[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]