy as Senator Manchin just 
asked about too?
    Dr. Mason. I think the thing that's important is to 
recognize the complementary nature of the institutions and the 
different things they can bring to solving these problems. You 
know, certainly there is value in different approaches, 
different ways of thinking about tough problems and, you know, 
there are strengths within the academic community that we 
absolutely need to leverage, but I think as a mission agency 
the Department can focus on those outcomes and there is an 
important distinction there in the sense that within the 
national labs we can mobilize large groups of people to work in 
problems, on problems and define their work product and where 
they're headed. Academic institutions are better suited to 
freedom of ideas. It can be more difficult to mobilize a large 
number of people and have them all move in the same direction, 
which is a particular strength of the national labs.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Dabbar, last Friday the Director of 
National Intelligence released their report titled ``Annual 
Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.'' It just 
came out this past week. I am going to go to the part of it 
where it says, ``China will remain the top threat.'' ``China 
will remain the top threat to U.S. technological 
competitiveness.'' It goes on to say, ``Beijing uses a variety 
of tools from public investment to espionage and theft,'' and 
theft, ``to advance its technological capabilities.''
    Could you please describe for the Committee the tactics 
that China uses to steal our research results?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, yes, Senator.
    When I was at DOE, we saw this incredible ramp up by China 
in their efforts in terms of spying and trying to steal 
technology. One example is that they tried to buy their way in 
to participation in science efforts, in large part, in many of 
the instances to get manufacturing and fabrication knowledge of 
major pieces of equipment that they don't know how to build and 
they try to place their scientists within those research areas 
to try to get access associated with that fabrication. So 
that's one of many, many different examples of what they----
    Senator Barrasso. Just the tip of the iceberg there.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record this report from the Director of National Intelligence.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence 
Community report referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Dabbar, we need to ensure that our 
research does not fall into the wrong hands. Could you talk a 
little bit about what measures the Department of Energy has put 
in place to ensure that research funding and research results 
do not go to groups and individuals with ties to our 
adversaries, like China and Iran?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
    I think it's vitally important that agencies have to have a 
culture and processes in place associated with when there's a 
technology that has both open science and classified 
applications. And that management, both processes and the 
culture of managing that where, in one point you can be talking 
about open science, about quantum and talking about something, 
you know, like neutrinos or, you know, but in the exact same 
instance, you're talking about quantum computing and highly 
important intelligence topics and know where that continuum is.
    So you need to have a process in place. You need to have a 
culture in place so that when the technology conversation moves 
from open science and that's fine to invite people from all 
over the world and drive it forward, but then, when it starts 
crossing over, put those controls in place, there's a 
significant amount of controls that DOE has put in place that's 
too long to get into, but there's, a lot of that has been put 
into place over the last few years in regard to this FBI report 
and all the issues----
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I know my time is out. If I could just have a 
couple of seconds to ask Dr. Mason about the national labs and 
what they're doing to safeguard that same intellectual property 
that emerges from your research?
    Dr. Mason. Yeah, this is not a new thing for us. In fact, 
before joining Los Alamos I was the Director at Oak Ridge 
National Lab and it was actually over ten years ago that we 
first discovered that we had some employees who had, without 
disclosing it, enlisted in this so-called Thousand Talents 
program and we terminated their employment and that was over 
ten years ago. Before there was a lot of awareness about that 
particular approach that the Chinese government had adopted to 
acquiring science and technology. The reason we became aware of 
it is because we have a counterintelligence program. Because of 
the nature of what the national labs do, we do work in 
classified areas. We do work in export-controlled areas, you 
know, we have to have processes to protect that information. 
And it was actually our counterintelligence shop who became 
aware through their due diligence of this involvement.
    Now, of course, they thoroughly investigated to make sure 
that there was no espionage and no violation of law in terms of 
export controls, but then at that point it fundamentally became 
a problem of compliance with our policies and procedures and, 
quite frankly, scientific ethics. No scientist wants to have 
their ideas stolen and no research institution should tolerate 
that and we did not tolerate it then and we do not tolerate it 
now.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    Dr. Mason, I want to continue on that because I think this 
issue of open science versus classified science and being able 
to manage those two in concert and deconflict those is 
something that is unique, you know. Because of its history, DOE 
has been doing that from the very start.
    So, you know, I appreciate what you said about the National 
Science Foundation. It is an incredibly important institution 
in our overall R&D as a country, but do they have the 
infrastructure in place to be able to manage both open science 
and classified science in areas like quantum, like 
cybersecurity? Obviously that infrastructure has been built 
into our DOE national security labs.
    Dr. Mason. Yes, certainly you're correct, it's in our 
history. At Los Alamos, we are very proud of the fact that our 
history includes significant contributions from scientists all 
over the world, including in the Manhattan Project where 
refugee scientists from Europe were key to solving many of 
those technical challenges. It does sometimes surprise people 
when they discover that Los Alamos, we have foreign nationals 
working in some of our programs, not in our classified 
programs, not in the nuclear weapons program, but we need to do 
the very best science in order to keep the country safe and 
secure and one way we do that is by engaging globally with 
partners who share our values and who understand that 
international collaboration, when it's done in a transparent 
way for mutual benefit, helps solve really tough problems.
    And so, it is a balancing act. We have to be very attentive 
to when we start to cross the line on some of those dual use 
areas that Under Secretary Dabbar mentioned. But it's something 
that we have learned to do.
    Senator Heinrich. Is there really any entity in the U.S. 
Government that has as much expertise in managing those two 
things simultaneously in the interplay there as DOE through the 
national security labs?
    Mr. Dabbar, do you have a thought on that?
    Mr. Dabbar. I think DOE is actually has the most experience 
because there's plenty who have very open experience. NSF is 
one. NIH is one. At the other extreme you have the intelligence 
agencies of DoD and DOE sits in the middle, and I think it's 
the most balanced and that transition of all the entities.
    Senator Heinrich. It seems like----
    Dr. Pierpoint. May I respond as well, Senator Heinrich?
    Senator Heinrich. I am sorry, yes, absolutely.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
    So, you know, I just want to agree with what my colleagues 
have said here. I think one key thing to understand is that, 
you know, the NSF has a very important role supporting 
universities and many universities have a very open concept----
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Dr. Pierpoint. ----and open way of approaching the work 
that they do and that's actually extraordinarily important for 
their success.
    Senator Heinrich. It is a good thing, yes.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Exactly, whereas at the Department of Energy 
labs there really is this unique ability to be able to conduct 
research in this way.
    Senator Heinrich. And what I am trying to get at in all of 
this, and I appreciate that additional perspective, Dr. 
Pierpoint, is that there are different tools for doing 
different parts of this infrastructure for R&D and innovation 
and the transfer of innovation into the private sector. And so, 
if we are going to invest intelligently in the whole ecosystem 
of that, that we have built as a country, rather than standing 
up or, you know, reinventing additional infrastructure when we 
have mission-driven centers of excellence. Whether that is in 
biotechnology or quantum or energy, we have built this 
constellation over the course of many decades. And it seems to 
me, rather than try to reinvent the wheel in one particular 
agency, we should look at where the centers of excellence are 
in all of those agencies, in the technologies that we have 
identified as particularly important for global competitiveness 
and we should double down where that lives, wherever it lives, 
across the federal research infrastructure.
    Do you all agree with that type of approach?
    Mr. Dabbar. It makes a lot of sense to me.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Pierpoint. I do, and I'd like to add that I think one 
of the unique strengths that DOE brings to the table is that 
while it is not perfect, they have the best infrastructure that 
I know of among all agencies for partnering with the private 
sector. So again, when the goal is really to have impact and to 
support American competitiveness and the economy, I think they 
really have some unique resources that don't exist elsewhere.
    Senator Heinrich. Dr. Pierpoint, thank you for bringing up 
the contract issue. As someone who has dealt with the labs for 
many years, there are things we can do better. There is no 
question about that. We could change the culture to also make 
it easier to transfer, you know, appropriate technology that is 
not national security related, into the private sector, make 
that easier, but these are the centers of excellence, right 
now, for the things that we are arguing about regarding global 
competitiveness. And that is where we need to make this 
investment.
    Dr. Pierpoint. I agree.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Chairman, thank you.
    I am fascinated to be able to hear all the dialogue today 
and all the conversation about where things go. One of the 
questions here is about innovation and where things go. Ms. 
Ladislaw, you mentioned several times about innovation and the 
focus on energy innovation and what has happened with DOE 
already. I would be interested to be able to dig in, what we 
are doing policywise to be able to continue to encourage the 
next level of innovation, the next level of energy development 
and what we are doing to discourage innovation in the process, 
both in our policies, tax policy, investment strategy, whatever 
it may be. We have done a lot of investment in the past. We 
have more to go. What are we doing to discourage innovation? 
What are we doing to encourage it at this point?
    Ms. Ladislaw. Thank you very much for the question.
    I mean, on somewhat broad terms, my last job just released 
a study looking at the track record of different countries 
around the world and their success in being able, not only just 
to create innovative new technologies, but to actually deploy 
those technologies, manufacture those technologies. And what 
we're seeing is, in particular in the energy space, because 
there is such a transformation going on, such an interest in 
technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how to not 
only drop the cost of those technologies, but integrate them 
into the energy system much more quickly, think about how you 
do that for energy intensive industries as well.
    There's a lot of focus on deployment-led innovation, right? 
It's not just about being able to come up with the idea. It's 
about being able to implement the idea, figure out how it works 
in the modern economy and do that quickly. I mean, one thing 
that we tend to, sort of, gloss over in a lot of these 
discussions about innovation is what is the rate and pace of 
the competitive challenge that we're facing? And if you look at 
other countries that are trying to move as quickly as possible 
in decarbonization, they're going to do things that don't make 
sense in other economic terms. You just wouldn't do this 
normally if you didn't want to reach those types of targets. 
They're going to move more quickly. They might waste money. 
They might have, you know, less success in some instances, but 
they are going to try to move more quickly, put more enabling 
infrastructure, more tax policy, both the supply side, 
investing in R&D, but also making sure that those technologies 
get pulled into the market quickly. And that's going to give 
them an edge at thinking about how you transform the energy 
system of today.
    So I think the U.S. is not doing enough on thinking about, 
not just how do we create the best ideas in the world, we 
already do that, to a certain extent, but how do we become the 
people who put them into the market first, to understand what 
is working or not working in some of those technologies and 
improve on that in real time and much more quickly because I 
think our competitors are prepared to move more quickly than we 
are.
    Senator Lankford. So are we investing too much in incumbent 
technologies because we put billions of dollars in some 
technologies that already exist and are already well developed 
in different tax credits and other things. The wind tax credit 
is one of those examples that we've done, the PTC, for years. 
Wind is clearly no longer a new technology on the go, but we 
still continue to spend billions of dollars to be able to 
reinforce that as well. Should we spend some of those dollars 
on new technologies or continue to invest in incumbent 
technologies?
    Ms. Ladislaw. I tend to think that we need to think about 
new types of challenges as they apply to those types of 
technologies. So, for example, wind is not done innovating, 
right?
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Ms. Ladislaw. There are new types of wind technologies. 
There's new types of solar technologies. So we need to think 
about how and where to spend dollars and to incentivize the 
improvement of technologies and their performance or their very 
nature, but also how do you integrate them into the grid? How 
do you think about distributed energy resources at a much 
higher scale? What does that mean for our enabling 
infrastructure?
    Yes, we absolutely underinvest in the technologies that we 
need to be thinking about for the future. I try to not think 
about things as being incumbent technologies and therefore, you 
know, you shouldn't invest in them anymore. Listen, if they 
have a viable pathway to play in this future that we're talking 
about where the priority is it needs to be secure, it needs to 
be reliable, it needs to be sustainable, it needs to drop 
emissions, then we should be investing in those if we see 
there's a viable pathway for some of those technologies. CCUS, 
hydrogen, all of those types of things require much more 
attention than we're giving them right now.
    Senator Lankford. Okay, let me just ask one more quick 
question on this as well and it's dealing with what several 
other folks on the dais have already talked about, that is 
dealing with duplication of research. Obviously, it is good to 
have multiple voices that are out there to be able to look at 
it, multiple pathways, but the security side of this is 
extremely important as well that when you are developing 
technology and resources, we are not just sharing information, 
but we are also not exporting information to other folks like 
China, that want to be able to steal that information.
    How do you see the best way for us to be able to balance 
continued sharing of information, but also protecting the 
security of information to make sure that we are not keeping 
things in silos, but to also make sure we are not giving away 
what we are doing?
    Mr. Dabbar. Senator, one of the things that we did at DOE--
a little bit more on the details of what Senator Barrasso and 
Senator Heinrich talked about--was that we actually created 
something called a risk matrix which actually went with the 
Chief Technology Officers, Research Officers, of each of the 
different labs and we went technology by technology and we 
identified, you know, at the basic research level which of the 
areas are really open science. Okay? And there's many things, 
obviously energy, many areas in energy are open science and 
other areas and then what very specifically, let's say, battery 
technologies that become military grade, right? Once again, I 
used Quantum, there's clearly open versus extremely classified. 
I could go one by one. And we actually created a whole matrix. 
It's pretty darn thick because we went technology by technology 
subsets, and when we put walls in place and saying this is 
completely open and this is, this is going to be classified.
    And actually, the labs all have this as policy right now as 
a part of that. That was something that we developed and it's 
being expanded actually, I think, at the Department last time I 
heard.
    Senator Lankford. Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I so 
appreciate this discussion, actually. I think this is so 
healthy coming from a very big innovation state that has a 
national lab. We are excited about everybody being excited 
about the future of innovation investment. So definitely, 
definitely appreciate just the ongoing, continuous 
contributions of our national labs. If anything, I feel like it 
is always underestimated or appreciated or underabsorbed. So I 
think this larger discussion is really not about basic 
research, but about how do we get more translational research.
    And so, I do think that is an interesting question about 
how prepared the labs are to play that role or not to play that 
role or what could we do. We had good discussion yesterday in 
Commerce, and a very interesting observation by one of the 
witnesses from the University of Washington where, basically, 
they brought the outside venture capital into the university 
and then made significant strides in the amount of tech 
transfer that then was enabled. And so, one of the comments 
came to a question about China and competition and that was, 
you know, ``what to do?'' One of the things was just to make 
patentable dollars available because at the university level, 
they are not patenting it. So basically, we are doing this 
great research, we are not patenting it, we go and give a big 
discussion somewhere, people read and hear the discussion, and 
then they run home and basically copy the information.
    So I don't know, Mr. Dabbar, what you think about at the 
lab level, but certainly at the university level, it seems to 
me, like we need to be putting some resources in to protecting 
our R&D into patentable content.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator. If you don't mind, I'd like to 
say thank you for your comment a couple of months ago about EM 
and about our work for the last four years. I just wanted to 
say thank you for your kind comment----
    Senator Cantwell. Oh, so proud of you guys.
    Mr. Dabbar. ----on the partnership there for the last few 
years.
    Yes, no, Senator, you're exactly right. There is almost no 
money going into the national labs or to universities to patent 
and secure technology. Dollars are not appropriated for--it's 
basically legal work and when money comes into the big science 
entities, all of our, all the different agencies, money doesn't 
get appropriated to support, basically, legal protections 
associated with that. And maybe that's something to look at. 
That's for you to think about.
    Senator Cantwell. I was not a fan of changing this policy, 
the First to File. I personally think it undervalues the 
original inventor because, if you are just in a horse race to 
who can file, then you are really just accelerating a bunch of 
people who have the ability to file quickly.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yeah.
    Senator Cantwell. And I don't really think of our lab 
people either at universities or at the national labs as people 
standing around doing the legal work on patent filing. I am not 
even sure they are compatible. They probably understand what 
needs to be patented, but that is a different kind of function. 
So I do think that accelerated this problem, personally. That 
is why I would spend some money there.
    Dr. Mason. If I could offer an observation.
    Dr. Pierpoint. May I make a comment on this as well?
    Senator Cantwell. Yes, go ahead.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Okay, thank you.
    No, I just wanted to say I think this is a really important 
discussion and it's also important to consider, not just the 
question of patents and how the labs might be able to, you 
know, to patent their technologies and potentially move them 
forward, but really, again, holistically, thinking about what 
does it look like to commercialize technologies that come from 
the laboratories and how do you harness the best of what the 
labs bring to the table with the best of what the private 
sector can offer----
    Senator Cantwell. Yes, so, I made my comments clear 
yesterday. We have to have a market-driven approach. I am not 
going to be for something that looks like some planned economy. 
And I do want the private sector because when you are really 
investing real capital dollars, I guarantee you will get the 
best technology solution. When you stand back and let 
government do it, I am telling you--in aerospace competition, 
we continue to win the day because other countries think that 
they are going to have a government-down approach, and it does 
not work. When the capital markets have to scrub what is the 
next best generation plane, I guarantee you, they come up with 
good answers.
    I want to ask an important question because in the context 
of your discussions, energy markets, we are falling behind. So 
when it looks to where we are as a nation, you know, on the R&D 
side we are like 13th or 14th in energy R&D compared to China 
which ranked fourth. So, one of the things, I think, in all of 
this discussion, we need to think about are what are the big 
picture issues? Where do we, as a nation, want to be 
competitive? I would think energy just because it is a 
ginormous market we do want to be competitive in. So the 
question is what level of investment do we need in the R&D on 
the energy side to be competitive with China which seems to be 
making big strides in this particular area as it relates to 
next generation energy technologies?
    We had a great hearing on nuclear just the other day and 
what we were doing on next generation nuclear reactors. I 
thought that was an important role for DOE, but I would assume 
there are others. Mr. Dabbar, or any of the other witnesses?
    Mr. Dabbar. I would just, kind of, reinforce what Ms. 
Ladislaw said. One of the things I think we do well at is we do 
a lot of basic research well, but how we translate it is poor. 
And I'll give an example of something which is in process. It's 
actually also at PNNL which is around the Grid Storage 
Launchpad which is around the Energy Storage Grand Challenge 
which, so, is a big storage effort that was authorized under, 
also under the Energy Act of 2020. If you look at SunShot as a 
very successful example, previously, around driving down solar 
costs. It was very, very successful at the technology of the 
science and the deployment and the development of prototypes, 
but that was extremely successful. What was not successful was 
building a supply chain and manufacturing here in this country, 
right?
    And so, with a great program it had a miss of along those 
lines. So one of the things that was structured as part of the 
Energy Storage Grand Challenge is to add that, is to take, 
basically, replicate SunShot from the technology and the 
deployment but then add on to it, it working with manufacturers 
and users here in this country at the same time, not wait, but 
at the same time so we're able to pull that all the way through 
from the development to the manufacturing and the supply chain, 
obviously, very topical. I'd recommend more of that go on, not 
just in storage and next generation batteries.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you.
    I know my time is way past so, Mr. Chairman, I look forward 
to working with you and Senator Barrasso on making sure that 
energy, you know, in any federal investment is prioritized 
because I think it is one of the biggest competitive challenges 
we face and I think the United States has a lot to contribute 
here. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you all.
    I apologize if I am going to ask questions which have been 
asked by others. I have been monitoring two other committee 
hearings and so, again, I apologize for any redundancy and also 
if I mispronounce your name, Ms. Ladislaw. I think I did okay 
with that.
    You know, we have developing countries which need energy 
for their people to become more prosperous. It would be--and I 
think that is why we are seeing such an appetite for Chinese 
coal-fired plants, even though I am told they are kind of a 
primitive technology, because energy is needed. So I guess as I 
am looking at this, we have to meet that kind of steady flow of 
energy requirement that India and Pakistan and other countries 
will demand, but we want to do it in a way which does not have 
China building these coal-fired plants with all of the 
associated problems.
    Now, and in our country we are going to incentivize, with a 
lot of carrots, a lower carbon future, but that is inherently 
going to be more expensive so, therefore, less exportable as a 
model. First let me start off with this. John Kerry has said 
that he does not approve of the United States building 
liquefied natural gas terminals and natural gas power in 
countries, in Africa, for example. I see that as supplanting 
coal-fired plants built by China with the obvious much better 
carbon emission profile associated with Louisiana natural gas 
or any other state's natural gas going over there. Do you have 
any thoughts about that? What benefits would occur if these 
coal plants from China were being replaced by natural gas 
plants built by the United States?
    Ms. Ladislaw. Sure, thank you very much for the question.
    You know, to be honest with you the way that you frame the 
question is why this innovation challenge is so exciting, 
right? I mean, I think if you look at the way in which we were 
able to drop the cost of renewable energy technologies like 
solar and PV, solar PV and wind, over the course of the last 20 
years, it's nothing short of remarkable and we're doing the 
same thing with lithium-ion storage right now.
    Senator Cassidy. Let me ask because----
    Ms. Ladislaw. I'm sorry.
    Senator Cassidy. Yes, I have limited time, if I may----
    Ms. Ladislaw. Sir, yes.
    Senator Cassidy. ----because I want to go back to my 
question. Because I think I can take it as a given that if we 
are having problems balancing load between our renewables and 
it is going to require a country to have that sort of 
integration with the computer system, et cetera, that probably 
most are going to go to a more traditional form of energy, at 
least initially, to power. Yes, on the margin, renewables can 
be useful, but it certainly won't be 100 percent of an 
industrializing grid. I mean, do you reject that premise? I'm 
just curious.
    Ms. Ladislaw. No, no, sorry, sir, I was taking too long to 
get to the core of your question.
    Listen, I think that on a case-by-case basis, the choices 
for developing economies to develop their economies using the 
energy resources they need is very hard for any developed 
country to sit here and say, you can or you cannot use certain 
things, right? I think there are challenges to developing 
economies using natural gas in their electric power systems 
that we've seen time and again. And their familiarity with 
coal, the competitiveness of coal in those context is a very, 
sort of, is a very tricky thing.
    So I think the question is how do you compete in the 
technologies of the future in developing economies in a way 
that, you know, what is the difference between what you try to 
sell them today versus what you are going to try and sell them 
down the line. There is a lot of pressure on China and India 
and Japan and Korea and other places not to be developing these 
coal-fired power generation technologies and selling them into 
these, you know, developing economies. I think that's going to 
be something you hear a lot about out of this Administration.
    Senator Cassidy. Let me stop you there because the pressure 
on China does not seem to be working and, indeed, when I am 
reading about the projects that they are developing post-COVID 
like 60 percent of them are all very carbon intensive. So it 
does seem like, if we are going to do something about that, we 
have to do something different than what we are doing.
    Ms. Ladislaw. Absolutely.
    And I think that if this is part of the U.S. trying to 
figure out how are we going to compete in these third markets 
and how do we do it in such a way that we can outcompete China. 
You know, we did some, a lot of studies on the Belt and Road 
Initiative and other investment that China are making in these 
other markets and one thing I'll say is one of the biggest 
problems is the U.S. just wasn't present in those competitions. 
We just weren't. We didn't have a strategy for engaging, and so 
I think that it's really a big part of trying to think about 
how to do that.
    Dr. Mason. And I think this is the real driver behind why 
we need innovation. We are not going to tell the Third World 
you cannot improve your standard of living. And the fundamental 
difference between the U.S. or European or Japanese standard of 
living and a Third World standard of living is energy. If you 
look at the per capita energy consumption in the U.S., we are 
basically, if you look at it in terms of human equivalence you 
eat 300 calories worth of food a day, every man, woman and 
child in the U.S. has the energy equivalent of 100 servants in 
the form of transportation and light and heating and cooling 
and the rest of the world wants that and we have to innovate in 
order to be able to provide it to them at an affordable way 
with U.S.-made products and services that does not cause 
intractable harm to the environment.
    And if we can do that, then not only will the standards of 
living rise around the world, but it will drive our economic 
development as we sell those products and services into those 
markets.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Dr. Mason. I totally agree with 
you.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chair, thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This is for the panel. The National Climate Assessment 
released in 2018 estimated $500 billion in lost economic output 
annually by the year 2100 due to global warming at or above two 
degrees Celsius. The National Climate Assessment also 
identified the damage to the health of Americans from extreme 
weather, the easier spread of infectious diseases, and reduced 
food safety, among other consequences and we are putting the 
health and well-being of the public at greater risk if we do 
not accelerate adoption and innovation in zero carbon energy 
sources. Now the panel today is focused on how to foster U.S. 
technology leadership and President Biden has laid out his 
vision of how investing in new clean energy technologies will 
help build the middle class in America and expand economic 
opportunity.
    For the panel, if we can spur a greater U.S. leadership in 
clean energy technology, how big is the global marketplace for 
clean energy going to be and are we poised to take advantage of 
that market? Perhaps we can start with Ms. Ladislaw.
    Ms. Ladislaw. Yes, thank you for the question and for 
thinking about the consequences of not actually taking this big 
opportunity to lead in these technologies.
    I cited in the testimony, $2.6 trillion annually in the 
sustainable development scenario and that doesn't get to net 
zero by 2050. So when you think about the sheer size of a 
market that's trying to transform the underpinning of the 
global economy to something that's net zero, it's hard to put a 
figure that large in place. And so, there is a huge 
opportunity. There's also a lot that can go wrong. And so, we 
need to think carefully about how we do this. I don't 
particularly think that the United States is positioned as 
aggressively as it could be not only to make that transition, 
but also to be able to be very competitive in the context of 
that transition.
    Dr. Mason. I think there's another way to think about this. 
Think about the last great energy transition that happened at 
the end of the 19th century as you saw petroleum and 
electrification and then ask yourself what names and companies 
are associated with that? And what you think about is Standard 
Oil and you think about Edison and you think about 
Westinghouse. The U.S. drove that energy transition and the 
U.S. economy benefited from that for decades, for a century 
after that. And so, its companies that represent a huge 
fraction of our gross domestic product and not only that, it's 
that same energy engine that, you know, won the Second World 
War.
    So that gives you an idea of the scale of the consequences 
associated with an energy transition. And you have to ask, is 
the next Edison, is the next Westinghouse, is the next Standard 
Oil going to be American?
    Senator Hirono. That is the question.
    Mr. Dabbar. I would say, Senator Hirono, that there are a 
great amount of very exciting technologies that are all being 
worked on right now that we need to figure out how we're going 
to manufacture, just like we have in the past. We're, right now 
as a country, very good at oil field services, at steam 
turbines and gas turbines, in terms of manufacturing, but 
there's whole swaths of areas that we don't--in PV, in solar 
and wind.
    Senator Hirono. Yes.
    Mr. Dabbar. And the question is, you know, how do we drive 
the next, right? How do we--next generation chemistry, 
manufacturing and supply chain. We should be very much focused 
on where the puck is going--to talk to, to use the Gretzky 
reference--and invest in those so that we start manufacturing 
those like we manufacture other things well.
    Senator Hirono. Yes, I think if we are looking ahead, we 
are going to be looking to non-fossil fuel kinds of energy 
sources and so as a country we can be a leader there, but I 
don't think we are particularly positioned in that regard.
    Did any of the other--go ahead.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Oh, thank you.
    If I could just make one quick comment which is that, you 
know, I agree. And Senator Hirono, I think your question is 
really quite apt because it's important to recognize that this 
is a very complex set of systems that we need to address 
simultaneously. So in order to reap the economic benefits here, 
absolutely we need to invest in innovation and really 
strengthen those innovation ecosystems within the United 
States. We also need to be very proactive about setting our 
posture to take advantage of these global markets, and as Ms. 
Ladislaw laid out, I think there's more we need to do there.
    And then, you know, to go back to Senator Lankford's 
questions as well, there are other pieces to this too. So, for 
example, it's really important to set the policies that make it 
clear to the private sector what demand is going to look like. 
What are the standards to which we are aiming? You know, what 
exactly is the structure of our business models and our 
markets? Because as much clarity as we can possibly get on that 
will actually really encourage the private sector to step up 
and take a much stronger role in innovating and 
commercializing. And when you bring all these things together, 
that's where we can be most powerful as a nation and ultimately 
reaping the benefits of the economic opportunities here.
    Senator Hirono. I think one of the things that happens is 
if you put out a clean energy goal and standards, as Hawaii has 
done, then you do invite the private sector to come forward and 
provide those kinds of alternatives. And that is why, you know, 
I am for these national kinds of standards that will encourage 
the private sector to step up.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to follow up on Senator Cassidy's comments 
about natural gas. I have been an advocate of replacing oil and 
coal with natural gas, but it is important to realize that 
unless we control the methane that is released in the 
extraction of natural gas, its carbon benefit virtually 
disappears. So there is a CRA that is going to be on the Floor 
in the next week or so on that subject, and I think it is a 
case where it is low-hanging fruit. It is very cost-effective 
and the methane problem is one that can be dealt with, but if 
we don't deal with it, as I say, it virtually eliminates the 
environmental benefits of natural gas.
    Let me, let me go to Mr. Dabbar. I want to flip the 
discussion. We have been talking a lot about protecting 
American innovation and taking advantage of the market 
opportunities, but many of these challenges that we have--
battery storage, the new generation of nuclear electrical 
generation, CCUS, doing something about plastics in the ocean--
are global problems. How about a global or a more 
international-focused joint venture, if you will, at least with 
our allies so that we are not all chasing the same subject in a 
less efficient way? For example, I was talking with some 
legislators in Japan last week, very interested in some joint 
research projects on energy. Talk to me about the possibility 
of explicit joint enterprise on some of these global energy 
problems.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yeah, Senator King.
    You know, from my personal experience of having to reach 
out to the Japanese, had Japanese conversations, European, you 
know, discussions. I apologize--I have to say something nice 
about America. We actually do a really good job at the national 
labs compared to, if you look at, is there a NETL in Europe? 
No. Is there an NREL in Europe? No.
    And so, it's a bit hard, actually, to find, you know, the 
exact points overseas as you--this is actually easier in the 
United States to do that. I am a big supporter of the Japanese, 
who have been trying to come, have put together a program and 
are trying to identify which technologies to go after and I 
personally tried to reach out to them and say let's try to do 
something together. Let's pick off different items. Same thing 
with Canada. I would recommend trying to figure out a way, 
actually, how to formalize that, how to actually draw in, you 
know, Canada or Japan or the EU and do that.
    Senator King. That is what I am suggesting is some 
formalization of a process just to take advantage of the 
potential benefit of scale of research.
    Let me change the subject a little bit. It strikes me that 
one of the comments that has come through today is we have 
great research but the nexus between research and 
commercialization in this country is not all that it might be. 
I think you said, Mr. Dabbar, you used the phrase, how we 
transfer is poor. How do we deal with that problem? Because 
research doesn't help us unless it leads to actual 
implementation. That is why R&D has the D part.
    Mr. Dabbar. Well, yes, Senator. I think that it's actually 
much lower cost in terms of appropriations, but I think it's 
actually vitally important to invest, even further into the 
commercialization efforts at DOE, but also at the universities 
and whatever happens with a bigger innovation bill. I think 
resources to reinforce those particular areas is vitally 
important because, once again, as Ms. Ladislaw said, you know, 
we've got plenty of great ideas. We've got plenty of discovery. 
But I do think setting up even further efforts into that, on 
top of the good things that have been done for the last ten 
years on that, I think, is actually a great, great use of 
dollar.
    Senator King. I think we have to realize that there may be 
misses, some things are not going to work. Gretzky has already 
been quoted once. My favorite Gretzky quote is, ``I miss 100 
percent of the shots I don't take.'' So we have to take some 
risk on some of these developments.
    Ms. Pierpoint.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Senator King?
    Senator King. Yes, go ahead, please.
    Dr. Pierpoint. I was just going to say I think that's a 
really great question and you know, again, I think coming from 
my position, you know, in a, where I was working on private 
sector R&D and very much working with the Department of Energy, 
I agree the gap is still really big and again, I think one of 
the challenges is that the gap does not look the same for every 
technology, even within energy. It looks different among 
different kinds of energy technologies, the particular barriers 
to moving things into the private sector are not always the 
same.
    And so, I think it's really important that the Department 
of Energy continues to experiment with new kinds of tools in 
its tool kit to help improve the way that this transfer works. 
And again, sort of a really, you know, deep focus on this and a 
holistic transfer of the paradigm to thinking about technology 
impact and not just about thinking about this as a hand-off to 
the private sector is key. I think it's about ongoing 
partnering. It's about ensuring that the bureaucratic processes 
match with things that the private sector can actually work 
with and it's about really ensuring that we're thinking about 
holistic business-ready solution, even at the beginnings of 
thinking about R&D and deployment and development of new 
technologies.
    Senator King. Well, I am out of time, but you have a unique 
set of experiences in the different places where you have 
worked and I would like to give you some homework. If you would 
give to the Committee some written comments on how to improve 
that transfer process from your perspective, I think that would 
be very helpful to us as we look toward future legislation in 
this area.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to our witnesses this morning. Good to see some folks that have 
been back before the Committee on multiple occasions. Good to 
see you, Mr. Dabbar.
    I have spent my week focused on the Arctic. The past two 
mornings I have been engaged as part of the standing committee 
on Arctic Parliamentarians. So I have been thinking about the 
Arctic, and I have been thinking about our energy challenges. I 
have been thinking about our climate-related challenges in the 
Arctic, so I appreciate Senator King's comment there about 
international collaboration. What more can we be doing? We 
certainly discussed that from an economic development 
perspective, but also from an environmental stewardship 
perspective.
    Mr. Dabbar, I will direct my first question or perhaps 
observation to you. We have reauthorized the Arctic Energy 
Office. This is good. We want to get a few more folks up there 
and, actually, really on the ground, but we have also developed 
a pretty great partnership, I think, with NREL, the National 
Renewable Energy Lab, and our Cold Climate Housing Research 
Center. Again, some might say, well, that's Alaska-specific. It 
is absolutely not. It is not only Arctic-specific, but 
recognizing that when you can make advances in housing in 
extreme environments, you can do it in the cold, you can do it 
in the not so cold. So we recognize the benefits there, but any 
comments in terms of, based on your perspective, what more DOE 
can be doing to build out these best practices, these 
collaborations with our Arctic neighbors?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yeah. Senator, I think as we talked about 
before, I think the use of, to use the term test beds, for 
different and new technologies is vitally important. And it is 
really important when there's collaborators who could share 
what the effort and bring other ideas and other money so you 
can, you know, kind of bring, bring together scale, who have 
similar problems. And I think that American leadership is 
really important here where we still are the biggest country in 
the world in most aspects. And I think reaching out to the 
likes of Canada and others who have very similar issues with 
their local communities and different applications will 
leverage, I'm even going to use a banking term here, we can 
leverage the dollars that are spent here by the American people 
because other people will be contributing. And there's many 
programs that are very successful because we're able to do a 
lot more together with that leverage and also more test beds.
    So I'd very much advocate for entering into really formal, 
more formal conversations. It's been harder to do it 
informally. And so, I think trying to figure out how to do it 
formally would be a great idea of how to do that.
    Senator Murkowski. Let me shift gears a little bit here, 
and this will be directed to you, Dr. Mason, at Los Alamos.
    Talking a lot about what we are going to do to move to this 
renewable energy economy, what that is going to mean. We talk a 
lot about our supply chain vulnerability. We have really seen 
that spotlight shown in a COVID-related world when it comes to 
the medical side, but we also know that when it comes to 
energy, if we don't have these critical minerals, we are at a 
competitive disadvantage. We cannot be in a position where we 
rely on China. We cannot be in a position where we are relying 
on other countries who have lower environmental standards and 
lower standards when it comes to human rights and worker 
safety.
    How we are able to access our resources, our critical 
minerals, and do so in a way that acknowledges the 
environmental stewardship that must come with it, but also in a 
way that we are looking to greatly reduce the emissions? I 
would ask if you can share with me anything that our national 
labs are doing, whether it is through technology development or 
investigating new approaches to production that will help 
support more responsible development of our domestic mineral 
resources. Part of the conversation that we had yesterday, I 
was reminded that I visited a site in Sweden--Kiruna, Sweden--
as part of the last Arctic Council meeting, several Arctic 
Councils ago, but the LKAB mine there is working toward getting 
themselves entirely removed from the fossil emissions as a 
significant mine there. I don't know whether our labs are 
looking at any of these technologies that might help advance us 
when it comes to accessing our critical minerals?
    Dr. Mason. Yeah, that is actually a very active area. It 
certainly, the general issue of supply chain vulnerabilities is 
one that's very much in our awareness in the NNSA labs because, 
of course, we have responsibilities in the nuclear deterrent 
that have some of those supply chain vulnerabilities. And 
oftentimes, it does come down to access to very specific 
materials that have physical, chemical properties that make 
them well suited to certain applications. It turns out that in 
general, it's not that the U.S. does not have those minerals. 
We have them. But we have not been actively exploiting them for 
some time and in many cases, and in particular, China has been 
very sophisticated in its approach to, you know, leveraging 
their control to the current supply chain to their economic 
advantage.
    So some of the activities at the labs include looking at 
some of the chemical processing in order to come up with more 
environmentally acceptable ways of accessing those materials 
that may be present in, you know, small quantities. And part of 
the reason that the U.S. got out of that business was because 
of the environmental impacts of the processing. So alternative 
processing technologies and chemical separations is a core 
competency for many of the DOE labs. There has also been work 
looking at alternatives. Maybe there is a smarter, better way 
to do it that does not give that choke hold to others in terms 
of the supply chain. So, there's work on alternatives. There's 
actually a thing called the Critical Materials Institute which 
is a consortium of DOE labs--Oak Ridge is involved, Ames Lab, 
Idaho--as well as academic researchers and industry partners 
that, in addition, are looking at things like recycling. You 
know, there's a lot of critical materials that are tossed into 
the trash on a pretty short time scale because they're high-
tech components that may have, you know, pretty short 
obsolescence times. And so, if we can begin to recycle some of 
the Samarium, then we don't have to rely on those supply 
chains. And it's material science, it's chemistry, it's 
chemical separation. You know, these are areas that are part of 
the tool kit at the Department of Energy.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for this great 
conversation today.
    One of the areas I want to focus on are technology 
standards. And this is for the panel.
    I know one area we must address as we look at global 
competition over new technology is the standard-setting 
process, specifically, what I have seen as China has 
established goals to set global standards for emerging 
technologies like 5G, internet, the Internet of Things, 
artificial intelligence, on and on and on. So I am curious from 
the panel, can you discuss the importance of the U.S. 
involvement in standard setting for this new technology and 
what steps we can take to ensure that we continue to lead the 
global standard-setting process? And if you would, I would 
appreciate, let's start with Dr. Mason.
    Dr. Mason. Well, I think one of the most important things 
in the setting of standards is that when you invent something, 
you have a pretty strong say in how those standards evolved. 
And so, being present at birth is, I think, a key component to 
having a voice in that. And of course, it does become important 
because, you know, the world economy needs those standards to 
function and if you're well positioned at the beginning of the 
discussion then you are going to be well positioned at the end 
of the discussion when it turns into shipped products and so 
forth. And so, it is a, maybe an underappreciated role that 
gets played.
    Of course, in terms of standard setting, the Department of 
Energy's primary standards role is around energy efficiency 
standards and that can be an important one, but it's broader 
than that as well.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. Dabbar, please.
    Mr. Dabbar. Senator, I would step one step further down 
from the chain that Dr. Mason just mentioned which is it's not 
only important to be at the birth of the technology, is that 
when we roll out that technology and start deploying it, that 
there's an aggressive and I think we need to have it more 
aggressive than we have in the recent past given what China's 
definitely doing this, is as they start deploying the 
technology into the commercial use that the federal system 
advocate with the private sector on the rollout of the 
deployment of those technologies, that that sets the standard 
for the rest of the world because we're leading the deployment 
as well as the discovery.
    Senator Cortez Masto. I agree and I think it is sometimes 
overlooked, but it is so important for us to address the global 
standards role here. I know we are all focused on the research 
and getting out ahead of the technology and making sure we are 
competitive and there is an advantage, but we cannot forget 
that there are, when we look at some of this technology, 
standards that are going to be set. If we don't lead, as the 
United States, others will lead for us and that will have an 
impact, really, on not just implementation but competition as 
well.
    And so, I am curious, anybody else have any comments with 
respect to this?
    Dr. Pierpoint. Just one quick additional note which is, I 
think is, again, a very important and apt discussion and just 
to reinforce that it's not just about being able to 
interconnect which obviously has implications for 
competitiveness, but standards go far beyond that into things 
like safety. And where we see this playing out very importantly 
is in the nuclear sector. We want, obviously, for our nuclear 
plants to be competitive, but globally, we also really need 
them to be safe, particularly because an accident anywhere has 
ramifications for our own country.
    So I think, you know, this is a really, really, critical 
piece of the discussion that underpins competitiveness and 
innovation as well as a lot of other areas that are of extreme 
importance.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And I could not agree 
more. Safety, security, cybersecurity, privacy, I mean, it is 
all wrapped into this new technology and we should be really 
leading in this space. Thank you for that.
    I only have a minute, but Dr. Mason, in your written 
testimony you stated that if we are to compete for the 
leadership role in the future, the U.S. must revitalize its 
physical and human capital infrastructure and have a 
coordinated approach between the many agencies and institutions 
and private industry that are currently working in key emerging 
technology areas. I am curious to hear more about your thoughts 
on the current status of the U.S. workforce when it comes to 
RD&D for new technologies. Are we prepared? Do we have the 
workforce? And what more can we do at a federal level to 
incentivize?
    Dr. Mason. Well, just to, you know, give you some numbers. 
We are, at Los Alamos, in the middle, actually, of a fairly 
significant turnover in our laboratory staff. We have--we've 
been hiring about 1,000 people a year, in fact, more like 1,200 
people a year in recent years. We still have a large number of 
our staff who are retirement eligible and so, this is going to 
continue for the next several years. I am very pleased with the 
caliber of the people that we're attracting, their enthusiasm 
for our mission and their technical skills. So I think we're, 
we are doing well in that regard, but quite frankly, it's still 
the pacing element for us is the rate at which we can attract, 
recruit and retain the very best.
    The primary way we do that is first and foremost, the 
compelling nature of our mission and secondly, the incredible 
suite of tools and capabilities that we bring to bear. This is 
something that is attractive to graduates across a range of 
disciplines and I think our greatest challenge is that the 
infrastructure that we're bringing people into is, maybe, 
somewhat less encouraging than the excitement of our mission. 
And so, we've got some work to do there because it is difficult 
to bring people into a space that was maybe state-of-the-art in 
the '50s and '60s, but has been left behind since then. So 
that's probably our biggest struggle is offering people that 
kind of modern 21st century research environment. We do it in 
some areas, not so much in others.
    But the final point that I'd like to make in this topic is 
that, particularly as a primarily physical sciences-based 
institution, although we do lots of biological sciences and 
other areas, we're primarily physical sciences and engineering. 
And as an institution that's focused on national security, it's 
very important that we are able to hire U.S. citizens with that 
training. And as we look at the output of graduate schools in 
physical sciences and engineering, that's an area where, I 
think, we maybe could do better. We are not educating enough of 
our citizens. And while we certainly are eager to hire the best 
and the brightest from around the world for many of our mission 
areas, that's really not an option. And so, things that we can 
do to incentivize students thinking about what their career 
options may be to look to those disciplines so that we have 
more of our own that are getting those advanced degrees would 
really be helpful.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Kelly. No, I'm sorry. I am so sorry, 
Senator. I have Senator Hoeven. I see where he snuck in.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    For Mr. Dabbar, as I think you are aware, the EERC (Energy 
Environmental Research Center) at the University of North 
Dakota, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory at DOE, 
they have a long history of collaborating on fossil energy 
research and continue to work together today on what I call 
``cracking the code on CCUS technology.'' So tell me, do you 
believe that the widespread deployment of CCUS technologies is 
a key solution to addressing grid reliability and affordability 
while reducing emissions?
    Mr. Dabbar. Senator Hoeven, clearly having baseload power 
that has flexibility has value and natural gas is going to be 
very important to have those characteristics since solar and 
wind don't have right now and even batteries. And so, being 
able to have carbon capture is clearly critical. I've seen new 
technologies for natural gas turbines that will have near zero 
emissions and that's a technology that may not come to play, 
but it's possible and cost-effective. And so further investment 
is not only critical, it's actually really possible to turn 
out.
    And I would like to make a space reference here that I 
think there's like the Star Trek trifecta, as I like to think 
about what's going on in terms of science. The teleportation, 
the tricorder and the replicator are all actually reasonably 
possible to do right now. And if you think about the 
replicator, the chemistry stream that carbon capture is going 
to be a part of, the possibility of taking non-emitting power, 
whether that's nuclear or fusion or wind or solar, making 
hydrogen, taking carbon capture and making renewable natural 
gas as negative carbon and then taking that renewable natural 
gas and turning into monomers and polymers, turning it into 
plastics and turning it into this right here, is completely 
possible. And if you ask anyone on the chemistry string, that's 
completely possible, what I just described, where you could 
turn power into this, and carbon capture is an important part.
    Now, it's chemically possible today, but the cost to make 
power into this, into this right now, is very, is very 
expensive. But it's completely possible. And an important part 
of making non emitting power into this or into a knee, a knee 
replacement, will be carbon capture.
    Senator Hoeven. So talk a little bit then about DOE's 
strategic capability to make that happen, to truly help us 
deploy CCUS in a commercial way.
    Dr. Pierpoint. Yeah, I have a quick comment to make on this 
topic. I think the national labs are absolutely vital to this 
effort. I agree with what Mr. Dabbar said that this is 
extraordinarily important for our future to be able to harness 
these technologies and across the national labs they're working 
on a range of approaches and ideas that could contribute to 
carbon capture. One with which I'm very familiar is Lawrence 
Livermore National Lab and its Carbon Capture Initiative. They 
are not only working on a range of possible technologies and 
approaches to do carbon capture, but they've also brought in a 
panel of folks designed to help them to achieve impact. So this 
is people from the commercial sector who can really help them 
design their research in a way that is going to lead very 
rapidly to good outcomes, and I think that's a great model for 
exactly what we need in this arena.
    Senator Hoeven. Dr. Pierpoint, you would say that it is 
very important that the Department of Energy, as well as the 
national labs, get on board and help us commercialize these 
CCUS technologies?
    Dr. Pierpoint. I do.
    Senator Hoeven. Is that your statement?
    Dr. Pierpoint. I do.
    Senator Hoeven. And you think they have the ability to do 
that?
    Dr. Pierpoint. I think so. Again, I think there's a lot of 
work that needs to be done to really ensure that there's a 
strong connection between the R&D activities and the labs and 
what the private sector is able to scale and commercialize, but 
I think there's some good infrastructure to build on in that 
regard.
    Senator Hoeven. I have worked to help secure funding for 
the equipment that needs to be added to these plants and so 
forth, loan guarantees because the companies, obviously, will 
have to invest to do it, as well as tax credits as 
incentivizing it. Are there other things? I mean, are those 
things helpful and what else do you think we can do to make it 
happen?
    Dr. Pierpoint. Yeah, I think there are a couple of 
opportunities. Again, you know, this notion of really strongly 
partnering the private sector with the national labs and their 
work and doing so fairly early in the process so that the work 
that's being done at the national labs already starts with a 
clear line of sight for commercial value and commercialized 
ability. I think that's important. And another key piece is 
just improving the contracting mechanism so that it becomes 
easier for the private sector to work with DOE on these 
opportunities. Shortening the length of time for negotiations 
is a really key piece of that.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now, Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As a nation, we have been a leader in R&D and energy 
innovation for a better part of a century and Mr. Dabbar, you 
mentioned taking natural gas and turning it into this, it is 
pretty incredible. When my wife, Gabby, Congresswoman Gabby 
Giffords, served on the Armed Services Committee in the House, 
the Naval Research Lab presented her with a vial of seawater 
and a vial of jet fuel. The jet fuel was made from the carbon 
out of the air and seawater, incredible technology. Now it 
takes a lot of energy to do that. It also takes a lot of 
computing power to figure this stuff out. How do we do that?
    Dr. Mason, I know you at--Los Alamos is just in the process 
of receiving a new supercomputer that is going to be delivered 
in 2023. Mr. Dabbar is working on quantum computing. I mean, 
these are systems and architectures that we need to remain the 
best innovators in the world. I am concerned that we have gone 
from spending 70 percent of the world's R&D budget to now we 
are down to 30 percent. We have problems with access to 
semiconductor chips. The chips that go in the computer system 
that you are receiving in 2023, which, I understand, comes from 
a British company, I think ARM Holdings, that is going to be 
acquired by a U.S. company. It is very positive. We are 
currently working on the appropriations part of the CHIPS Act 
to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S. to build 
the five-nanometer chip here on U.S. soil. And then, the first 
three-nanometer and, hopefully, one-nanometer chips to allow us 
to do things like, you know, figure stuff out like this.
    I want to hear from any of you really, Dr. Mason, but 
anybody on their thoughts. We are at a critical part, and I 
know I took up most of the time here. We have to make some 
decisions based on R&D in the next generation chips but also 
getting back to manufacturing and have to make some hard 
decisions about how we are going to appropriate that money. I 
am interested in hearing from you what that balance should be.
    Dr. Mason. So, you know, maybe I can start out, just, you 
know, the particular area you're highlighting there, high-
performance computing, is one that I think is truly critical. 
We use it as part of the annual certification for our nuclear 
stockpile. I don't think there's a more critical role than 
that.
    As you mentioned, we've just announced our plans for the 
next generation machine. We're already starting to look beyond 
in Exascale at what does that future look like. High 
performance computing is one area where we are no longer alone. 
It used to be that the U.S. dominated that field 
scientifically, also dominated the field in terms of 
manufacturing, supply chain, all these other things and, you 
know, certainly, the Chinese are right there with us in terms 
of competition. The Europeans are investing, the Japanese are 
investing, and the reason they're doing it is because of the 
tremendous power that it brings to solving the sorts of 
problems that you talked about.
    It's interesting, the last time I was in China I had a 
conversation with the director of one of their computing 
institutes and, you know, they were justifiably proud of the 
fact that they had begun fielding number one computers. But he 
made a comment, he said, you know, when we got the number one 
computer, we had a big party. We drank a lot of champagne and 
we woke up the next day with a hangover. And I said, what do 
you mean? And he said, well, what we're finding is we're not 
getting the scientific output when we benchmark ourselves 
against the U.S. labs. And the reason was because, you know, 
with money you can get the computer, but in order to really get 
the utility out of it, the ability to, you know, model those 
chemical reactions or, you know, the performance of a nuclear 
weapon, you also need to bring together a whole system of 
people who understand that science deeply.
    And that's something that we've been quite successful at 
and, in fact, the Chinese have figured this out, it's one 
reason they've got this big push to build these comprehensive 
national labs because they recognize if they're going to 
leverage the full economic benefit, they need to domestically 
manufacture the chips and they have made that requirement for 
their new machines that they're building. They recognize it's 
going to cost them more, but they're using it to drive their 
industrial development. And you also need to have the 
capabilities to use those machines in the scientific areas and 
they're investing in that as well. My own conclusion is this is 
not an area where we should willingly secede our leadership and 
that means we need to continue to invest, not just in the 
hardware, but also in the people and the capabilities that goes 
along with it.
    The good news is that we have been good at that up to this 
point, but as I said, we're no longer alone. And one thing that 
I think China has come to realize over the past couple of years 
is they do not want their economy to be vulnerable to the U.S. 
turning off access. They've been concerned, obviously, with the 
Huawei situation about the fact that they had components of 
their economy that were, you know, in some sense had supply 
chain vulnerabilities on our side. And I think we also need to 
be in a position where we're protecting our advantage and don't 
allow ourselves to become hostage to others in this area 
because it's critical, both economically and also in terms of 
our national security.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Doctor.
    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Pierpoint, I cannot tell you how 
excited I have been, Dr. Mason and all of you, but this 
discussion is right up in my wheelhouse. I did some of my 
research when I was getting a Masters in Geology through the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory and through Los Alamos and some of 
the technologies that went through there. I am aware of the 
broad range of science that all of your organizations and 
institutions that you represent have done.
    Let me narrow it down a little bit. Dr. Pierpoint, in your 
testimony, you highlighted the need for DOE to foster, you 
know, not just innovation but entrepreneurship as well and you 
talked a little bit about that this morning to help connect 
those doing the more basic science with those more focused on 
commercialization to bring good ideas to the market. What does 
Congress need to do to incentivize and motivate those efforts?
    Dr. Pierpoint. Thanks so much for the question.
    I think you're absolutely right that, again, one of the 
assets that the United States brings when it comes to 
innovation and competitiveness is really an unparalleled 
entrepreneurial ecosystem. And I think it's really critical to, 
you know, innovation and really to ultimately the economy 
whether you're talking about big companies or small to be able 
to partner with those companies, to be able to work with the 
Department of Energy. So I think it's really important for DOE, 
as DOE thinks about the best ways to foster technology impact, 
to think not just about the big companies and their resources 
and abilities, but understand that things look very different 
from a small startup from an entrepreneurial endeavor. And I 
think there are a lot of programs, ARPA-E is chief among them, 
that do a great job of partnering with startups, and I think 
the rest of DOE is starting to really do that well also.
    So again, one really important factor is as we try to 
foster partnerships, DOE cost shares can sometimes be helpful 
in the sense that they require companies to have some skin in 
the game so they really get deeply involved in a project. But 
providing cost share is not always possible for startups who 
tend to be operating on a shoestring. So I think recognizing 
that there needs to be a set of tools for partnering that 
allows for some flexibility and that really makes it clear to 
startups what's out there and what's possible is totally 
important.
    I think another thing is recognizing that the DOE and the 
labs bring an incredible set of assets to the table that can be 
harnessed for technology development and commercialization, but 
sometimes it's hard to know where those assets are and how to 
access them. And again, I think more needs to be done to make 
it really clear what DOE has available and to make those 
resources very easily accessible to every kind of company that 
can bring to bear in the commercialization fight. And again, a 
really great example of this is the gateway for advanced 
innovation, accelerated innovation in nuclear gain which DOE 
has done in partnership with Idaho National Laboratory.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, and I love the partnership 
approach that we see so often within those organizations and 
institutions at DOE. Again, as a science lover, it really is 
such an exciting moment to be in Washington and to be doing the 
kind of work we are all doing.
    It is not just climate change and it is not just the issues 
around the natural, the life sciences, but it is our national 
security. Dr. Mason, in your testimony you talked a little bit 
about, and we talked about it this morning, the federal 
investments in issues that are directly affected by national 
security, obviously in relationship to China, that have come up 
several times this morning. But there are other countries 
getting ahead of us as well on issues, in areas like artificial 
intelligence and 5G and quantum computing, and they all have 
national security implications and economic security 
implications. How do we protect the investments we have made 
and what needs to be done to improve our innovation in these 
areas? What does Congress need to do?
    Dr. Mason. Yeah, I think this question of the international 
landscape and how we work internationally is a really critical 
one and from my point of view, you have to think both in terms 
of defense and offense. The defense side is the recognition 
that there are, and you're correct, it's not just China, there 
are other countries that are aggressively seeking to develop 
and exploit these technologies and, in some cases, take 
advantage of what has been our prior approach to international 
collaboration and an open society to outright steal some of our 
ideas. And we ought to be working on a defensive side to reduce 
that risk of loss, reduce that risk of theft.
    But I think if all we do is build up the walls higher so 
that we lose less, we're missing out on the other side of the 
equation which is the offense side of the equation. There is 
tremendous value to be gained by international collaboration 
and cooperation on tough problems with partners who share our 
values and commitment to, you know, transparency and mutual 
benefits. So at the same time that we need to work to safeguard 
our ideas and safeguard our intellectual properties against 
theft, I think we also ought to be seeking out like-minded 
partners and doubling down on international collaboration. I 
know in the area of national security we have a longstanding 
collaboration between the U.S. and the U.K. on the nuclear 
deterrent. You could not find a more sensitive area of our 
national security, but under the auspices of the mutual defense 
agreement, we work very closely with our British colleagues and 
both countries benefit.
    So even in the most sensitive areas, you can, with careful 
selection of the problems you work on and careful selection of 
your partners, harness the benefit of bringing more minds to 
bear on the problem. And I think we need to pursue both tracks. 
We need to protect our information from those who would seek to 
undermine us and double down on collaboration with allies and 
partners who can help us solve really tough problems, whether 
it's in energy, artificial intelligence, you know, even areas 
like quantum which are very, very sensitive. You know, there 
are five ICE countries that we share our most sensitive 
intelligence information with and some of them are absolutely 
frontline research in quantum computing. And why would we not 
want to work with our British or Canadian or Australian 
colleagues in those areas?
    Mr. Dabbar. The one recommendation that I would make is as 
you draft a new piece of innovation legislation, is to think 
about the very successful aspect of the National Quantum 
Initiative where you mandated that we had to include the 
private sector concurrently with that R&D. And by just that 
sheer fact of this Committee including that term in the 
National Quantum Initiative and when we bid out the R&D 
centers, the five R&D centers, there are 69 entities in the 
five R&D centers around the country that were bid out as a 
result of this Committee's action. And within the 69 entities, 
not only are there big universities and labs, but Microsoft is 
in it, Applied Materials, IBM, Rigetti, even Goldman Sachs is 
in a DOE Quantum Research Center and they're all looking at, as 
R&D is being developed concurrently, as to how do you deploy 
it.
    Now, my best example of this is the internet. The internet 
was first started up in 1969 by DARPA, doing the four initial 
nodes and then NSF went ahead and started funding it at other 
universities and DOE and others, but it took 20 years from the 
first modem to the internet. And I would argue, that's too long 
and that's because the private sector was not included in the 
internet on day one rather than year 20.
    Senator Hickenlooper. You could also argue that the 
internet was not designed to be defended which is something we 
deal with every day. Anyway, I am way over time.
    Chairman Manchin, thank you so much. This has, I think, 
been the most illuminating session in my 100 days, 107 days in 
the Senate, and I want to commend you for helping put this 
together and I want to thank everybody on this panel. It is 
just tremendously exciting to hear these discussions and to see 
how much we are going to get done in the near future.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate that.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
would like to, along with Senator Hickenlooper, thank you for 
putting this Committee conference together. I mean, this is 
terrific. Great panelists. Great discussion. Very, very 
important and I think in a bipartisan way we have all learned a 
lot and, hopefully, the nation has as well.
    I just have one last question for Mr. Dabbar. First, I 
wanted to introduce into the record an article from the New 
York Times. It was a front-page article from a way back. It was 
headlined, ``In F.B.I. Sights, Stolen Research Flowing to 
China.'' The article quotes Dr. Michael Lauer, who is the 
Deputy Director of Extramural Research at our National 
Institutes of Health, and he states, ``We know there are 
companies formed in China for which we funded the research.''
    So Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that----
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The New York Times article referred to, also entitled 
``Vast Dragnet Targets Theft of Biomedical Secrets for China'' 
in an online version, follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Barrasso. Then my final question. Universities 
pride themselves on conducting open science. It includes 
collaboration with foreign nations. Understandable. The 
international collaboration really may help advance science, 
but as a 2019 FBI report states--and here is the FBI report. It 
states, ``This open environment also puts academia at risk for 
exploitation by foreign actors.''
    So before Congress radically increases funding to boost our 
competitiveness with China, shouldn't we ensure that 
universities have safeguards in place to prevent China from 
benefiting from this funding?
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be able to put 
that in the record as well.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The 2019 FBI report referred to follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Dabbar. Senator, yes, I would agree with you. OSTP has 
recommended certain policies to universities to try to identify 
conflict of interest and disclosure which are the first steps 
to identifying the problem and to set up solutions. There's 
some universities that are much farther along on this, on the 
China acquisition of technology and there are some that are 
less. And I think that process should continue forward and 
would certainly recommend that you include certain provisions 
in anything to enhance that.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay.
    Dr. Mason. And if I could just add to that?
    I'm actually serving on something called the Round Table 
for Science and Security that was set up by the National 
Academies of Sciences, actually under the auspices of this 
interagency process that Paul was talking about and that's 
bringing together academic institutions, national labs, that's 
my role there, government agencies who are funding research and 
people with experience in the intelligence community. And one 
of the things that we're grappling with is this challenge of, 
you know, equipping the universities to respond to this without 
actually, you know, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. 
We want to retain that ability for free and open and innovative 
research, but we need to be smarter about how we go about doing 
it in some of these areas that cut a little bit closer to the 
edge in terms of our national and economic security. And as Mr. 
Dabbar has stated, I think there are many universities that 
have a deep appreciation of this because of the challenges they 
faced and the experiences they've had. There are others where 
it's still a bit of an alien concept and we have some work to 
do to educate.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you for your answer.
     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Let me again reiterate our appreciation--what you have 
brought to the Committee today and been able to share with us, 
your knowledge and your professionalism and also the 
experiences you have had, has been tremendous. I know that Dr. 
Pierpoint could not be here, but we are so happy that she was 
able to join us by WebEx, and we thank her. Ms. Ladislaw, we 
thank you, Mr. Dabbar, Dr. Mason.
    We are in a situation right now where there are an awful 
lot of things coming and we are trying to decide how we best go 
forward to get the biggest bang for our buck but make sure we 
are not reinventing the wheel or spending doubly for something 
we already have. So we are going to be probably calling on you 
more in the near future and we would like to have your input 
and we appreciate, again, very much for making an effort to be 
here.
    This meeting is adjourned.
    Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I have to make one more statement 
here.
    Members will have until close of business tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record.
    Now the meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m. the Committee adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                         [all]