[Senate Hearing 117-434]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-434
THE ROLE OF AND PROGRAMS WITHIN
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 5, 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
45-381 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
Bradley 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........................................................ 2
WITNESSES
Binkley, Dr. J. Stephen, Acting Director, Office of Science, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 3
Zacharia, Dr. Thomas, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.... 17
Seidel, Dr. Edward, President, University of Wyoming............. 31
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Map of EPSCoR States Submitted for the Record................ 43
Binkley, Dr. J. Stephen:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Written Testimony............................................ 6
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 65
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Seidel, Dr. Edward:
Opening Statement............................................ 31
Written Testimony............................................ 33
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 97
Zacharia, Dr. Thomas:
Opening Statement............................................ 17
Written Testimony............................................ 19
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 87
THE ROLE OF AND PROGRAMS WITHIN
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. Although the
news coverage would indicate that this week is Infrastructure
Week, our Committee seems determined to make it Science Week.
On Tuesday, we held a nomination hearing featuring two nominees
at the heart of the mission of the Department of Energy--the
Under Secretary for Science and Energy and the Director of the
Office of Science. And we are here today to discuss the role
of, and programs within, the Office of Science. I hope our
witnesses will expand on Tuesday's discussion of the Office of
Science's leadership, management, and direction by delving
deeper into the substance of its many programs.
The Office of Science carries out the basic scientific
research that underpins nearly all of the Department's
activities, from understanding the atom to the cosmos and from
manufactured materials to biological systems. At the core of
the Office of Science's abilities to perform are the 10
national labs stewarded by the Office and its 28 user
facilities. The user facilities, such as Berkeley's Advanced
Light Source in California or Michigan's Facility for Rare
Isotope Beams, are examples of what the United States does at
its very best.
These unique and expansive research facilities surpass the
investment that any one institution could muster on its own and
provide shared access to world class instruments to researchers
around the world based on the scientific merit of their
projects. The Office of Science's user facilities offer a
platform for discovery but also one to bring together
researchers from different backgrounds and with different
approaches. It turns out that the collaboration is as vital to
scientific pursuits as it is to legislative ones.
In the past eight months, the Senate has passed the Energy
Act of 2020, several COVID packages, the U.S. Innovation and
Competition Act of 2021, and is now considering infrastructure
legislation. In all of these measures, scientific research is
an integral part of the debate. That has included creating new
programs, such as the Energy Act's fusion energy provisions, or
ensuring that R&D efforts can strengthen our competitiveness or
aid our COVID response.
At the same time, our Committee has become aware of both
the need to advance the Office of Science's programmatic
mission as well as address deferred maintenance issues. We also
need to invest in new infrastructure and equipment at the
national labs and elsewhere. I look forward to this hearing's
discussion about where this Committee needs to act to support
and achieve our vision for the Office of Science going forward.
Today's witnesses will bring together the major
perspectives on basic research. Dr. Stephen Binkley, the Acting
Director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science; Dr.
Thomas Zacharia, the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
the largest of the Office of Science's laboratories; and Dr.
Edward Seidel, the President of the University of Wyoming.
I look forward to discussing the full range of the Office
of Science's work, including with the national laboratories and
its university partners today.
With that, I turn to my friend and Ranking Member, Senator
Barrasso, for his opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding today's very important hearing. I am happy to welcome
three witnesses with extensive experience with the Department
of Energy's Office of Science.
I would especially like to thank Dr. Seidel for making the
trip from the University of Wyoming in Laramie. We appreciate
you coming in person to testify. Dr. Seidel is the President of
the University of Wyoming. We have some Wyoming student interns
currently here, listening to Dr. Seidel. He is also an
astrophysicist and a former member of the Argonne National
Laboratory's Board of Governors.
Dr. Seidel was recruited to the National Science Foundation
in 2008, and he oversaw the creation of the Cyberinfrastructure
Office. He later led the Foundation's largest science unit. Dr.
Seidel is a fellow at the American Physical Society and the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
We are lucky to have a university president with such
relevant experience for this important discussion today.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the
nation's largest supporter of basic research in physical
sciences. The Office of Science is uncovering the secrets of
the universe, and it is revolutionizing the fields of quantum
computing and artificial intelligence. The Office of Science
also leads our nation's efforts to develop fusion energy.
In addition, the Office of Science makes significant
contributions to numerous fields, including material science,
chemical science, and isotopes. Isotopes are essential in the
medical diagnosis and treatment and for a variety of industrial
processes. The Office of Science produces these critical
isotopes when they are unavailable in the commercial market.
Finally, the Office of Science oversees 10 of the
Department's 17 national labs. These labs employ over 26,000
highly capable individuals. A primary function of the Office of
Science is to support user facilities located at our national
labs. These 28 user facilities support cutting-edge research
across the scientific spectrum. These include particle
accelerators and light sources, which act as powerful
microscopes, allowing us to observe the fundamental
constituents of matter. Two of the world's three fastest
supercomputers are located at our national labs. Using these
computers, the Department played a significant role in helping
us understand the threat of COVID-19.
The Department of Energy can make improvements in its
research and development programs. It can certainly do more to
maintain and enhance its world-leading scientific
infrastructure. I would like to see more investment in building
research capacity at universities in rural states, including
Wyoming.
In 1979, Congress created the Established Program to
Stimulate Competitive Research, or EPSCoR. Congress established
this to address concerns about the distribution of federal
research and development grants. Historically, a small number
of institutions disproportionately received the majority of
federal research funding, and those are not institutions that
are represented by the people that are sitting here on this
panel today. Thanks to programs like EPSCoR, this is improving.
But we still have a long way to go before we fully benefit from
the capabilities and expertise found all across our nation's
universities.
President Biden's budget request includes $3 billion for
research at the Office of Science, but it only includes $25
million for EPSCoR. Well, this is less than one percent of the
Office of Science's entire research budget. I would also note
that the President requested a $414 million increase for the
Office of Science but failed to request any additional funds
for EPSCoR. We must do better to improve access to federal
research dollars, and this Committee is the place to make that
happen. With 15 of the 25 EPSCoR states represented on this
very Committee, Mr. Chairman, I think it is something we can
all agree on.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing
today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Now, I would
like to welcome all of our witnesses to the Committee, and
thank you for discussing this important part of DOE's work with
us.
Today we have Dr. Stephen Binkley, Acting Director of the
Office of Science, the Department of Energy; Dr. Thomas
Zacharia, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and,
finally, Dr. Edward Seidel, President of the University of
Wyoming.
Dr. Binkley, we will begin with your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DR. J. STEPHEN BINKLEY, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Binkley. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee. It is
with great pleasure that I join you today to represent the
Department of Energy's Office of Science at this hearing to
discuss the current and future role of the Office of Science as
a foundational contributor to the U.S. science research
ecosystem and as a driver of advances across many scientific
and technical domains of critical importance to our nation.
As this Committee is well aware, the Office of Science's
core mission is to deliver the scientific discoveries and major
scientific tools that will transform our understanding of
nature and advance energy, economic, and national security
goals of the United States. We are the nation's largest federal
sponsor of basic research in the physical sciences and the lead
federal agency supporting fundamental scientific research for
our energy future. Over the decades, the investments made by
the Office of Science and its predecessor agencies have led to
scientific results and technical achievements that enabled
countless new technologies, businesses large and small, and
entirely new industries. In this way, we have contributed
immensely to our nation's economy, security, and quality of
life. We continue this work today.
The Office of Science funds basic research annually across
hundreds of U.S. academic institutions and all 17 of DOE's
national laboratories. This research constantly pushes the
frontiers of science through exploration of nature's most
compelling mysteries--from the particles, atoms, and molecules
that make up the materials of our universe to the DNA,
proteins, and cells that are the building blocks of life.
This research also yields new discoveries and technological
innovations that are essential for the Department's urgent
missions in energy and environmental stewardship. Through a
range of funding modalities, we support scientists who are
advancing the physical underpinnings of the energy technologies
and expanding our understanding of earth systems.
The scientific discoveries realized by our research
community are enabled by access to the world's leading research
tools at our 28 state-of-the-art, national scientific user
facilities, openly available to all researchers based on the
scientific merit of their proposed research. These
supercomputers, x-ray and particle sources, nanoscience
centers, and other instruments of modern science help maintain
U.S. scientific leadership as well as U.S. economic
competitiveness by accelerating technology developments and
deployments.
The Office of Science and the DOE have long played an
important role in advancing the missions of other federal
agencies as well--from our partnership in the Human Genome
Project to human health and well-being, national defense, and
space exploration. What's more, this collaborative work has
consistently paid high dividends for advancing our own missions
in science and energy.
As reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 2022 budget
request, the Office of Science will continue to invest in
compelling foundational research, in providing the most
advanced tools for R&D, and in a laboratory complex that is
unequivocally the world's most comprehensive collection of
scientific and technical talent.
But we are also looking to the future. We are making
crucial investments, and working with partners across federal
agencies to rapidly advance science and technology expected to
dominate the 21st century. Emerging developments in artificial
intelligence, quantum information science, microelectronics,
systems biology, and more are critical to solving the most
pressing problems we face as a nation and a member of the
global community. These challenges include ensuring affordable
clean energy technologies for the future, tackling the climate
crisis, and addressing the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic,
among others.
Importantly, our success depends on a thriving scientific
workforce. We must continue to build coalitions of experts with
diverse perspectives and backgrounds from institutions in the
U.S. and abroad who can collectively conduct science at scales
not possible at individual institutions.
Our success also depends on our commitment to the
principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, including at
the 10 DOE national laboratories that we steward, the research
and facilities we support in our own staff, and in the
workforce development programs in which we invest.
As the Senate and its colleagues in the House continue to
consider how to strengthen the U.S. research enterprise, our
global competitiveness, the Office of Science, and DOE are
prepared to contribute robustly to those discussions. We are
enthusiastic about increasing federal funding for R&D and look
forward to discussions on how best to leverage the unique
strengths of all federal R&D funding agencies, to advance the
goals set forth in the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.
At the Office of Science, we are already leading innovation
in many ways. Many of the priority technology areas called out
and we have expressed our desire to our NSF colleagues to
expand coordination and collaboration, should this act become
law.
I would like to--I would be happy to take any questions
that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Binkley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Binkley. Now, we are going to
go to Dr. Zacharia for his opening statement. Dr. Zacharia.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS ZACHARIA, DIRECTOR,
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Zacharia. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso,
and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Thomas Zacharia. I came to the U.S. from India
40 years ago to pursue my graduate education. In 1987, a
postdoctoral fellowship brought me to Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. I came to America because I wanted to help solve
the world's most important problems, and this was a country
with the will, the talent, and the tools.
I never imagined that I would become Director of Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, the largest of the 10 laboratories managed
by the Office of Science. I never imagined we would be called
upon to fight a worldwide pandemic. We were ready when the call
came. In a matter of weeks, we joined our sister laboratories
to increase production of medical supplies, understand pandemic
spread across a population, improve testing, and help develop
treatments.
I never imagined we would help change design in
manufacturing in the United States for buildings and nuclear
reactors, automobiles, and components for the Air Force and the
Navy. We are transforming factories with new materials and
methods, advances in sensors, high-performance computing, and
artificial intelligence. And we are addressing cybersecurity up
front. We are helping General Electric develop a turbo prop
engine, printed as a single unit instead of assembled from 800
pieces. We are partnered with the University of Maine to create
a new market for Maine's forest product's industry by 3D
printing with wood products.
I never imagined we would help lead the world in materials
discovery to advance clean energy technologies like batteries,
solar, and clean hydrogen, or carbon capture and utilization at
the scale needed to make a difference. We measure and model our
climate systems with better decisions in the fight against
climate change, our biotechnology program to developing
affordable and sustainable aviation fuel, bio products that
sequester carbon, and sustainable replacements for
environmentally harmful products like plastic.
I never imagined we would be at the forefront of quantum
information and materials, artificial intelligence, and
supercomputing. This fall, we'll deliver the first Exascale
computer, the fastest in the world. We produce isotopes that
fight cancer, diagnose disease, and enable NASA to explore
Mars--isotopes that cannot be made anywhere else, and we play a
key role in pursuing commercial-scale nuclear fusion, a carbon-
free, abundant energy source that will truly change the world.
How did we accomplish this? By attracting the best talent
in the world and making prudent investments in infrastructure.
Let me echo what Dr. Deutschman told this panel on Tuesday. We
need to be as innovative as we possibly can and get our
scientists on board to make the kind of changes we need to stay
ahead. That means infrastructure that helps us to recruit and
retain the best.
There are many needs across the lab system, but I will name
three. Our basic laboratory infrastructure across the complex
averages about 40 years old. The reactor where we produce rare
isotopes was built in the 1960s and requires near ton
maintenance and upgrades to continue operation. A Second Target
Station at Spallation Neutron Source needs to be built for the
U.S. to retain and remain at the forefront of neutron
scattering--a technique pioneered at Oak Ridge that enables
breakthroughs in an array of fields. We must also draw students
into STEM fields and the mission-driven research at the
national laboratories. Today, most innovation jobs are
concentrated in just 41 of our nation's more than 3,000
counties. As we consider where to build new regional innovation
hubs, the Oak Ridge Corridor and the Southern Appalachians,
near Knoxville, Tennessee, are prime candidates. Our labor shed
includes a dozen distressed, or at-risk, counties as well as
two coal-fired plants that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
will soon shut down.
The corridor is already an established center of
excellence, due to the lab assets and other assets, such as TVA
and the University of Tennessee. An innovation center can
leverage existing federal investments, to create a modernized,
reindustrialized city that advances DOE's vital missions and
ensures America's security and prosperity. Coupled with
continued investments in science infrastructure, it will
attract and retain talent necessary to keep the U.S. at the
forefront of science and innovation.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zacharia follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Zacharia. And now, we will
turn to Dr. Seidel for your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD SEIDEL,
PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
Dr. Seidel. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
members of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify
today.
I've served in senior roles in the national scientific
enterprise, but last year I was given the honor to serve as the
President of the University of Wyoming, a proud part of rural
America, which has an enormous amount to contribute, offering
new opportunities and partnerships to strengthen DOE efforts in
research and in economic development.
Our vibrant national scientific ecosystem, supported by
multiple federal agencies with distinct missions, boasts the
strongest scientific capacity in the world. But we can't take
our scientific, nor economic, leadership for granted. We are on
the verge of losing it without new investment. Recent efforts
in Congress aim to create, in effect, a national innovation
infrastructure to grow the science and technology ecosystem.
The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, USICA, proposes a
tectonic shift in funding to strengthen science and technology
with innovation hubs to drive American competitiveness.
The Senate and House need to reach agreement on legislation
on science and technology. Other nations are not waiting while
the United States considers different approaches. Furthermore,
rural areas with unique strengths must be embraced. There are
provisions in this legislation for rural states to compete
effectively, and I urge that such provisions be kept in the
final bill that emerges.
Universities across the nation are ready to become even
stronger engines for science and innovation. My own University
of Wyoming has recently proposed major restructuring, planning
a new statewide school of computing and a center for
entrepreneurship and innovation. With our community colleges,
we have formed a Wyoming innovation partnership to align
educational and corporate partners. Our entire EPSCoR region,
including the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho, is forming a rural
innovation consortium, and I acknowledge members of the
Committee from EPSCoR states.
Enter the Office of Science, playing a key role in making
U.S. scientific establishment the world's best. Among its
unique strengths are unmatched computing programs, its science
facilities, which all require advanced exascale artificial
intelligence and quantum computing approaches. The
revolutionary LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) telescope
is, essentially, a peripheral to a massive computing
environment needed to repeatedly scan the universe, making a
multi-hundred petabyte movie of its contents. The advanced
photon source upgrade will shine a light of unprecedented
intensity on matter, providing firehoses of data at
unprecedented rates. Argonne National Laboratory's Joint Center
for Energy Storage Research depends on advances in computing to
accelerate development of new materials to create powerful new
batteries.
However, deeper partnerships with academia and industry are
still needed. The recent Council on Competitiveness Report,
``Competing in the New Economy,'' recommends expanding lab
missions to encompass economic competitiveness. And the labs
are ready.
What opportunities do rural states like Wyoming bring to
science, technology, and innovation? Well, great talent resides
everywhere. Robert Rathbun Wilson, Founding Director of
Fermilab, grew up on cattle ranches near Frontier, Wyoming. The
same talent and frontier spirit is found today, as inspiring
visits to small schools, such as Ten Sleep High School, have
shown me firsthand.
Our region's assets are virtually unmatched. With large
deposits of rare earths, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National
Parks provide a unique in-the-world ecosystem and a laboratory.
Our national forests absorb carbon dioxide, but wildfires are
relentlessly increasing as our world warms, and then, they
release it and pollute the air for thousands of miles. Our
snowpack is essential for water in the West, supplying half the
water through the Colorado River that serves Los Angeles. Our
scientists predict a significant reduction of these water
supplies during this century. Clearly, there is much overlap
with the Office of Science mission. Deeper partnerships between
universities in rural regions and national labs would be
mutually beneficial.
I recommend that more faculty from EPSCoR regions be added
to DOE advisory committees. Environmental issues do not respect
state nor agency boundaries, so interagency cooperation is
needed. Wyoming, for example, is home to NSF's National Center
for Atmospheric Research Supercomputing facility, with ample
capacity to house multi-agency efforts that could serve DOE,
NSF, and others for a coordinated attack on critical
environmental problems, while also serving as a regional hub
that anchors a new innovation economy. I urge the Committee to
explore such possibilities.
The Office of Science is an extraordinary national asset.
Its efforts in advanced computing must be strengthened, as a
key element of the modernization of our national scientific and
innovation infrastructure. Our overall effort needed to compete
in the global economy must encompass assets from universities,
national labs, and industry, including rural regions of
America, for us to succeed in this global competition.
Thanks for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Seidel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank all of you for
your testimonies. And now we are going to start our
questioning.
I will begin with Dr. Binkley and Dr. Zacharia. Earlier
this year, several of our Senate committees deliberated the
role of innovation in U.S. competition globally. It was the
China Challenge, we would call it, as you know. The Committee
had recently passed its Energy Act of 2020. We contributed to
the dialog this spring by championing the role of the DOE and
the national labs, essential to federal investment and
innovation, across the broad range of technologies.
The resulting bill, the U.S. Innovation and Competition
Act, includes an authorization for $16.9 billion new dollars in
funding for research and development activities. So given this
additional funding authorization, where do you see the greatest
need and opportunity? Where do you all intend to invest it? And
how should we expect our returns on investment? Dr. Binkley
first, and then, Dr. Zacharia.
Dr. Binkley. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Manchin. So we're--
you know, we're looking at numerous areas where investments
could be made and have the most impact and innovation. And they
would include areas in quantum information science and
microelectronics, in systems biology, essentially, across the
whole range of these--what we consider to be--critical and
emerging technologies. These technologies will open the door
to, essentially, new businesses, and there are significant
research opportunities in these areas as well.
We also need to invest in the scientific infrastructure to
support those activities. In the case of, for example, quantum
information science there is a need for construction of
facilities that can fabricate quantum devices, and so on. Also,
in the microelectronics area, there are significant advances
that could be made in advanced lithography. And investments in
those areas, I think, would be very, very key to the U.S.
economy.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Zacharia.
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To amplify what Dr.
Binkley said, I think the science enterprise, as you've heard,
relies on the strong partnership between the national
laboratories, academia, and industry. And as such, the national
laboratories and DOE's Office of Science play an important role
in spanning the gap between foundational research that occurs
both in academia as well as the national laboratories, and
translating into applications and societal impact, through
partnership with industry.
I think the--as Dr. Binkley mentioned, there are a number
of areas where continued investments in research activities is
key to provide the solutions that are necessary to address some
of the critical problems that face humanity, particularly for
us as a nation, to compete with the rest of the world. Equally
important is to sustain the world-leading capabilities of the
national laboratories in order to continue to operate them in a
reliable fashion, making it available for industry and
academia.
And also, the necessary investment and support for the new
scientific and upgraded scientific facilities that have been,
essentially, recommended by the scientific community through
faculty committees to the Department of Energy and has been
recognized and supported by Congress. I'll just give you an
example. I touched on this earlier----
The Chairman. Doctor, if I could. We all have limited time
here. I think what is very important to all of us, as Senators
is to realize the role that the labs have played in helping us
to advance a vaccine by working in collaboration with
pharmaceuticals and using the equipment that we have--invested
in over the years.
Can you both briefly give us a snippet of what you all have
done to accelerate vaccine development? To have a virus that
attacked this country and attacked the world, it was remarkable
for us to be able to come up with a vaccine as quickly as we
did thanks to the role DOE and the labs played.
Dr. Binkley. So I would like----
The Chairman. Dr. Binkley.
Dr. Binkley. Yes, I would like to comment on that----
The Chairman. Sure.
Dr. Binkley. Mr. Chairman. So one of the key steps in
getting to a new vaccine is understanding the detailed
molecular structure of the virus itself. And so one of the
major contributions that was made by the Office of Science was
using the light sources and neutron sources at our various
labs. We were able to very, very rapidly characterize the very
detailed nature of the molecular structure of the--of the
virus. And you know----
The Chairman. What was the timeframe that you were notified
of this? Do you remember?
Dr. Binkley. Well, the--for us, the turning point was when
the CARES Act funding was appropriated.
The Chairman. Okay, March.
Dr. Binkley. That enabled us to instantly turn on the
research for characterizing the molecular structure of the
virus. And what is in the March----
The Chairman. March.
Dr. Binkley. Timeframe.
The Chairman. March 2020.
Dr. Binkley. Right. We were aware of the pending crisis
maybe a month before that--seeing the infection rate increase
but were hamstrung to do the research that was needed because,
obviously, we have to have appropriated funds in order to do
that.
The Chairman. Dr. Zacharia.
Dr. Zacharia. I would just add, Senator, that in addition
to the light sources and the neutron sources, the Office of
Science and its laboratories made its considerable capabilities
and high-performance computing to both university and industry,
and other agency researchers, to also scan through the
compounds of available drugs to come up with solutions and new
drugs, so that they're capable of attacking this virus.
The Chairman. Let me just say to all of you, that there was
not a bit of pushback for us to get the $16.9 billion carved
out for our labs because of the applied science that you all
have been doing and the great success you have had. So we know
that you will invest it wisely. And we are going to stay ahead
of this curve, so we do not have another virus creep up on us.
We want to be ahead of it and be ready for it when it does
come.
Thank you all.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Seidel, Congress has created the EPSCoR program, short
for the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
to broaden the geographical distribution of federal research
funding. This is the map of the states.
[The map referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. It includes 15 members represented on
this committee. North Dakota is on this map. Wyoming is on the
map. West Virginia is on the map. New Mexico is on the map.
Nevada is on the map. Less than one percent of the Office of
Science's research budget goes to these 25 states--15 of these
states are represented on this committee. Is this program
having its intended effect?
Dr. Seidel. Senator Barrasso, thanks for the question. I'd
like to start by saying I've been involved in EPSCoR programs
personally. From Louisiana I led a Track I proposal for NSF,
and I've seen the impact that has had. Within the Agency, I saw
the way EPSCoR helped support programs across the entire Agency
and the fantastic researchers in states that don't receive
nearly as much funding as others. And I would say, since my
arrival in Wyoming, I see the impact particularly with the
EPSCoR programs that are run by the NSF and also the INBRE
(IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence) program at
NIH. I don't see as much, frankly, from the DOE side.
So while I'm very grateful for the support that we receive
through EPSCoR programs, I do think that more could be done.
And I think that there are a lot of examples of why that's a
good idea. So, for example, more research funding leads to
great dividends paid back, in terms of economic development.
Many of the EPSCoR states are challenged in terms of economic
development in their rural states. And so we need more
investments in our economy, in order to really grow and begin
to build on the scientific investments that are already there.
Senator Barrasso. That is going to be a question I am going
to have for Dr. Binkley when we get to that point about what
more can be done through the Department of Energy.
But let me ask you this, Dr. Seidel. The Office of Science
has six advisory committees, which collectively include a total
124 members. Of these 124 members, only eight come from
universities in EPSCoR states. In fact, these six advisory
committees include more members from outside of the United
States than they do members from EPSCoR states. So could you
explain why it is important that the Office of Science include
more members from universities in our EPSCoR states on the
Advisory Committee?
Dr. Seidel. Thank you for that question, Senator Barrasso.
From my experience both within NSF, where we've had extremely
influential and effective advisory committees, for example, the
mathematical and physical sciences committee, and in my own
role in advisory committees around the country, and indeed,
internationally, I can say, if they're run well they have
enormous impact in terms of understanding, within the agencies,
what is actually needed by the communities. And rural states
and EPSCoR states have unique perspectives and unique assets.
So, without more participation of their faculty on our advisory
committees, we don't get the input that we need. So I would
advise that we add more.
Senator Barrasso. So then, to Dr. Binkley, do you believe
universities in EPSCoR states are appropriately represented on
the Office of Science Advisory Board? And how can the Office
address this, what I view as a lack of representation from
universities in our states?
Dr. Binkley. Senator, I understand the point that my
colleague, Ed Seidel, is making, and we are in the process
right now of really taking a detailed look at how we populate
our advisory committees. The incoming Administration is really
pushing us to do that. And we will certainly take this advice
under consideration.
One other point I would like to make is that in addition to
the funding in our budget that is specifically labeled EPSCoR,
we've put steps into the decision process for how we make
awards. One of the factors that we track is awardees who are at
EPSCoR states. So it's separate from the--the line in our
budget that's funding EPSCoR. It's essentially causing us to
increase the overall funding to EPSCoR principal investigators
in EPSCoR states through the regular competitive process.
Senator Barrasso. And then, Dr. Seidel, we know the
University of Wyoming has a very strong science program. It
houses the School of Energy Resources and multiple research
Centers of Excellence. The University of Wyoming has the
potential to make, I believe, major contributions to the
Department of Energy's programs. How can the Office of Science
better utilize the expertise from the University of Wyoming?
Dr. Seidel. Again, thanks, Senator Barrasso, for the
question. It's true we have very, very strong programs, and we
have many assets, as I outlined in my testimony that would be
of interest to the DOE. I believe that more partnerships,
particularly directly with the national labs, would be
extremely valuable. Having funding for exchanges, even joint
appointments of--or of postdoc and graduate student programs.
Once they visit labs, they come back, and those connections
last for a very long time.
So there are many ways we can do this. We've been having a
series of seminars with Argonne National Lab with our faculty
and already have discovered multiple pages worth of topics that
we think would be quite valuable. But it was striking to me how
those connections had not really been made before. So there's a
lot that can be done there, and I'd be happy to talk about that
in more depth.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Zacharia, New
Mexico is facing a dramatically different climate than we
experienced back in the 1980s, for example. You know, I have
quit using the word drought to describe it. It is long-term
aridification. Our climate looks more like Chihuahua than New
Mexico in the 1980s, for example.
The Office of Science has really been at the forefront of
developing integrated earth system models to help us understand
how to confront these changes. And the President's budget, as
well as the recent Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that we
marked up yesterday, support increased funding for the
biological and environmental research programs.
I want to ask you, how might this funding enhance the
Office of Science's ability to understand these changes and to
build real strategies for resilience to them?
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you for that question, Senator. Indeed,
the Office of Science BER (Biological and Environmental
Research) program, along with the national laboratories, as
well as our partnership with academia, does a lot of work in
advanced modeling and simulation using the leading-edge, high-
performance computers that Office of Science has, that's made
available to everybody for advancing the science. But also the
Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research program
does a lot of field experiments--NGEE-Arctic, SPRUCE, and
others--as well as curating important data that is necessary to
advance our understanding in CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide
Information Center, as well as ARM data centers. So this is an
important area that where we need to continue to do the
collaborative work, and your support is absolutely essential in
this area.
Senator Heinrich. Dr. Seidel, I want to ask you a question.
It is a little bit tangential, but I really appreciated some of
your testimony and so I want to drill down on this. You
mentioned the impacts on snowpack. You mentioned the forest
fires. Those are very much the same kinds of things that we are
struggling with in New Mexico. And that's with a planet that's
warmed by 1 +C. So you know, I want to ask you, what would 2 +C
look like, and how do you think we avoid getting there? What
technologies, what innovations, what research is going to stave
off the worst of this? Because it is already pretty bad.
Dr. Seidel. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Well,
I'll say, first of all, our own research groups have been
modeling this in great depth, in terms of Wyoming. And so, for
example, there are projections that, by the end of the century,
the snow line in the Tetons will be at 10,000 feet. So that's
going to lower dramatically the amount of water that's supplied
to the West, and particularly into Idaho from the Tetons.
So these are clearly national problems that cross all of
our boundaries as well. So we have to work together. There are
many technologies that can be brought to bear on this. Which
ones are the best? I wouldn't say. I would say, but we need a
concerted effort--a multi-agency effort--to really begin to
address these issues, including NSF, DOE, that all have amazing
national assets.
Senator Heinrich. And obviously, all of our universities.
But do you think we can continue on our current emissions track
and expect to enjoy the kind of quality of life that we have
previously enjoyed?
Dr. Seidel. Well, I think you can see every year we are
having more wildfires, and we're having hotter temperatures.
And I'm a skiing fanatic, and so I'm worried about that in
particular. So there are many issue that we're going to have to
address or else these problems are going to get worse, not
better.
Senator Heinrich. Dr. Binkley, I want to ask you about the
balance of investing in our infrastructure, our user facilities
versus funding for the specialists who operate them. It seems,
from the testimony that we have heard here today and from some
of the things we have heard from my colleagues, that we have
really underinvested in the infrastructure. Is that your
perspective? And give us a sense of the scale.
Dr. Binkley. Yes, thank you for the question. The short
answer is yes. I think that we have underinvested in the
infrastructure across the laboratory complex, over the past,
I'd say, two decades. And you know, we are taking steps to put
increased investments into our budget for infrastructure. But
with that said, we have a very, very large backlog of
maintenance and inadequate facilities that really needs to be
addressed. And so I think a major investment in infrastructure
development is really warranted, you know, to keep the
facilities operating at capacity, to essentially address safety
and security considerations, and so on.
Senator Heinrich. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman, but I
would just quickly add, I think if most people could understand
and see the incredible things that happen in places like the
Sandia and Los Alamos National Labs, they would be absolutely
amazed. In addition, if they could see the age of some of the
facilities where those things actually occur, it is remarkable
to me that we have allowed much of this infrastructure to age
to the point that we have, without replacing it and without
really giving our DOE the tools that they deserve, to be able
to serve this country well.
Mr. Chairman. Senator, just a little comment on that. We
have identified, and they have identified $35 billion in need.
In USICA, we were able to get $16 billion, just to maintain the
research, but nothing for the physical upgrades, which--did not
make a lot of sense to me. But we had to do what we had to do.
Thank you.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Binkley, the
head of the IEA, International Energy Agency, testified before
this Committee. He said that the carbon capture utilization and
storage, CCUS, technology is, ``the most important technology
that exists today.'' Do you agree with his assessment?
Dr. Binkley. Thank you for the question, Senator. I'm not
sure that I would agree completely with his assessment. There's
a suite of technologies that are really essential to handle
the--essentially to decarbonize the atmosphere. And so, yes,
the one that he's mentioned is very important, but I'm not sure
that it's the most important one, sir.
Senator Hoeven. But you would agree it is very important?
Dr. Binkley. I would agree.
Senator Hoeven. How do we enhance the technological
viability and achieve commercial viability?
Dr. Binkley. Well, I think part of that is to have the
types of research that can identify options for improving the
technology and that would be part of the purview of the Office
of Science. But then, beyond that, I think there would have to
be applied research activities that would be done in other
parts of the Department, and then, also, possibly,
demonstrations and activities like that.
Senator Hoeven. Demonstrations at a commercial level.
Dr. Binkley. At a commercial level, yes.
Senator Hoeven. Yes. And when we talk CCUS that applies not
only to fossil fuel energy, it also applies to renewables. In
our part of the world, we produce both. We have biofuels. We
also have coal-fired electricity, as well as oil and gas. And
we are actually working with CCUS and carbon capture on both
traditional and renewable fuels. So it is not picking one fuel
source.
Dr. Binkley. Correct. I agree. I agree with that.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Dr. Seidel, same questions to you,
sir.
Dr. Seidel. I would agree, generally, that a multitude of
approaches are needed. And so it's not one activity or another,
but we need to be carrying out investigations in all of these
and scaling up to commercial viability as quickly as possible.
Senator Hoeven. So to get this going at a commercial level,
we are working on things like partnerships in terms of the
funding with states and the actual industries. Loan guarantees,
so that they can put the equipment on their plants that would
actually capture the CO2. And then, the 45Q tax
credit is a huge one, too, to help, again, with the ongoing
costs because there is parasitic load and all kinds of things
that go with it.
What do you think of those? And are there other things we
can do to move forward here and actually deploy CCUS
technology?
Dr. Seidel. Well, as a general statement, I think corporate
partnerships need to be enhanced dramatically, and one of my
priorities at the University of Wyoming is to build programs
where we can work more closely with corporate partners. But we
need other support, for example, through the national labs. And
so I think three-way partnerships with companies and incentives
for them to work with us--of course, they need the scientific
expertise, but there's sometimes financial and intellectual
property issues we have to deal with. Making sure that
intellectual property can be shared as appropriate is another
one of the barriers that often comes up. So we're actually
working very hard on that at my institution and many others
around the country.
Senator Hoeven. Dr. Zacharia, what is the role of the
national labs in actually making this happen? Not just
researching it, but making it happen.
Dr. Zacharia. Well, thank you very much for the question.
As you've heard, I think the national laboratories play an
important role in actively working with the universities and
industry to scale up and demonstrate that it can be used. For
example, working with National Energy Technology Laboratory and
the Southern Company, we are already trying to deploy some of
the point source capture technologies for carbon capture and
utilization.
But also, we're working on trying to see whether we can use
the air conditioners of both residential and commercial
buildings to direct capture of carbon dioxide for capture and
sequestration. So these are all possibilities that can be done
in partnership with industry and universities.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you to all three of you gentlemen.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. And now we have Senator
King. Is he still with us? There's my friend.
Senator King.
Senator King. I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Dr.
Zacharia, I want to thank you again for the wonderful visit
that I had at Oak Ridge with our friend and former member of
this Committee, Lamar Alexander. It is incredible what you are
doing there, and I want to thank you for that.
Second, I want to join my friend, Senator Barrasso, in the
emphasis and discussion of EPSCoR. I think it is a critically
important program and, frankly, I think we are leaving
discoveries on the table if we do not empower these wonderful
institutions that are not in the heart of the research
ecosystem, but places like University of Wyoming, Montana, the
University of Maine, all across the country. There is a lot of
talent there, and EPSCoR is the key to unlocking it. I hope we
can continue to support that, and I certainly look forward to
working with Senator Barrasso on that.
Let me ask a couple of, sort of, narrower questions. One of
the most promising technologies for the future of a carbon-free
world is nuclear fusion. Dr. Binkley, where are we on fusion?
And does fusion entail the same waste disposal problem that
fission entails?
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you very much, Senator King and we--and
we certainly appreciate your visit to Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Fusion offers tremendous opportunity of clean, renewable
energy for the future. That said, there is tremendous amount of
work that needs to be done. And the fact that the U.S. is part
of the International ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor) Project, that is the first demonstration
of nuclear fusion capability. But we are also leading the
domestic activities in the Materials Plasma Exposure
Experiment, which is important because taking part out of the
fusion plasma and delivering on the greater sum piece of
technology that need to be demonstrated.
And of course, it also needs to--we have lots of work to be
done, and there's tremendous interest in the private sector, in
working with the national labs and in this--and academia to
advance some of these issues and challenges.
Senator King. Let me press you. You said opportunity; you
said in the future. Are we talking 2 years, 5 years, 10 years,
20 years? Be more specific. How close are we?
Dr. Zacharia. Well, I think----
Senator King. For commercial applications.
Dr. Zacharia. So certainly there are--we are working with
industry partners who believe that they can demonstrate fusion
power in the next five to 10 years, which is--which is in the
event horizon that we need to be paying close attention to. But
it's also important to recognize there are lots of challenges
that go along with that as well.
Senator King. Let me follow up on a different thing, and
perhaps this could be something you could follow up with our
Committee. It strikes me that the relationship Oak Ridge has
with the University of Maine, which is a kind of hub-and-spoke
memorandum of understanding, is a promising model. We talked
about EPSCoR, but this is another way that we can tap some of
the talent and work that is going on around the country.
So you do not really need to respond to that, except I hope
you will say it is working well. But then, share with the
Committee how that has worked, and that could be a model for
other of the national labs, it seems to me.
Dr. Zacharia. I completely agree and would be delighted to
submit a detailed answer for the record.
Senator King. Let me ask one final question of Dr. Binkley.
One of the most successful scientific research and development
projects in living memory was Xerox Park, or is Xerox Park,
which was a kind of, unusual arrangement where a group of very
smart people were gathered together without a particular
mission. I mean, I know this runs counter to all of our
instincts about, you know, missions and definitions and
deliverables and all those kinds of things. But they created
the laser printer, ethernet, the gooey interface--I mean, it
was one of the most incredible outbursts of creativity and
technology and science. And many people say it was because they
brought smart people together; they did not give them an
assignment. They said, think about the future of technology and
come up with some ideas.
Is there space in all of this money that we are talking
about for a kind of Xerox Park model around the country, rather
than the narrowly focused grant for a specific problem of
carbon capture or storage, or whatever?
Dr. Binkley. Senator, thank you for that question. It's an
interesting concept. I'm pretty familiar with the Xerox Park
model. I'm also very familiar with the AT&T Bell Labs model,
where there was, essentially--there were certainly technologies
that Bell Labs really wanted to mature, so that they could be
fed into the telecommunications infrastructure. But there was--
you know, they had a significant part of the organization that
had scientists that were, essentially, allowed to, you know,
run free with ideas. But there was--beyond that, there was a
coupling, through the Western Electric part of AT&T, to
actually get these things into product space, which I think was
absent in the Xerox Park model.
Senator King. Well, the Xerox Park model worked, but it
worked better for Apple than it did for Xerox because of Steve
Jobs realizing what he--what was going on there. But I just--I
am out of time, but I would commend some thought given, if we
are talking about billions and billions and billions of
dollars. I do not think Xerox Park was terribly expensive, and
that may be--there may be a role for a little, sort of, set
aside, literal, think tanks, in the sense of science
development.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this important hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Now we have Senator
Marshall. You have to be quick here.
Senator Marshall. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you for
letting me hop on this real quickly here.
I think I am going to start with Dr. Zacharia. I want you
to talk a little bit about the future of nuclear, and
specifically, thorium reactors--some of their advantages and
disadvantages, as you see it.
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you very much for that important
question. I think, first of all, nuclear energy, nuclear
fission and fusion, particularly nuclear fission is a critical
component of the all-of-the-above strategy. And it is a really
important carbon-free source of power.
Now there is quite a bit of work that is being done in
thorium-based reactor technologies. Obviously, the laboratory
has, in its past, pursued this technology, and it has some
promising opportunity, and it's being pursued elsewhere.
Now we have in this country recently selected number of
interesting, advanced reactor demonstration projects. I think
this is a promising way to continue to move forward, including
small model reactors, particularly to achieve net zero carbon
emission.
Senator Marshall. I appreciate that answer and just a
little bit more follow-up on it. I am very concerned that China
is really leading the way with this molten salt reactor
technology. They have invested three times the amount that we
are. If we are ever going to get to a totally electric
transportation sector, I cannot think any way of getting there
without nuclear.
So maybe my follow-up question, are you supportive of
halting the down blending of U233 to study its potential use as
a nuclear energy fuel source?
Dr. Zacharia. Senator, I think there are opportunities to
continue to work on molten salt reactors. U233 material, if it
is in the form of mixed waste, it may be not the most viable
approach. It really depends on the source of the material, and
I'll be happy to follow up with a detailed answer for the
record.
Senator Marshall. Thank you. Dr. Binkley, I think we could
go back to you. I have a feeling you have some opinions on
this, as well, regarding thorium reactors and their safety
compared to traditional reactors and what their future looks
like.
Dr. Binkley. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think,
going along the lines of what Thomas Zacharia said, I think we
would be happy to respond to that as a detailed question for
the record.
Senator Marshall. Okay. Dr. Seidel, any thoughts on
nuclear?
Dr. Seidel. Thank you very much for the question. I do have
thoughts on nuclear.
Senator Marshall. Okay, good, good.
Dr. Seidel. I will just say that there is a demonstration
project that is beginning in the State of Wyoming for advanced
nuclear reactor technology that would be commercialized in
collaboration with TerraPower, the Department of Energy, and
the State of Wyoming. And we're very excited by that. There
have been really revolutionary advances in the reactor
technologies, and I think that they really provide a lot of
promise in the relatively short-term.
Senator Marshall. Great. Dr. Binkley, I will go back to you
and talk a little bit about biofuels. Do you have an opinion on
what the impact would be on tailpipe emissions, if this entire
country would go to ethanol 15 year-round, or E30 year-round?
Dr. Binkley. I'm not sure I'm expert enough to answer that
question.
Senator Marshall. Okay. All righty. Any of our panelists
have any experience with biofuels, particularly with biodiesel
and renewable diesel and what those opportunities look like for
America? Go ahead.
Dr. Seidel. I was just in a camper van that had a diesel
engine and like the idea of biodiesel.
[Laughter.]
Senator Marshall. There you go. Well, let me educate you.
Let me educate you all. You know, we have these huge packing
plants in Kansas, and one of the byproducts, of course, is the
fat. And we are turning that into biodiesel, renewable diesel.
I think it has an incredibly improved carbon footprint, and it
is technology we have today. It is not technology that we are
waiting on 10 or 20 years in the hope that we can all sit down
and talk a little bit more about the great opportunities for
biofuels.
Thank you so much, Chairman, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. That was such an
enlightening question, there, and answer.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman and
Ranking Member Barrasso. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
I am so pleased that Senator Barrasso led with EPSCoR.
Thank you, because I agree with him 100 percent. And I know, if
President Sandoval, from the University of Nevada-Reno, were
sitting where you are, Dr. Seidel, he would be saying the same
thing.
Now I do have to say, this has been an incredible program
and partnership with the University of Nevada-Reno in Nevada.
We are very, very proud of it and was so delighted to see that
DOE recently provided the University of Nevada-Reno with a
nearly $2.5 million grant for quantum information sciences and
quantum computing. So thank you. There is a great partnership.
I would like to see it more prominent. I do agree that if we
can populate these advisory committees with EPSCoR states doing
more in this space, I am 100 percent for it. So I look forward
to working with all of you.
Let me jump back to critical minerals here. Dr. Zacharia,
your written testimony states that the Office of Science and
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy support
the U.S. manufacturing sector with research that helps to
secure supply chains of critical minerals. Looking ahead, what
do you see as the primary role for national labs in fostering
the development of a domestic, critical mineral supply chain?
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you very much for the question,
Senator. The lab--as I mentioned, there is the Office of
Science and Applied Energy programs who are actively working on
critical--critical minerals that are necessary. There is a
critical minerals hub that is led by Ames at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory that actively participates.
So the number of approaches that we'd like to take, in
partnership with industry, one is to find an alternative to the
current critical minerals that are necessary to advance things
like storage, etc. The other one, also, I believe is an
opportunity to recycle existing things, like batteries and hard
drives. And right now, we are working with industry to scale up
the recycling and reuse of these--these critical materials from
things that we have already used. We have already proven that
it can be done, and the opportunity is to work with industry to
scale this up to make it much more cost competitive and
affordable.
Senator Cortez Masto. Excuse me, thank you. And you, kind
of, segued right into the area that I wanted to talk to you
about, which was battery recycling. Because you note that fewer
than five percent of lithium-ion batteries are recycled in the
U.S. today and that DOE is funding research partnerships with
both public and private partners. And as you may be aware,
Nevada produces lithium, but it also has a growing battery
manufacturing and recycling industry, all of which are working
well together to reduce our need to resource materials from
other countries and increase domestic job opportunities.
What else should we be doing, Dr. Zacharia, to further
encourage and incentivize the deployment of this technology?
And let me ask you this. In the current bipartisan
infrastructure package that we are debating on the floor right
now, I supported a provision to establish two DOE battery and
components manufacturing grant programs--$3 billion for the
Office of Fossil Energy and $3 billion for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. This would be for demonstration
construction or retrofit projects at facilities, either
publicly or privately owned, regarding manufacturing of--excuse
me, battery recycling. Is that the type of incentive we need?
Should we be doing more? And that's for Dr. Zacharia.
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you, Senator. Secretary Granholm
recently unveiled a national blueprint for lithium batteries.
And there is--the blueprint articulates five goals to secure
access to raw and refined materials, and all the way to
maintain advance in U.S. battery technology leadership by
supporting scientific R&D, STEM education, and workforce
development. So that report is available. I certainly--and I
think that investing in support of that national blueprint
would be a compelling way to address this challenge.
If I may also add, since I am a product of an EPSCoR
state--I started out at the University of Mississippi--I just
wanted to say that there is talent everywhere, and I just want
to echo that there is an opportunity to strongly engage, and we
continue to engage. One of the things that is not obvious is
that Department of Energy Office of Science directly funds
universities, but there is also tremendous amount of funding
that is made available through the laboratories to these
universities in the form of partnerships, joint faculty
programs, undergraduate students, and graduate students. So
strengthening all those things would be important.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Gentleman, thank you
again.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for a
wonderful panel, and Ranking Member Barrasso, as well. Let me
take this thing off.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Seidel, when I was Governor of
Colorado and Matt Mead was Governor of Wyoming, we used to joke
about someday getting rid of the boundary between our two
states. We were not quite sure whether we would call it Wyorado
or Coloroming, but we recognized one of the great strengths we
had was the--this scientific muscle at the University of
Wyoming, and at both the University of Colorado and Colorado
School of Mines--I know there are a number of research programs
between the two. In many cases we can look at the federal labs
down the road, but especially with Zoom, and after having gone
through the pandemic, do you see that we can develop
university-national laboratory partnerships that extend across
the country and empower our students, even those who may live
very far away from a national lab? And is there some way we can
really build that muscle at this moment of investment into our
scientific community?
Dr. Seidel. Thanks, Senator Hickenlooper, for the question.
And in fact, we do have a border war between our universities
of Colorado State and University of Wyoming.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Seidel. But we're very, very friendly. So I would just
say, to your question, it's very, very clear that we can
develop much deeper partnerships, and there are many ways of
doing it. And the last year and a half has really shown us that
virtual collaboration is, perhaps not as effective as actually
sitting down and really talking together, but it can go a long,
long way. And in fact, a lot of people, for example, have moved
from the Bay Area to Wyoming and other rural states, right now,
but they manage to continue to be very, very productive in
their work. And I think it's a model that we need to think
about how better to support.
But back to the point of national labs. I think that would
be a very critical way--we have Zoom sessions with people that
have--Steve Ashby at PNNL (Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory), or Paul Kearns at Argonne National Lab, quite
regularly now. And so I think we can use that very effectively.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. That's the right answer. Just
kidding.
Dr. Binkley, it is well established the increase in carbon
in our atmosphere dramatically, almost an exponential rise. And
direct air capture does offer a path of how to get carbon out
of the atmosphere. That is assuming we can stop putting more
and more carbon into the atmosphere--stop emitting the carbon.
But I think scaling up will require R&D, with an eye toward
commercialization.
I have two questions. What is the role of the Office of
Science in that scaling? And you have talked about this a
little bit, but I also want to ask you, and maybe all three
people, as we expand our investment into innovation and really
begin to push our scientific community to help us solve these
vexing challenges around climate change, how do we scale up
efficiently? In other words--and make sure that we have a
consistent source of funding? In other words, in that I
include, how do we make sure that we keep lines of
communication open so that the Senate and the House and America
are aware of the progress we are making? Too many questions in
one.
Dr. Binkley. Thank you for the question, Senator. In the
case of direct air capture--yes, direct air capture of carbon,
the scaling problem, there are some fundamental science issues
associated with that. And the Office of Science can contribute
to this by doing the basic research. It has to do with
separation science, and we are actively involved in getting
into that area.
As far as the innovation is concerned, I think that--that,
again, thinking about this in the context of post-pandemic,
it's much easier, I think, these days to build very, very
productive partnerships that allow us to engage broader
sections of society scientists to advance these technologies.
And I look forward to seeing that actually happen.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Anybody else want to comment
on that or also, how do we make sure that we keep everyone
informed and make sure we maintain this expanded funding to
push the frontiers of innovation? Dr. Zacharia?
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you, Senator. Again, as Dr. Binkley
said, there are both fundamental issues that--that in
separation science that need to be worked on in advancing
direct air capture technologies.
But one of the things that the national laboratory also
offers is the connectivity between the fundamental science and
the applied energy programs to scale up and working with
industry. And indeed, I think that's very important to continue
to engage, also, new students and graduate--you know, and
faculty members and universities, as we move this technology
forward. There are some really deep challenges, but also the
payoff is significant.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right. I am out of time so I will let
it rest at that. But I would argue that we are going to have to
scale up dramatically. We are going to have to make this a
national mission for young people to get involved in science
and technology in the early parts of their studies.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
you and the Ranking Member for holding this important hearing.
It could not come at a more important time, as we discuss R&D
budgeting for the future. And one thing I believe is,
definitely, that the national labs should, in the American
Competes Act--or as some now are calling it, USICA--gets it's
fair share of R&D dollars for the future.
I wanted to ask you, Dr. Binkley about what--why is it so
essential for us to keep this investment moving, particularly
as it relates to the grid? I look at our challenges with the
grid, and I see huge opportunities with energy efficiency and
moving power around cost effectively and diversifying and
integrating with new resources, particularly on the storage
side. And I also see the challenge of cybersecurity and the
needs for us to harden our grid from these kinds of attacks. Do
you have any comments about why these levels of investment are
important to keep those initiatives going?
Dr. Binkley. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. I
think it gets back to your proposition that, you know, we--we
do need to find a way to make the grid more reliable and more
efficient. After all, it's a key part of electrification, and
there certainly is a lot of work to be done in there, in that
area, especially in the cyber realm, as we've seen in the last
couple of months.
And so there need to be continued investments in
cybersecurity, technologies to better protect the grid, and
then, also, technologies, like storage, for example, on the
grid there need to be--there needs to be a deeper capacity in
those areas. And so you know, I think continued investments
across the board in those areas are really necessary.
Senator Cantwell. Do you venture to say it will cost us if
we do not do them?
Dr. Binkley. Yes, I would say that. You know, if you look
at some of the grid failures that have occurred, some of them
induced by weather conditions, some of them induced by
wildfires, and so on, and some just because of the aging of the
infrastructure.
Senator Cantwell. Or a cyberattack.
Dr. Binkley. Or a cyberattack, yes.
Senator Cantwell. I mean, this seems to be the new thing is
to, let's see how much intimidation we can drive through
infiltrating power plants or pipelines, things of that nature.
Dr. Seidel, you mentioned our dear Dr. Ashby, and thank you
for doing that. We are very proud of what they do at PNNL. Do
you have any thoughts on this subject, just the R&D level and
initiatives that we need to better upgrade and protect our
electricity grid?
Dr. Seidel. I do. Thank you for the question. I see the
USICA Act as really addressing American competitiveness in a
very broad sense, and at the root of that is investment in
basic science. But then, it very specifically tries to connect
it to other parts of the ecosystem so that we can innovate.
If the power grid comes down because of any reason, and
cyberattack will be more and more of concern, it really hurts
our competitiveness in terms of our economy. There will be
massive issues as electricity may be not available because of
some failure.
So we really need to pay attention to this, and we have an
increasing need for power throughout the country, as well. So
all of these things are important, but there are many
components, including, as Dr. Binkley said, for example, around
energy storage, to make sure that there are sufficient
reserves, at least for short-term disruptions in power.
So it has to do with cybersecurity. It has to do with
battery storage. It has to do with alternate sources of energy
that all contribute to this, including nuclear, including
solar, and including wind. And so all of these, collectively,
help provide a more stable power grid. But then, of course,
it's subject to potential disruption through cyberattacks.
Senator Cantwell. So do you think hardening of the grid
is--should be a national priority?
Dr. Seidel. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. I have just a few more
questions, and I think Senator Barrasso does as well. I am not
sure if Senator Cantwell does. Or if Senator Hickenlooper has
any more questions either. I am going to introduce another
round, very quickly, if we do, okay?
So to any or all of you--how close are we to achieving
technologies needed to capture and utilize carbon dioxide? Not
just to sequester it underground, but to use it as a value-
added waste product? Doctor? Anybody? Please? Yes.
Dr. Zacharia. Senator, thank you for the question.
Obviously, carbon is a valuable source that can be converted to
a number of practical applications. Both--both, you know, coal
refuse, as well as carbon that have been captured, that can
then be converted to carbon--you know, low-cost carbon fiber
applications, as well as other valuable products.
Obviously, there is quite a bit of research that is going
on in this area as well as where we are working with industry
to begin to start thinking about scale up. An important area
would be things like graphene, as well as carbon electrodes
where, again, there are some important activities that are
going on.
The Chairman. Doctor, I know that you all were involved in
the 1980s with the Clean Air Act, with socks and knocks,
particulates, baghouses, and all the things that we were able
to do to clean up the environment by coal-fired plants, many of
them in my state. Now CO2 has become the great
challenge, and we came up with carbon capture sequestration
utilization.
We figured out that we could take clear stream carbon off.
We can basically liquify it, we can pressurize it, and we can
put it in the ground. But it was very, very costly. And unless
there is going to be an added value to that--unless you have
enhanced oil recovery, which we do not have, or pipelines to
transport CO2, which is very challenging--it
basically eliminates a tremendous amount of this type of energy
that is produced for our country. And if we do that in such a
hasty way, we have no way of being energy independent, and the
transition is going to put us in a perilous situation. That is
what I am concerned about.
I know the transition is coming. We understand that. But
with that, are we prepared, or are we not doing enough? Because
I would have thought, by now, that we could have at least found
a way to solidify it and use it as a byproduct in the building
blocks, if you will. It seems that we have not gotten there
yet.
Now I have another question, too. Where are we on
developing the technologies that would eliminate any type of
methane escape from our drilling process or our production of
natural gas? Because we know it is a tremendous, harmful
element to our environment, and I thought that we had that,
pretty much, under control. But I am understanding there is
still an awful lot of methane escape when we are drilling and
extracting. Doctor, would you know about that, what you all
have done, or any of the labs have done on that?
Dr. Binkley.
Dr. Binkley. So there is work going on in the labs in that
area. It's a pretty vexing problem, though, because, you know,
the fugitive emissions from sources like that, a lot of the
control really has to be taken at the source. You know, it's
not a--it's not a scientific problem. It's more of an
engineering problem.
The Chairman. Yes. In the Eastern part of the United
States, you know, we do an awful lot of capturing. Out West
they have not. And the reason I found is that they cannot get
permits for pipelines to take the methane. So is it a situation
where they want to have a way to pick on it, if you will, and
stop all drilling on BLM lands, and things of this sort?
We need production of energy. And the new technologies
coming on--I am all for renewables. I am all for storage. I am
all for all of this. But I am not for accelerating getting rid
of what has gotten us to where we are today and keeps us energy
independent. And there is a proper transition that should go
on, and I want to make sure that we do not accelerate that to
the point of our own detriment. That is my concern. And I do
not know if we are moving.
How did we get so quickly to socks and knocks? How do we
have scrubbers? You know, I grew up in a time with all the
power plants around us, and my mother had a hard time putting
her wash out. I remember all those days. That went by the
wayside. By the 1990s, we were out of that. All we had was just
vapor. But there was CO2 going up into the air, and
they went and said, Okay, let's get rid of that, too.
We have not made very many advances from the 1990s to
present, in the last 20 years, as quickly as we did with socks
and knocks, in particular. It is a mockery. We gave a lot of
money to you all.
Dr. Binkley. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Doctor, do you have anything you would like
to say on this? How come we are not advancing our technology as
quickly as we did with the Clean Air Act back in the 1980s and
1990s?
Dr. Seidel. Senator, my comment is more on the use of coal,
for example, around the materials science and other
applications that it can bring. We have a very active research
program in energy resources, at the University of Wyoming. Coal
is not, necessarily, as useful in the future as an energy
source, but it may have many, many other values that could be
brought to market.
The Chairman. We know that. I will stop at this. West
Virginia has just--has just basically patented a microchip made
out of carbon. It is not going to be manufactured in a sterile
environment. It is low-cost. It seems to have good
conductivity. Everyone seems to think it is going to work and
work well because you can see in the chip shortages we have
right now. So we are looking at some of that.
We are also showing, on a commercial scale, that we can
take rare earth minerals out of the way stream from coal. So we
have an awful lot of that in the Eastern part of the United
States, especially that we can basically recover an awful lot
of material that we now are dependent upon for in supply
chains. So there is so much that can be done, and we need to
advance this as quickly as possible.
With that, I am going to turn to Senator Barrasso. Thank
you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Binkley,
we have had an entire hearing here, earlier this year, on
making sure that our research does not fall into the wrong
hands. What is the Department of Energy doing to ensure
research funding and research results do not go to groups and
individuals with ties to our adversaries, like China or Iran?
We are concerned about leaks from universities to other places.
Could you discuss that?
Dr. Binkley. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
Actually, it's a very serious problem, very serious issue, not
only for the Department of Energy, but also for the other parts
of the federal research enterprise, like the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and
even the DOD. They put a lot of research dollars into
universities.
Our approach, within the Department of Energy, is sort of
two pronged. One is focused on the national laboratories. And
you know, we have developed a list of, what we consider to be
critical and emerging technologies and have used the expertise
in the labs to understand what aspects of those areas--quantum
information sciences, for example--need to be protected better.
And it's not really feasible to use classification to protect
it. I mean, it really requires a judgment on the part of
scientists to understand where the real risks are. And so we
have implemented that across the national laboratory complex.
And then, we're now turning our attention to what to do
about the research grants that we provide to universities--
principal investigators in universities, and so on, which is
governed under a different set of rules. You know, when it
comes to the national laboratories, they're actually under
contract to the Department of Energy. And so we can put
provisions in their contracts that require them to do certain
things.
In the case of financial assistance that we provide to
universities, the rules are really different. And there, what
we're doing is working across the government with the other
federal agencies that provide financial assistance to
universities, to have more consistent reporting be made by
principal investigators who are proposing to get funding.
Reporting on, essentially, sources of income that they have,
ties that they have to foreign organizations, and so on, so
that information is required up front when a principal
investigator submits a proposal for consideration to be funded.
And so we've been working on this, actually, for over a
year in the interagency process. It's progressing. I know,
specifically, within the Department of Energy, we are about to
undergo a rulemaking step where we put out, for public comment,
proposed changes in the way we do financial assistance. And
that, I think, would be the first real step in protecting
information.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate the thoroughness. Dr.
Zacharia, anything you want to add on that?
Dr. Zacharia. Thank you, Senator. As Dr. Binkley mentioned,
it is--it is really both an important problem, because I truly
believe that economic security is national security. And what
is truly challenging with some of these technology areas, as we
continue to learn and mature, we have to be vigilant that the
United States has the ability to protect itself. And we do that
by working very closely with the Department of Energy and
Office of Science in ensuring that the work that we do is both
advancing the science and innovation while protecting the
outcomes of that work.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Dr. Binkley, is there more
that this Office of Science can do to build research capacities
at universities in EPSCoR states? You have heard the importance
of it from all the members today.
Dr. Binkley. Yes, Senator, and thank you for the question.
Yes, the short answer is yes, we can devote more funding to the
EPSCoR program, per say.
But I think, also, the other tact that we are taking now
is, whenever we have a funding opportunity announcement, one of
the items that we track very carefully is whether or not we're
getting principal investigators from EPSCoR states to submit
proposals to those funding opportunity announcements.
We're also strengthening our communication with EPSCoR
universities to make them aware of the opportunities and trying
to cultivate more EPSCoR state principal investigators to
submit proposals for our funding opportunities.
I think we have to do all of those, across the board, in
order to strengthen the participation of the EPSCoR states.
Senator Barrasso. And then, Dr. Seidel, once again, thanks
for being here from the University of Wyoming. Is there
anything additional that you would like to add to some of the
things you have heard this morning?
Dr. Seidel. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Well, I would say
that, not only EPSCoR funding within DOE needs to be increased
and more effectively used. I think that's important. But all
other kinds of programs, for example, building bridges between
the national labs and universities across the region, but
particularly--across the country, but particularly in rural
regions. I think it's extremely important, and as we're already
discovering, there are lots of opportunities that just aren't
tapped yet. And so making that available, in terms of those
relationships and building them--finding good ways to build
them, will pay real dividends.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator--Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. What are those opportunities that are not
tapped?
Dr. Seidel. Well, for example, the fact that there is so
much talent in our rural areas that don't even realize that
there are these opportunities. So this, in fact, goes all the
way down into the schools--elementary schools. So building up
the awareness. We're building a statewide school of computing
in the State of Wyoming--or, we have proposed to do so. And I
would say that, when I talk to the community college partners,
they're saying the students coming out of the schools are not
necessarily thinking that they could have a career in
technology because their parents didn't and their parents
before didn't, and so on.
So we really need to think about how to reach in and
partner with the schools and the superintendents and so on. And
the DOE can actually play a role by partnering with us, and we
will partner with the community colleges and the schools, in
order to grow that awareness. So that's one aspect of it.
Another one is just making sure that there are
relationships and there's funding to build the exchange of
students and postdocs between the labs. And once they get
hooked, then they build those long-term relationships with the
faculty. Then we'll have more faculty applying directly for
programs, as Dr. Binkley pointed out.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I am a whole-hearted believer in
this, and we have changed the EPSCoR program to work more
effectively in the USICA Act because of this. I mean, I am very
proud of Seattle's high-tech economy. It has taken decades to
build. But there is a lot to the Information Age and a lot more
innovation. And so the more thousand flowers that can bloom,
the more thousand flowers that can bloom.
To me, this is about empowering communities all across the
United States, because you never know what someone is going to
come up with. And that is why we have to do better here in
making all those connections. It is interesting that both
partnership and exchange--those are some of the comments we
have gotten in the Commerce Committee as well.
I wanted to go back to material science, because I think
that is a big area in USICA and, clearly, something from the
energy front that we should be spending more time on. Do you
have any thoughts, Dr. Seidel, about graphene or other material
sciences that you think some of the universities, who are not
quite in the mix right now, could be contributing on the energy
side, if we were putting more energy dollars at play?
Dr. Seidel. Well, materials are important in so many
different applications, whether it's in the energy space or in
microelectronics and so on. So it is absolutely fundamental to
many parts of our economy, many parts of our research base, and
so on.
I would say that universities need to organize themselves
better, to be better prepared. So for example, we have recently
proposed moving some of our basic science units from the
College of Arts and Sciences into the College of Engineering,
because materials are sometimes carried out within physics,
sometimes within chemical engineering, sometimes within
chemistry, and these live in different parts of the university.
So my message in part is to make sure that universities are
well-configured so that they can build materials programs that
are then able to contribute even more strongly to the national
materials infrastructure.
Another piece of this is around computing. Computing is
absolutely essential, and I grew up in the world of modeling
and simulation, so it's amazing that you can simulate on an
exascale computer, hundreds of millions of atoms. But using
artificial intelligence techniques completely revolutionizes
that field. So investments in computing, as applied to these
other areas, is really where part of the revolution is going to
be.
Senator Cantwell. Well, and me, personally, I feel like
this is where we could also excel in manufacturing. Because,
when you think about that kind of information on material
sciences to alleviate mistakes and get manufacturing done more
cost effectively, it is not something every country is going to
be able to do. I guarantee you, the race to build airplanes is
on, around the globe. But there's no reason why we should not
be leaders in the material science aspect of lighter-weight
materials for aerospace or cars or trucks or, you know, a whole
variety of things.
Dr. Seidel. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. Dr. Binkley, did you have a comment on
that?
Dr. Binkley. You know, I learned early on that, you know,
when it comes to things that can impact the economy, and also
national security, it all hinges around materials. And so you
know, a very, very strong thrust within the Office of Science
programs is material science. That's one of the largest
subprograms in the overall program. And you know, continued
investments in that area, I think, are really important. There
are new materials yet to be discovered. Look at what happened
with the Buckyball and graphene, and so on. You know, those
were major breakthroughs, and there are yet--materials yet to
be discovered.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I am sitting here with my two
colleagues who--I am pretty sure we do not see eye to eye on
all energy policy, but I see this huge opportunity on material
sciences. And I just feel like this is so important to us,
also. You know, I am also sitting here with, you know,
companies in my state who literally have hundreds of millions
of dollars of product sitting, not being able to be delivered
because they do not have the semiconductor chips to actually
put into the final product.
So, to me, this is what USICA should be about. But we
should also be about building capacity in West Virginia and
Wyoming, and other places, on these areas. There's just so much
to do here to be competitive on material science. So I hope
that we will do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. And just finally, I want to thank
all three of you for appearing today. It was very enlightening.
I would just say this--how close are you all coordinating,
especially for our labs, with NSF, National Science Foundation?
I think you are all probably aware that we just invested
with this new competitive bill we have, the Endless Frontier,
$22 billion for the tech directorate. You all should--you know,
we are talking about EPSCoR and everything else. It seems like
there's a natural--you know, we are not going to try and
reinvent the wheel here. We want to make sure we just get the
wheel more efficient.
So I do not know how close you all are talking. Is there
any coordination going on between your labs and NSF?
Dr. Binkley. Well, the coordination, Senator, is done
primarily between the federal side of the Office of Science and
the other agencies that are involved.
The Chairman. So we will talk to DOE, then. Basically, the
DOE?
Dr. Binkley. It's--well, it's DOE talking to NSF talking
to----
The Chairman. I got you.
Dr. Binkley. NIH, and so on.
The Chairman. You all--on your level, you have--it has not
come down to you yet, is what you are saying.
Dr. Binkley. No, it's at my level.
The Chairman. Okay.
Dr. Binkley. And--and let me pick on quantum information
sciences----
The Chairman. Yes.
Dr. Binkley [continuing]. As an example. We have very, very
close coordination between ourselves, between DOE--which
includes both the Office of Science and the National Nuclear
Security Administration, because there's work on quantum done
on that side. So we have coordination with the National Science
Foundation, with Department of Defense. We have mid-level to
senior managers from across those agencies that meet regularly.
We have annual program manager meetings, where we get all of
the QIS (quantum information science) program managers from
across the government together to go through what, you know,
each person is doing, what they're funding, what their
priorities are.
The Chairman. Let me just--let me make sure that--I think,
between myself and Senator Barrasso, pretty much feels the same
way. We want to make sure it is not redundant. We want to make
sure that we are not creating silos. We want to make sure that
the money that the American people are investing, through our
Treasury, is going to get a return on that investment. That
means, basically, getting the maximum use of what we already
have.
Dr. Binkley. Absolutely, sir.
The Chairman. Okay.
Dr. Binkley. And that's exactly what we're trying to do,
and we do that in the machine-learning AI area----
The Chairman. Well, we are going to bring--we will be
bringing you back frequently to keep us updated on how you are
doing.
Dr. Binkley. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Okay?
Dr. Binkley. Be glad to do that.
The Chairman. Okay. Let me thank you--I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Senator Cantwell. Just on that point, though, I just want
to clarify because the question--we do believe the DOE should
have more lab--should also have more dollars in USICA.
Dr. Binkley. Yes.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Binkley. Okay.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. This is a--I think you said it
earlier when you were talking about how important--there is not
an issue of national security or, you know, competitiveness
that does not come back to the material science aspect. So
there is work that NSF can do, but there is very important work
that the national labs need to continue to do. And so this is a
very big component. I just want to make sure that, Mr.
Chairman, again, that we are advancing the agenda of the
national labs, in addition to our competitiveness in other
areas like, EPSCoR and----
The Chairman. I think we are all on the same page,
absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, okay, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you again, all of you, for being here.
We appreciate your input and also your testimony.
The members will have until close of business tomorrow to
submit additional questions for the record.
Thank you again. Meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]