[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                

 
                   INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION:
                    THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ROLE
                     IN THE U.S. RESEARCH ECOSYSTEM

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

                                     
                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-2

                               __________

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

   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                   
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
       
                           ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 51-313PDF          WASHINGTON : 2024  
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                       Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           PAUL TONKO, New York
TOM KEAN, New Jersey
VACANCY
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             March 8, 2023

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..     8
    Written Statement............................................     9

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    10
    Written Statement............................................    12

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Harriet Kung, Deputy Director for Science Programs in the 
  Office of Science, the U.S. Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    15

Mr. James L. Reuter, Associate Administrator for the Space 
  Technology Mission Directorate, the National Aeronautics and 
  Space Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    24
    Written Statement............................................    26

Dr. Michael C. Morgan, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
  Environmental Observation and Prediction, the National Oceanic 
  and Atmospheric Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    31
    Written Statement............................................    33

Dr. Sean L. Jones, Assistant Director for the Directorate of 
  Mathematical and Physical Sciences, the National Science 
  Foundation
    Oral Statement...............................................    39
    Written Statement............................................    41

Discussion.......................................................    47

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Harriet Kung, Deputy Director for Science Programs in the 
  Office of Science, the U.S. Department of Energy...............    86

Mr. James L. Reuter, Associate Administrator for the Space 
  Technology Mission Directorate, the National Aeronautics and 
  Space Administration...........................................    95

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Legislation Discussion Drafts

    Department of Energy and NASA Collaboration..................    98

    Department of Energy and NOAA Collaboration..................   104

    Department of Energy and USDA Collaboration..................   112

Letter submitted by Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion industry..   118


                   INNOVATION THROUGH COLLABORATION:



                    THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ROLE



                     IN THE U.S. RESEARCH ECOSYSTEM

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2023

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank Lucas 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    Chairman Lucas. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 
Committee at any time.
    Welcome today's hearing entitled ``Innovation Through 
Collaboration: The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Role in the 
U.S. Research Ecosystem.'' I recognize myself for five minutes 
for an opening statement.
    Good morning. Today, the Science Committee will examine the 
Department of Energy's role in the Federal research enterprise. 
DOE is the Nation's largest Federal sponsor of basic research 
in the physical sciences and is a world leader in energy 
technology development and innovation. As such, it is uniquely 
able to partner with other Federal research agencies to address 
our most critical national science and technology challenges.
    This hearing will serve as a legislative hearing for three 
bills we plan to introduce soon that would authorize a number 
of DOE's existing interagency research partnerships. We'll also 
use the information from today's discussions to inform the 
development of future legislation in this area.
    DOE has a wide range of assets at its disposal that can be 
leveraged for research partnerships. It operates 17 world-
leading national laboratories, which--with steward cutting-edge 
research in high-priority areas and maintains and operates 28 
scientific user facilities which serve as an essential resource 
for the research and development (R&D) community. Together, 
this network of facility supports tens of thousands of 
researchers each year and provides a foundation for U.S. 
competitiveness in emerging technologies.
    We're here today to discuss how we can leverage DOE's 
tremendous expertise and resources to help other Federal 
research agencies address cross-cutting scientific challenges. 
I hope to examine how these partnerships are already benefiting 
Americans and how we can craft legislation to ensure that 
agencies can continue collaborating on strategic research to 
enhance U.S. competitiveness for the next generation.
    For example, partnering on genomics-based research helps 
DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) overcome the 
challenges inherent in developing low-cost, high-efficiency 
biofuels. Working together, the agencies can improve crop 
science, maximize carbon storage, enhance precision agriculture 
technologies, and identify ways to combat invasive species, 
among many other areas.
    DOE and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration) partner to improve climate modeling, weather 
prediction, and other activities that require analysis of 
large--extremely large and complex data sets. Leveraging DOE's 
high-performance computing (HPC) capacities can improve NOAA's 
forecasting and advance DOE's machine-learning abilities.
    DOE and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration) have a long history of collaboration on 
fundamental science research and particularly on nuclear 
propulsion and power for spacecraft. The Voyager spacecrafts 
launched more than 40 years ago continue to operate with DOE's 
power system. DOE and NASA can work together on critical 
challenges of building a lunar surface infrastructure and 
efficiently powering a crewed journey to Mars.
    Similarly, DOE and NSF (National Science Foundation) have 
an active and extensive history of collaboration. These 
agencies collaborate on a wide range of research topics such as 
physics, quantum information sciences, artificial intelligence 
(AI), and advanced manufacturing. By combining their resources, 
DOE and the NSF support large-scale discovery science and the 
development of international scientific resources like the Vera 
C. Rubin Observatory.
    I'm looking forward to hearing more from our witnesses 
about the potential for future collaboration to enhance U.S. 
competitiveness. As the United States faces growing competition 
from the Chinese Communist Party, it's never been more 
important to maximize our Federal R&D resources. One aspect of 
that is examining how we can best utilize interagency 
partnerships to strengthen American science and technology.
    Last summer, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, 
which included detailed program direction and substantial 
funding for DOE research programs and critical research 
infrastructure. CHIPS and Science also includes investments in 
NSF, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), and 
NASA, as well as provisions to protect these investments from 
theft and interference by adversaries. Overseeing the 
implementation of CHIPS and Science will be a priority issue 
for our Committee this year, and I expect many--that we'll have 
many hearings that will touch on this subject.
    Prioritizing support for our Federal science research 
agencies like DOE and its Office of Science is one pillar of 
our oversight plans this Congress, to build on these 
investments, protect them from administration overrun--or 
should I say turnover--and maximize return on investment of 
taxpayer dollars.
    There's a need for legislation to secure our essential 
interagency research. Setting the seal on DOE's partnerships 
with agencies like NASA, NOAA, NSF, and the USDA means we're 
making the best use of our resources when we tackle challenges 
like furthering space exploration, improving weather 
forecasting, and advancing production agriculture.
    I'm looking forward to speaking with experts about how we 
in Congress can capitalize on this opportunity. I want to thank 
our witnesses for their testimony today, and I look forward to 
a very productive discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Good morning. Today, the Science Committee will examine the 
Department of Energy's role in the federal research enterprise.
    DOE is the nation's largest federal sponsor of basic 
research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in 
energy technology development and innovation. As such, it is 
uniquely able to partner with other federal research agencies 
to address our most critical national science and technology 
challenges.
    This hearing will serve as a legislative hearing for three 
bills we plan to introduce soon that would authorize a number 
of DOE's existing interagency research partnerships. We'll also 
use the information from today's discussions to inform the 
development of future legislation in this area.
    DOE has a wide range of assets at its disposal that can be 
leveraged for research partnerships. It operates 17 world-
leading national laboratories which steward cutting-edge 
research in high priority areas and maintains and operates 28 
scientific user facilities, which serve as essential resources 
for the research and development community.
    Together, this network of facilities supports tens of 
thousands of researchers each year and provides a foundation 
for U.S. competitiveness in emerging technologies.
    We're here today to discuss how we can leverage DOE's 
tremendous expertise and resources to help other federal 
research agencies address cross-cutting scientific challenges. 
I hope to examine how these partnerships are already 
benefitting Americans and how we can craft legislation to 
ensure agencies can continue collaborating on strategic 
research to enhance U.S. competitiveness for the next 
generation.
    For example, partnering on genomics-based research helps 
DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture overcome the 
challenges inherent in developing low-cost, high-efficiency 
biofuels.
    Working together, the agencies can improve crop science, 
maximize carbon storage, enhance precision agriculture 
technologies, and identify ways to combat invasive species, 
among many other areas.
    DOE and NOAA partner to improve climate modeling, weather 
prediction, and other activities that require analysis of 
extremely large and complex data sets. Leveraging DOE's high-
performance computing capabilities can improve NOAA's 
forecasting and advance DOE's machine learning abilities.
    DOE and NASA have a long history of collaboration, on 
fundamental science research and particularly on nuclear 
propulsion and power for spacecraft. The Voyager spacecrafts-
launched more than 40 years ago-continue to operate with DOE's 
power system. DOE and NASA can work together on the critical 
challenges of building a lunar surface infrastructure and 
efficiently powering a crewed journey to Mars.
    Similarly, DOE and NSF have an active and extensive history 
of collaboration. These agencies collaborate on a wide range of 
research topics such as physics, quantum information sciences, 
artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing.
    By combining their resources, DOE and NSF support large-
scale discovery science and the development of international 
scientific resources like the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.
    I'm looking forward to hearing more from our witnesses 
about the potential for future collaboration to enhance U.S. 
competitiveness.
    As the United States faces growing competition from the 
Chinese Communist Party, it's never been more important to 
maximize our federal R&D resources. One aspect of that is 
examining how we can best utilize interagency partnerships to 
strengthen American science and technology.
    Last summer, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, 
which includes detailed program direction and substantial 
funding for DOE research programs and critical research 
infrastructure.
    CHIPS and Science also includes investments in NSF, NIST, 
and NASA, as well as provisions to protect these investments 
from theft and interference by adversaries.
    Overseeing the implementation of CHIPS and Science will be 
a priority issue for our Committee this year, and I expect that 
many hearings will touch on this topic. Prioritizing support 
for our federal science research agencies like DOE and its 
Office of Science is one pillar of our oversight plans this 
Congress.
    To build on these investments, protect them from 
administration turnover, and maximize return on investment of 
taxpayer dollars, there is a need for legislation to secure our 
essential interagency research. Setting the seal on DOE's 
partnerships with agencies like NASA, NOAA, the NSF, and the 
USDA means we're making the best use of our resources when we 
tackle challenges like furthering space exploration, improving 
weather forecasting, and advancing production agriculture.
    I'm looking forward to speaking with experts about how we 
in Congress can capitalize on this opportunity.
    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, I 
look forward to a productive discussion.

    Chairman Lucas. Now, I'd like to recognize the Ranking 
Member, the gentlewoman from California, for an opening 
statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you for today's hearing. And I want to thank our 
distinguished panel as well. It's not every day that we're able 
to speak to senior officials from four of our Nation's major 
science agencies, and in the same panel no less, so we look 
forward to working with each of you in this Congress.
    The Members of the Science Committee take the 
responsibility of overseeing America's scientific research 
enterprise quite seriously, and it's a duty that will consume 
this Committee as we move forward in this Congress. We have to 
remain focused on making sure that we're enabling all the tools 
and technologies we'll need to aggressively confront the 
climate crisis. And as the economic and national security 
implications of losing our global leadership in science and 
technology are stark, I hope that everyone in the room can 
agree that robust Federal science and technology programs are 
essential to ensuring the prosperity and well-being of all 
Americans.
    We had a hearing last week on the importance of Federal 
coordination on a National Science and Technology Strategy. And 
today, we'll take a closer look at the role of the DOE and the 
interagency partnerships that enable us to reap the benefits of 
the research that the Department stewards. So many questions of 
science are interdisciplinary and, as such, often require close 
collaborations among relevant agencies to properly address 
them. Fields such as quantum, artificial intelligence, climate 
science really demand a whole-of-government approach to advance 
the science.
    And the agriculture sector is a great example where these 
Federal science partnerships shine. Our Nation can only fully 
address the climate crisis by deploying methods and tools to 
decarbonize the ag sector, which represents 11 percent of U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions. My district is one of the most 
productive agricultural regions in California, and I'm 
encouraged to see that DOE national labs are leading impressive 
research to balance farming productivity with conservation.
    For example, DOE's Lawrence Berkeley and Idaho National 
Labs are leveraging their scientific resources and facilities 
to support technological innovation that's going to help 
develop this emerging field of agriculture with notable 
contributions like the crop artificial intelligence quotient. 
This computational tool will provide farmers with accurate up-
to-date yield maps capable of analyzing variables like crop 
yield and moisture to help growers apply precision treatments 
only where needed, which will save time and money, while 
simultaneously benefiting the environment.
    This DOE project uses datas--data from USDA satellites, 
which demonstrates the interconnection that we need between our 
research agencies. And this is just one example of these 
important interagency partnerships that we have to preserve and 
build upon.
    I also think that we would benefit greatly if we start 
thinking about cross-cutting research opportunities for newly 
emerging technologies. As we develop next-generation 
technologies like fusion energy, we need to be thinking now 
about the cross-cutting benefits and research that will be 
needed to enable full benefits of that technology for our 
society that could involve NASA collaborations for off-Earth 
applications. It could involve DOD (Department of Defense) 
collaborations for applications from remote locations to power 
a future nuclear Navy.
    But if we aren't beginning to think of those cross-cutting 
opportunities now, then we will ultimately be depriving 
ourselves of the tremendous potential and promise of fusion, a 
game-changing technology. It won't be enough to simply develop 
fusion energy technologies. If we want America to be a world 
leader in this space, we need to utilize the full breadth of 
opportunity in the Federal research enterprise to help create a 
fusion research ecosystem to advance this technology.
    We have an interesting discussion ahead of us this morning 
and an incredible opportunity in front of us, and we must make 
the most of it by ensuring our Federal research enterprise is 
working as collaboratively as possible.
    And I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It's been 
wonderful to work with you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Thank you, Chairman Lucas, for holding today's hearing. And 
I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for 
joining us. It is not every day that we are able to speak to 
senior officials from four of our nation's major science 
agencies, and in the same panel no less. I look forward to 
working with each of you this Congress.
    As Members of the Science Committee, we have the 
responsibility of overseeing America's scientific research 
enterprise. This is a duty we do not take lightly, especially 
in a time when numerous existential threats face our nation. We 
must remain focused on making sure that we are enabling all of 
the tools and technologies we will need to aggressively 
confront the climate crisis. And the economic and national 
security implications of losing our global leadership in 
science and technology are stark. I hope that everyone in the 
room can agree that robust federal science and technology 
programs are essential to ensuring the prosperity and well-
being of all Americans.
    We had a hearing just last week on the importance of 
federal coordination on a national science and technology 
strategy. Today, we will take a closer look at the role of the 
Department of Energy, and the interagency partnerships that 
enable us to best reap the benefits of the research that the 
Department stewards. So many questions of science are 
interdisciplinary, and as such, often require close 
collaborations among relevant agencies to properly address 
them. Fields such as quantum, artificial intelligence, and 
climate science really demand a whole-of-government approach to 
advance the science.
    The agriculture sector is a great example where these 
federal science partnerships shine. Our nation can only fully 
address the climate crisis by deploying methods and tools to 
decarbonize the agriculture sector, which represents 11 percent 
of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. My district is one of the 
most productive agricultural regions in California, and I am 
encouraged to see that DOE national laboratories are leading 
impressive research in precision agriculture, which offers the 
opportunity to balance farming productivity with conservation. 
For example, DOE's Lawrence Berkeley and Idaho National 
Laboratories are leveraging their scientific resources and 
facilities to support technological innovation that will help 
develop this emerging field of agriculture, with notable 
contributions like the Crop Artificial Intelligence Quotient. 
This computational tool will provide farmers with accurate, up-
to-date yield maps capable of analyzing variables like crop 
yield and moisture to help growers apply precision treatments 
only where needed, saving time and money while simultaneously 
benefitting the environment. This DOE project uses data from 
USDA satellites, which demonstrates the interconnection that we 
need between our research agencies. And this is just one 
example of these important interagency partnerships that we 
must preserve and build upon.
    I also think that we would benefit greatly if we start 
thinking about crosscutting research opportunities for newly 
emerging technologies. As we develop next generation 
technologies like fusion energy, we need to be thinking now 
about the crosscutting research that will be needed to enable 
the full benefits of that technology for our society. That 
might involve NASA collaborations for off-earth applications. 
That might involve DOD collaborations for applications in 
remote locations or to power our future nuclear navy. But if we 
aren't beginning to think of those crosscutting opportunities 
now, then we will ultimately be depriving ourselves of the 
tremendous promise of this game-changing technology. It won't 
be enough to simply develop fusion energy technologies if we 
want America to be the world leader in this space. We need to 
utilize the full breadth of opportunity in the federal research 
enterprise to help create a fusion research ecosystem to 
advance this technology.
    We have an interesting discussion ahead of us this morning. 
We have an incredible opportunity in front of us and we must 
make the most of it by ensuring our federal research enterprise 
is working as collaboratively as possible.
    Thank you, and I yield back my time.

    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Ranking Member, and I appreciate 
those opening comments.
    Let me introduce our witnesses today for the panel. Our 
first witness today is Dr. Harriet Kung, the Deputy Director 
for Science Programs at the Office of Science at the U.S. 
Department of Energy, where she's responsible for direction and 
oversight of Office of Science programs in advanced scientific 
computing, computing research, fusion energy sciences, basic 
energy sciences, high-energy physics, biological environmental 
research, and nuclear physics. That's quite an agenda.
    Our second witness is Mr. James Reuter, the Associate 
Administrator for NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate 
(STMD), where he manages and oversees investments in cross-
cutting technologies that support NASA's current and future 
missions.
    Our third witness is Dr. Michael Morgan, the Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Environment, Observation, and 
Prediction at NOAA. In this role, Dr. Morgan provides the 
Administration with direction and expertise regarding weather, 
climate, ocean observations, and water.
    And our fourth witness is Dr. Sean Jones, who is the 
Assistant Director for the Directorate of Mechanical--or 
Mathematical, I should say, and Physical Sciences at the 
National Science Foundation. In his capacity, he oversees the 
astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, material, and physics 
divisions.
    Thank you all, witnesses, for being here today and sharing 
your expertise with our Committee.
    And with that, Dr. Kung, I turn to you for five minutes for 
your opening comments, please.

         TESTIMONY OF DR. HARRIET KUNG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

         FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE,

                 THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Kung. Thank you, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member 
Lofgren, and Members of the Committee. It is a great honor and 
pleasure for me to join you today representing the Department 
of Energy to discuss the critical role of interagency 
partnerships in delivering DOE's mission while supporting the 
Nation's broader innovation ecosystem.
    My name is Harriet Kung. As the Chairman just mentioned, 
I'm the Deputy Director for Science Program in DOE's Office of 
Science where our core mission is to deliver scientific 
discoveries and major scientific tools that will transform our 
understanding of nature, while advancing our Nation's energy, 
economic, and national security goals.
    I want to start by noting that DOE shares the Committee's 
view of the critical importance of this topic, especially in 
our current environment. As we all know, America is in 
increasingly intense global competitions. It's a competition 
for leadership in science. It's a competition in technology and 
innovation. It will take all of us working together in the 
executive branch, Congress, across the whole Nation in order to 
meet this challenge, but also to build a more prosperous, 
innovative, and inclusive America for decades to come.
    In my testimony today, I would like to focus on three key 
points on how DOE delivers impact to our interagency 
collaborations. First, DOE's interagency partnerships span from 
fundamental research to demonstration and deployment. Whether 
it's unlocking the mysteries of the universe with NSF or 
driving innovation in ocean observation with NOAA, DOE is 
contributing our unique expertise and capabilities to 
interagency partnerships to address the most challenging cross-
cutting science and technology problems.
    Second, DOE engages in partnership where we advance our own 
missions, while bringing complementary technologies 
capabilities to our partners. Our 17 national laboratories, and 
the Office of Science 28 user facilities represent unmatched 
national resources, especially in the physical sciences and 
high-performance computing areas. Thirdly, our shared efforts 
have already delivered enormous outcomes going back many 
decades. For example, DOE, along with our NIH (National 
Institutes of Health) partner and private sector were 
instrumental to unlocking the human genome, and in turn, 
revolutionize modern biology and medicine. Working with NSF and 
others, we have peered into the heart of atoms and deliver 
exciting new insights on the fundamental building blocks of the 
universe and making our Nation the global intellectual leader 
in discovery science. And similarly, working with NASA, we 
leverage our expertise in nuclear seismic technology to deliver 
radio isotopes and power technologies that are driving Mars 
landers and satellite probes traversing the whole solar system.
    Looking to the future, we see a landscape where 
strengthening U.S. leadership in science innovation will 
require even greater collaboration. And as we work together to 
implement the CHIPS and Science Act, these collaborations will 
be needed to realize a future where the U.S. meets an 
increasingly competitive global landscape. And for that matter, 
our user facilities and national laboratories need to be 
upgraded and fully resourced to meet the increasing demands 
from both the DOE and also interagency-funded research. Fully 
leveraging these existing centers of excellence, while building 
capacity among historically minoritized communities, will be 
critical to delivering on the promise Congress laid out in the 
CHIPS and Science Act. We're already leaning in with a new 
cross-cutting partnership with NSF and in collaboration with 
NASA to deliver a one-of-a-kind instrument called LuSEE-Night 
(Lunar Surface Electromagnetic Experiment-Night) to explore the 
far side of the Moon. Similarly, we're looking to expand our 
partnerships further with NOAA and USDA.
    In closing, thank you for opportunity to address the 
Committee, and I'm looking forward to talking with you about 
DOE's collaborations and answering your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kung follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor.
    Mr. Reuter, you're recognized for five minutes.

               TESTIMONY OF MR. JAMES L. REUTER,

                    ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

         FOR THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY MISSION DIRECTORATE,

       THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Reuter. Yes, thank you, Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member 
Lofgren, and your entire Committee. It's really a pleasure for 
me to be here, and I'm excited to do so. My name is Jim Reuter, 
the Associate Administrator for NASA's Space Technology Mission 
Directorate. STMD develops transformative technologies, 
enabling future missions to the Moon, to Mars, and beyond while 
driving the space economy through strategic investments.
    NASA and DOE have worked together for over 50 years. 
Currently, we have more than 20 active partnership agreements 
and more in development. Our collaboration has allowed for many 
successful missions and projects. We wouldn't be here and--
without them with DOE providing crucial expertise in support of 
NASA's Human Spaceflight, Science, Technology, and Aeronautics 
Mission Directorates. Today, one of our most critical 
collaborations is space nuclear power and propulsion because 
it's nuclear systems that are essential to NASA's Artemis 
program and Moon-to-Mars exploration objectives. Maturing space 
nuclear technologies is also beneficial to advancing small 
modular reactor technology on Earth.
    DOE provides NASA with nuclear regulatory and safety 
support, with indemnification, subject matter expertise, test 
facility capabilities. Integrated teams are maturing low-
enriched uranium reactor designs, advanced manufacturing 
methods, digital modeling, and test capabilities for space 
systems. Fission power systems offer a reliable way to power 
operations in other worlds, such as providing electricity for 
habitats, resource extraction, and processing plants.
    In 2018, the agencies conducted a joint ground test of a 
kilowatt reactor prototype that helped develop preliminary 
reactor design concepts. In 2022 then, the agencies extended 
that development through three industry-led design efforts for 
40 kilowatt systems as part of our NASA's Moon-to-Mars 
campaign.
    Space nuclear propulsion is an enabling technology for 
human missions to Mars. DOE's contributions to this technology 
are key to reducing the size of our reactors by advancing 
higher-temperature fission fuels and reactor designs. NASA and 
DOE continue working with industry to develop thermal 
propulsion engines, and in 2021, this work led to the award of 
three contracts for design efforts.
    DOE and NASA also work closely on radioisotope power 
systems (RPS), which harness heat from the natural decay of 
plutonium-238 radioisotope, producing electric power and heat 
for spacecraft systems and science instruments. This technology 
has allowed 30 NASA missions to visit the solar system's most 
remote and otherwise unreachable locations. Five of these RPS-
powered science missions are operating today, including two 
Voyager spacecraft that launched in 1977 and are still 
functioning in interstellar space. RPS powers the Mars 
Perseverance rover, which is currently exploring and collecting 
samples on the surface of Mars, and will also power NASA's 
Dragonfly mission, an upcoming mission that will be a 
rotorcraft destined for Saturn's largest moon Titan.
    Through constant rate production, DOE has established the 
domestic capability to produce plutonium-238 with production 
aligned to NASA's mission needs. We're also investing in new 
technology for more efficient and higher-performing RPS to be 
considered for infusion in the next decade.
    Our coordination and scientific research is increasing our 
knowledge of the universe. DOE is the primary government 
sponsor of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). It's a 
particle physics detector attached to the external exterior of 
the International Space Station and has been operating for 12 
years. It has helped us understand the formation of the 
universe and search for evidence of dark matter. AMS is just 
one example of DOE's Office of High-Energy Physics carrying out 
successful joint projects with NASA.
    In the coming years, an experiment called LuSEE-Night will 
be delivered by NASA's commercial lunar payload services to the 
far side of the Moon. It will test the feasibility of low-
frequency radio astronomy from the lunar far side and make 
radio observations of the very early universe.
    Our partnership also benefits us at home. NASA and DOE both 
participate in the U.S. Global Climate Research Program. We 
coordinate models used to understand climate change on 
timescales ranging from months to centuries and keeping our 
Nation a leader in understanding the Earth system.
    And finally, NASA Aeronautics works closely with DOE's 
Advanced Research Projects Agency to develop lighter electrical 
systems and more reliable circuits. We are applying that 
research to our national aviation challenges.
    We look forward to continued collaboration with DOE and 
welcome opportunities to expand our partnerships and leverage 
our resources in order to advance technology, science, and 
exploration in meaningful ways for the American people. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Reuter follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Reuter.
    Dr. Morgan, you're recognized for five minutes.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL C. MORGAN,

                ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

         FOR ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATION AND PREDICTION,

                      THE NATIONAL OCEANIC

                 AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Morgan. Thank you. Chairman Lucas, Ranking Member 
Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today regarding NOAA's work with the 
Department of Energy on high-performance computing and our 
Earth system modeling enterprise. I appreciate the Committee's 
interest in supporting successful interagency research 
collaborations with the Department of Energy, and I'm excited 
about the benefits that deeper ties with the DOE will bring to 
NOAA and the Nation.
    NOAA's mission is to provide weather, water, and climate 
research and products which protect life and property, as well 
as enhancing the national economy. As the Nation grows more 
vulnerable to climate- and weather-related disasters, we will 
need improvements in these products to meet NOAA's mission.
    A core component of NOAA's efforts to meet this challenge 
is the creation of more comprehensive Earth system models. 
These models represent our understanding of how the 
multifaceted connections between different components of the 
Earth's system such as the atmosphere, oceans, land, and sea 
ice, as well as hydrology, interact across short and long 
timescales. Research conducted using these models allows us to 
develop a deeper understanding of the climate--of climate 
change and to provide more accurate weather forecasts.
    These models require significant high-performance computing 
capabilities. NOAA maintains a strong relationship with the DOE 
to secure access to these critical computing resources. Most 
notably, NOAA and DOE work together to run Gaea, NOAA's largest 
research and development supercomputer hosted by DOE's Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory. Gaea allows NOAA researchers to 
develop and refine advanced climate models, enhance scientific 
understanding of climate variability and change, and improve 
the accuracy of global and regional climate model projections. 
Gaea also powers research into the relationship between climate 
variations and extreme weather such as hurricanes.
    Gaea provides additional value to NOAA researchers and the 
Nation by enabling seasonal real-time experimental predictions 
from the Seamless System for Prediction and Earth System 
Research, or SPEAR. These predictions are performed every month 
on the Gaea supercomputer fed into the North American Multi-
Model Ensemble climate predictions, and made freely available 
to the public for use in regional and tailored forecast.
    Gaea also supports the development of operational numerical 
weather prediction systems based on the Unified Forecast 
System, or UFS, a community-based coupled comprehensive Earth 
modeling system. UFS applications span local to global 
prediction on timescales from sub-hourly analyses to seasonal 
predictions. The system is designed to be a source system for 
NOAA's operational numerical weather predictions.
    Finally, the Earth system model 4, the culmination of 
NOAA's 4th-generation climate model development effort, was 
developed and run primarily on Gaea. It unifies advances from 
past development efforts and focuses on chemistry, carbon, and 
ecosystem comprehensiveness. Analyses of simulations from this 
model will serve as the basis for future research, helping to 
improve our understanding of coupled carbon chemistry climate 
interactions and to reduce uncertainty and projections of 
future climate change and its impacts.
    These advances have been made possible by NOAA's 
interagency agreement with DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 
Codifying and expanding this agreement, as proposed by the 
Committee, would benefit NOAA, the Department of Energy, and 
the Nation. Potential advances made possible includes 
simulations with large ensembles, more realistic representation 
of Earth's system processes and interactions, and high spatial 
resolution predictions of extremes and abrupt changes. 
Increasing resolution allows the capture of small-scale--
smaller-scale processes and features which can lead to better 
representation of severe weather, more timely warnings, 
improved prediction of extreme events and their duration, and 
higher-confidence climate projections.
    NOAA-DOE collaboration could enable also the application of 
artificial intelligence and machine-learning methodologies to 
the Earth system modeling. Similarly, using DOE's computing 
resources and expertise could lead to improvements in 
atmospheric data simulation.
    Collaboration between NOAA and DOE not only reduces 
duplication of efforts, it is a cost-effective approach to 
generate an additional computational capability for both 
agencies. Moreover, such collaborations could result not only 
in computational advances, but also in better decisionmaking on 
issues of national importance, such as future energy use and 
technology options.
    For over two decades, NOAA scientists have defined the 
leading edge of climate and Earth system modeling. Interagency 
agreements like those with DOE and other partnerships with 
academia and industry provide critical opportunities for NOAA 
to advance Earth system modeling in order to save lives and 
property and support the national economy, strengthening the 
exchange of information and scientific capabilities with 
partners will enable NOAA to continue to meet our core mission. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Morgan follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Dr. Morgan.
    Dr. Jones, you're recognized for five minutes.

       TESTIMONY OF DR. SEAN L. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

              FOR THE DIRECTORATE OF MATHEMATICAL

                     AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES,

                THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

    Dr. Jones. Great, thank you. Good morning, Chairman Lucas 
and Ranking Member Lofgren and Members of the Committee. Thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
interagency partnerships, which contribute to our shared goals 
to spur innovation across the Nation, train the next-generation 
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) 
workforce, and secure global leadership in emerging 
technologies. My name is Dr. Sean L. Jones, and I'm the 
Assistant Director for NSF's Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
(MPS) Directorate.
    NSF is extremely proud of the role the agency has played in 
our Nation's global leadership in science, engineering and 
technology. The MPS Directorate has supported some of the 
biggest scientific breakthroughs of the last few decades, 
including the first image of a black hole, to the first 
detection of gravitational waves and the discovery of the Higgs 
boson.
    Many of the technologies that are the drivers of national 
competitiveness today such, as artificial intelligence and 
quantum information sciences, are rooted in sustained NSF 
investments over multiple decades. NSF is grateful for the 
strong support of this Committee and the Congress, which has 
made these and many other breakthroughs possible.
    With the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act, Congress put 
in place a roadmap for securing U.S. leadership in science and 
engineering for decades to come. The new law positions the 
Federal research agencies to strengthen the American research 
ecosystem to quickly translate research and the impacts that 
address national challenges and benefit the Nation. The 
agencies represented here today are critical components of this 
recipe for success, and it is imperative for us to work 
together to achieve the goals laid out in CHIPS and Science.
    Through OSTP's (Office of Science and Technology Policy's) 
National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, the agencies 
work together to coordinate across priority areas and to 
leverage investments and expertise. For example, NSF and DOE, 
along with NIST, co-chair the subcommittee that coordinates 
Federal R&D in quantum information sciences, including our 
implementation of the National Quantum Initiative Act. Quantum 
has created some of the 21st century's most critical tools, 
such as lasers and broadband communication, and our continued 
collaboration is vital as new discoveries in quantum physics 
promise faster, more reliable computers and more secure 
communication networks.
    In January, NSF and DOE's Office of Science signed a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will enable increased 
partnerships to address some of our most important challenges. 
This MOU builds upon previous partnerships and provides 
opportunities for collaboration on biotechnology, quantum, 
advanced manufacturing, engineering, AI, and machine learning. 
Growing a diverse, inclusive STEM workforce is also a priority 
for both agencies, and the MOU allows the agencies to address 
this critical need as well.
    Importantly, NSF and DOE's robust partnership includes 
access to various NSF and DOE-managed multiuser facilities 
around the globe. One recent success from that partnership is 
the NSF-supported work of researchers at the University of 
South Carolina, who collaborated with the DOE Sandia National 
Laboratories. The researchers have created a new type of porous 
material with unique nanoscale properties that can potentially 
enable superior hydrogen storage solutions, an innovation that 
will be useful for fuel cells used in vehicles, backup power 
supplies, and other applications.
    Another example is the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, which is 
the most powerful particle accelerator ever created, making it 
the premier facility in the world for research in elementary 
particle physics. Through a partnership between NSF and DOE, 
the United States is a major contributor to this international 
collaboration. A major international effort is underway to 
upgrade the instrument at the LHC, and our two agencies are 
coordinating closely to do so.
    Beyond the Department of Energy, NSF closely collaborates 
with many other agencies, including NASA and NOAA. NSF and NASA 
partner to advance research programs ranging from astrophysics 
to Earth system science, and NSF and NOAA partner on computer 
modeling to support the Nation's weather and climate forecast 
system.
    In addition to our partnerships with other Federal 
agencies, NSF is also developing long-lasting partnerships with 
industry. NSF's new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and 
Partnership, TIP, which was codified in the CHIPS and Science 
Act of 2022, helps position the agency to capitalize on the 
uniquely American research ecosystem. The TIP Directorate has 
announced new programs and partnerships with companies such as 
Intel and Micron to develop bold, potentially transformative 
solutions to address semiconductor manufacturing challenges and 
advance opportunities for equitable STEM education.
    In closing, NSF has made partnerships a central pillar in 
our strategy for meeting the challenges of today and laying the 
groundwork for the research enterprise of tomorrow. These 
examples provide only a small sample of many collaborations NSF 
is undertaking both within the Federal Government and with 
other partners to leverage resources and provide the best 
possible return to the American people for now and into the 
future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 
Committee today, and I'm happy to answer your questions. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Jones follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Dr. Jones. And thank you to all 
the witnesses for your testimony.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for 
questions.
    Dr. Kung, as you note in your testimony, many of the 
Department of Energy's successful interagency partnerships are 
enabled by DOE research infrastructure like the Office of 
Science user facilities and upgrades recently authorized in the 
CHIPS and Science Act. What DOE facility investments are 
necessary to ensure that our science--our Federal science 
agencies are equipped to compete together against our 
adversaries?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you very much for that question. We're, 
indeed, very, very proud of the 28 scientific user facilities 
that we have stewarded. In fact, it's really the cutting-edge 
technology, expertise, resources that we offer free of charge 
to publish more research for the whole community that really 
make them unique. We do need to make sure that these facilities 
are continuing to stay at the cutting edge. We also need to 
make sure that they are fully resourced. We can make these 
resource and the talents of the staff available to the whole 
community, not only to support the DOE science, but also to 
support our interagency partners. But we're also safeguarding 
the research that's being produced at our facilities to protect 
any unintended sharing of information and technology. So all in 
all, we're taking the stewardship responsibility very 
seriously, making sure that they're indeed serving the American 
people's the best interest.
    Chairman Lucas. Along that line of questioning on my part, 
I'm going to ask kind of a challenging question, I know. But we 
will be operating in a very restricted budget environment this 
fall, I suspect. Tell me what kind of investment should be 
prioritized. And I know that's never a pleasant question, but--
--
    Dr. Kung. Absolutely. In fact, this privatization is part 
of our DNA as a Federal steward of these resources. We are 
grappling with the privatization decision every day, amongst 
the six programs that I'm overseeing, within each program, the 
program also needs to prioritize their resources in order to 
maximize the productivity and impact. But we're not making 
these decisions in vacuum. We're actually surrounding ourselves 
with a guidance from Congress, from the Administration, but 
also from the community. For example, several of our sister 
agencies and I, we work together to set priorities on the 
topical areas that we need to jointly invest or individually 
invest in making sure there's no duplication, but that there 
are also synergistic opportunity to working across the agency 
boundaries.
    Chairman Lucas. Continuing with you, Doctor, on the Science 
Committee we know that DOE plays an important role in 
supporting research across the Federal Government, even in 
agencies that are outside this Committee's jurisdiction--hard 
to believe there are such agencies, aren't there, Ranking 
Member--but outside our jurisdiction. As a farmer and rancher, 
I'd like to take a moment to highlight the Department's work 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. DOE and USDA have an 
established history of partnering to address important research 
challenges in areas like biomass, biofuels, genomics, 
integrated water resources, rural energy development, and much, 
much more. Doctor, in the past few years, what steps has DOE 
taken to strengthen ties with USDA? And I ask that as we 
consider legislation to support the DOE-USDA relationship.
    Dr. Kung. Again, thank you for that question. We indeed 
have a longstanding partnership in both science and also the 
applied research development being conducted across the whole 
department. Maybe I can focus my response on the Office of 
Science part of interactions that we have conducted with USDA. 
Let's take the bioresearch centers (BRCs) supported by our 
biological environmental research program as an example. We 
currently support four of these BRCs that are being tasked to 
explore better ways and addressing bottlenecks in making sure 
biofuels overcome some of the bottlenecks, making sure they are 
cost-effective, and being able to being used in the commercial 
sectors.
    And this is a very strong partnership that we have with the 
USDA, for example. The Agricultural Resource Services at both 
Louisiana and in Illinois are working with one of our BRCs. 
They're taking this integrator research idea as essentially 
turning each of these plants as a factory to make sure that we 
actually get as much functionality out of these plants. And 
this integrated research approach is actually very, very 
powerful. For example, one of the very exciting success stories 
that we worked between DOE and USDA is this oilseed example, 
where, during the non-crop, non-grow seasons, we actually 
allowed the farmers to grow these cover oilseed. It's called 
pennycress. This is a oilseed that, based on DOE's expertise, 
we actually built in functionality to increase the seed 
population and also the oil content that can grow--be derived 
from these oilseeds, while USDA contributed their expertise to 
make sure that these plants are drought-resistant, they are 
more resistant to disease and so forth. It's really a perfect 
marriage in the way that we're contributing the fundamental 
science on the genomics microbiology perspective where the USDA 
coming from the agriculture attributes. So in a way we're able 
to produce this oilseed and make them into a commercial 
application.
    Chairman Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. With that, my time is 
expired. I recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Kung, my understanding is that you are the Acting 
Director at this point of DOE's Fusion Energy Science Program. 
I've got questions for everybody, but I only have five minutes, 
so I want to talk to you about some of the issues of concern 
that I have. As you know, Congress has passed in the last five 
years several bills that came out of this Committee with 
bipartisan support, and they were based on the Fusion Energy 
Science Advisory Committee and the National Academies' 
recommendations. We'll get--we'll find out what the President's 
budget is tomorrow, but I want updates on where we are on some 
of the requirements that Congress has put on the DOE. For 
example, it's my understanding that although directed, the 
Department has yet to establish an inertial fusion energy (IFE) 
program that could leverage the recent accomplishment at the 
National Ignition Facility (NIF), as well as the Department's 
other nuclear security facilities, nor have you established an 
alternative and enabling concepts program to assess and 
accelerate the development of the next generation of fusion 
technologies toward commercial development. So I'd like to know 
what the Department is doing today to ensure that you're 
complying with the Department of Energy Research and Innovation 
Act of 2018.
    And additionally, my understanding is that the milestone-
based public-private partnership was only established last 
September, but it's now at $50 million, completely 
oversubscribed, and I'm concerned and would like your input on 
the status of that.
    And last, I understand there's a pressing need to identify 
and develop fusion materials, as highlighted in the recent 
reports that I mentioned a minute ago. It's a major challenge 
to ultimate commercialization of the industry. Yet, this R&D is 
significantly underfunded when compared to the authorization. 
So can you address those gaps for me, please?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Could you turn on your mic? It's hard to hear 
you.
    Dr. Kung. OK. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I 
also would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your 
strong support for Office of Science and also for the fusion 
energy in particular.
    I would like to first address the inertial fusion energy 
topic and actually have wonderful news to share is that 
starting in Fiscal Year 2023, we are starting an IFE programs. 
And this is actually based on the excellent work. We recently 
tasked two very talented researchers. You may know Professor 
Tammy Ma and Professor Riccardo Betti from Rochester, or 
University of Rochester. Both of them led a base research need 
for inertial fusion energy workshop last year. And based on 
this excellent workshop report, we're actually formulating a 
funding opportunity announcement (FOA) that will be released 
later this year, probably later this month even to stand up a 
IFE program. We're very, very excited to see especially the 
Livermore NIF results. I think that is a giant leap forward for 
the whole fusion energy science, as well as the technology, and 
we're very, very proud of that.
    And also recognizing that particular result really grew out 
of almost six decades of very substantial science and 
technology research in physics, in materials, in laser, and 
also in all these technology developments, so we definitely 
agree completely with you and the Committee that we need to 
continue and enhance our investment in fusion energy 
technology, in particular, with the view of bringing fusion 
energy onto the grid.
    And you have mentioned several reports, the Fusion Energy 
Science Advisory Committee long-range report--long-range 
planning report, the NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine) report, all are strongly advising us 
to increase our investment, along with the CHIPS and Science 
and various authorization bills that your Committee has 
provided, and we are taking them to heart.
    In particular, you mentioned the milestone-based program.
    Ms. Lofgren. Right.
    Dr. Kung. We're very excited to be able to launch that 
program. Actually, we issued the solicitation earlier that 
year. The plan is to look at the awards, which hopefully will 
be announced in a couple weeks. Based on that, also inform our 
future trajectory. We understand there is a gap between the 
funding available that we put into the solicitation and also 
the authorization level. We are taking the authorization level 
as the guide as we're designing this program, but we're very 
excited about the milestone program. We think that this is a 
very important program to help us design this fusion power 
plan, but also develop a technology roadmap jointly with the 
private sector. I think those are very important information to 
inform our overall strategy for fusion, especially bringing 
fusion on the grid. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. I see my time has expired, but I know the 
Chairman shares my interest in fusion, and I'm sure we'll be 
pursuing it further in, you know, hearings in the future. So 
with that, I yield back, Mr. Acting Chairman.
    Mr. Williams [presiding]. Thank you. Sorry. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With China controlling 
more and more of the global supply chain of critical minerals 
and materials, does the Department of Energy consider this a 
serious threat to the national security of our Nation, Dr. 
Kung?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. There are critical 
resources, including critical minerals, critical materials.
    Mr. Posey. I can't hear you.
    Dr. Kung. I'm sorry. Should I stop?
    Mr. Posey. No, that's good.
    Dr. Kung. I think I understand your question. It's about 
resources that China is controlling. If it's not the right 
question, I stand corrected.
    Mr. Posey. Yes. Let's try this. What is the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science and Policy and their commitment to 
establish a domestic supply of minerals that come from China 
that are rare?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you. Thank you very much for that question. 
Indeed, we're taking these resources--the availability of these 
resources very critically, very importantly, and we recognize 
that these critical minerals and materials are essential for a 
number of the U.S. application, industry, commercial, and 
that's really impacting not only our national security----
    Mr. Posey. What are we doing about it?
    Dr. Kung. What we're doing about it, we're doing it--we 
actually are having a whole-of-the-government approach not only 
within the Department. We're coordinating across the different 
programs in the Department of Energy but also with our sister 
agencies, NSF, NASA and Department of Defense to name a few.
    I think from--speaking from my own office perspective, it's 
very, very important that we take a dual approach. One is to be 
able to find substitute alternatives to these critical 
materials and minerals so we're no longer at the mercy of China 
controlling----
    Mr. Posey. I get that.
    Dr. Kung. And the----
    Mr. Posey. Give me an example of one that we've done like 
where we've sought another alternative. Like we had a witness 
last week said 90 percent of our graphite comes from China----
    Dr. Kung. Right.
    Mr. Posey [continuing]. So what are we doing about that?
    Dr. Kung. So we may want to develop other graphite sources 
not from China. But also in addition to graphite for example, 
neodymium is one of the critical materials. There are super 
exciting properties that neodymium possess that we may find 
alternatives to having neodymium, for example, in high fuel 
magnets. So that's exactly--trying to understand what makes 
these critical mineral--critical materials so special that 
impact our clean energy application, our other applications, 
and then find----
    Mr. Posey. How much money have we spent searching for 
alternatives so far?
    Dr. Kung. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Posey. How much money have we spent searching for 
alternatives in the last 10 years?
    Dr. Kung. Right. So within--there are several pieces in the 
Department of Energy. In the Office of Science, we're spending 
about $20 million per year for the past 10 years or so. But 
there are a dedicated program called Critical Material 
Institute being supported by the Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy that had--that program has been going on for 
10 years. So each year it's funded at $25 million, so over a 
10-year span, it's $250 million. That is not the program that's 
supported in my office. If you're interested, we can get you 
additional information from----
    Mr. Posey. Yes.
    Dr. Kung [continuing]. My colleagues.
    Mr. Posey. I would appreciate that. How many commercial 
minerals and materials production facilities have resulted from 
these expenditures?
    Dr. Kung. Yes, that's exactly the question that my 
colleagues in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will 
be able to answer. I will be happy to get back with you on the 
details of that.
    Mr. Posey. How can the Department of Energy ensure that its 
research funds are used in a way that promotes American 
companies?
    Dr. Kung. Indeed, we are keenly aware that the Department 
also is putting--protecting the benefits of America's 
investment in R&D, making sure that we fend off unneeded, 
unintended sharing of information, especially recognizing there 
are countries that are not really adhering to the same code of 
conduct such as in terms of respecting our IP (intellectual 
property) rights, respecting the IP rights, and also 
intellectual property rights, as well as protecting research--
--
    Mr. Posey. All right. Time's almost over. If we have a 
foreign company competing with an American company, would we 
ever fund a foreign company?
    Dr. Kung. So the Secretary actually started----
    Mr. Posey. Yes or no would be helpful because we're almost 
out of time.
    Dr. Kung. OK. So the Department had put in a very rigorous 
vetting--risk-based vetting process to make sure that the 
American derive the--from the maximum benefit from the American 
investment in R&D. It's case by case. I--my understanding is 
that, and if you--I will be happy to get back with you with 
additional information on--if you have specific case you would 
like to--us to address.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time's up.
    Mr. Williams. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Jackson, for five minutes.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's a pleasure to 
serve with you, sir.
    Dr. Morgan, good morning.
    Dr. Morgan. Good morning.
    Mr. Jackson. I want to speak with you for a moment about 
the somewhat notorious, where I'm from, radar coverage gap in 
North Carolina. This is something I was not an expert in, am 
still not an expert in. I just want to give you a sense of what 
I've heard from some folks back home. And if I explain this in 
a way that's inaccurate or leaves out some important context, I 
want to give you the opportunity to correct me and fill in 
anything that I'm missing, OK? I just want to make sure we're 
all sort of on the same page with the situation.
    Years ago, I had a meteorologist in my district educate me 
about this. He asked me if I could do anything. I told him I 
was in the State legislature. I didn't think that I could. But 
now I found myself running for Federal office, and he 
reapproached, along with a number of other meteorologists. As 
it turns out, the nearest Doppler radar is about 80 miles away. 
This was a decision that was made many decades ago. I think 
there was some defense industry input for this. It was part of 
a larger cold war calculus about how to spread out Doppler 
radar across the country. And back then, the Charlotte 
metropolitan region didn't have the three million people that 
it has today, and nothing has been done to close that coverage 
gap. I know a report was issued by I believe NOAA a couple of 
years ago that kind of downplayed the significance of the gap. 
There was some dissent. There was disagreement about its 
significance.
    Again, not an expert in this, but I can tell you that the 
meteorologists in my district say that when it comes to 
predicting and warning people about tornadoes and flash floods, 
that they consider themselves severely hampered by existing 
within this radar coverage gap. My understanding is for very 
severe tornadoes, the coverage gap is not really a problem. But 
for F-1, F-2, and for flash floods, being able to detect 
weather below a 6,000 foot level is a major problem for the 
three million people who live in this metropolitan region.
    I would like to just give you some time to correct me if I 
got anything wrong, and ultimately, I'm going to ask your 
advice on how we proceed to rectify this.
    Dr. Morgan. OK. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
We--your question recognizes the critical importance of 
observations broadly in our predictive capacity in this 
country. And NEXRAD (Next-Generation Radar) radar is one of the 
key tools that we use for high-impact weather events like 
severe thunderstorms, tornadic thunderstorms, and heavy 
precipitation. And we use those tools to protect lives and 
property.
    I cannot fully address to you right now how the siting was 
done decades ago. NEXRADs were built, sited, and deployed, as 
you acknowledged, well over 30 years ago. And while we're 
continuously upgrading them through our service life extension 
programs and we're improving them with the latest technology, 
we're also recognizing that where we have those gaps, because 
the scan angle, the further out you go, the further up it's 
going to be, that's absolutely correct. And so what we've done 
is found ways of lowering that scanning techniques so that we 
can cover more of the lower troposphere closer to the Earth's 
surface.
    If--you know, those gaps may still remain, and we're trying 
to understand how we can better cover areas like Charlotte. 
They're part of an aging--they're aging part of our critical 
infrastructure, and we recognize that there's some inherent 
limitations with our current technology.
    So what NOAA is doing right now is we're really hard at 
work at looking at the next system, the follow-on system to the 
NEXRAD radar, and that what we're focused on is what's called 
phased array radar, or PAR, and these systems are going to 
allow us to greatly improve the scan times, as well as allow 
for better forecasts and warnings.
    Going back to the concern about warnings, that report that 
was issued a couple of years ago, I believe, found that--from 
the National Weather Service's analysis that, you know, we--one 
of the key takeaways from that report was that for predicting 
severe weather, it's not just the radars that are used, but 
there are other observational platforms, surface observations, 
spotter reports, et cetera, that help us fill in some of those 
gaps, so it's not just the radar that's critical for that. But 
we recognize where there are gaps, we are looking at new 
technologies, looking at the--some technologies with the 
private sector perhaps that might help to fill those in.
    I would be happy to work--and my team--to follow up with 
you on this and to discuss how NOAA is working to work--you 
know, how we can best work with Congress to move forward in 
this particular area.
    Mr. Jackson. Well, I appreciate that. I accept your 
invitation, would love to work with you, will say as a first 
thought reporting back to my constituents that there may be a 
new technology that's going to be invented, funded, deployed, 
and rolled out, and we may be the beneficiary of that probably 
is not going to cut it with them but look forward to having a 
conversation.
    Dr. Morgan. Right. But I think that lower scanning angle 
that we're using now hopefully is beginning to ameliorate part 
of that gap.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
    Dr. Morgan. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Babin, for five minutes.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it and appreciate all the witnesses for being here.
    I have some very specific questions that I'd like to have 
answers to if possible. For either Dr. Kung or Mr. Reuter, NASA 
currently pays DOE to operate the facilities necessary to 
produce plutonium-238, the isotope that is used to power many 
of NASA's planetary probes and rovers. How much is NASA 
currently paying DOE for plutonium-238 production?
    Mr. Reuter. I don't think I have--we'll have to get that 
information for you. I don't have the exact number of how much 
we're paying for plutonium-238. We do have a great relationship 
with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and got an agreement on 
continuous production rates that really serves our needs and 
we'll address in the future.
    Mr. Babin. OK. And I've got some more specific, and I hope 
we get the answers to this, too, maybe if not today----
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, we'll be glad to get you the information.
    Mr. Babin. How much has NASA paid DOE since 2011 when 
Congress began to provide funding to restart domestic 
production for civil space applications?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, we'll get you the information for the cost 
and----
    Mr. Babin. And then how much plutonium-238 is being 
produced this year, and how much has been produced since the 
restart in 2011?
    Mr. Reuter. Again, I'll get you the exact information as we 
go along. What we've done is we have five active missions that 
use radioisotope power systems. We've had over 30 over the 
years, and we know Dragonfly is coming up. We'll use it. And, 
you know, the exploration of the Moon and beyond is really 
going to--really help our need--and so what we've done is got a 
kind of a 10-year rotating supply, you know, average so we have 
constant production rate from DOE that really services our 
needs, and then we'll be glad to get you the total mounts of 
how much we're producing and the cost.
    Mr. Babin. All right, thank you. DOE uses the High Flux 
Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge and the Advanced Test 
Reactor at Idaho National Lab to produce plutonium-238. Has 
production at these facilities been constant or has it been 
interrupted for maintenance, servicing upgrades, or safety 
concerns? And do you anticipate any interruptions?
    Mr. Reuter. Again, I'll get you the exact information, and 
I'll be glad to come talk to you and get all the questions 
answered. What I would say is we--with going to the constant 
production rate, what we're anticipating doing is smoothing out 
those interruptions as we go through it. And we really think 
that will service our needs in the future, and we can adjust it 
on a yearly basis but kind of keep a production rate looking 10 
years in advance.
    Mr. Babin. So you do anticipate some interruptions then 
going forward?
    Mr. Reuter. You can't say that--anticipate interruptions. 
What we're trying to do is make sure that we have the supply we 
need when we need it and do so at a constant production rate. 
You never know with the unknowns, and so the--you never know 
that there won't be any, but right now, we're confident in our 
plan.
    Mr. Babin. Have you had any interruptions that you know of? 
And has that had an impact on production?
    Mr. Reuter. We'll get you the information when we come with 
a complete story.
    Mr. Babin. OK. If NASA was constrained by the availability 
of plutonium-238 for exploration missions, how would this 
change the space science program and the design of future 
missions?
    Mr. Reuter. When we do--when we go to future missions that 
are beyond--you know, out to Mars and beyond, it's critical for 
us to have a supply of--a constant supply of power and heat 
energy in order to be able to use these because we don't have 
the ability to utilize sunlight out there. And so all those 
missions are--as we advance them and as we're going through 
these things are critical for that need for us.
    Mr. Babin. OK. And then you've hit--alluded to some of 
this, but what's being done to encourage the development and 
use of low-cost commercially available nonplutonium 
radioisotope power systems?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, we actually are looking very seriously at 
that. It offers a potential to go to a more cost-effective 
solution as we go through this, and it's one that would be--
that some members of our--you know, it's easier for the 
commercial community to--so we're looking very seriously at 
that.
    Mr. Babin. OK. And then one more for you, Mr. Reuter. Last 
May, NASA announced that it would reexamine the viability of 
space-based solar power. What is the status of that review?
    Mr. Reuter. We have studies going on that--to look at that. 
We've had--held workshops for power--space power. And we're 
looking very seriously, especially as you go to the Moon, 
application--lunar applications when you don't have cables 
present and stuff. We're looking very seriously as--are there 
places there that we can use power, power beaming and wireless 
power, basically, as we go through it. It's a key part of what 
we're looking at. It's not necessarily the only way we'll go. 
But we're looking very seriously at that. And then the--
further, the extrapolation of what that can be for the 
commercial----
    Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Reuter. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. I yield back.
    Mr. Williams. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Ohio, Mrs. Sykes, for five minutes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, to you and 
the Ranking Member, for assembling this presentation, as well 
as to our witnesses for your testimony.
    My first question is going to you Mr. Reuter. We in Ohio 
are certainly proud of the NASA Glenn Research Center, and it's 
just north of my district, Ohio 13 in Akron. And we know that 
the road to Mars goes through Ohio. I think that's what 
somebody said or unless I just made that up today. That's fine, 
too. Oh, I have more. I have more. So the research and 
development that you all are facilitating certainly has some 
far-reaching impacts, particularly for Ohio and our advanced 
manufacturing sector, which has benefited immensely from 
technology transfers that NASA has engineered and helped spin 
off, and we thank you for that.
    But in particular, I want to talk to you about--or want you 
to talk to us about the Defense Advanced Research Project 
Agency (DARPA) where you all are focusing on nuclear 
propulsion. And can you discuss a bit more about NASA's 
partnership with DARPA, and can you share with us what lessons 
we should take from the interagency cooperation that we can 
apply more broadly for the Federal research ecosystem that 
you're discussing today?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. And we 
wholeheartedly agree the Glenn Research Center is one of our 
absolute best research centers at NASA. We do a great deal of 
work with them, over $2.5 billion dollars of economic 
development, over 10,000 jobs in the area as a result of that. 
And it's really a tribute to those. And for us, we utilize 
their expertise in propulsion systems, in power, in thermal, in 
situ resource utilization on the Moon, communications, and so 
on as we go through this.
    Now, you asked about the particular agreement we have with 
DARPA, and that has been, you know, several months in the 
making. What I would say is this is a revolutionary time for 
potential of using nuclear systems in space to change the way 
we think about traveling in space. And so we're really excited 
about doing that. And, as a result of that, it's something 
that's multiagency interest. Department of Energy we work very 
closely with on this and in DARPA. The nice thing about the 
DARPA agreement was we've recognized over the last couple of 
years that we have common interests, and we worked really hard 
to get the objectives we have overlapping to the point.
    So what we're trying to do--what we recognize them as we 
were going through this development, and they have the DRACO 
(Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations) program 
that we're co-partners with now and is a great opportunity for 
us to combine our resources. So neither one of us could afford 
to do this on our own, but we've done so and outlined the 
objectives that each of us will--and requirements each of us 
will have, and then--and we're working with a common contract 
but different parts of it that we fund, and so there's no 
exchange of funds between us, each to the partners. And it's 
really--it's--we're really excited about it.
    I think it's--you know, when you have the need together and 
you have the willingness to compromise a little bit on where 
your objectives are, then, you know, it's the way--especially 
in these times where budget will be restrictive. It's the way 
we're really looking at as how do we utilize the whole of 
government?
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much for that answer and 
specifically for your conversation about the budget and using 
it in the most efficient way and working across agencies. And 
if you could just dig a little bit deeper into how some of the 
research and development at NASA is benefiting our local 
communities. Like I said, I don't represent the district where 
NASA Glenn is, but I'm confident our district is receiving 
benefits and participating in the pipeline and getting us 
closer to Mars as we were first in flight. Isn't that right, 
Congressman Jackson? I had to. I had to do it.
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Sykes. Well, thank you for allowing us, Mr. Chair, to 
have a moment of levity there. But if you could just discuss 
how these partnerships are helping local communities throughout 
northeast Ohio and probably----
    Mr. Reuter. Sure.
    Mrs. Sykes [continuing]. Throughout other areas in the 
country who benefit from NASA's research?
    Mr. Reuter. What I would say is a core part of our--NASA's 
mission is to transfer our technologies and--for the benefit of 
the economy, the space--the economy--both the space economy and 
the rest of our economy. And Glenn Research Center is one of 
our most active participants with--across our centers on trying 
to help us on technology transfer. We view our technology 
transfer program, which I run, as being an essential part of--
and not just about numbers of this number of patents, licenses, 
or this many software licenses that we've released, but really 
taking that and helping the economy directly.
    So we really have--we look for regional economic 
development across the country hoping to try to reach the 50 
States, but one of the core areas that we've done a lot of work 
is in Ohio. One of the ways we do that is these programs that 
they're helping us run and things like what we call T2U 
(Technology Transfer University.) We work with universities, 
take NASA technologies into the business schools and use that 
as test cases for them for things, and it's actually produced 
companies out of it. So that area is especially good for some 
things like that. We also have a Fed Tech program that takes 
NASA technologies, working with entrepreneurs and stuff. And so 
it's kind of our core for what we're trying to do and broaden 
from there.
    Chairman Lucas. I thank the gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Fleischmann, for five minutes.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
this distinguished panel. It's great to be with you all today. 
I started many years ago on this Committee under Ralph Hall. As 
most of you know, I'm Chuck Fleischmann. I represent the great 
DOE reservation at Oak Ridge and all it does. I am also the 
Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, so as an appropriator, we fund all of your 
endeavors, and I think this is probably one of the best Federal 
investments I've seen in my congressional tenure. We've got Oak 
Ridge National Lab, the Y-12 plant, we're building the UPF, 
uranium processing facility. We have a great legacy cleanup. 
Science is critical to all of this, and I thank each and every 
one of you for your advocation.
    My first question is going to deal with supercomputing. I 
was there when we launched Frontier at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. This was the first supercomputer in the world to 
break the exascale barrier. The machine unlocks new 
possibilities to benefit our country's economy, 
competitiveness, and national security through scientific 
advantage. We will be able to take more data than ever before, 
analyze it faster than ever before. For everyone's knowledge, 
this is the fastest smartest supercomputer in the world. We 
have beaten the Chinese and our other competitors.
    Dr. Kung, can you tell us how the Department of Energy 
plans to integrate these new capabilities into our existing 
system so we can take advantage of big datasets, artificial 
intelligence technologies, and machine learning, for example, 
to solve big problems? Thank you.
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. We're indeed so 
excited and so proud of the accomplishment at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory delivering Frontier, the world's very first 
exascale computer system. But the job in delivering exascale 
computer is not done. We have another system that needs to be 
deployed at Argonne National Laboratory at the same time. In 
addition to deploying the hardware, we're also supporting a 
suite of applications. We want to make sure that these 
scientific applications can take full advantage of the super 
power that these high-performance computers are delivering, and 
the suite of application ranging from a new code for predicting 
cancer, new codes to be used for discovery of new forms of 
materials, new accelerated technologies, and so forth. So our 
emphasis has been how do we really maximize the investment we 
have made already in exascale computer?
    And you have also mentioned AI machine learning, and that's 
such an absolutely excellent accelerator. We can even derive 
even more higher performance and efficiency out of systems such 
as Frontier. So that is our current focus, making sure to 
really maximize the precious taxpayer dollars that we have 
invested in the wonderful machines----
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
    Dr. Kung [continuing]. At Oak Ridge and others.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much.
    This next topic I'm going to open up for the entire panel, 
but I do want everyone on the dais to understand this. Isotope 
facilities, we're talking medical isotopes, scientific 
isotopes, defense isotopes, manufacturing isotopes, the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee plays a central role in 
the Department of Energy's isotope program. In fact, Oak Ridge 
provides 283 of the 325 isotopes produced by the Federal 
Government. Why is this important? Because the only other 
source of many of these in the world is Russia right now. So 
Oak Ridge is the source of these key isotopes. It's critically 
important.
    Without Oak Ridge's unique facilities, including the High 
Flux Isotope Reactor--that's what we call HFIR--nuclear hot 
cells, and radiological facilities, the United States and many 
of our allies would have to turn to other sources, particularly 
Russia, to obtain many of these important isotopes.
    My question is this. Would you agree that maintaining these 
facilities used to produce isotopes at Oak Ridge should be a 
priority to the Department of Energy? Would you also agree that 
if the United States doesn't maintain our ability to produce 
isotopes domestically and has to rely on foreign sources, that 
it could have significant national security implications? Thank 
you.
    Dr. Kung. Congressman, thank you for that question. We 
fully agree that extremely important, our role, both stable 
isotope and radio isotope contribute to the U.S. economic, 
health, energy, and national security, as you noted. And we 
take our responsibility and stewardship of the isotope 
production capability very seriously, including stewarding our 
facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
    As you noted, we are facing a global challenge in producing 
these isotopes domestically, especially since the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine. We already are dramatically seeing that 
challenge further cutting into the supply, the dwindling supply 
of the U.S. available supply chain of these isotopes. And the 
DOE isotope program actually has been working on a strategy for 
six years. We didn't wait until the Russian invasion of Ukraine 
to start worrying about the isotope. In fact, we have six years 
of planning and getting a head start in making sure we have a 
strategy that really can alleviate the U.S. dependencies on 
these foreign sources, especially from Russia.
    So with that, with the funding appropriated to Office of 
Science, we actually have a number of projects ready to stood 
up, including the SIPRC (Stable Isotope Production and Research 
Center), which is a--we just had a groundbreaking at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory. We're making sure that these stable 
isotope which impacts science and technology, impact many, many 
important applications, including oil exploration, that we have 
a stable and adequate supply of stable isotopes. So this SIPRC 
facility will be a flagship facility when it's constructed. 
We're very proud of the progress it's made. Thank you.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Chairman Lucas. Gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now turns the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 
Caraveo, for five minutes.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Lucas and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for putting this hearing together. And thank you to 
the witnesses for taking time to come and speak with us today.
    I represent Colorado's new 8th District, and have a 
scientific background, though it is in medicine. And while 
preparing for this hearing, I really started to think back to 
my days in medical school and learning about the impacts of 
radiation exposure and in particular exposures in--at work. 
Obviously, a frequent exposure to radiation leads to harmful 
effects on the human body. And in 2018, the Department of 
Energy Research and Innovation Act was signed into law, which 
required DOE to reestablish a Low Dose Radiation Research 
Program to enhance the scientific knowledge of and reduce 
uncertainties associated with the effects of low dose radiation 
exposure.
    Since then, other bills have been signed into law 
authorizing more specific program requirements, including 
authorization of appropriations through 2027. The line 
instructs DOE to carry out agency-specific program--an energy 
agency-specific program in line with underlying statute that 
authorizes interagency coordination mechanisms on low dose 
radiation via the National Science and Technology Council, 
specifically identifying DOE, NASA, and NSF. I was encouraged 
to see that the National Academies released a report which 
recommends a long-term strategic and priority--prioritized 
research agenda for DOE's Low Dose Radiation Program in 
response to the Energy Act of 2020.
    So for Mr. Reuter and Dr. Kung, understanding the risk and 
mitigating the harmful effects of in-space radiation to human 
tissue is really going to be critical for human spaceflight 
programs and our astronauts' ability to explore deep space from 
the Moon to Mars and beyond. What more is needed to advance 
this research, and what are the unique capabilities, expertise, 
and/or facilities of the Department of Energy that can benefit 
NASA's efforts?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. We certainly agree at NASA that this is one of the 
most critical areas of research needed in order to help us 
sustain a Moon-to-Mars program and then--and beyond, absolutely 
one of the most difficult things and challenges we have.
    We work closely with DOE on this. The Brookhaven facility 
in particular is a great facility for us to help, and it has to 
be a multiagency look at it. We also have learned a lot from 
our experiences on the International Space Station. It's for a 
long-duration stay. We've had had astronauts stay for a year, 
and we go through that. And then actually also then in the 
recently very successful Artemis 1 flight, we were heavily 
instrumented there to really understand the radiation effects, 
as the Orion capsule goes through the Van Allen radiation belts 
and onto the Moon.
    So it's absolutely essential we do this. It's something 
NASA takes very seriously. It's also one of the more 
challenging problems, especially collected cosmic radiation and 
stuff of how to provide shelters and stuff as we go through it. 
But it's active research and one of the top risks we have.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you. Dr. Kung?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you. Let me just echo my colleagues. I 
think this is a very important topic. And we actually really 
value the partnership we have with NASA, as well as with 
National Cancer Institute (NCI). For the Office of Science, our 
approach has been utilizing and capitalizing our high-
performance computing, and also genomics and microbiology 
expertise. We're actually utilizing high-performance computing, 
artificial intelligence, and also really exploring the big data 
techniques so we can assemble big data sets for us to really 
analyze partnering with NASA and also NCI to probe the 
molecular signatures of cancer associated with low dose 
radiation as people associate exposure and dosage across 
multiple available datasets.
    We are currently funding a multi-laboratory team at Argonne 
National Laboratory that actually partnering with NCI has the 
benefit that they have the human health angle that we can 
actually tap into their perspective and expertise. And 
actually, as Reuter just mentioned, the NASA expertise and the 
use cases they have is actually providing a very rich data set 
for the multi-agencies to work together, and we're continuing 
to explore that partnership. Thank you.
    Ms. Caraveo. Perfect. Thank you, Doctor, in particular for 
mentioning the funding. I know that in 2010 there was a 
termination of low dose programs and joint projects between DOE 
and NASA, and so I was glad to have you touch on funding for 
what is going to continue to be important research.
    I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Collins, for five minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you can tell, I'm 
new. I'm just a small businessperson in the trucking industry, 
so I'd like to focus from a business standpoint and see if 
there's any problems or solutions.
    And I understand that the exascale computers are expected 
to greatly enhance our ability to do things like predict 
weather and innovate across several industries from energy to 
healthcare. And I'm told the United States will have three 
operational computers by the end of 2024, while China will have 
10 by 2025. And, Dr. Kung, is the United States or China in the 
lead when it comes to developing supercomputers, and what is 
the disparity?
    Dr. Kung. Congressman, thank you for that question. As 
Congressman Fleischmann just mentioned, we are the current lead 
in the high-performance computing. We have the world's first 
exascale computer. But the Chinese competitions are really 
fierce, and they are really chasing after us. And that's why 
it's very, very important that we keep up our investment in 
computing because computing really underpins most of the modern 
science and technology. But we also--I think our system really 
has the advantage is when we're designing these hardwares. We 
have the software to go with it. So these hardwares, the 
computers do not just stand alone. They are designed to really 
advance the cutting edge of science and technology so we can 
deploy the hardware computers but also applying them to the 
most challenging science and technology problems that the 
country is currently facing. Also, pairing was the mission 
space was our sister agency, not just benefiting DOE's mission 
but the NASA mission, the NOAA mission, USDA mission, and NSF 
mission.
    Mr. Collins. So the fact that they have more doesn't mean 
that they're better. Is that what you're saying?
    Dr. Kung. I think quantity is one thing. Quality is 
another. Impact is yet another. For us, one of the challenges 
is the Chinese system is relatively opaque. It's kind of hard 
for us to really gauge except the numbers that we're seeing, 
the level of impact because some of the applications are 
military, and it's not really in the open domain. So I think 
our strategies, we need to run as fast as we can. So we 
actually are already jumping--leapfrogging the competition. 
So--and that--the American system is really that secret sauce. 
It's that open system for us to really outcompete our 
competitors is to have that, the best ideas, the best machines, 
the best application for it.
    Mr. Collins. When you were talking about unintentional 
sharing, was that a reference toward China?
    Dr. Kung. To a great degree, but there are other countries 
that do not play with the same rules that we have with--in 
terms of respect for the intellectual properties. And we need 
to guard against not just the Chinese Communist Party but all 
other adversaries that do not really adhere to the same code of 
conduct that most of our allied countries and U.S. adhere to.
    Mr. Collins. So what role should the government play in 
helping us stay in the lead and with the--as far as China? And 
how is that different from the private sector in what their 
goal is?
    Dr. Kung. So I think we can really look at it from two 
aspects. One is the protection. We need to make sure that we 
put in all the protective measures and guardrails, and that is 
an area of very active interagency collaboration. I may turn to 
my colleagues to also comment on that. There are common forms, 
disclosure policies that we're working on not only from the 
NSPM-33, but also the provisions in the CHIPS and Science Act 
that we're implementing.
    In addition to the--putting in the protection measures, 
we're also making sure that within the Department, for example, 
we have a working group that are actually coordinating across 
not just Office of Science, but all elements in the Department 
that similarly for my--the sister agencies. And at the 
interagency level, we're also making sure that we have a clear, 
consistent approach because in order to maximize researchers' 
security, we need to have that consistency across interagency. 
So that is the protection part. And the promotion part is 
really trying to outcompete and out-innovate our competitors by 
really staying at the cutting edge in science and technology, 
and the partnership with our interagency partners are going to 
be key.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Lucas. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Casten, for five minutes.
    Mr. Casten. My thanks the gentleman from Oklahoma. Thanks 
to all our witnesses for being here. The--I am--I have to start 
by saying that I'm so proud of the work that this Committee did 
last term with the CHIPS and Science Act, so grateful for all 
of your work implementing this bill. It is truly transformative 
on--as industrial policy, as education policy, and I think 
we've got a lot to be proud of.
    That said, we didn't get it perfectly right, and I want to 
just focus on an issue that I don't think we can resolve now, 
but I hope that this Committee, and particularly on the side of 
the Capitol, can focus on it going forward.
    Dr. Jones, I don't want to pick on you, but I think you 
might have the closest experience to this. Are you familiar 
with the EPSCoR program, the Established Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research? You might just----
    Dr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. You might give us a quick overview of what its 
purpose is.
    Dr. Jones. Well, thank you very much for that question on 
EPSCoR. The EPSCoR program, which many of our other agencies 
actually do have EPSCoR programs as well. The National Science 
Foundation has an EPSCoR program that really seeks to address 
inequities with States that have less Federal funding than some 
of our larger States across the country. And so it really is 
about competitiveness across the whole country.
    Mr. Casten. Yes. And I think, you know, the intention of 
the program, I think, is good because, as we all know, there's 
a handful of really elite institutions that would gobble up all 
of our research dollars otherwise.
    Coming from Illinois, which is not an EPSCoR State, if I 
had a university that was on the Illinois border with Iowa and 
another university that was on the Iowa border with Illinois, 
both of them serve the same rural population, neither of them 
are that University of Chicago tier, do I have it right that 
the Illinois University would not be eligible for EPSCoR, but 
the Iowa one would?
    Dr. Jones. That is actually correct. And thank you for that 
question. One of the interesting things about EPSCoR 
jurisdictions and those institutions that actually are in 
EPSCoR jurisdictions, they partner with other institutions 
within the EPSCoR jurisdiction, but they also partner with 
institutions that are in non-EPSCoR jurisdictions. And they 
partner, of course, to deliver the best science and the most 
robust science for those EPSCoR projects. So it is possible 
that an EPSCoR award in another jurisdiction could partner with 
an institution in Illinois----
    Mr. Casten. Sure, but it's not an obligation, right?
    Dr. Jones. It's not an obligation.
    Mr. Casten. So----
    Dr. Jones. It's an opportunity.
    Mr. Casten. So the concern I have--and I'm--this isn't 
gotcha, it's just math, and I was running through, you know, 
the total number of Americans in EPSCoR States versus non 
EPSCoR States? Again, it's not a gotcha. Sixteen million live 
in non-EPSCoR--in EPSCoR States. Two hundred and seventy-three 
million live in EPSCoR States. Do you know the number of four-
year institutions between the two? It's a 2:1 ratio, 208 four-
year institutions versus 529 in the non-EPSCoR States. The 
number of students who attend those institutions, 3.5 million 
in EPSCoR States, 16 million.
    And so the reason I say this matters for this side of the 
institution is that we are the House of Representatives. We are 
designed to represent all American people. The only thing that 
EPSCoR States have more of than non-EPSCoR States is Senators.
    Dr. Jones. Well----
    Mr. Casten. Like--and like--and I'm all for making sure 
that we spread our research dollars around. I'm all for 
encouraging competition. But it is a concern that if we're 
sitting there saying, our purpose is to do the best science, 
our purpose is to implement science policy and industrial 
policy, our purpose is to spread that through urban and rural 
areas, top tier, lower tier, there is nothing in that policy 
that says it is important for us to get 26 Senators on board.
    Dr. Jones. Well, thank you so much for that question and 
that perspective of the impact of EPSCoR States. It's 
imperative as we look at STEM careers of the future and the 
grand challenges of our day, we have to empower innovation and 
our ecosystem across the whole United States. And so while you 
do give some very compelling statistics, we have to ensure that 
citizens, students, faculty, research institutions in all parts 
of the United States are part of the research ecosystem. So the 
EPSCoR program really does seek to help enable an all-of-
America approach to research innovation.
    Mr. Casten. And so----
    Dr. Jones. It's very important to the overall national 
strategy for sure.
    Mr. Casten. And I agree with the intent, but again, coming 
from Illinois, downstate Illinois is a much more rural area 
than upstate Illinois where I live, right? The fact that there 
is not a state line between the two areas doesn't change the 
equity that has to be covered between those areas. And I think 
it's a concern we should fix, and certainly, I think us in the 
House should be pushing to represent the interest of the House. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Dr. Jones. Thank you. I appreciate your perspective.
    Mr. Collins [presiding]. So they put the new guy in charge.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. 
Zinke, for five minutes.
    Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Kung, I'm a little concerned, as most of Americans are, 
about China. And I'm concerned about uranium, critical minerals 
that are being processed primarily in China and our dependency 
upon their supply system for ours. What is the Department of 
Energy doing, if anything, to look at the critical minerals 
array and to reduce our dependency on China?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. We absolutely share 
your concern about being beholden to a country who doesn't play 
by the same rule as the United States and the rest of the 
allied countries. So we're taking the supply chain of critical 
minerals and materials very seriously. Within the Department, 
there are several offices contributing to developing a critical 
mineral material strategy. We actually just updated our 
critical minerals material strategy in 2021. We identify a 
number of critical materials and minerals. And without--based 
on the level of critical supply chain issue, we are designing a 
whole range of R&D efforts to address them.
    Speaking from the Office of Science, we're at the very low 
end of the TRL (Technology Readiness Level). We're primarily 
looking at finding alternatives and substitute for the critical 
minerals so we no longer are being beholden to countries such 
as China holding this precious supply. And that will really, 
really depend on us understanding what makes these critical 
mineral materials that behave so in their own way that make 
them so critical for these various important applications. So 
that's one thing.
    And the second thing is that we really need to broaden and 
develop a sustained U.S.-based domestic supply chain, so that 
will actually require better mining, better processes of--
speaking from a materials and chemistry point of view. There 
are a lot of advances in separation chemistry, so we can 
actually be able to use better mining and processes to derive 
even higher yield in--from the U.S. mining perspective. And 
these are the advances basic research and science can 
contribute to that. And we actually have very strong 
partnership with NSF and other agencies. This--there's actually 
a White House-led NSTC critical materials and mineral committee 
that are working across the different agencies to come up with 
a national strategy for that.
    Mr. Zinke. My understanding on the EV (electric vehicle) 
world alone, it would take a 2,000 percent increase of mining 
for 20 years to catch up to where we are today. I'd be 
interested in the Department of Energy's view on such things if 
your data matches mine.
    Dr. Kung. We'll be happy--I do not have those data in my--
at my fingertips, but we'll be happy to get back with you.
    Mr. Zinke. And lastly, do you share the same concern about 
interception of IP property from China within your department.
    Dr. Kung. Absolutely. We believe that the protection of the 
American-funded R&D, we need to actually enhance our protection 
against those. And there are various measures that are being 
put in place to make sure that we safeguard the protection of 
the IP rights from foreign actors with intellectual property 
theft.
    Mr. Zinke. And are you pretty confident that will be in the 
President's budget, protection of----
    Dr. Kung. I know that--I do--I cannot comment on the 
budget, but my sense that this is a very high priority, and all 
parts of a department are treating this very seriously. In 
fact, Secretary Granholm had put in in July of 2021 that the 
innovations that come out of the energy--science and energy 
investment need to have a substantial--need to be substantially 
manufactured in the U.S. even though they can be sold and 
utilized worldwide. So there are measures being put in place to 
safeguard the protection of IP but also making sure that the 
benefits are directly feeding into American people.
    Mr. Zinke. I look forward to seeing the President's budget. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady 
of Michigan, Ms. Stevens, for five minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you so much. And what a delight to 
continue this conversation on regional collaboration, 
particularly on the heels of last Congress, where we were 
discussing some of the benefits coming out of our CHIPS in 
Science legislation. And thank you to our witnesses.
    My question is for Dr. Kung. I very much appreciated your 
testimony. And certainly, as we're looking at regional 
collaboration and collaboration across government, regional 
being what happens at the local level, cross-government, which 
is exercising all of government, I wanted to ask you about some 
of the barriers. You specifically talked about MOUs with other 
Federal agencies. There was an MOU signed in 2020. Hurray, 
because 2020 came with its set of challenges. But as someone 
who has been involved in the MOU process at the Federal level, 
is there any improvements that we could be making or 
understanding? I know sometimes there's delays or complications 
and maybe doesn't necessarily take an act of Congress, but 
giving you some time to just reflect on that MOU process and 
where it's necessary, and maybe where it's not necessary.
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. Reflecting on the 
MOU we recently signed with NSF, this may sound a little 
cheesy, but I believe collaboration and coordination is really 
a contact sport. We need to have very, very close contact with 
our agency partners to make sure that we communicate 
frequently, we understand where each of our mission space is, 
where the potential synergy, where are potential overlaps, and 
that really require a lot of interaction, a lot of 
communications. I think that is the basis--if Dr. Jones may 
also comment. That's really the basis of the DOE-NSF MOU. And I 
believe that's really a good example of how we can--not just 
having a piece of paper, but really having it be applicable to 
really make our Federal stewardship really efficient and also 
effective.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes, it's an intentionality, right. And if 
folks don't realize, I mean, where you are located and where 
NSF was located, you're not right next door, and you've got 
lots of employees who you want to be collaborating. So yes, Dr. 
Jones, if you wanted to also contribute.
    Dr. Jones. Great, thank you. And thank you for the 
question. I totally agree with Dr. Kung. It's about 
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. And so these 
MOUs, the umbrella MOU that we signed with DOE is really all 
about reducing barriers for us to actually collaborate----
    Ms. Stevens. Yes.
    Dr. Jones [continuing]. And actually to invest better for 
the taxpayer, for the American taxpayer, for example, being 
able to share research proposals, being able to review with 
each other to be able to co-fund things much easier to reduce 
significant barriers. And so it's very important----
    Ms. Stevens. Co-funding, they don't need to come back to 
Congress and ask for more dollars. We'll take it. That's great.
    And, Dr. Kung, we were thrilled to see the RFI (request for 
information) that came out of the CHIPS and Science legislation 
that your agency promoted last month, the RFI on the Clean 
Energy Regional Innovation Programs. And obviously, it's not 
your first go-around with promoting regional innovation 
clusters but just a chance to talk about past lessons learned, 
things that you're looking for, for this next round. It's 
certainly galvanizing our folks on the ground in Michigan.
    Dr. Kung. We are certainly very excited about the 
opportunity to contribute to regional innovation. We actually 
firmly believe that public resources should benefit the public 
generally, and that's really behind the regional innovation 
concept. And actually, from the DOE, especially from a national 
laboratories' point of view, we believe that our national 
laboratories really are the regional anchor and leader in 
technology innovation, and they have--they could have a lot 
more--they could have--contribute a lot more to the regional 
innovation.
    Based on the prior experiences, we know that our sister 
program, the Office of Technology Transition (OTT), actually 
has very substantial experience in actually surveying the 
companies that involved in regional innovation. And what we 
have learned is that a lot of these incubators are--actually 
may not necessarily have resources that can contribute to the 
traditional FOA. For example, most of our programs have FOAs, 
but some of these incubators, small companies, they may not 
even have resources to contribute and be able to be competitive 
in FOA. And that's actually one of the areas that the OTT 
program has identified. There is actually a very insightful 
analysis. They have confirmed that with their stakeholders. I 
think it's this type of lessons learned I think it's very 
important, as all of us grapple with the regional innovation to 
understand what are the barriers so we can then----
    Ms. Stevens. And as we're looking at global competition, 
that tech transfer point remains very important, so thank you 
for that contribution.
    My--the rest of my questions, I'll submit for the record. 
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from New York, Ms. Tenney, for five minutes.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for your testimony today. I'm sorry I missed some of 
it. But I want to thank you also for holding this meeting on 
the Department of Energy's critical role in funding U.S. 
research and development, and thank you for your insight, as 
well as all of you and your work that you've been doing in your 
fields.
    I'm honored to represent New York's new 24th congressional 
District, which includes all the remaining active nuclear 
plants in the State of New York. As New York State rushes to 
mandate a fully carbon-free grid by 2040, nuclear energy is 
going to be increasingly a critical player in this space. 
Nuclear energy is one of the few carbon-free energy sources 
that works regardless of the weather, which we have a lot of 
interesting weather in upstate New York. And that's why I 
strongly support the nuclear and energy research being 
conducted by the Department of Energy both in partnership with 
NASA and through its Office of Nuclear Energy (ONE).
    Additionally, New York's 24th Congressional District has a 
strong history as the home to the Erie Canal, one of the first 
regions of our country to enter the Industrial Revolution, 
thanks to the innovations on the canal. We also have Niagara 
Falls at the other end, which provides us with hydropower.
    I believe that we must restore American manufacturing, 
particularly in regions like upstate New York. The work that 
the DOE and NSF are doing to support advanced manufacturing is 
critical for our revitalization of American manufacturing, 
particularly in Rust Belt regions of this Northeast, like 
upstate New York.
    And finally, New York 24 is the largest agricultural 
district in the Northeast, and the research that DOE and USDA 
do together has helped numerous farmers throughout my district 
by developing more advanced 21st century farming techniques.
    And so I want to direct my first question to Dr. Kung and 
also to Mr. Reuter. In both of your testimonies, you discuss 
the importance of interagency research opportunities. My first 
question is can you just briefly tell me how the Department of 
Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and NASA has worked together 
on advancing nuclear technologies benefit the future of nuclear 
energy? If you could just give me a real quick capsule summary, 
both of you.
    Dr. Kung. My remarks will be very brief. I'm from the 
Office of Science. But from my understanding, we have a lot of 
great work in the Office of Nuclear Energy, especially in 
preparing the space power that Mr. Reuter has talked about. And 
that's really a decade-long partnership by providing NASA with 
a power source so they can venture into Mars and beyond.
    So with that, I'm turning over to Mr. Reuter.
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, and thank you, Congresswoman. It's very 
accurate. We think nuclear systems in development in space is 
critical to our exploration needs as we go to the future. We 
work very closely with the Office of--ONE to help develop the 
systems as we go through it for both power and propulsion. One 
of the critical first steps is a power system on the Moon, 
where we do have--we experience long times with--a couple weeks 
without any solar power and stuff. And what--and so for us, the 
critical needs that we get fulfilled by the Department of 
Energy include indemnification, subject matter expertise, test 
facilities that are really critical to us. They really were--
it's really part of a team that works together for this. And so 
it's critical for us as we go forward.
    Ms. Tenney. Well, let me ask you that now since I know one 
of the--my colleagues, a new colleague is a former nuclear 
submarine officer, and my former husband is a former nuclear 
submarine officer, and I see them as sort of modular nuclear 
plants in and of themselves. Can you discuss how NASA's space 
nuclear technologies can help benefit the small modular nuclear 
technology? And is that something we can see as a reality for 
the future in providing our energy needs, particularly in 
places like New York, where we're doing this race to carbon-
free existence and with such a great need right now with about, 
I don't know, 30 percent of our power grid is still coal-based?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, you're right. There's actually--there's a 
very strong connection between the things we want to do in 
space and having a modular reactor applied. In each case, the 
basic fundamental requirements are very similar. The power 
levels aren't that much different. There--it's a bit higher for 
the ground applications than what we want, but they're in the 
ballpark for each other. The transport--ability to transport, 
ability to set up local networks and stuff like that with power 
grids stuff, it's all really very common. The basic 
technologies of making these reactors work is very similar 
between them. And so for us--we have a bit--and both of us have 
driving requirements to get the system down in size because it 
needs to be transportable and so that kind of restricts it on 
the ground and for us to be able to land on the Moon or launch 
it, then it's got to be a certain size, too. So for us, all 
those things are related. The basic technologies are things--
moderator blocks and other things are very similar between 
them.
    Ms. Tenney. Well, let me ask you something. So this is a 
very feasible type of technology that we can use in a more 
expanded way, in an industrial way. What about the cost and the 
safety issues that have been raised on this issue? Is that 
something that we--that NASA and our Energy Department can work 
together in making those----
    Mr. Reuter. Yes----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Something that would keep the 
public positive about those issues?
    Mr. Collins. Would the gentlelady suspend for a minute? The 
clock had stopped and restarted and stopped and restarted, so 
if you could finish up your question and answer pretty quick, 
and then we'll move on. Thank you.
    Mr. Reuter. OK.
    Ms. Tenney. Oh, OK.
    Mr. Reuter. All right.
    Ms. Tenney. Keep--can you tell me how much time I have? 
None? OK. It said five minutes for a long time, so I figured 
you gave me a--this is part of the nuclear technology we're 
going to have. Like we stopped the clock.
    Mr. Collins. I told you that a new guy was in charge.
    Ms. Tenney. I look younger already, right?
    Mr. Reuter. Thank you. And if I'm allowed to answer the 
question, would you repeat it, please? I forgot it.
    Ms. Tenney. Yes, I was just--it was about the safety and 
the----
    Mr. Reuter. Oh, safety, yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. And the affordability----
    Mr. Reuter. Affordability of the--yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Of having modulars, nuclear 
technology.
    Mr. Reuter. Look, we treat the safety of these reactors 
very seriously. The good thing about this is for us in a--in an 
environment for space, we don't have to activate the reactor 
until we get to orbit and in a particular orbit that's far away 
from any ground systems. There's lots of research we've done in 
terms of fault-tolerant--managing faults and responding to it. 
And the KRUSTY (Kilowatt Reactor Using Stirling Technology) 
reactor that we did with DOE back in 2018 demonstrated several 
of those technologies. Cost is something, as we get multiple 
uses for it, it will come down. It's certainly a very expensive 
proposition now, but I think, especially in the modular reactor 
area with all the work that's going on, we can make real strong 
advances there.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you so much. I yield back. And I wanted a 
question for Mr. Jones--or Dr. Jones about Micron, but we'll 
get to that next time and submit those questions for the 
record. Thanks so much.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Ms. Tenney.
    All right. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Collins. Thank you, 
Ranking Member Lofgren, and thank you to the witnesses for your 
testimony and your expertise. We know how important Federal 
agencies are to America's vital research efforts, and 
interagency collaboration is so critical and can really be a 
significant catalyst for positive advancement in research, 
enabling innovation, more sophisticated research than can be 
done by one agency alone.
    Climate change, as we know, is a multifaceted challenge. It 
requires a coordinated effort from multiple agencies, and I'm 
going to focus on the partnership between DOE and NOAA and the 
valuable opportunities there. NOAA's climate trends and 
environmental conditions data can inform a Department of 
Energy's efforts to develop more sustainable energy sources, 
and Department of Energy's expertise and energy production and 
emissions reduction can be leveraged to support NOAA's efforts 
to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.
    One of the most critical aspects of this collaboration is 
the joint effort to keep the ocean healthy. As the co-Chair of 
the Oceans Caucus, it's--and a Representative of a coastal 
district, I care about it greatly. We know how important it is 
in regulating the planet's climate. As the ocean absorbs vast 
amounts of carbon dioxide, it becomes a more acidic, harming, 
as we know, marine life and ecosystems.
    So I've been advocating for increased resources and support 
for Federal agencies tasked with implementing the response to 
declining ocean health, and to address this issue, DOE and NOAA 
are working together to develop technologies and approaches 
that can help mitigate ocean acidification, including research 
into carbon capture and storage and developing technologies to 
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
    So, Dr. Morgan, I often speak about the importance of 
science communication, highlighting that there is more we can 
do to communicate with our constituents and the public about 
the investments that Congress is making in science and 
scientific research. And this is especially important regarding 
climate change. So how can interagency collaboration between 
NOAA and the Department of Energy be leveraged to promote 
public awareness and engagement on issues like ocean health?
    Dr. Morgan. Thank you for your question. And I think you 
really framed it nicely. The importance of the oceans and our 
climate system, they have a long-term memory, right? The heat 
that's absorbed, the net heat that's absorbed warms the oceans. 
The ocean is warming faster than the--on land and the 
atmosphere. And so part of this understanding that we get comes 
from the observations that we develop, that NOAA has access to 
through observing platforms, but also from looking at the work 
that DOE does with their ARM program, Atmospheric Radiation 
Measurement program, which allows us to better understand the 
processes of radiative transfer and looking at the energy 
budget of the entire Earth.
    So it's the modeling, it's the observations, and it's the 
blending of those models with observations that allows us to 
develop a predictive capacity for understanding what the 
changing climate is.
    We also have to make investments as well in the ocean. 
Ocean acidification, as you mentioned, is a very serious issue, 
and that's something that our--we're using modeling efforts to 
understand how rapidly that acidification is occurring, as well 
as using observations. And it's the responsibility of NOAA to 
make sure we can report those findings to the public. And it's 
the--again, the relationship, the collaborative research not 
just with DOE, but with NSF that does--also is invested in 
climate modeling, as well as with NASA, which has invested in 
their system modeling that really helps us develop that--I hope 
I have addressed your question.
    Ms. Bonamici. And Dr. Spinrad is an Oregonian of course.
    Dr. Morgan. That's correct.
    Ms. Bonamici. I know he appreciates the importance of the 
ocean.
    Dr. Morgan, I want to follow up. In your testimony, you 
noted that the Department of Energy has some of the world's 
most powerful supercomputers----
    Dr. Morgan. That's correct.
    Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. And they can process vast 
amounts of data quickly. So how would allowing NOAA to use 
these resources to assimilate more data into their models 
improve accuracy and reliability? And why is it essential to 
have better weather forecasts? You might have heard, our in-
house meteorologist Mr. Sorensen--Representative Sorensen isn't 
here right now, but you maybe heard from him about why is it 
essential to have better weather forecasts and an improved 
understanding of oceanic and atmospheric processes and better 
predictions of extreme weather events?
    Dr. Morgan. OK. Thank you. In my earlier testimony, I 
noticed that models to a certain extent represent our 
codifications of our understanding of the Earth's system. We 
know actually more about that system than we can actually 
represent due to computational limitations. So having access to 
really robust HPC resources allows us to better represent the 
processes with greater fidelity and realism, which then allows 
us to provide better guidance, forecast guidance to the 
country. Also, it allows us to increase the number of models 
that we can run in an operational sense because by doing that, 
that allows us to understand the probability, distribution of 
possible forecast states, so we can actually give people a 
greater sense of what the risks are for upcoming weather 
events, high-impact weather events.
    So the greater resources also means that you have timely 
forecast dissemination and the concomitant greater lead times 
for high-impact weather events, including severe storms and 
hurricanes. Having this, you know, greater realism and the 
processes that we can model allows us to better understand the 
relationship between the atmosphere and the ocean, the 
interactions that we've already discussed. And again, it 
improves our predictive capability, which improves economic 
output. It improves--basically improves and makes more 
efficient the conduct of commerce across United States, and 
while at the same time, helping to protect lives and property.
    Ms. Bonamici. Sounds very beneficial. And I'm out of time. 
I yield back. Thank you.
    Dr. Morgan. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Miller, for five minutes.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren. It's my privilege to represent NASA's Glenn Research 
Center as a part of Ohio's 7th Congressional District. In 
northeast Ohio, we've had the privilege of watching NASA Glenn 
lead the way on cutting-edge technology developments. This has 
included taking the lead on NASA's work on nuclear electric 
propulsion and fission service power through the Kilopower 
project and others.
    Mr. Reuter, you briefly referenced these sort of projects 
in your testimony. What role do you see advanced nuclear 
reactors playing in future American space travel?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, thank you, Congressman. And I will say 
that Glenn Research Center is a pride for us. They do an 
outstanding work, and they support my office very strongly, one 
of the best research centers we have.
    Mr. Miller. They're amazing.
    Mr. Reuter. And what I'd say is the areas of advanced 
reactors, that's what you asked, right? I blanked out on----
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    Mr. Reuter. OK. Yes. So the advanced reactor for us is 
really--can be fundamentally change--foundationally game-
changing for us in terms of the missions that we can enable as 
part of it. A large part of what we do is always--power is 
always king. And how you distribute that power and generate it 
is critical to exploration of space. We also need to have it in 
a compact package. And nuclear reactors are very--highly dense 
energy that can really help us enable new missions as we go 
through it.
    So for us, we can--we see for the Moon where there's 14--
there's 14 day-long nights, if you will, where we don't have 
access to solar energy, it really opens up exploration of the 
lunar surface as we go through it. That same technology can 
use--be used on Mars where on the surface of Mars with the dust 
storms and other things in the atmosphere, it's very difficult 
to get solar power. And then anything that we want to do beyond 
Mars and stuff, essentially, needs to utilize a nuclear source 
for power and stuff.
    So for us, it's fundamental that the types of things we do. 
It can enable us to go faster around the entire solar system 
and open up new ways of getting there. In fact, even then, if 
we can do this and go much faster to the Moon and back, to Mars 
and back, then it can enable human exploration more as we go 
through it.
    Mr. Miller. Yes. So it seems as if it'd be--the only really 
primary function that we would have to go further than where we 
already are.
    As a follow up question, Mr. Reuter, can you also elaborate 
on the importance of NASA's collaboration with the Department 
of Energy on the Kilopower project and other related projects, 
as well as the need to continue this relationship in the 
future?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, it's essential for us, and we really--the 
project you're talking about, the Kilopower project we call 
KRUSTY was something that was a test that we did together--
coordinated together for a one kilowatt power system. And we 
did so at--tested at the Nevada National Security test site. 
We--it was a partner between NASA and DOE where we each funded 
our responsibilities as we went through this. We conducted this 
entire test, including demonstrating fault tolerance of the 
capabilities, transient behaviors as through it. We did that, 
and it worked flawlessly. And we demonstrated that for 
something that was less than $20 million total between the two 
agencies as we went through it.
    So for us, that has taught us an awful lot of the things 
that we apply now. And now, we're looking for in a fission 
surface power not just a one kilowatt system, but about a 40-
kilowatt system and the Moon. Glenn Research Center is our key 
center for leading the fission power type development as we go 
through this.
    Mr. Miller. Yes. Thank you. And I just want to thank all 
the witnesses for your time and your testimonies today. With 
that, I yield back.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady of North Carolina, Ms. Ross, for five minutes.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Madam 
Ranking Member, for holding today's hearing. And I thank our 
witnesses for joining us.
    My district encompasses a large part of the Research 
Triangle Park in North Carolina. And I know the value of 
collaboration in advancing research initiatives that will 
improve the lives of so many. I specifically want to draw 
attention to the importance of including universities and 
community colleges in this collaboration. Last Congress, I 
worked to get several related measures included in the CHIPS 
and Science Act from securing increased NSF grant funding for 
community colleges to facilitating the commercial application 
of clean energy by universities and private companies to 
mandating the development of a comprehensive National Science 
and Technology Strategy. My priority is ensuring government 
agencies overseeing cutting-edge research can work with other 
institutions to ensure that they have the resources needed to 
cultivate the brilliant scientists of the future. And I 
appreciate hearing from you about your work to create a more 
effective and collaborative research environment and how 
Congress can support it.
    My first question is on climate science and computing 
modeling. Across the country, severe weather events such as 
lengthy droughts, extensive flooding, and worsening wildfires 
are occurring every year. NOAA already requires extensive 
computing to run several different models, ocean models, as we 
discussed, land models, atmospheric models, and other models to 
develop forecasts and inform communities of such extreme 
weather events.
    Dr. Morgan, you touched lightly in your testimony on NOAA's 
goal to advance its Earth systems model, a model that would put 
together all models and give us a better understanding of the 
Earth process as a whole. How important is high-performance 
computing to NOAA in achieving its mission, including assisting 
our communities in becoming climate-resilient, and weather-
ready?
    Dr. Morgan. Thank you for the question. And it is 
absolutely critical to have the high-performance computing 
resources because, again, what that means to NOAA's modeling 
enterprise is--there's two aspects of it. If you currently look 
at the ratio of our research computing relative to operational 
computing, it's about .75 to one. We recognize that we need to 
put greater investments in our research and development 
computing facilities with ratios looking at five to one or 
perhaps even 10 to one. Our priorities for weather research 
report, which was requested by the House a couple of years ago, 
identified a need for a 10 to one increase in our numerical--in 
our research and development for numerical weather prediction.
    What do we get from that investment if we had those 
resources? First of all, we could readily make use of the 
research and development computing right now if we had access 
to it. And what that would give us is better use of the 
investments that we've already made in our observing platforms. 
And what I mean by that is how we can get that data from the 
observing platforms into our models more effectively and using 
a greater volume of that data to help improve our forecast.
    In response to an earlier question, I talked about the 
greater resolution of the models that allows us to resolve 
finer scale processes with greater fidelity. That gives us more 
realistic depictions of high-impact weather events that are 
already impacting our Nation.
    Finally, making sure that we can take that data and 
effectively disseminate it to a broader--to the Nation is part 
of not just the supercomputing, but our data management aspects 
of this.
    And the final thing I'd like to say is we're also working 
with DOE, as an example, with NSF and also with NOAA looking at 
issues related to the ability to take artificial intelligence 
and machine learning and have them integrated into our modeling 
efforts, which will speed up our ability to run the models much 
more quickly, which allows those results to get out so people 
can make decisions more effectively.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I'll try to be quick on my 
next one, which is on quantum information science. And we're 
likely to take up the reauthorization of the National Quantum 
Initiative Act. Dr. Kung, can you talk a little bit about how 
the Department of Energy coordinates with NIST, NSF, and other 
agencies to advance quantum information science?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. Quantum information 
science continues to be one of our highest priorities, and we 
really take a lot of pride in working with our sister agencies, 
especially NIST and also NSF. In fact, through an NSTC site 
committee--subcommittee on quantum information sites, we're 
actually co-chairing the Quantum Information Science 
Subcommittee. We actually do a lot of cross-agency----
    Mr. Strong [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlewoman's time 
has expired. Thank you.
    I'd like to call for a five-minute recess. We'll reconvene 
at six minutes after 12.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Strong. We'll call our meeting back to order. I'd like 
to call on Mr. Williams from New York and recognize him for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 
working with you. I'm way over here in the corner. I'm not sure 
what I did, but I'm over here in the corner.
    I just have a series of informational questions. I don't 
think any of them are controversial. But what's the total DOE 
funding for the science programs sort of in your world? What's 
that total budget?
    Dr. Kung. Our annual budget in Fiscal Year 2023, it's about 
$8 billion, slightly over $8 billion.
    Mr. Williams. And I noticed in your testimony that one of 
the components of your mission is national security. Can you 
tell me more about how your office fulfills that national 
security mission?
    Dr. Kung. It's a shared mission across the whole 
department. We have a National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) part, which is the primary office that--our 
Administration, the part of the Department that is stewarding 
the national security mission. But we have very broad and deep 
collaboration across the Department to make sure that we're 
also supporting the national security part of the mission.
    One example I can give is that for a lot of the material 
qualifications, the requirements needed by the NNSA, we're 
actually devoting part of our light sources to help 
characterize and qualify some of these materials. So there are 
a lot of these cross-fertilization of pooling our resources 
together so NNSA does not need to support a standalone light 
source. Instead, they can come to the light sources that Office 
of Science support to help serve their needs.
    Mr. Williams. Are there any other--other than supporting 
NSA are there any other things that come to mind that 
specifically are equated with supporting the national security 
priorities other than materials, which I've been a customer of 
those, so I know what those are?
    Dr. Kung. Right. So if we look at the emerging 
technologies, all of them have a national security component, 
from quantum information science to artificial intelligence, 
even biotechnologies, all of them. So from a fundamental 
science point of view, we're providing that science 
underpinning. Hopefully, the knowledge and the innovation can 
then be translated to support the Department's national 
security missions.
    Mr. Williams. Those are good examples. Quantum, I think you 
said digital intelligence, biomaterials. Are there any specific 
programs or a laundry list of programs that I should be--that 
all of us should be aware of that come to your mind 
specifically that have national security emphasis or priority?
    Dr. Kung. Yes, I believe the list is--could be quite long. 
If it's OK, if we could get back with you with a more 
comprehensive list.
    Mr. Williams. Certainly. Beyond the material and supporting 
NNSA, when the DOE hands out grants, and specifically the 
science programs just because that's your purview, when they 
hand out or make awards and grants, what factor or what 
weighting does meeting the national security priorities--how 
does that come into play for those awards, particularly in--
where they're competitive?
    Dr. Kung. So our grant selection process follow a set of 
review criteria that's codified in our 10 CFR (Code of Federal 
Regulations) 605. It has scientific merits as the--No. 1, 
there's--we look at the performance qualifications, their 
expertise, the budget. They propose whether they're reasonable, 
whether--also the relative expertise and instrumentation 
setting they have, whether these are suitable to carry out 
these experiments or proposed research they propose.
    Mr. Williams. Sure.
    Dr. Kung. All of these are our standard criteria for 
evaluating the merits of the grant. But for given topics, we 
can also put in additional program policy factors. For example, 
quantum information science would be one that we may be looking 
at potential broader applications and so forth. So given the 
topical areas of the research, we can then broaden the lens of 
the review criteria, especially addressing potential dual use 
of example topics such as----
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Sorensen of Illinois for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you all for being here. I have spent 
the majority of my career in STEM as a broadcast meteorologist 
in northern and western Illinois. Much of what I accomplished 
in my career, researching and presenting weather and climate 
data, was only because of the collaboration between the DOE, 
the USDA, NOAA, NASA, and NSF. And so today, I'd like to focus 
on this working relationship that we have, how Congress can 
best facilitate and shepherd more collaboration in the future.
    And my first question, I'm asking this on behalf of our 
farm families in northern and western Illinois, who ask me 
what's next after ethanol as we buy more electric vehicles? You 
know, last year, the DOE, along with other Federal agencies, 
developed the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge 
roadmap. This is a strategy for scaling up advanced 
technologies to produce sustainable aviation fuels. And I 
believe that our farmers are going to be heroes in this 
endeavor.
    What is the status of the implementation of the roadmap? 
What are some of the barriers that exist, and how can we make 
sure that the progress continues to accelerate? And if I could 
ask this question to Dr. Kung and Mr. Reuter.
    Dr. Kung. Thank you very much for that question. We're 
actually very proud of the work the Department is leading in 
the sustainable aviation fuel. It really capitalizes on decades 
of investment across the whole department, from Office of 
Science, to the Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy, which is 
leading the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge. So I 
think building on this decades-long of really science 
foundation, they're able to really upgrading the biofuels in 
order to add functionality, efficiency, and also performance 
into the sustainable aviation fuel. I'm not personally involved 
in the roadmap, but I'll be very happy to get back with you 
based on my colleague's input.
    Mr. Reuter. And would I would say is we do support--NASA 
does support the biofuel area and stuff in the production of 
those, and we certainly see a lot of opportunities there. We're 
mainly in a support role to others like DOE as we go through 
that.
    The other thing, though, that is core to us also is zero 
net carbon emissions for airplanes and electrification of the--
of propulsion system and batteries and stuff. And there, we do 
play a very active role, and we have a lot of activities going 
on to a demonstrator vehicle.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Morgan, there have been proposals to separate NOAA from 
the Commerce Department. Could you tell me some of the 
drawbacks or some of the benefits? Should NOAA become an 
independent agency and whether or not you support this move and 
whether or not this meteorologist now in Congress should do the 
same?
    Dr. Morgan. Thank you for your question. That's--there's a 
lot to unpack in that in terms of the separation of NOAA from 
the Department of Commerce. I mean, as has been mentioned 
earlier in my earlier testimony, the work that NOAA does, does 
have--does inform how the conduct of commerce is actually done 
in the United States, in fact, and, frankly, globally in terms 
of our ability to produce highly accurate forecasts that allow 
for ship routing, for transportation, et cetera, to be done 
effectively.
    I think one of the big questions that has to be asked in 
any possible change to NOAA's authorization really has to focus 
on what are we as an agency fundamentally authorized to do? 
What are the capabilities that we would have when that actually 
is--if that were realized? I think where we sit certainly is 
important, but I don't--I'll be frank, I don't have a direct 
answer to your question on what that looks like. But I think 
the key thing is ensuring that NOAA has the authorities it has 
to conduct its current mission and perhaps future missions that 
are going to benefit the American public in terms of science, 
stewardship, and service, particularly as it relates to the 
Earth's system. That's going to be really critical.
    Mr. Sorensen. And I--my final question, as a meteorologist 
who spent his life on television, my constituents know that 
when a big snowstorm is coming that Eric Sorensen looks at the 
European computer model. That's the accurate one, right? It 
should be the global forecast model. It should be our model. 
How can I as a meteorologist in Congress, how can we work 
together to increase the accuracy so that our lives can be 
protected and people can make the right decisions during severe 
weather?
    Dr. Morgan. Sir, I'm a weather enthusiast. I often use the 
term weather weenie.
    Mr. Sorensen. I love it.
    Dr. Morgan. That's never been said in the halls of 
Congress. But I think what's really necessary is ensuring we 
have the high-performance computing. It's also essential that 
we make significant investments in atmospheric and basically 
coupled data simulation for the system to make the full use of 
the observations that we have. And we have, again, the 
computing to allow us to look at an ensemble of forecast. I 
look at the GFS (Global Forecast System). The last couple of 
weather systems that have gone through the United States, GFS--
--
    Mr. Strong. The gentleman's time has expired. I'm sorry. 
The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Sorensen. Great. I yield back.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you.
    Next is Mr. Kean from New Jersey. You'll be recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like 
to thank all the witnesses for being here today and their 
testimony.
    It's vitally important that DOE maintain and improve their 
collaboration with other key Federal agencies such as NASA, 
NOAA, USDA. It is only through the efficient collaboration 
between these agencies that, again, the DOE ensure that 
providing America's security and prosperity by addressing its 
energy, its environmental, its nuclear challenges through 
innovative science and technology solutions.
    Dr. Kung, how is the Department of Energy uniquely 
qualified to provide leadership in U.S. biological science, 
research, and development activities?
    Dr. Kung. So thank you for that question. As mentioned 
earlier, many parts of the Department actually have expertise 
and capability in biological science and technology. Speaking 
from the Office of Science where I'm sitting at, we have 
decades-long of expertise and support for biological and 
environmental science and actually grew out of our health 
science roots. The--but the biology currently is actually 
deeply rooted in our genomic science and also very high-
fidelity model that we can actually use to predict and model 
biological organisms from both energy point of view, but also 
just providing that broad base of biological science.
    So--and I'm working between Office of Science and the 
technology programs such as the ones in our Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We are really pairing our 
expertise and capability together to deliver the Department's 
mission in bio-related technology. And we are working together, 
along with our sister agencies, implementing a recent Executive 
order on biotechnology, biomanufacturing, a really exciting 
frontier, not only with our NSF and USDA partners, but across 
the whole agency. We're addressing transportation fuels, 
aviation fuels, even using bio as a way of decarbonizing at a 
land scale. So we're--my own opinions are we're very uniquely 
situated based on our past capability, core competency, but 
also future opportunities.
    Mr. Kean. And the multiagency partnerships you just talked 
about that are in concordance and as we approach our national 
priorities such as during the COVID-19 crisis, how is the DOE's 
National Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory (NVBL) serve as the 
mechanism to provide a number of agencies like the FDA (Food 
and Drug Administration), the CDC (Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention), DOD, with access to DOE research capabilities?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you for that question. NVBL is really the 
pride and joy of the Office of Science that we stood up when 
the crisis of COVID-19 hit. This is really an excellent model 
that in a very short period of time we were able to marshal all 
the resources, expertise from all 17 of DOE's national 
laboratories and really capitalize on the expertise, for 
example, in materials, in chemistry, in biology, and also high-
performance computing to be able to address some of the key 
challenges. For example, by using materials, we actually are 
addressing supply chains from respirators to fibers that go 
into the KN95, N95 masks. But also using our light sources, 
we're actually able to decipher the very detailed structure of 
the virus so we can then design countermeasure such as 
antiviral drugs and vaccines.
    But lastly, our high-performance computer has been so 
powerful, they actually can do the epidemiologic modeling to 
inform policymakers in terms of emergency response or also 
whether to close schools or bars. I think that is really an 
excellent example of interagency partnership, working across 
different agency, pooling the resources capability together in 
the moment of national crisis, so we're very proud of that 
example.
    Mr. Kean. OK. Thank you. Dr. Jones, given the challenge 
from China and from other adversaries, should the NSF be 
partnering with strategic allies on science and technology 
research? And if so, what policies are necessary to facilitate 
those partnerships?
    Dr. Jones. Great, thank you very much for that question. So 
science is a global endeavor, and so we do look to be part of 
the global research environment. Submitted in our testimony, 
for example, would be the LHC, Large Hadron Collider activity 
where DOE and NSF partner in a very----
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. The gentleman's time----
    Dr. Jones [continuing]. Very important international----
    Mr. Strong [continuing]. Is expired. I'm sorry. The 
gentleman's time has expired. The Chair----
    Mr. Kean. And if I--can you follow up--send that response 
in writing, please?
    Dr. Jones. Yes.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you.
    Dr. Jones. Yes.
    [The written response of Dr. Jones follows:]

    The NSF is focusing on international partnerships with 
likeminded countries based on the principles of transparency, 
reciprocity, merit-based competition, and openness to the 
extent possible. NSF together with NIH represented the United 
States on the G7 Security and Integrity of the Global Research 
Ecosystem group. Through this effort, the G7 developed research 
security and integrity principles and best practices. NSF also 
participated in the OECD Global Science Forum effort on 
research security and integrity to develop international 
approaches to research security and integrity. NSF begins its 
international partnerships by developing agreements with the 
international partner that outlines the principles by which the 
collaboration will occur, meaning outlining clearly what each 
partner is contributing, how data will be shared and 
distributed, and the roles and responsibilities of each 
partner. These principles are then reinforced in the management 
plan for the international collaboration program. To ensure 
that NSF appropriately reviews proposed projects for national 
security implications, NSF has announced in its draft 2024 
policy guidance that it is developing a risk rubric where 
proposals will be returned without review if there is a high 
national security risk according to the rubric.

    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, sir.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tonko of New York for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you to both Chair Lucas and Ranking Member 
Lofgren for hosting this important discussion. And thank you to 
the witnesses. You're a distinguished panel, and it's great to 
hear from you.
    The U.S. R&D ecosystem is directly responsible for the 
security and prosperity that Americans enjoy today. When 
leveraged correctly, the most incredible scientific discoveries 
and technological innovations emerge directly out of our 
Federal research agencies. This is especially important as 
international competition grows and the climate crisis 
intensifies. What we do today will determine whether we are 
still leaders on the global stage tomorrow.
    So I recognize the essential role that DOE plays in this 
and sought to tap into its unique technical expertise with my 
Micro Act, a bill that was included in the CHIPS and Science 
package last Congress. With over a half a billion dollars in 
new investments, the Micro Act will leverage DOE's world-
renowned national labs and their partners in industry and 
academia to tackle foundational challenges in the 
microelectronics R&D effort.
    So with that being stated, Dr. Kung, can you talk about 
DOE's role in the broader microelectronics R&D enterprise?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you so much for that question. DOE actually 
has a long history of supporting microelectronics, both as a 
consumer because some of our world-leading supercomputers are 
actually based on the cutting-edge microelectronics. But we're 
also an engine of innovation contributing to the innovation of 
microelectronics. For example, the most advanced EUV (extreme 
ultraviolet lithography) technology that we're currently using 
to produce the smallest gauge of the microelectronic is 
developed--was developed by a joint partnership among several 
DOE laboratories. So we feel like we are a essential 
contributor to the extremely exciting but also challenging 
situation with the microelectronics in terms of the leading 
edge in technology development but also in addressing the 
supply chain.
    And we also believe that microelectronics is such an area 
that is really requiring a whole-of-the-government approach 
because different agencies were actually bringing different 
pieces of expertise and capabilities together. And I really 
appreciate the CHIPS and Science Act that passed and authorized 
the Department on being able to further contribute to the 
cutting edge of microelectronics, being the--for example, the 
microelectronics center being authorized in the Micro Act. We 
believe this is the right type of model for us to really co-
design from the very bottom of materials all the way to 
application, hardware, and the whole infrastructure be able to 
design the next generation of microelectronics. So thank you 
for that question.
    Mr. Tonko. Oh, thank you. And, Dr. Jones, in your 
testimony, you talk about the importance of long-lasting 
partnerships with industry to meet the challenges of today and 
tomorrow. Can you explain to us more about the TIP Directorate 
and the potential programs and partnerships with private 
companies to develop the transformative solutions to 
semiconductor manufacturing challenges?
    Dr. Jones. Great, thank you so much for that question. And 
we're very grateful for the support of the National Science 
Foundation in establishing the Technology Innovation 
Partnership Directorate. It's actually the first directorate 
created in 31 years. And so we're very, very grateful for the 
support of Congress to establish the new directorate.
    Translational innovation is actually part of the DNA within 
NSF. It always has been. But with this new directorate, we will 
be able to partner with entities like other Federal agencies 
but also industry to translate fundamental basic research at a 
much faster pace and at a much larger scale than what we have 
done before. So our new directorate has already been very 
successful at forming new partnerships with industry, such as 
our Intel partnership and Micron partnership, looking at 
semiconductor workforce issues, as well as leading the way with 
our Engineering directorate on our FuSe (Future of 
Semiconductors) solicitation, again, looking at semiconductors 
where we're partnering with four industry partners already, 
Ericsson, Samsung, Intel, Micron as well. And so we're very, 
very proud of the equities that we'll be able to do through 
this new directorate to further partner with industry.
    This directorate also houses our SBIR (Small Business 
Innovation Research) and STTR (Small Business Technology 
Transfer) programs where we're able to support small businesses 
and those businesses then grow into larger businesses, but also 
partner with larger entities. In addition, this new directorate 
is starting a new program, the Regional Innovation Engine 
program, which----
    Mr. Strong. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you, 
Dr. Jones.
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Chair, I had a question for Mr. Reuter, and 
I'll give that to the Committee in writing about aviation 
systems, so thank you.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
    The Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
    Dr. Kung, Mr. Reuter, Dr. Morgan, Dr. Jones, I want to 
thank each of you for coming before us today. It's been very 
informative.
    As mentioned, NASA and the Department of Energy have held 
formal research partnerships for over six decades. 
Additionally, NASA has long history of collaboration with DOD's 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or more 
affectionately known as DARPA. Mr. Reuter, how does the most 
recent partnership announcement between NASA and DARPA leverage 
the space nuclear development that NASA and DOE has been 
conducting in recent years?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, yes, thank you, Congressman. What I would 
say is we've got a great opportunity now to advance nuclear 
systems in space and really revolutionize the way we travel 
around space and the way we operate on foreign lands. And we've 
been--over the last several years had a lot of joint activities 
with DOE in terms of developing the reactors, the fuel elements 
and stuff that went through that can enable these type missions 
at the very high efficiency that we demand. In fact, we had 
some starts and stops with this. We had to change technology 
paths and stuff, but we've gotten to the point where we're 
actually confident in this. So for us then, it's become a time 
now, let's go demonstrate this thing.
    And the fortunate thing we had is--because we try to work 
across all agencies--DARPA has a very similar objective, a 
little bit different than the requirements and objectives that 
we have but close enough that we could work it out together. 
And so what we're doing is building off those--the technologies 
that we've been developing over the years and applying it to a 
joint development, primarily between us and DARPA, for the 
next--for a flight demonstration. Now, DOE will still be along 
with that. There's still key roles for that, their critical 
expertise as we go forward.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. It's my understanding that the 
Fiscal Year 2023 President budget was the first time a line 
item was included for these developments. Would you say, Mr. 
Reuter, that for NASA to be successful in the Moon-to-Mars 
mission and for DOD and DARPA to be successful in cislunar 
space that continued support and growth for space nuclear is 
necessary?
    Mr. Reuter. Yes, absolutely. I think space nuclear systems 
are fundamental to us achieving the objectives for Moon to 
Mars.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. How would this partnership 
accelerate development of human transport to Mars?
    Mr. Reuter. Well, what we're doing--looking at this, I view 
this as kind of an experimental vehicle if you will. It's the 
first step. You got to take a big step, and getting something 
that's actually flying and operating in a relatively short 
timeframe over the next few years is something that can get--
put us on a path and then the next step will be just achieve 
the actual requirements and go on toward other distant--Mars 
and beyond.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. I'll reclaim my time. And the Chair 
recognizes Ms. Salinas of Oregon.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the 
panelists. I apologize for not being here for your oral 
testimony, but I did review your written testimony.
    Dr. Kung, billions of dollars are spent each year in the 
United States on agriculture, food research and development, 
but a lot of this is focused on food product manufacturing, 
crop protection, and food safety, all worthy and valuable. But 
relatively little is spent on climate mitigation and 
breakthrough technologies that really have the potential to 
radically change the impact of our food systems. What forms of 
innovation policies are needed to deploy future agricultural 
technologies to decarbonize the sector?
    Dr. Kung. Thank you so much for that question. Actually, 
that is one of our major priorities and emphasis is really 
utilizing our biotechnologies and expertise to decarbonize the 
agriculture is one of the aspects that we are looking into. I 
have just mentioned that the Executive order on biotechnology 
and biomanufacturing was just released September 2022. Multiple 
agencies are coming together in terms of furthering the 
societal goals for climate change solutions. There are four 
aspects. There are four kind of bold goals. One is to address 
the need to develop more carbon-neutral transportation 
stationary fuels. The second is to use biotechnology to produce 
chemicals materials from renewable biomass. And the third is 
climate-focused agriculture systems and plants. And the fourth 
is the carbon dioxide removal really from the landscape scale 
of removing carbon dioxide out from the agriculture sector. So 
we are laser focused on these very important issues and look 
forward to providing additional information as the plan comes 
together.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And I'm going to dive a little bit 
deeper. Our Nation's centralized freshwater infrastructure is 
deteriorating due to climate change and other factors. Water, 
food, and energy form a nexus at the heart of sustainable 
development with agriculture as the largest consumer of the 
world's freshwater resources. And this really speaks and goes 
to the complexity at the energy water nexus and demand for a 
Federal coordinated approach. How does DOE partner with USDA to 
decarbonize the ag sector with a focus on that nexus between 
food, energy, and water?
    Dr. Kung. I am not the right expert to address the 
question. I do understand that the Department has a very active 
energy-water-food nexus activity. So if it's OK, we'll get back 
with you based on the experts from the Department.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then just, again, following up 
a little bit in kind of the same agriculture question and maybe 
a little bit more general and higher level. How should our 
Federal Government ensure that an integrated and sustainable 
management of water, food, and energy is balanced with the 
needs of people, nature, and the economy?
    Dr. Kung. Again, I think I would defer to the experts in 
the Department to answer. I do agree that's a very important 
question and important issue.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. OK. And then turning to--since I do 
have a couple minutes left--to DOE's Bioenergy Research 
Centers. What do you see as the central role of the BRCs within 
the spectrum of bioenergy technology and development? And how 
is this research vital to the mission of DOE?
    Dr. Kung. In the--I really liked the way that you're 
framing this, the spectrum. So on the BRC, which is funded by 
the Office of Science side, we're very mindful. We're focusing 
on the lower Technology Readiness Level, really addressing the 
knowledge gaps that are really preventing us to really deriving 
the maximum benefit from renewable biomass. And that knowledge 
really need to be able--we need to be able to translate any of 
the innovation to the technology progress so they can then 
develop that commercial technologies.
    I mentioned earlier about the BRC partnership with USDA. 
This is really an excellent way of really combining the 
biotrays that we're trying to engineer and insert that function 
into the plants was the USDA, where they're coming from, the 
agriculture, the land and the water usage. So this is really an 
excellent example--I gave earlier a pennycress example, as--but 
I think there are multiple example not only from Office of 
Science but also from the Technology Office. We will be happy 
to provide additional information to you.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Ms. Salinas.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin of California. Mr. Mullin, 
you're recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your 
testimony.
    I'm from the San Francisco peninsula. California has been 
experiencing a long drought cycle, interrupted by a very wet 
winter. Even as we speak, we're bracing for an apparently 
relatively warm atmospheric river. We're concerned about snow 
melt and flooding and so forth. So we're sort of living the 
extremes when it comes to climate. And, fortunately, FEMA 
(Federal Emergency Management Agency) has been engaged.
    So my question is with Dr. Morgan. And just can you 
describe how you partner with the agencies not represented here 
like FEMA, like HUD (Department of Housing and Urban 
Development)? You know, we have these communities that are--
their infrastructure is simply not equipped to deal with the 
volume of water that we're seeing, and just how you share your 
models so groups like--entities like FEMA can get ready for 
these megastorms and abnormal events that can affect our 
communities and just what kind of collaboration and 
coordination with the other entities so we can get ready and 
brace appropriately for what might come?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, thank you for your question. And I think 
I'm going to ensure that a more complete response is given to 
you in some questions for the record. But as we anticipate 
significant weather events, Weather Service offices located all 
around the country, we've been focusing--let me back up, NOAA 
has been focusing on impact decision support services. And what 
this means is forecasters at individual forecast offices are 
prepared to go to emergency management centers within States' 
Federal Emergency Management to relay the information and the 
likely impacts of high-impact weather events are going to have 
on communities all across the country. So I imagine that there 
are currently meteorologists in the Monterey forecast office 
and other ones, Reno area as well, that are looking at the 
upcoming event with this relatively warm atmospheric river and 
the likelihood of significant snow melt, which may lead to 
flooding, and they're beginning to prepare folks for that--for 
this inevitability or this likelihood--excuse me--of 
significant flooding. So we have meteorologists that are 
basically deployed within particular emergency management 
offices to basically convey this information. But we also make 
use of social media. We make use of, you know, all ways of 
contact to make sure that our communities are well aware of 
upcoming significant weather events.
    Mr. Mullin. I appreciate that, sir, and thank you for that. 
That is reassuring. And I look forward to getting more 
information about that ongoing coordination because this will 
be a--clearly an ongoing challenge for all of us. So thank you, 
sir.
    Dr. Morgan. Sure.
    Mr. Mullin. And I yield back.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Mr. Mullin.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and for the Members for their questions. The record 
will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 
written questions from Members.
    With no further questions, this meeting is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions




                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Harriet Kung
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Responses by Mr. James L. Reuter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record




                     Legislation Discussion Drafts
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Letter submitted by Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion industry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]