    [Senate Hearing 117-275]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 117-275

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

    			S. 2232         S. 3428
    			S. 2302         S. 3699
    			S. 2733         H.R. 3119
    			S. 2896

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2022

                                   __________

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

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                   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
                     Brie Van Cleve, Senior Energy Advisor
                 Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                  Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
          Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy

                               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........................................................     3

                                    WITNESS

    Richmond, Hon. Geraldine, Under Secretary for Science and
      Innovation,
      U.S. Department of Energy......................................     4

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Map showing EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions....................    32
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Richmond, Hon. Geraldine:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    44

                                    ----------

    The text for each of the bills that were addressed in this hearing can
    be found at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2022/3/full-
    committee-hearing-to-consider-pending-legislation

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022

                                           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. Before we turn to the legislation before us
    today, I want to take a moment to acknowledge Russia's invasion
    of Ukraine and how Putin has used energy as a weapon to gain
    leverage over our European allies. One thing that has not been
    talked about as much is that during this time of war, the
    United States is still importing more than a half a million
    barrels per day of crude oil and other petroleum products from
    Russia, with imports up over 20 percent in 2021 over 2020. To
    me, it makes no sense at all for us to rely on energy from a
    country that is actively engaging in acts of war against a
    freedom-seeking democracy in Ukraine, when we were blessed with
    abundant energy resources right here in America. There is no
    reason why the United States should not be totally energy
    independent, or at the very least, trading with our allies
    where we need to. This is the only way to ensure our energy
    security. It is hypocritical for us to ask others to do what we
    can do for ourselves--and that is asking the OPEC+, if you
    will--when it comes to producing energy that we and our allies
    need.
        It is time for the Administration to take strong action to
    unleash American energy, up to and including banning Russian
    oil imports at a time when they are attacking our allies. Our
    oil and gas industry partners also need to come to the table
    and do the right thing for our country and the consumers that
    rely on their product. We are going to continue talking about
    these issues in the coming days and weeks because energy
    security and energy independence must be top-of-mind for all of
    us.
        But for today, our hearing will focus on seven energy
    bills, five of which are bipartisan. Our agenda is short today,
    in large part because we did a lot of good work earlier in this
    Congress, and many of my colleagues' bills were included in
    whole or in part in the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill. The
    bills on the agenda today pertain to advancing the Department
    of Energy's cutting-edge research and development programs and
    infrastructure, as well as relating to managing Department of
    Energy funds, functions, and authorities. I would like to thank
    my colleague, Senator Barrasso, for working with me on two of
    these bills--the DOE Science for the Future Act, together with
    Senators Durbin and Blackburn, and also the Fission for the
    Future Act. The DOE Science for the Future Act authorizes
    fundamental research and development activities performed by
    scientists at the Department of Energy, the National Labs,
    universities, and private companies to advance our
    understanding of the atom, the cell, the Earth system, and the
    universe. These scientific endeavors involve the most advanced
    scientific instruments in the world, from the fastest computers
    to the brightest light sources, and so much more. The Office of
    Science is a critical piece of the United States' ability to
    advance human knowledge of the sciences, and in carrying out
    the mission, it advances a critical and ultimately non-partisan
    aspect of our society. We also expanded the ways the DOE's
    Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research--or
    EPSCoR for short--can support universities in states like mine,
    West Virginia, and Wyoming and New Mexico and many others to
    boost our competitive research capabilities everywhere, not
    just in elite schools.
        West Virginia is one of 24 EPSCoR states, most of which are
    represented on this Committee, where EPSCoR funds have been
    critical for advancing fundamental university research,
    including at our own West Virginia University. The House
    included their version of an Office of Science authorization in
    the America COMPETES bill, and we look forward to working out
    any differences there might be in conference soon so that the
    China package can get to the President's desk. The House bill
    also included Senator Lujan's bill, which is on our agenda
    today, to fund deferred maintenance, infrastructure needs, and
    updates for our National Labs. I appreciate Senator Lujan's
    leadership on the National Labs and his partnership in ensuring
    they are treated as the crown jewels that they are of our
    nation's research and innovation ecosystem.
        I would also like to bring attention to the Fission for the
    Future Act, which Ranking Member Barrasso and I introduced in
    December. The bill directs the Secretary to work with
    communities or with retiring or retired fossil generation
    facilities to determine the feasibility of constructing
    advanced nuclear power plants. This bill is an important
    building block to assist in the economic revitalization of
    communities providing reliable baseload electricity and
    opportunities to attract industry to produce advanced
    materials, hydrogen, and other non-electric applications. Less
    than a month ago, my home state of West Virginia finally
    repealed the state ban on nuclear power. I strongly supported
    this move, in part because of the energy transition that has
    begun over the last few decades and continues to take place. We
    must be thinking about how to continue providing baseload
    power. Nuclear is an obvious choice, especially with the
    advanced technologies that hold such promise, and for shuttered
    coal plant sites that are already connected to the grid, it
    just makes common sense. So I look forward to discussing this
    bill today.
        With that, I am going to turn to my colleague, Senator
    Barrasso, for his opening remarks.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    and like you, before I turn to the subject of today's hearings,
    I want to say a few words about Ukraine. I would like to make
    it clear that this Committee stands with the people in the
    country of Ukraine. We condemn Russia's invasion in the
    strongest possible terms. Mr. Chairman, as you said yesterday,
    the United States can and must ramp up domestic energy
    production and increase access to our abundant resources and
    technologies to both protect our energy independence and
    support our allies around the globe. And we in the minority
    stand ready to ensure that our NATO allies and Ukraine have
    access to abundant American energy. We in the minority are
    ready to support additional exports of liquefied natural gas,
    of crude oil, of coal, and uranium from the United States. The
    United States has the energy resources to help our allies
    reduce their dependence on Russian energy. The United States
    has the energy resources to empower our allies to take tougher
    action against Russia. We have the energy resources to improve
    our economy and reduce inflation here at home. We just need the
    political wheel here in Washington to make that happen.
        Now I will turn to my remarks for the hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, today we are going to consider seven bills
    related to the Department of Energy. I will limit my comments
    to the three bills which I have introduced and co-sponsored.
    The first is S. 2302, a bill to ensure that the Assistant
    Secretary will lead the Department's Office of Cybersecurity,
    Energy Security, and Emergency Response. In March of last year,
    I, along with a bipartisan group of Senators on this Committee,
    wrote to the Secretary urging her to assign an Assistant
    Secretary to lead the Office of Cybersecurity. We explained
    that the last administration assigned an Assistant Secretary to
    head this office. We also explained that the role of the office
    would be diminished if a Senate-confirmed official did not lead
    it. Two months later, criminal hackers based in Eastern Europe
    stole data which led to the shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline.
    The shutdown caused gasoline and diesel fuel shortages. Prices
    spiked along the East Coast. More recently, the FBI and the
    Department of Homeland Security warned Americans to expect
    cyberattacks from Russian-backed actors. We were warned again--
    the Senators were--last night by the Chairman of the Department
    of Homeland Security. Despite these developments, the President
    has not nominated an Assistant Secretary to lead the
    Cybersecurity Office. The Department's latest reorganization
    plan also indicates we will not get such a nominee. My bill,
    with Senator Risch as co-sponsor, is companion legislation to a
    bipartisan bill that has already passed the House. There is no
    good reason for the Secretary to diminish the role of
    cybersecurity in that office. It is time for the Senate to act.
        The second bill is S. 3428, Chairman Manchin's Fission of
    the Future Act. I am the lead co-sponsor of the bill. It would
    provide financial assistance to states and other entities
    seeking to deploy advanced nuclear reactors. A growing number
    of states recognize that advanced nuclear reactors are a
    critical part of our energy future. My home State of Wyoming
    will be home to TerraPower's first Natrium reactor. The State
    of Washington will host X-energy's first advanced reactor. This
    bill will help states with licensing, developing, and
    construction of these reactors and related supply chain
    infrastructure.
        I have also co-sponsored S. 3699, Senator Manchin's bill to
    reauthorize the Department's Office of Science. This bill will
    significantly expand EPSCoR, which is the Established Program
    to Stimulate Competitive Research. For decades, the Department
    has overlooked research at universities in rural states. This
    bill will help ensure that universities like the University of
    Wyoming better compete for the Department's research dollars.
    The bill also establishes new basic research programs on carbon
    and rare-earth mineral extraction, underground storage of
    carbon dioxide, as well as nuclear energy. These new programs
    will help ensure that the Office of Science is conducting
    research to promote all types of American energy. In addition,
    the bill will help address our needs and our nation's needs for
    medical isotopes. Medical isotopes play a critical role in
    diagnosis and in treating diseases like cancer. For far too
    long we have been dependent on Russia and other countries for
    our supply of these isotopes. Sanctions may jeopardize our
    supply. This bill will boost domestic production of these
    isotopes and reduce our foreign dependence. Finally, the bill
    will reduce the risk that adversaries like China will steal
    research funded by the Office of Science. The bill will impose
    penalties on funding recipients who knowingly violate the
    Department's protocols to protect American research.
        I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership and his
    willingness to work with me on two of these important bills,
    and I hope he can also join me in supporting the third. I also
    want to thank our witness, Dr. Richmond. I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        And now we are going to turn to our witness for today's
    hearing, the Honorable Dr. Geri Richmond, Under Secretary for
    Science and Innovation at the Department of Energy, and we want
    to welcome you back.
        You may start.

       STATEMENT OF HON. GERALDINE RICHMOND, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
           SCIENCE AND INNOVATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Dr. Richmond. Thank you very much, and can I also say thank
    you for your vote of confidence in confirming me for this
    position, too. So I think I am thanking you.
        The Chairman. Now you have to prove your value.
        Dr. Richmond. Oh, I know. Now the hard stuff starts.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you also for letting me be here
    today. Distinguished members of the Committee, Chairman
    Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, it is with great pleasure
    that I join you today to represent the Department of Energy at
    this hearing, and particularly the Office of Science. As
    members of this Committee know, the DOE Office of Science is
    the cornerstone of the research enterprise in the United
    States. Through basic and use-inspired research, and the
    development and operation of cutting-edge tools, the Office of
    Science enables advances in areas of science and technology of
    critical importance to our economic and national security,
    including a just and equitable clean energy and climate change
    transition.
        S. 3699, to be referred to as the Department of Energy
    Science for the Future Act of 2022, recognizes and reinforces
    the importance of the Office of Science and the community of
    researchers it supports, both at DOE's National Laboratories
    and at U.S. colleges and universities, to advance all the DOE
    missions, including energy, security, and environmental
    management. At the same time, the Committee, through this
    legislation, has clearly stated the importance of the Office of
    Science in addressing a much broader range of science and
    technology challenges. These challenges include addressing the
    ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and ensuring the security of the
    Office of Science-supported research, both of which require
    close coordination with other federal departments and agencies.
    This is an ambitious bill, and I commend the Committee for its
    vision.
        S. 2232, to be referred to as the Restore and Modernize our
    National Laboratories Act of 2021, is, along with the parallel
    provisions of the DOE Science for the Future Act, a recognition
    of the foundational importance that the DOE's 17 incredible
    National Laboratories play in sustaining U.S. leadership in
    science and technology, and for tackling the most pressing
    problems of our time today. The National Laboratories are known
    internationally as powerhouses of innovation, and are a host to
    many of the world's leading capabilities for scientific
    discovery and technology development. As Secretary Granholm
    describes them, they are the nation's ``solutions factories.''
    This complex of 17 laboratories has its origins in the
    Manhattan Project, with some of the labs entering their eighth
    decade of operation. DOE recognizes that significant investment
    is required to ensure that the DOE's laboratories are
    positioned to continue their long history of groundbreaking
    discoveries.
        I am also here today to speak to several additional bills
    of significance to the DOE. Bill S. 3428, to be referred to as
    the Fission of the Future Act of 2022, is a strong statement of
    support to the Department for continued public-private
    partnerships to advance demonstration and deployment of next-
    generation nuclear power concepts. At the same time, the bill
    aligns with the Department of Energy's justice efforts with
    consideration for helping disadvantaged communities as we
    transition toward a carbon-free power sector in the decades to
    come.
        Bill number S. 2733, to be referred to as the U.S.
    Enrichment Corporation Fund Termination and Transfer Act,
    rescinds the authorization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation--
    or USEC fund--and moves the funds still in its coffers to the
    general fund of the Treasury. We look forward to working with
    Congress on this further.
        And finally, House bill 3119, to be referred to as the
    Energy Emergency Leadership Act, and S. 2302, would assign the
    Department's responsibilities in energy sector security and in
    responding to energy sector emergencies to an assistant
    secretary at the Department. Disruptions to the energy system
    in the U.S. could have a devastating consequence, and the
    Department's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and
    Emergency Response plays an essential role in mitigating the
    risk of disruptions and responding rapidly when disruptions
    occur. Executing on this mission requires a team of
    professionals with unique training and experience needed to
    understand and mitigate the risks and respond rapidly when
    crises do occur.
        I look forward to discussing the legislation in more depth.
    Thank you for the opportunity to let me meet with you today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Richmond follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Well, thank you. Now we will begin our
    questions.
        The Department of Energy's Office of Science and its
    National Labs bring world-class expertise, advanced facilities,
    infrastructure, and resources to address the most pressing
    challenges the United States is facing. The foundational
    scientific research conducted by the Office of Science is
    critical to developing these. However, it is important that
    technologies are allowed to progress through the research cycle
    from basic research to application and avoid the so-called
    ``Valley of Death.'' So if you can, explain the DOE work to
    ensure a smooth handoff from basic science research to
    application by avoiding that valley.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, thank you very much for that question,
    Senator Manchin, because that is what I took on the minute I
    got confirmed. These are unprecedented times for us to be able
    to make the kind of solutions that we need to make in order to
    address the climate issues and actually security issues today.
    When I came into this role, I had much more experience with the
    Office of Science, and I have spent a lot of time now
    understanding more of the applied areas. I have also been able
    to understand better this ``Valley of Death'' and what we need
    to do in order to fill that up so it can easily be passed
    across. In particular, I believe that the key players in this
    really are our DOE laboratories, because they are really the
    incubators for a lot of these activities that go from basic to
    applied. And so, especially the handoff happens much more
    easily at our laboratories.
        That said, what I have been doing in the Department of
    Energy leadership is working together to more closely align
    those program officers and leaders in the Office of Science
    with the applied areas, with weekly meetings together, with
    bringing together ways in which they can coordinate across
    programs in ways that it has never been done before. I have
    been meeting with all of the National Laboratory directors
    individually and also in groups to talk about how they can make
    this gap shorten and eventually disappear. They are all on
    board. I have also been meeting with small groups of the
    research officers from each of the National Laboratories
    because they are the ones that really have the tendrils down
    into their laboratories to understand what is going on, and
    they are right on board with this too.
        And so by working at various levels, I believe that we are
    starting to make progress in bridging these gaps, especially
    with our programs--our new Earthshots, the three that have been
    announced, and those require us to move across all the way to
    deployment. And so I have spent a lot of time with really
    talented people, working in all these areas and particularly
    the Earthshots in being able to pull people together and have
    a----
        The Chairman. How's it going? Do you feel like we are
    accomplishing?
        Dr. Richmond. Huh?
        The Chairman. Do you feel like you are accomplishing?
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, I do.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Dr. Richmond. Actually, I do.
        The Chairman. People are coming together?
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Dr. Richmond. Well, you know, you have to have a carrot and
    a stick, right?
        The Chairman. I understand.
        Let me throw this at you too. Senator Barrasso and I
    introduced the Fission for the Future Act, as you know, the
    recognition of the value of using advanced nuclear reactors to
    repurpose coal and other fossil generating plants for nuclear
    power generation. Senator Barrasso in Wyoming has one, I think,
    in the building stage, right? They are planning and building?
    Okay.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        The Chairman. We just changed the law in West Virginia to
    allow this.
        Dr. Richmond. I know.
        The Chairman. I know, I am as happy as you are.
        Dr. Richmond. Oh, my goodness.
        The Chairman. Thank you. It gives all opportunities.
        So can you tell me how you all support this legislation and
    what you are doing to bring this to fruition?
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, so as the legislation highlights, there
    are some key issues for advanced nuclear outside of electric
    applications. That includes industrial decarbonization,
    hydrogen production, isotope production, desalination, more and
    more and more.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. So it is not just about energy.
        The Chairman. Correct.
        Dr. Richmond. There are all these other things going on
    too. And so what I have been doing is working both with the
    nuclear energy side in the applied areas, closely with the
    nuclear physics side to get them together and now they are
    collaborating with each other across, in order to help to
    translate, to understand, in the basic science side to
    understand what the issues are that the NE side needs to be
    able to get worked out before you can make progress. And then
    also getting them--the nuclear physics side--to look more
    carefully about how what they are doing can be related to more
    energy----
        The Chairman. If your communications people would consider
    putting out a statement saying the value chain that is
    involved, not just in electricity, but things you just talked
    about--what we can do with that reactor, the hydrogen, things
    of that sort, because there are an awful lot of applications
    and opportunities that people just don't know. They just don't
    know enough in the scientific value. So anything you can do to
    enhance that, putting a statement out, not just for my state,
    but for all states who have had a transition going on from
    their coal-fired plants into a new technology would be very,
    very helpful.
        Dr. Richmond. Great. Will do.
        The Chairman. Okay.
        Dr. Richmond. Will do.
        The Chairman. With that, we will turn to Senator Barrasso
    for his questions.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And following up with this, in terms of nuclear and
    uranium, you know, the United States has 93 operating
    commercial nuclear reactors. We are almost completely reliant
    on imports of uranium to fuel the reactors. About half of that
    uranium comes from Russia and its allies--Kazakhstan,
    Uzbekistan. So in 2020, Congress gave the Department $75
    million to establish a strategic uranium reserve. The
    Department has yet to purchase any uranium from U.S. producers,
    and in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and our interests
    in sanctioning Russia, does the Department now have any plans
    to accelerate its purchases of uranium?
        Dr. Richmond. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, for that
    question. It is certainly an urgent one today, and with this
    invasion, it has made all of these issues that we are having
    and discussions in the Department of Energy even more urgent.
    So at this point, folks in NNSA as well as in the nuclear
    energy area are looking for other sources in which we can
    partner also with our allies in this area and also different
    ways that we can get different sources of uranium so we are not
    dependent on Russia.
        I would be happy to get back to you more with details on
    that because it is a rapidly changing picture.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, there is a sense of urgency that we
    feel, and I appreciate your interest in continuing. Thank you.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, I am happy to get back to you on that.
        Senator Barrasso. The next issue is the advanced nuclear
    reactors. They need a specific type of fuel--high-assay low-
    enriched uranium (HALEU). Currently, there are only two sources
    of high-assay low-enriched uranium. One is Russia. The other is
    the Department of Energy. So unless the Department acts
    swiftly, our advanced reactors are going to be, again,
    dependent upon Russia. It is the same urgency you talked about
    in the answer to the first question. Is the Department willing
    to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium and make it
    available for our advanced reactors?
        Dr. Richmond. Thank you again for that question, too. Life
    is changing quickly, as we speak today. But we know--we
    recognize that this--that HALEU is the fuel needed for most of
    our reactor developers to fuel their reactors, including nine
    of the ten awards under our ARDP use HALEU, like TerraPower and
    our X-energy demo projects. So the HALEU supply program, we
    realize, must address enrichment, transportation, storage,
    chemical conversion, and regulatory elements of the HALEU
    supply chain. And so the most urgent, near-term needs include
    supporting the ARDP demonstration projects--the X-energy and
    Natrium. Until recently, the prevailing assumption was that the
    initial cores of HALEU for both ARDP projects would be supplied
    by Russia, as you point out, under the provisions of the
    Russian suspension agreement administered by the Commerce
    Department.
        So NE is in partnership with NNSA programs, and is
    exploring feasible options to address this issue, but any
    solution will require a substantial and sustained source of
    government funding on the order of provisions included in the
    House-passed Build Back Better bill, with $500 million for
    HALEU supply, along with support from industry, the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission, and other stakeholders. So we are
    working on it.
        Senator Barrasso. In terms of the finances, would it be
    helpful if the Department had the authority to use some of the
    money remaining in the U.S. Enrichment Corporation Fund for
    this purpose?
        Dr. Richmond. I don't know the answer to that at this
    point.
        Senator Barrasso. You can get back to me on it.
        Dr. Richmond. I would be happy to get back to you.
        Senator Barrasso. Great.
        I want to ask about research. As Under Secretary of Science
    and Innovation, you oversee the Office of Science. The Office
    of Science oversees 10 of our 17 National Laboratories. Can you
    tell us how many citizens of the People's Republic of China
    work at our National Labs?
        Dr. Richmond. Thank you for that question. I do not
    actually have the number with me. I can certainly get back to
    you on that.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes.
        I just want to point out that according to the Department,
    there are over 5,700 citizens of the People's Republic of China
    working at our U.S. National Labs. Do you know whether the
    People's Republic of China allows its citizens to have dual
    citizenship with the United States?
        They don't. It's okay. They don't.
        Just, I am concerned, because, you know----
        Dr. Richmond. Oh, no.
        Senator Barrasso [continuing]. Is there any evidence to
    suggest that the Chinese government allows its citizens to work
    at our National Labs without the government's prior knowledge
    or consent?
        Dr. Richmond. That is certainly a big concern to us and one
    that we have been working on with other agencies also in order
    to make sure that we have the strictest protocols in place in
    order to check who is working in our laboratory while also
    being careful that we are not overextending our protections and
    capturing people that really are completely innocent. So those
    are ongoing concerns, and we hope that by working with other
    agencies we can develop a procedure and protocol and strategy
    that is across all the agencies. And so the concern that we
    have with regard to this being a focus on the Office of Science
    is that it really needs to be--it is a very serious issue--but
    it needs to be taken up more broadly with the other agencies,
    and I guarantee you, that is what we are working on right now.
        Senator Barrasso. Just to end, and I will not really ask
    for your response, it is just that, you know, after our secure
    briefings last night and classified settings and concern about
    cybersecurity, it just seems to make a lot of common sense that
    the Secretary would go ahead and put into place a confirmed
    position to oversee the Office of Cybersecurity in the
    Department of Energy.
        Dr. Richmond. And I can understand your concerns for that.
    We are also concerned about making certain that we have someone
    in that position that has the qualifications to be able to
    carry out the duty. We believe that Puesh Kumar, who is in that
    position right now, is excellent in that area. We also are
    concerned about the fact that if it requires Senate
    confirmation, then it may delay our ability to have someone of
    that quality in place all the time. And so that is a concern
    for us.
        On the other hand, we know that you need to be able to
    question whether you think the person is doing the job and able
    to do that job, and we believe that you have mechanisms to be
    able to do that without them having to be confirmed. So our
    choice would be not to have that as a confirmed position, but
    it is more about the fact of having somebody in place that is
    qualified, that is continuous, and not political.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        The Chairman. We will bring him in. We can bring him in.
        Dr. Richmond. Oh, yes.
        The Chairman. We can question him even if he's acting.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        The Chairman. Sure.
        Dr. Richmond. He's really good.
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Chairman, I want to start and just
    say a few words about what lessons we should be learning from
    Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and in particular, their
    weaponization of their hydrocarbon reserves. I certainly agree
    with you that it makes no sense to rely on Russian oil and gas.
    But the solution is not more reliance on dangerous fossil fuels
    that are driving climate change and irresponsibly imperiling
    the economic future of our children and grandchildren. The
    solution is to embrace technologies that exist today and make
    climate-imperiling fossil fuels irrelevant. Clean electricity,
    electrification--and in particular, heat pumps, can literally
    free Western Europe from the shackles of Russian oil and gas.
    And this is a path that can also neuter Russia's economic
    leverage over Western Europe and the world, and is the only
    path that really frees American consumers from the devastating
    price swings that are so inherent to hydrocarbon commodities.
    So I think we need to be spending a lot more time looking at
    how we accelerate that transition, particularly in Western
    Europe, so as to make things like Nordstream II completely
    unnecessary and we should be looking at industrial policy,
    because I believe that the United States of America should be
    manufacturing those technologies--in particular, heat pumps.
        Doctor, DOE just announced an organizational realignment to
    ensure that the Department has the structure needed to
    effectively spend the $62 billion provided in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and the Energy Act of 2020. Last year, you
    were sworn in as Under Secretary of Science and Energy, and
    after the reorganization, you will be Under Secretary for
    Science and Innovation. Talk to me about how your newly defined
    role fits into the Administration's larger strategy to meet the
    target of achieving net zero no later than 2050.
        Dr. Richmond. Great. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        Senator Heinrich. And if you want to opine about heat
    pumps, you can do that too.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, actually we have one at home. Thank you
    very much.
        So when I came on board and got started in the position, I
    learned of this reorganization, and so, the person that held my
    position temporarily, Kathleen Hogan, is now the person that is
    sitting in the position of taking over the bill. She and I, we
    talk about being connected at the hip. We have been working
    very, very closely because she had been working a lot in the
    applied science area, not so much in the basic science area,
    and now she has moved over into that role. And we both believe
    that in order for us to succeed, that we must be working
    closely. So, for example, I sit in on biweekly briefings that
    she has with her different units. She sits in on briefings that
    happen in my space, and we work together to make sure that the
    transition from the very fundamental work is being passed all
    the way through.
        That said, you cannot just pass the knowledge and expect it
    to be launched into the deployment area without some problems
    because you discover problems that then have to come all the
    way back. So if we do not keep this string of information flow
    going back and forth, it is not going to work. And so what is
    good about the position that we are in now is, I can oversee
    the unit of the fundamental and applied while then working with
    her in the deployment area. And so we have programs that
    stretch all the way across that we all keep an eye on as well
    as those that go all the way--our Earthshots, which pretty much
    go up to the deployment. And so it is actually well-coordinated
    also because some of the people that were working in the
    applied space are now in the deployment space. So they are
    heavily connected with the people in that area also. I think it
    has just been really brilliant the way that was designed, and I
    cannot take credit for that, because I came into it. I think it
    is a really good plan.
        Senator Heinrich. I do think it is important for us to sort
    of bake that continuity into the organization of the agency
    over time because historically, we have always had the focus on
    basic R&D, but applied science--and in particular, you know, if
    we do not commercialize these technologies, we are really not
    doing our economy any favors. And so having that continuity all
    the way through the process, and having the kind of approach
    that we have seen from this Administration, even in the DOE
    Loan Office to deploy, deploy, deploy--that is where our
    constituents feel the jobs of the future, when things get
    deployed in their own communities and there is new hope and new
    jobs. So whatever you can do to bake that into the agency over
    time and really show the successes that are possible there, I
    think it will serve not only DOE, but the country in the long
    term.
        Dr. Richmond. That is the hope. That is the plan. And you
    know what is really cool about the National Labs is that some
    of those in the more applied areas have been going toward
    deployment anyway. And so it really--by I would say cementing
    that into the framework of the labs in addition to the
    Department of Energy with the deployment is--we have to do it.
    We just have to do it.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And now we have Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Let me just respond a little bit to Senator Heinrich's
    point. I hope Senator Heinrich is not suggesting that we don't
    attempt to increase oil and gas production in the immediate
    near-term in order to help the Europeans and ourselves off the
    dependence upon Russia, denying Russia the income they need to
    fund Putin's war machine. We can all agree that long-term,
    there are things we must do, but near-term, it is clear that
    what we must do is increase supply of oil and gas to take away
    the volatility of the pricing that is resulting because of
    Putin's war. I will just make that point.
        Dr. Richmond, you clearly bring enthusiasm to your job, so
    I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
        I would like to focus right now on the Coastal Zone
    Research Initiative of the Office of Science Reauthorization
    for just a minute. And as you might imagine--I am from
    Louisiana--the Gulf Coast is one of the regions highlighted,
    and the program's direction is to enhance the understanding of
    coastal ecosystems. The direction is to develop models to
    analyze the ecological, biogeochemical, hydrological, physical,
    and human processes that interact in coastal zones. When I look
    at your bio, it seems as if this would be something that you
    have an interest in. And I spoke about this concept to Dr.
    Berhe during her nomination. Question: how can the work under
    the Coastal Zone Research Initiative be used to better
    understand the carbon storage value of coastal zones and
    wetlands? And related, what other programs in this
    reauthorization could be used to establish carbon sequestration
    values of ecosystem restoration?
        By the way we are told, there needs to be a kind of dollar
    value, if you will, related to the net amount of carbon
    sequestration that would result with coastal restoration. So it
    seems as if that science has to be developed so that if we
    wanted a negative carbon offset, everybody would be sure about
    the values that we are using. Now, I will turn it back to you.
        Dr. Richmond. Well, you know, our coastal areas--your
    region of the country--are just incredibly important, and I
    think that in terms of what we are doing in the Office of
    Science and BER is addressing exactly where you want to go with
    this. Let me say that what we need to do more of, and we are
    currently working on, is improving our computational models to
    be able to predict things in the future. And this is really
    important. And so tying in our BER activities with regard to
    soils and coastal issues, along with our computational methods
    that are in ASCR, are allowing us to develop models that can
    give us predictive values for not only cost, but also damaging
    effects of climate change on our ecosystem in these areas. So
    this is a really----
        Senator Cassidy. Now, let me ask, because what I am
    specifically told is that there has to be some sort of, ``oh
    yes, this is the net amount of carbon that would be sequestered
    if you rebuild a hectare of coastline.'' How far along are we
    in terms of establishing that model?
        Dr. Richmond. So this is not my area of expertise. It is
    more Dr. Berhe's, but I would be happy to get back to you on
    that issue.
        Senator Cassidy. Sounds great. Let me ask you about
    something else. I have been very interested in the use of
    blockchain and artificial intelligence in order to track
    emissions and other such things, and the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure bill can trace its energy provisions back to
    this Committee's actions last summer, which included requiring
    DOE to publish a study within a year of the use of digital
    tools in analyzing and addressing climate change and the
    impacts. Are you aware of the study? And do you anticipate the
    Office of Science contributing to the report considering its
    extensive history in AI, supercomputing, and other digital
    needs?
        Dr. Richmond. In that area, I do believe that the Office of
    Science is working very hard on this, particularly the ASCR
    area, but on the other hand, I do not know the state of that
    report right now. But I would be happy to get back to you on
    the details of that.
        Senator Cassidy. Sounds great. And then, let me just kind
    of talk about carbon oxide sequestration research and the
    geologic computing initiative. The proposed legislation would
    continue to invest in the research into computing that can
    identify pore spaces for carbon sequestration. How can the
    increased funding help us to better understand and, if you
    will, transfer the EPA to help expedite the permitting and
    siting of carbon sequestration wells?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, I think any progress that we make with
    regards to increasing our computational capacity using AI, and
    particularly to increase our capabilities for resolutions so
    that we can actually be looking at specific areas in order to
    do the predictions, is very important. And I know that that is
    not only in the Office of Science, but it has also been
    instituted at a number of our different National Laboratories.
    They put that as very much as a priority with regards to being
    able to do those simulations to do the predictions. And this is
    a work in progress, you know, the Office of Science is doing
    very basic research to build up this capacity. And so it is
    sort of flying the plane while you are building it, but we are
    trying to get as many results out as we can while we are also
    building that plane. So stay tuned.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Dr. Richmond. I yield.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Dr. Richmond, it is great
    to see you. Thank you for joining us.
        Let me ask you this: in your written testimony, you touched
    on some of the values and opportunities that increased funding
    for EPSCoR could provide the Department and our country
    overall. And you reiterated the Department's commitment to
    ensuring that the next generation of scientists and engineers
    are more inclusive and diverse. So can you please speak to
    existing workforce needs in the energy sector as well as the
    ways that DOE is currently seeking to enhance geographic
    diversity in research through initiatives like EPSCoR?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you for that question. EPSCoR is
    a really, really important program, and the Office of Science
    has a long history, as you probably know, of supporting
    research at institutions represented and in the federal R&D
    landscape, including HBCUs and other minority-serving
    institutions through EPSCoR. It also recognizes the great value
    to increase the competitiveness of underrepresented
    institutions, of which we have many really good ones, and is
    committed to increasing financial assistance to them, including
    those in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions.
        What I find when I go talk at institutions that don't have
    much federal funding, and many of them are in EPSCoR states
    that I have, in my career--a lot of the problem is that the PIs
    at the--the faculty at those institutions--oftentimes are an
    institution that don't have the resources to put together a
    research office, or the research office is pretty limited, so
    their ability to get knowledge on how to apply for grants and
    how to get the funding and the kind of grantsmanship you need
    to do can be holding them back. And so what the Office of
    Science has been doing--and DOE in general, in these COVID
    times in particular, is having many webinars in order to reach
    out to them. So it is not only the money, but it is being able
    to recruit and capture those that have the ideas but are afraid
    to apply, or they apply once and they get turned down and then
    they quit, which, anyone that is experienced at this knows that
    you get turned down a lot and you just keep doing it.
        And so I think it is a combination of being able to have
    funding in our EPSCoR state institutions but also to be able to
    get the knowledge to them and encouragement. And I think many
    of our program officers in the Office of Science are very good
    at this. It's just that we can always improve and be better.
    But I think it is important for the institutions also to
    recognize, to kind of push their PIs to keep trying, because we
    are merit based. We make decisions based on merit in addition
    to making certain that we are funding diverse institutions in
    other parts of the country besides just the Bay area of Boston
    and Boston in general.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Well, as an EPSCoR state, I agree
    with you wholeheartedly.
        Let me ask you this, because S. 3699 provides important
    funding for EPSCoR programs, and do you think that the grants
    that are opportunities in this legislation as well as the
    fellowships will help to enhance and further promote diversity
    in STEM?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, let me just give you what we have now
    in terms of 2021--the total support to universities in EPSCoR-
    eligible jurisdictions was $125 million in the Office of
    Science, or 12 percent of the total support to provide it to
    universities, and $25 million of that total was provided
    through the DOE EPSCoR program. So we already give a lot of
    money to our universities in EPSCoR states that do not come
    through the regular EPSCoR program. So what I do have concerns
    about is establishing a quota in terms of a number that we need
    to meet for a percentage of the total research funding because
    that would not be compatible with our principles of merit-based
    allocation of research funding, but also it would take a big
    chunk out of our merit-based research funding that is already
    tight for funding. So I think a balanced approach and
    continuing to work and to find more of those institutions in
    EPSCoR states where we can pull more people in is important,
    but I'm not so keen on sort of a quota that's there.
        But I do think that we have a lot of incredibly talented
    young people in our EPSCoR states that are in remote areas at
    small colleges and universities. And I believe that one of the
    most important priorities is that we have to grab them--they
    are actually in our summer internships that we have at our DOE
    laboratories. I hear stories all the time about someone, like
    myself, that came from a fairly remote part of Kansas
    originally, and went to a DOE lab in college and so be it, here
    I am. So I am passionate about making certain that we are
    grabbing the talent that is out there, giving those--can I call
    them kids?--the confidence that they can be successful to be
    full participants because we critically need them right now
    like we have never needed them before.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, thank you. Dr. Richmond, thank
    you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Cortez
    Masto.
        Senator Lankford.
        Let's see if Senator Lankford is coming. If we don't hear
    from him, I know he is online and has been participating.
        Let me ask you while we are getting Senator Lankford lined
    up. Specifically on medical isotopes, you know, medical
    isotopes are elements which doctors use to diagnose and treat
    diseases like cancer. As you know, the United States is
    dependent on other countries, including Russia, for most
    medical isotopes. If we lose access to these isotopes, American
    lives could be lost--said that we need to stop relying on
    Russia for uranium. I asked about that earlier. I think the
    same can be said for medical isotopes. Will you discuss how our
    bill improves our nation's ability to produce medical isotopes?
        Dr. Richmond. Thank you for that question. It is really
    important. It is a really important bill, and we fully support
    it because that is absolutely true. These isotopes are so key
    to a lot of the things that we do in medicine and other things.
    So anything that we can do to reduce our dependence in this
    area as well as in a lot of the critical materials is urgent,
    and unfortunately, it was urgent before, but now people
    understand how urgent it needs to be as we are looking to limit
    the sources of some of these from other countries.
        Senator Barrasso. I would like to ask you a bit about
    EPSCoR because both Senator Manchin and I come from states that
    qualify, as a number of the other Senators--members of this
    Committee--do. This has become an interesting topic of concern
    of people here and, you know, Congress created this program--
    the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research--to
    broaden the geographic distribution of federal research
    funding. There are about 25 EPSCoR states, 15 of which are
    represented on this Committee.
        Dr. Richmond. I know.
        Senator Barrasso. We have a map right here. Nevada, right
    there. You know, New Mexico, Oklahoma--that is this Committee.
        [Map showing EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Dr. Richmond. A lot of great states. A lot of great states.
        Senator Barrasso. And with great institutions. Great
    opportunities.
        Dr. Richmond. And great institutions too, I agree.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes. So less than two percent of the
    Office of Science's research budget goes to universities in all
    of these states. Less than two percent for universities in 25
    states when we take a look at the money, and Senator Cortez
    Masto, who is here, has been part of those discussions. Is it
    fair to say that the Office of Science can and should do more
    to build research capacity at research universities in these
    EPSCoR states?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, we need to do as much as we can to
    build that. I need to check into--I have to trust you on the
    two-percent number because I am not aware of that number, but
    if that is the case, then it would cause me concern too. That
    said, I will take it back to the Office of Science and we will
    talk about that more and get back to you.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, because when you talked about your
    history and where you are now, but where you came from.
        Dr. Richmond. I know. I know. And I love those states. I
    have been to all of them. Okay, I love those states, even
    Nevada, I do, I do. So I get it.
        Senator Barrasso. And a follow-up--the Office of Science
    has six advisory committees which collectively include a total
    of 133 members. Of those 133 members, only nine come from
    universities in EPSCoR states--nine of the 133 from those 25
    states. Notably, these six advisory committees include just as
    many members from outside of the United States as members from
    universities in the EPSCoR states. So what is the Office of
    Science doing to include more members from universities in
    EPSCoR states on its advisory committees?
        Dr. Richmond. Good question. Thank you for asking that. I
    think, in terms of having advisory board members from--having
    been on one of those committees and chair of it a number of
    years ago, I understand to some degree how they are put
    together. I think it is important for us to have international
    folks that are on it, but I agree with you. Thank you for those
    statistics because I was not aware of those and so I will go
    back with that message because I think it is really important
    that we have representation from the EPSCoR states on it.
        Senator Barrasso. And part of the role of committees, as
    the chairman and I continue to say, is sometimes we actually
    really want the answer, and other times it is to just bring the
    level of understanding of what is happening out there and what
    we see and what we hear about at home to the attention of
    people who are in positions of influence in the various
    administrations. So thank you.
        Dr. Richmond. And these committees help to set the agenda
    for the particular division of the Office of Science. So it is
    important, and particularly so I take your message back because
    it is important that there is that view there and also the fact
    that many of your states are very diverse racially, and we want
    to make sure that that is represented in the committees too.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Let me talk a little bit about quantum computing.
        Dr. Richmond. Sure.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. In your written testimony, you
    underscored existing efforts to further secure the nation's
    economic and national security through this area, and
    researchers, right now, at the University of Nevada Reno, the
    Argonne National Lab, and Pacific Northwest National Lab, they
    received $2.5 million in grants from the DOE to develop a
    center that designs molecules for QIS applications. From your
    perspective, how would the DOE Science for the Future Act, or
    any of the legislation that we are talking about today, build
    on partnerships like this to ensure that the U.S. continues to
    be a world leader in fostering new technologies such as quantum
    superposition? I am curious--your thoughts?
        Dr. Richmond. So that is really a great question, and what
    a hot topic these days and a very competitive topic too with
    other countries, particularly China. So in this realm of
    quantum computing, one of the really hard issues--and I think
    the funding that went to your state is to address this issue--
    is the materials. So, you know, when we have normal computers,
    we have the silicon chip and it has been etched and got bits
    and so forth, and with quantum we have qubits. I am not going
    to go into all the details, nor do you need to know the
    details. All you need to know is that what is really hard--the
    big challenge in quantum computing--is that what you have
    there, the material you have there to work with has to be so
    pristine and perfect with almost--well, no defects because
    defects kill the qubits, and that takes incredible materials
    science. Now today, the model system that is used are
    diamonds--fabricated diamonds, right? Because they can be in a
    crystalline form that the number of--can we say potholes?--in
    there are pretty small.
        And so developing materials that can be so incredibly pure
    and structured so that they do not kill off--if I can say
    that--the qubits, is really important. And so it is a huge
    effort in materials science, but it also is, you know, a lot
    having to do with lasers and intense lasers and short-pulse
    lasers and so forth involved too, but in my mind, it is really
    this issue of the materials, and we have seen some really cool
    research come out lately. I believe one study from Argonne
    actually is showing some progress in some carbide material, and
    I get very excited about that because it gets us closer. I
    cannot remember if it was five seconds or five minutes that the
    qubit lasted, but it is still making progress. So it is really
    important that we have all-hands-on-deck--people that are
    interested and qualified working on this because it is in a
    very discovery mode before we can move forward in the quantum
    area. And that means, in many respects, that discovery mode
    means you can be doing it at a lot of different places as long
    as you are capable to be able to test things, like you have
    your collaboration with Argonne, to be able to test out what
    you are----
        Senator Cortez Masto. And so would you say, for that
    reason, it is important for Congress or us to come to the table
    with the research and development continuing because of the
    opportunities we have here, and it is at the beginning stages
    and we need to continue that development in research. Correct?
        Dr. Richmond. That is right.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
        Dr. Richmond. But I would say that in a lot of areas,
    whether it be carbon capture or hydrogen or any of those areas
    or, you know, when you are talking about critical minerals, a
    real problem is separating those critical minerals, whether
    they be rare earths, from the dirt, you know, and separating it
    with great purity. And there has just been this cool study that
    came out this past week where at Lawrence Livermore National
    Lab, a group is using a bacterial protein to grab on to rare
    earths and separate them rather than the cost of chemicals you
    usually use. I mean, is that like too cool? And it really is,
    because it is just a new way of thinking about things. It is a
    discovery that somebody from Penn State was involved in, too.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Well, Dr. Richmond, I just have to
    say, it is such a pleasure as well to see your passion and
    enthusiasm for the job and the opportunities around what we are
    talking about in science. So thank you. Thank you for, again,
    answering the questions and being here today as well.
        Dr. Richmond. Great.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Richmond, what a pleasure.
        Dr. Richmond. Good to see you.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I believe, according to Mark Kelly, I
    am the only scientist, which is to say I had a couple articles
    published as a geologist in peer reviewed journals, so Senator
    Kelly refers to himself as an engineer, which I would argue
    with. I think there are several of us.
        Dr. Richmond. I like to think that we are all scientists at
    some level.
        Senator Hickenlooper. One hopes, if being a scientist is
    careful observation of the world around us and using those
    observations as the foundation for better life, then yes, I
    hope we all are.
        The Restore and Modernize our National Laboratories Act
    calls out for the Office of Science as the specific recipient
    of at least one-sixth of the bill's funding.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper. And I certainly--obviously Colorado
    has a lot of labs, a number of energy labs.
        Dr. Richmond. It does.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I am a big fan. But also, I see no
    reason why other agencies that oversee labs should not also get
    called out to make sure that we integrate and allocate properly
    all the funding for research and that we are getting the
    maximum benefit and synergy by that integrated funding. So do
    you see any harm in requiring minimum amounts of funding for
    other DOE agencies in addition to the Office of Science?
        Dr. Richmond. You know, this is an important issue because
    right now we need to be--in my mind, there is a lot of
    interesting research going on right now, but there are also
    some really urgent things that we need to do, and the Office of
    Science has a big role, but so do the applied labs, like in
    your state with NREL. And so I do not, we would have to go, I
    mean, I have to--just getting started with this, I need to
    understand whether there is--what the minimum should be, but
    all I can say is we need to have all the labs, whatever funding
    can permit, to be able to do what they need to get done in
    order to work through these fundamental and applied issues as
    we go to the deployment.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I couldn't agree more, but I will
    keep following it because I do think that we have to figure out
    how we are going to integrate and coordinate all the different
    funding that we do through the Federal Government.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I was pleased to see the inclusion of
    the emerging biological threat preparedness research initiative
    within the Office of Science in the DOE Science for the Future
    Act. I think this is exactly what pandemic preparedness is all
    about, something I have certainly been speaking about for close
    to a year now. If this bill is enacted, how will DOE prioritize
    the initiative and work with private sector researchers on the
    R&D efforts?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, you know, they have already made
    contacts with industry. So, for example, let me give you a good
    example, and that is, do you realize that for most all drugs
    that are commercially created, put out on the market, they have
    to have an X-ray structure of the crystal structure of it,
    right? Where are they going to do that? Right? Where are you
    going to do that? You have to do that at a DOE light source.
    Who else has a light source? NIH doesn't have a light source.
    We have the light sources, right? Right?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Sure.
        Dr. Richmond. So when you think about the fact that we have
    already been connecting with companies in that area, in
    addition to the COVID-related issues, which they are continuing
    to work on now, but it is really, you know, what I find really
    exciting, since I have been around a while, so when I reflect
    back on the Office of Science when I was chair of BESAC many
    years ago, it was sort of, ``ooh, got to stay away from the
    biological stuff because NIH does that stuff.'' And although
    you could tinker in it, there was a fear that that would be
    looked at as a redundancy, when actually, it is a true
    partnership today with regards to working with other agencies
    through the BRaVE initiative as well as with companies. And the
    sense of the freedom that I see now of the Office of Science
    being willing and happy to start working with industry in order
    to help them along as well as get the ideas of what discoveries
    still need to be done is a transformation that, again, I
    welcome and I have been so happy to see that in my few months
    that I have been on the post.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Perfect.
        If you talk to almost any lead researcher in basic science
    today, they will tell you--or at least they tell me--that too
    much of their time is occupied with paperwork--filling out
    forms, not the research aspect. I have heard concerns from both
    university institutions in Colorado and other states, but as
    well in some of the agency labs that the research security
    requirements in this bill that we are talking about could add
    to that requirement of time substantially. And I think we do
    have to balance our need for security with freeing up our
    scientists to do what they do best, which is think, discuss,
    and innovate. So would DOE support taking a more holistic
    interagency approach to this overall topic so that we could
    maybe streamline some of what the reporting requirements are?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, that is exactly where we are going.
    That is exactly where we are going because we cannot afford to
    have people wasting their talent on the fact that this agency
    does something different than this agency does and this agency.
    Now, most people that are funded to do their science cannot
    survive on one grant. They have two or three. In my program, I
    always had two or three. And there is paperwork associated with
    each of those and there are rules associated with each of
    those. And so now with the security issues, you also have to
    have practices in place that are different for all three. It is
    not going to work and people are going to figure out how to get
    through, you know, wiggle their way through the, you know, the
    lowest barrier. So I think it is really important that the
    agencies are working together, and that is what we are doing,
    is trying to work across agencies.
        As you may recall, I served on the National Science Board,
    before I took this position, for ten years, and they understand
    this issue too.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. Absolutely.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Well, if we can be of any help,
    obviously, I think I speak for many senators when I say that we
    would work diligently to try and systematize and integrate all
    those reporting requirements.
        Dr. Richmond. We will take your help. We will take your
    help because it really does need to be agency-wide. It needs to
    be agency-wide.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you. I yield.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Senator Barrasso, thank you. I do want to
    associate myself as well with the opening comments that you and
    the Chairman both made today on our energy and our
    responsibility and what's happening in Ukraine right now and to
    Europe. They are in need of energy resources quickly, and I
    know while there have been comments of some to say let's do
    some work so that we can provide resources for them in the next
    10 to 15 years, they cannot wait for the next 10 to 15 years.
    They need some help right now. And so if there is research in
    ways--if there are permitting changes that can be done to be
    able to increase the capacity for the United States to be able
    to provide energy there, that would be very, very helpful.
        I also wanted to be able to say there are several good
    bills that are in this dialogue today, but one of them is just
    what I would affectionately call a nuisance bill. It is a bill
    where Congress wrote up whistleblower protections for the
    Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We
    thought we made it pretty clear, and some creative attorneys
    are now reinterpreting it and saying no, the whistleblower
    protections are not the same in that. And so we are providing
    clarity to be able to make sure there are whistleblower
    protections there in the way the text is actually written to
    make it very, very clear that this is what we intended to be
    able to provide. And so we are working our way through that.
        Dr. Richmond. Well, that is great. That is great to hear--
    --
        Senator Lankford. Glad to be able to get that. Glad to be
    able to get that.
        Senator Barrasso made a comment as well earlier, just about
    the lack of variety in locations for investment. There is a
    bill obviously that we are dealing with today as well that says
    not less than 10 percent of the research funding goes to the
    set of states where they get very little research funding in
    the days ahead. My concern is that that becomes a ceiling
    rather than a floor. And so I would only encourage us, as we
    get this implemented, to be able to make sure it doesn't become
    that no more than 10 percent goes to those states and the other
    90 percent will get it since the vast majority of these other
    institutions get it.
        My question to you really is to be able to follow up on
    some of the things that Senator Barrasso was talking about as
    well. I mean, that is the actual advisory committees and the
    selection groups that actually select where grants are going to
    go. It seems interesting to me that there seems to be, in many
    of these selection groups for grants, a group of folks that,
    let's say, eight of the ten of them graduated from Harvard or
    Berkeley or wherever it may be and Stanford, and then
    amazingly, the research grant goes to that university as well,
    disproportionately. And so it ends up, I understand, they have
    a loyalty where they came from. They have a lot of
    relationships with faculty there and they trust the research
    that is coming out of there, but we have to find not only ways
    to be able to increase variety in the advisory groups, but also
    increase variety in the actual selection of where grant dollars
    go and how we are actually investing those dollars, not just
    the state that they are from, because we may have a variety of
    states.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        Senator Lankford. But the same institutions end up getting
    the investment research dollars over and over again when there
    are other institutions around the country that also have
    creative ideas, and as you know very well from science, there
    is a great benefit to getting new ideas into the mix rather
    than the same group circling around the same research again.
        Dr. Richmond. Thank you, Senator Lankford, for those
    comments because they are very thoughtful. Let me say just a
    few things about that. The advisory boards themselves, they are
    not really so intimately involved in making the decisions about
    where the grants go, that really falls on the program officer
    getting reviews from a contingent of reviewers.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. And those, I have to say, that those
    reviewers are usually from quite a diverse group of
    institutions. And the Office of Science works very hard at
    that. The National Science Foundation works very hard at that
    too.
        Getting enough reviewers to do all this work is always a
    challenge. And so what I recommend when I go visit smaller
    institutions that have less research, what I recommend is to
    have faculty in those other institutions volunteer to be on
    those committees because the program officer is delighted to
    see someone volunteer because that is where you learn how the
    process works. That is how you could put input on other
    institutions like yourself. So it is really one where we have
    to make sure that--and I do believe that we are doing a good
    job of that. It is just that even if you have people on the
    committee that are from a wide distribution of institutions,
    you know, they are going to see a place like MIT and say ``woo
    hoo,'' and versus you know, another institution. So they have
    to not have biases that way too.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. And so you increasingly are seeing agencies,
    including the DOE, talk about not only conflict of interest, so
    you have to declare any conflict of interest----
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Dr. Richmond [continuing]. But also get away from these
    biases that are so inherent in what we are doing. Now, can I
    tell you one more thing? And that is that what is amazing is
    that we recently did a study with regard to mentorship of
    graduate students in chemistry of the top hundred chemistry
    departments in the country. What is the quality of mentoring of
    your graduate students that is done there? Broke it up into the
    top ten rated by how much money they get and so forth. So who
    do you think got rated the worst in terms of mentorship? Top
    ten.
        So we need to have a way, and that then goes to retention.
    So we need to have a way, and this is what I am really working
    on, we need to have a way for universities to report what their
    retention rate is of their graduate students and the
    demographics of those graduate students so we can identify
    which institutions are doing the best job at mentoring
    students. The ones that are up here--50 to 100--are doing a
    much better job.
        Senator Lankford. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. Smaller groups, more attention. Now, that is
    just for chemistry, but I think it is things like that we need
    to put into place to have those that are in the other, you
    know, rated higher, rated, you know, you know, lower, you know,
    the number, that they get recognized for really putting out
    good students and mentoring them because that is the retention
    that is going to fuel what we are doing.
        Senator Lankford. Right. That is why I raised the issue on
    the advisory committees and the selection groups, because what
    I want to follow up on is what Senator Barrasso was saying. The
    advisory committees are important, but if it is the same group
    of folks making the selections over and over again, they are
    going to return grants back to the same locations where they
    have relationships--they visited it, they were there last year
    to be able to see what happened, they talked to those folks
    that were there last year, and they know they are doing good
    work and so they continue to accelerate dollars there. You are
    right. There is good work going on in lots of other places.
    They just don't know it. And so it is expanding that, whether
    that is creating rotations, whether that is creating term
    limits for those individuals, they can only do it for X number
    of years. And I have talked to folks in the research area, and
    they say well, we cannot do that because there is a limited
    number of people, but there are folks all around the country,
    it is just a matter of recruiting them and knowing that there
    is going to be an opening and getting more faculty to be able
    to step up and be able to volunteer to be able to engage with
    it.
        I agree with both. I am just saying it is putting in the
    structure to be able to make sure that we do break this cycle.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        Senator Lankford. To look at more research in more places.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes, but I do think that in the Office of
    Science we do work very hard at that. I mean, I have been down
    here and now up here and so I have seen things go through.
    Everything can be improved. You can always improve things. But
    on the other hand, I feel very good about the commitment of the
    program officers that I have worked with over the years to
    really put together a diverse team of reviewers, and it is also
    age, right? Because the younger people that get on those review
    panels, they learn how the system works, right? And so even the
    age demographics are really important.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing today. Dr. Richmond, thank you for
    testifying.
        Today, as you know, we are facing a serious microchip
    shortage all across the country--the planet, in fact. At the
    same time, China is working very hard to outcompete American
    leadership in microchip research and development. To address
    these challenges, I worked with Republicans and Democrats to
    negotiate a $52 billion plan to boost American microchip
    manufacturing. This plan passed both the Senate and the House
    and is headed to conference, which is a good thing. But I
    believe we have to do more, including within DOE, we must
    ensure that the next generation of microchips are designed and
    manufactured right here in the United States, not somewhere
    else. And if anyone can engineer a solution to the challenge of
    continuing to fit more circuits on a chip, I am confident that
    it is going to be American scientists and American engineers.
    And I understand that DOE National Laboratories have existing
    microelectronics research programs, but they do not have
    explicit authorization from Congress, and I am working on a
    bill to fix that. My bill would also promote workforce training
    and technology transfer programs at DOE. I encourage the
    Administration to support my bill once it is introduced.
        Dr. Richmond, how could Congressional authorization for
    microelectronics research and development programs at the
    Department of Energy support and accelerate work already being
    done by the Department?
        Dr. Richmond. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question
    because that is a biggie, and that is an important one, and it
    is urgent. It is urgent. You know, for decades the Department
    of Energy has been on the leading edge of microelectronics,
    both as a consumer as well as an engine of scientific discovery
    in this area. And DOE supports a robust research portfolio on
    issues at their scientific facilities, as well as chemical,
    physical, mathematical, computer science--all of these areas in
    modeling and simulations. We have been on the forefront there.
    But we need to have more funding in order to make this happen.
        So you know, when you talk about in areas of--because it's
    the whole range--it's materials science, it's chemistry, it's
    processing, it's fabrication. And it goes all the way from the
    very fundamental research to actually putting it in your
    computer or whatever, your phone or whatever it is and that is
    what the laboratories have in place right now. It is a matter
    of being able to fuel that with more funding, but smart
    funding. Smart funding that really goes after the key issues
    that we have to get at in order to pack more stuff on that
    chip. But you know, there is something that is so important to
    understand with regards to microelectronics, and you probably
    understand this, and that is there are no longer
    microelectronics, like micron-size, they are nanoelectronics,
    right?
        Senator Kelly. Right.
        Dr. Richmond. And so you are talking about, you know, if
    you are going to put this roadmap on your chip, you know and
    pack stuff in there, that you have to be working on this teeny
    tiny scale. So how are you going to do etching? How are you
    going to do all of this is if you do not have the tools to be
    able to figure out whether you are doing it and what it looks
    like after you did it? And so what is really cool in this
    particular area is our big light source facilities, for
    example. They are able to see what your ``etch'' looks like.
    They are able to then--and so the companies go in and can test
    some procedure in order to do their chip. Then they can go to
    the facility, check out what happened, and go back and forth
    with the facility. There is no place else that you can do that
    but at the DOE labs.
        But in this case, it just means being able to have more
    collaborative efforts with industry because having a consortia
    of industry would work really well that way. And so beefing
    that up too, because they, you know, they are coming in to use
    the facilities, and having staffing to be able to help them
    with it. So there is just a lot of stuff going on for testbeds
    as well as taking it all the way. It is----
        Senator Kelly. Well, yes, we want to fix that. And we want
    to make sure that we are not going to be testing our chips over
    in China as well.
        Dr. Richmond. You bet.
        Senator Kelly. And, I mean, I do not think folks realize
    this but the chip in this phone, it is a square centimeter, two
    and a half billion transistors on it--two and a half billion.
    We need to get that to five billion, but it needs to be made
    here in the United States.
        Dr. Richmond. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Not somewhere else, and that is why the
    CHIPS Act and, you know, the legislation just making us more
    competitive with China is going to go a long way to bringing a
    lot of this manufacturing capability back to the United States.
    We have to get this across the finish line. We have TSMC--the
    Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company--building right now
    a fabrication facility in Arizona. Intel is building two that
    are going to be underway soon. And this is going to help us get
    back toward--might not get us the whole way--but we went from
    40 percent of chip production, global supply of chips that we
    manufacture, down to about 12 percent today. We have to reverse
    that. But more than that, we have to be making the best chips
    in the world.
        Dr. Richmond. And we have to be on the innovation front in
    terms of the next stage. What is the next stage and can we beat
    everybody else to it? And what does concern me is that in China
    you have all these--so we have our laboratories and they are
    aging, right? And we need the infrastructure to build them up
    because China is building all new laboratories, modeled after
    ours, including our light sources and other facilities, and
    they are all going to be brand new. So it is going to take a
    bit to build it, but you know, we have to be competitive. Our
    capabilities and our laboratories have to be competitive and
    stay competitive in order to be ahead all the time.
        Senator Kelly. And then, Dr. Richmond, then we need the
    scientists and engineers to work in these facilities. So we
    need to encourage STEM education starting at a very young age
    and help young people get the education they need for these
    good-paying jobs.
        Dr. Richmond. Absolutely true, but we need to do something
    else, too, and that is that we need to make sure that going
    into graduate programs, they can afford to go to graduate
    school. So right now, graduate stipends that we offer are
    basically minimum wage. I just saw Target saying it is going to
    pay 25 bucks an hour to work at Target. That is more than we
    are paying our graduate students in their 20's doing the best
    research in the world, and we are asking them to work 80 hours
    a week making basically minimum wage. We have to get those
    stipends across and through all agencies up to at least 45K a
    year. We have to do that. And it is particularly important for
    our underrepresented minority students because a lot of times
    they come to graduate school with debt and they cannot afford
    to stay in graduate school. The retention rate is much lower
    for them and for women too.
        And so we have to figure out how to keep them in there, but
    also pay them a decent wage so that they can spend their 20's
    maybe saving a little bit of money, or maybe having a couple of
    kids too, you know, like normal in your 20's because you can
    afford to do that. So I am just passionate about that issue,
    too, because I think we just cannot afford to do this anymore.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, and I yield back the two
    minutes extra I took.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly. And
    thank you, Dr. Richmond. We are very grateful for your time and
    the excitement that you bring to the office. The enthusiasm is
    notable and appreciated.
        Members are going to have until the close of business
    tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record. And if
    there is nothing else, this Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       [all]