[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM TRANSFORMATIVE SCIENCE
TO TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS:
DOE'S NATIONAL LABORATORIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-902PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Member
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAY OBERNOLTE, California HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
MAX MILLER, Ohio MAXWELL FROST, Florida
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
VINCE FONG, California LUZ RIVAS, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SYLVESTER TURNER, Texas
KEITH SELF, Texas SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina LAURA GILLEN, New York
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
JEFF HURD, Colorado Vice Ranking Member
MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
MIKE KENNEDY, Utah APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
NICK BEGICH, Alaska JOSH RILEY, New York
VACANT
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. RANDY WEBER, Texas, Chairman
JIM BAIRD, Indiana DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina,
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee Ranking Member
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina SYLVESTER TURNER, Texas
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
JEFF HURD, Colorado JOSH RILEY, New York
NICK BEGICH, Alaska VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
February 12, 2025
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Written statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Witnesses:
Dr. John Wagner, Director, Idaho National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Thom Mason, Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Dr. Paul Kearns, Director, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Dr. Kimberly Budil, Director, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 51
Written Statement............................................ 53
Discussion....................................................... 63
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Paul Kearns, Director, Argonne National Laboratory........... 88
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Partnership for AI Infrastructure............................ 92
FROM TRANSFORMATIVE SCIENCE
TO TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGHS:
DOE'S NATIONAL LABORATORIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``From Transformative
Science to Technological Breakthroughs: DOE's National
Laboratories.'' I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
So good morning, y'all. Today, the Energy Subcommittee will
be examining the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s National
Laboratories and their role in advancing scientific
discoveries, as well as developing innovative technologies. Our
discussion will explore several topics, including research,
security, DOE's world-leading user facilities, as well as
emerging technologies.
Since its early formation in World War II, the National
Laboratories have consistently been at the forefront of
scientific achievement. As the largest Federal recipient of
basic research funding in the physical sciences, the National
Labs and their 28 user facilities have taken on the most
fundamental challenges in the fields of computer science, high-
energy physics, fusion energy, as well as materials science.
Despite these challenges, the labs have made significant
scientific breakthroughs, which include sequencing the first
human genome, mapping the universe, achieving fusion ignition,
and discovering 22 of the elements on the periodic table. These
achievements have been instrumental to U.S. technological
leadership, creating new industries, as well as products.
In tandem, through public-private partnerships, the
National Labs play a major role in transforming our energy
sector. For instance, the National Energy Technology Lab, known
as NETL, worked with industry to develop hydraulic fracturing
technology. Before its widespread use in the late 2000's, the
United States was actually in a dire energy state, relying on
foreign powers to supply natural gas.
As a result, the United States built LNG (liquefied natural
gas) terminals, including one in Freeport, Texas--my district--
to import trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Due to NETL's
collaborative work with industry, however, the United States
repurposed these same terminals to export LNG to our allies,
while reducing the cost of energy at home. This showcases the
importance of public-private partnerships and their ability to
ensure our national security and our energy independence.
Likewise, the National Laboratories are involved in the
development of next-generation energy technologies, for
example, such as advanced nuclear energy. For over the last 20
years, researchers at Oak Ridge (ORNL) and Idaho National Labs
(INL) have made significant improvements to TRISO fuel, which
is a fabricated fuel using Gen IV reactors. Partly due to the
lab's work, TRISO fuel has been adopted by some of the leading
advanced reactor companies, including X-energy, a recipient of
the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). X-energy
plans to use this fabricated fuel for its XE-100 reactor, which
will provide power and heat to Dow's industrial production
facility in Seadrift, Texas, just south of my district.
Moreover, the lab's work in fabricated fuels, along with their
ability to supply HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium),
which will bring forth a new nuclear renaissance.
With our focus on National Laboratories, I would be remiss
if I didn't bring up the CHIPS and Science Act. Back in the
117th Congress, I, as the Energy Subcommittee Ranking Member,
along with the House Science Committee Members, worked across
the aisle to produce the Department of Energy's Science for the
Future Act, which included my bill, the Computing Advancements
for Materials Science, CAMS, Act. This large, comprehensive
House product ultimately became the basic text to the CHIPS, as
well as the Science Act, which reauthorized the Office of
Science's basic research programs, authorized upgrades and
experimental facilities such as the Electron Ion Collider at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, and directed DOE to implement
new research security provisions.
Despite the wideset support for this bill, Congress has yet
to appropriate to the levels authorized in the CHIPS and
Science Act. This failure is partly due to the Biden
Administration's prioritization of new and untested
demonstration and deployment programs. While the IIJA
(Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) and the IRA (Inflation
Reduction Act) invested close to 100 billion for over 70 new
programs, the Office of Science and its labs received only 2
billion, which is a paltry 2 percent of funding outside of the
traditional appropriation process. This doesn't include the
Biden Administration's risky loan office, which doled out tens
of billions to its politically connected clean energy friends.
In 2017, I led a joint Subcommittee hearing titled, quote,
``Risky Business: The DOE Loan Guarantee Program,'' end quote,
where I highlighted in my opening statement that the Ivanpah
solar project would come at the cost of the ratepayers if the--
quote, ``if the project fails and goes into default,'' end
quote. With the recent announcement by PG&E ending its
relationship with Ivanpah, it seems that my prediction was
correct. It has--looks like it's coming true.
Moreover, I hope that the Trump Administration will work
with Congress to fully fund the basic science programs at
levels consistent with CHIPS and Science and reprioritize the
Department to focus on basic research and its labs. This will
ensure U.S. competitiveness and technological prowess in the
21st century.
I'd like to thank in advance our witnesses today for their
testimony, and I look forward to our conversation here today.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Weber follows:]
Good Morning, today the Energy Subcommittee will be
examining the U.S. Department of Energy's National Laboratories
and their role in advancing scientific discoveries as well as
developing innovative technologies. Our discussion will explore
several topics including research security, DOE's world leading
user facilities, and emerging technologies.
Since its early formation in World War II, the National
Laboratories have consistently been at the forefront of
scientific achievement. As the largest federal recipient of
basic research funding in the physical sciences, the National
Labs and their 28 user facilities have taken on the most
fundamental challenges in the fields of computer science, high
energy physics, fusion energy, and material science. Our labs
met those challenges and made significant scientific
breakthroughs, including sequencing the first human genome,
mapping the universe, achieving fusion ignition, and
discovering 22 of the elements on the periodic table. These
achievements were instrumental to U.S. technological leadership
creating new industries and products.
In tandem, through public private partnerships, the
National Labs play a major role in transforming our energy
sector. For instance, the National Energy Technology
Laboratory, known as NETL, worked with industry to develop
hydraulic fracturing technology. Before its widespread use in
the late 2000s, the United States was in a dire energy state
relying on foreign powers to supply natural gas. As a result,
the US built LNG terminals, including one in Freeport Texas, to
import trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Due to NETL's
collaborative work with industry, the United States repurposed
those same terminals to export LNG to our allies while reducing
the cost of energy at home. This showcases the importance of
public private partnerships and their ability to ensure our
national security and energy security.
Likewise, the National Laboratories are involved in the
development of next-generation energy technologies such as
advanced nuclear energy. For over the last twenty years,
researchers at Oak Ridge and Idaho National Labs have made
significant improvements to TRISO fuel, which is a fabricated
fuel used in GEN IV reactors. Partly due to the labs' work,
TRISO fuel has been adopted by some of the leading advanced
reactor companies including X-Energy, a recipient of the
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. X-Energy plans to use
this fabricated fuel for its XE-100 reactor, which will provide
power and heat to Dow's industrial production facility in
Seadrift Texas, just south of my district. Moreover, the labs
work in fabricated fuels along with their ability to supply
High-Assey Low-Enriched Uranium, or ``HALEU'' could bring forth
a new nuclear renaissance.
With our focus on the National Laboratories, I would be
remiss if I didn't bring up the CHIPS and Science Act. Back in
the 117th Congress, I, as the Energy Subcommittee Ranking
Member, along with House Science Committee members worked
across the aisle to produce the Department of Energy Science
for the Future Act, which included my bill, the Computing
Advancements for Materials Science (CAMS) Act. This large
comprehensive House product ultimately became the base text to
the CHIPS and Science Act, which reauthorized the Office of
Science's basic research programs, authorized upgrades and
experimental facilities such as the Electron Ion Collider at
Brookhaven National Laboratory, and directed DOE to implement
new research security provisions.
Despite the widespread support for this bill, Congress has
yet to appropriate to the levels authorized in the CHIPS and
Science Act. This failure is partly due to the Biden
administration's prioritization of new and untested
demonstration and deployment programs carried out in the IIJA
and IRA.
This doesn't include the Biden Administration's risky loan
office, which doled out tens of billions to its politically-
connected clean energy friends. In 2017, I led a joint
subcommittee hearing titled ``Risky Business: The DOE Loan
Guarantee Program'' where I highlighted in my opening statement
that the Ivanpah solar project would come at the cost of the
ratepayers if the ``project fails and goes into default.'' With
the recent announcement by PG&E ending its relationship with
Ivanpah, it seems that my prediction was correct.
Moreover, I hope that the Trump Administration will work
with Congress to reprioritize the Department to focus on basic
research and its labs; this will ensure U.S. competitiveness
and technological prowess in the 21st century.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony,
and I look forward to our conversation here today.
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
Representative North Carolina, for her opening statement.
Ms. Ross. Well, good morning, and thank you so much to
Chairman Weber for convening this hearing today to discuss the
importance of the national laboratory network to preserving our
Nation's leading edge in science and developing the energy
solutions and workforce of tomorrow. I want to thank our
distinguished witnesses for being here to share your testimony
and insights on this topic.
As a nation, we have entered a pivotal stage where we have
not one, but several emerging clean energy technologies that
have the potential to reshape and improve our economy. We have
advanced and modular nuclear demonstration reactors being
designed and built right now that, when completed, will give
investors the confidence they need to make them the backbone of
our electrical grid and improve reliability.
We have fusion, right, Representative Lofgren? The holy
grail of energy, making strides in defining--in being able to
be realized in years rather than decades. We have energy
storage technologies making leaps in performance and safety,
which, when paired with new smart grid technologies, will make
intermittency concerns with renewable energy a thing of the
past. These energy technologies are poised not only to
decarbonize the electrical grid, but to make it more resilient,
reliable, and secure in times of climate disasters.
In my home State of North Carolina, we are seeing
hurricanes becoming increasingly stronger in the wake of
climate change, and we need our grid infrastructure to improve
accordingly. And clearly, we have also seen this in Texas,
California, and throughout our country.
We also need to continue to support partnerships that share
advanced computing resources between the national laboratories
and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that
will enable more accurate forecasting of weather and climate
events, allowing first responders to prepare ahead of time, and
potentially save lives and property.
And, as I've come to understand, at the forefront of all of
these technologies and partnerships is the Department of
Energy's national laboratory network. I'm looking forward to
hearing from our expert witnesses on the valuable work the
national laboratories are doing, how they are improving the
security of our communities, and what Congress can do to
support their work.
That said, I'm also deeply concerned about the impact of
the Administration's blanket freeze on Federal funding provided
by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in flagrant violation of
several recent court orders. It is undermining the ability of
these labs, in partnership with the private sector, to
strengthen our grid and prevent future severe impacts on our
communities. So I'll be digging into that as well.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber, for convening
this hearing today to discuss the importance of the national
laboratory network to preserving our nation's leading edge in
science, and in developing the energy solutions and workforce
of tomorrow. I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses
for being here to share your testimony and insights on this
topic.
As a nation, we have entered a pivotal stage where we have
not one, but several emerging clean energy technologies that
have the potential to reshape and improve our economy. We have
advanced and modular nuclear demonstration reactors being
designed and built right now that, when completed, will give
investors the confidence needed to make them the backbone of
our electrical grid. We have fusion, the holy grail of energy,
making strides now defined in years, not decades. And we have
energy storage technologies making leaps in performance and
safety, which, when paired with new smart grid technologies,
will make intermittency concerns with renewable energy a thing
of the past.
These energy technologies are poised to not only
decarbonize the electrical grid, but to make it more resilient,
reliable, and secure in times of climate disasters. In my home
state of North Carolina, we are seeing hurricanes becoming
increasingly stronger in the wake of climate change, and we
need our grid infrastructure to improve accordingly. We also
need to continue to support partnerships that share advanced
computing resources between the national laboratories and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that would
enable more accurate forecasting of weather and climate events,
allowing first responders to prepare ahead of time, and
potentially save lives.
And as I have come to understand, at the forefront of all
these technologies and partnerships, is the Department of
Energy's national laboratory network. I am looking forward to
hearing from our expert witnesses on the valuable work the
national laboratories are doing, how they are improving the
security of our communities, and what Congress can do to help.
That said, I am also deeply concerned about the impacts
that this Administration's blanket freeze on federal funding
provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law--in flagrant
violation of several recent court orders--is undermining the
ability of these labs in partnership with the private sector to
strengthen our grid and prevent future severe impacts on our
communities. So, I will be digging into that as well.
With that, I thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Ms. Ross. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask unanimous
consent to waive onto the Committee Representative Bill Foster
for the purpose of asking questions of the witnesses during
this hearing.
Chairman Weber. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ranking Member Ross.
Without objection, Chairman Babin's opening statement will
be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
Good morning everyone. I want to thank my great friend from
Texas, Chairman Weber, and the Energy Subcommittee for holding
their first hearing this Congress on the importance of theU.S.
Department of Energy's National Laboratories.
As another friend, former Texas Governor and U.S. Energy
Secretary Rick Perry, once said, DOE's 17 National Labs are the
``crown jewels'' of American science--I couldn't agree more.
I'm grateful we have four esteemed Lab Directors here
today, and I'm eager to dive into and hear more about the
often-overlooked issue of maintaining the ``crown jewel''
status of our National Labs.
Many people often focus on topline research spending or
shiny new facilities, and while still important, they forget
that some of these labs date back to World War II. As a result,
essential systems like electrical and water infrastructure are
well beyond their expected lifespan.
It is crucial for the federal government to balance the
development of new facilities with the maintenance of legacy
infrastructure to ensure American preeminence in the coming
decades. It is equally important to appropriately prioritize
high-risk, high-reward basic research that does not crowd-out
private sector investments, rather than favoring special
interest groups.
Without appropriately balancing these efforts, there could
be major impacts on the overall quality of science conducted at
the laboratories and the ability to recruit the best and
brightest talent.
Speaking of recruiting--it's becoming just as big of a
challenge as funding and scientific complexity. This is largely
due to the growing capabilities of our global competitors. Make
no mistake: the United States is challenged by the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) across multiple emerging sectors,
including space, nuclear fusion, quantum, and artificial
intelligence.
They are significantly increasing their spending to attract
a growing share of the world's top researchers within their
borders. This is a clear attempt to outmaneuver the U.S. and
lead in technological innovation.
Let me be clear: the CCP represents a significant threat to
our American way of life, focused on intimidation and
suppression instead of collaboration and freedom. Our nation
has always taken pride in and prioritized an open and
cooperative research environment. I hope to learn more today
about how the National Laboratories are striking the right
balance on research security.
It is imperative that they ensure that key U.S.
technologies are protected while also engaging with the hard-
working scientific community, who are vital for out-innovating
our competitors.
We are also witnessing remarkable advancements in several
emerging technologies that are shaping our future. The steps
taken by the SST Committee this Congress will significantly
impact the development of these technologies in large part by
the National Labs, ensuring their successful rollout by the
private sector.
I know Idaho National Lab, represented by one of our
Directors here this morning, is working closely with a number
of small modular reactor startup companies with the hopes of
revolutionizing how we see the nuclear industry.
I also understand that Lawrence Livermore is collaborating
with the growing commercial fusion sector, which hopes to
deliver power to the grid in the next decade. These
technological advancements are vital to powering the artificial
intelligence expansion currently happening across the globe.
Once again, I cannot overstate the importance of the work
our National Laboratories do to safeguard our national security
and strengthen America's economic competitiveness and energy
security.
I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony,
and I look forward to the important conversation about to take
place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee for a statement.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Weber and Ranking Member Ross, and thank you to the witnesses
who got here through a snowstorm. We appreciate the effort that
you've taken to be here today.
The Department of Energy, as we know, oversees 17 world-
class national laboratories and an array of programs focused on
ensuring U.S. leadership in clean energy industries of the
future and keeping our Nation on the forefront of scientific
discovery. The Department also has the solemn responsibility of
stewarding and ensuring the reliability of our nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Often for broad bipartisan hearings like this, where a
major focus is on introducing our Committee's many new Members
to the full range of exciting facilities and projects that the
Department oversees, here is where I'd pivot to a favorite
subject of mine that the Ranking Member just referenced, and
that's fusion energy. We'll certainly get to that. And I'm very
appreciative that we have the Director from Lawrence Livermore
National Lab with the NIF (National Ignition Facility) facility
here today.
I'm deeply disturbed, I will say, by the actions of the
current Administration and its severe impacts on the entire
research enterprise, including national labs. Funds
appropriated by Congress to accelerate the development and
deployment of a broad range of technologies have been
arbitrarily and indefinitely frozen, and the new Director of
the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
threatened to make a large portion of these so-called pauses
permanent by violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and
even more alarmingly, the power of the purse vested to Congress
in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
I'm also concerned about the assault on diversity in
science. I remember last year's Chairman of the Committee in
response to an amendment about broadening the scope, saying
those good old boys in rural Oklahoma never get a chance to
compete, we can't leave behind any bright mind in America. And
it's worth remembering that not everybody has the same level of
wealth and access to get in and compete. This is all about
competition and merit and opportunity.
Lastly, I want to say that it is really unconscionable that
the critical missions of the Department of Energy could now be
catastrophically undermined by an ill-informed, unelected
billionaire and his deeply inexperienced minions. We know that
the new Secretary of Energy personally granted access to DOE's
IT (information technology) system to personnel associated with
the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE,
over the objections of DOE's own Offices of General Counsel and
the Chief Information Officer. They objected in part because a
23-year-old member of DOGE had not undergone the standard
background check normally required to gain access to this
highly sensitive data. The risk is further heightened due to
the enormous financial conflicts of interest that Mr. Musk, as
CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Tesla, has with DOE.
This is why Ranking Members Deborah Ross, Emilia Sykes, and
I recently sent a letter to the Secretary requesting a full
account of DOGE's activities at the Department and the specific
access that had been provided to proprietary as well as
classified data. This breach is all the more galling given that
Tesla itself received a $465 million loan from the DOE Loan
Program Office in 2010 that played a crucial role in the
company's rise as a global leader in electric vehicles. There
appears to be no end of the hypocrisy that these folks are
willing to engage in.
All this said, I recognize that the witnesses before us
today are certainly not responsible for the radical actions of
this new Administration, even if they have been forced to
address and mitigate their consequences as best they can. So I
truly look forward to this discussion to better understand
these impacts and to chart a better path forward for our
country's best and brightest minds.
I look forward to hearing from the panel about recent
advancements in the fusion industry. I do want to celebrate
that this Committee has always operated in a bipartisan manner.
That goes back decades. And I'm cheered by Chairman Weber's
call that the science in CHIPS and Science be fully funded up
to the authorized level. That is an important statement, Mr.
Chairman.
And with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking
Member Ross, for holding this important hearing today. And
thank you to this excellent panel of witnesses for being here
this morning. The Department of Energy oversees 17 world-class
national laboratories and an array of programs focused on
ensuring U.S. leadership in the clean energy industries of the
future, and on keeping our nation at the forefront of
scientific discovery. The Department also has the solemn
responsibility of stewarding and ensuring the reliability of
our nuclear weapons stockpile.
Often for broad, bipartisan hearings like this where a
major focus is on introducing our Committee's many new Members
to the full range of exciting facilities and projects that the
Department oversees, here is where I'd pivot to a favorite
subject of mine, and that's fusion energy. And we'll certainly
get to that. However, these are not normal times.
I am deeply disturbed by the actions of this Administration
and its severe impacts on our nation's entire research
enterprise, including the national labs. Funds appropriated by
Congress to accelerate the development and deployment of a
broad range of clean energy technologies have been arbitrarily
and indefinitely frozen. And the new Director of the White
House's Office of Management and Budget has threatened to make
a large portion of these ``pauses'' permanent by violating the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and, even more alarmingly, the
power of the purse vested to Congress in Article 1 of the U.S.
Constitution.
The widespread assault on any federally supported
individual or program involved in enhancing the diversity,
equity, inclusion (DEI), and accessibility of our research
enterprise is also frankly staggering. I want to be very clear
about this. The talking point from the President, on down to
justify these draconian actions is that we need revert to an
entirely merit-based system. Well, I couldn't agree more that
that should be our shared goal. But what the Administration is
willfully failing to even try to understand is that while every
American should have an equal opportunity to succeed, not every
American is born into the same level of wealth and access. The
Labs' broadening participation programs were never about
undermining merit. They were about creating pathways for all
Americans. If we continue to leave half or more of our nation's
brainpower behind, we will never compete with China. Further,
in most cases these efforts are required by statute.
Lastly, I must say that it is unconscionable that the
critical missions of the Department of Energy could now be
catastrophically undermined by an ill-informed, unelected
billionaire and his deeply inexperienced minions. We know that
the new Secretary of Energy personally granted access to DOE's
IT system to personnel associated with the so-called
``Department of Government Efficiency,'' or DOGE, over the
objections of DOE's own offices of General Counsel and the
Chief Information Officer.
They objected in part because a 23-year-old member of DOGE
had not undergone the standard background check normally
required to gain access to this highly sensitive data. The risk
is further heightened due to the enormous financial conflicts-
of-interest that Elon Musk, as CEO of Tesla, has with DOE. This
is why Ranking Members Deborah Ross, Emilia Sykes, and I
recently sent a letter to the Secretary requesting a full
account of DOGE's activities at the Department and the specific
access that they have been provided to proprietary and
classified data.
This breach is all the more galling given that Tesla itself
received a $465 million loan from the DOE Loan Program Office
in 2010 that played a crucial role in the company's rise as a
global leader in electric vehicles. There appears to be no end
to the hypocrisy that these folks are willing to engage in.
All this said, I recognize that the witnesses before us
today are certainly not responsible for the radical actions of
this new Administration, even if they have been forced to
address and mitigate their consequences as best they can. So, I
truly look forward to this discussion to better understand
these impacts, and to chart a better path forward for our
country's best and brightest minds. And yes, I look forward to
hearing from the panel about recent advancements in fusion
energy development.
With that I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren.
I'll now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today
is Dr. John Wagner, the Director of Idaho National Laboratory.
Our next witness is Dr. Thom Mason, the Director at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. Our third witness is Dr. Paul Kearns, the
Director at Argonne National Laboratory. And our final and--
some would argue--best witness is Dr. Kimberly Budil, the
Director at Lawrence Liverpool National Laboratory.
I now recognize Dr. Wagner for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN WAGNER,
DIRECTOR, IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Wagner. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Subcommittee Ranking
Member Ross, and Ranking Member Lofgren, it's a pleasure to be
here. Thank you for having me in this discussion today. My name
is John Wagner. I'm the Director at the Idaho National
Laboratory, the Nation's center for nuclear energy research and
development (R&D). I also serve as the Chair of the National
Directors--National Laboratory Directors Council.
I considered it to be a true honor to be a part of a system
tasked with finding solutions to our Nation's greatest energy
and security challenges. On a personal note, my first
professional experiences as a college student was during
internships in the summertime at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
and Los Alamos National Laboratory. These experiences opened my
eyes to amazing possibilities and had a profound impact on my
career and on my life.
After beginning in the private sector, I worked at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory for nearly 17 years before my
passions for nuclear energy brought me to Idaho in 2016 as the
Chief Scientist of the Materials and Fuels Complex, and later
became Lab Director in 2020. As Energy Secretary Chris Wright
recently wrote, ``DOE's R&D enterprise is the envy of the
world.'' Originating during the Manhattan Project, our national
labs have achieved breakthroughs that have literally changed
the path of human history and ensured American scientific and
technical leadership.
Mastery of today's new technologies is vital for our future
global leadership. We must, as a nation, understand and be
first in finding answers to questions that will determine how
future generations live. Questions such as, how do we leverage
our abundant energy resources for our power prosperity? How do
we innovate to ensure durable, stable energy dominance through
fission, fusion, and other technologies? How do we harness AI
(artificial intelligence), exascale computing, quantum
computing to provide breakthroughs and solutions to benefit
American people and American industry? How do we ensure
domestic production of strategic and critical minerals and
materials to secure our supply chain? How do we secure our grid
and other critical infrastructure for the reliable delivery of
necessary energy and water? And how do we ensure U.S. national
security at home and abroad? The experts at our national
laboratories are hard at work finding these solutions to these
pressing challenges.
At the same time, they're constantly looking ahead over the
horizon to be prepared for future challenges. Our labs design
and operate unique facilities and unparalleled scientific
instruments that enable a greater understanding of the origin
of the universe, fundamental properties of materials, behaviors
of biological systems, and development and delivery of
pharmaceuticals, and so much more.
Within the DOE national laboratory system, there are three
applied energy laboratories. Idaho National Laboratory is one
of them, also the National Energy Technology Laboratory and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. These applied energy
laboratories, working together, play a crucial role in driving
energy innovation for the Nation.
At INL, we have made historic contributions to our Nation's
energy and national security. Notable achievements include
first demonstration of nuclear power, which now provides nearly
10 percent of the electricity around the world and nearly 20
percent of the U.S. electricity, and also in the development of
nuclear propulsion, which has played a key role in establishing
U.S. Naval military dominance.
Today, INL is helping maintain and extend the lives of
America's nuclear reactor fleet, while working with industry to
demonstrate and deploy the next generation of nuclear power.
Long-time nuclear leaders like Westinghouse, General Electric,
Holtec, Southern Company, and a long list have joined with a
growing number of nuclear startups like TerraPower, X-energy,
Oklo, Kairos, Radiant, Lightbridge, and many others--sorry, I'm
not going to be able to mention all of them--collaborating with
the laboratories on innovative reactor designs, fuel
development, and associated technologies to address and
expanding completion--or expanding variety of energy use cases.
Our advanced reactor testbeds are nearing completion, and
in the next few years, will enable multiple private sector
reactor demonstrations, derisking these technologies to support
commercial adoption and deployment. We see an example of this
as U.S.-based refinery and chemical production companies are
funding engineering evaluations for power, steam, heat, and
hydrogen production from existing nuclear power plants, as well
as advanced reactors. In support of these emerging
technologies, U.S.-based Bloom Energy, FuelCell Energy, General
Electric, and others are using the capabilities at Idaho
National Laboratory to demonstrate high-temperature
electrolysis to produce hydrogen and oxygen.
But every DOE lab has exciting stories to tell, stories of
harnessing research and development for the benefit of the
American people and our industries. I believe that our 17
national laboratories are a primary difference-maker, our
Nation's ace in the hole if you will, that will enable us to
win the competition between nations, enhance our standing as a
world leader in energy and technological innovation, and ensure
our economic prosperity.
In closing, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be a
part of this discussion, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wagner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Mason, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOM MASON,
DIRECTOR, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Mason. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross, and Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm
Thom Mason, the Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory. For
more than 80 years, our lab, which is one of the 17 DOE
national labs, played a critical role in advancing scientific
discovery, technology development that strengthens U.S.
security, economic competitiveness, and energy leadership.
Today, I will focus on three key areas: national security
challenges in a rapidly evolving world, the role of artificial
intelligence in defense and scientific advancement, and the
need for infrastructure investment to sustain innovation.
Over the past 30-plus years, the geopolitical landscape has
shifted from a bipolar cold war structure to a post-cold war
environment where the United States was the sole superpower to
the tripolar dynamic we see today with United States, China,
and Russia compounded by independent and surrogate actors. This
has created new challenges that demands technological
innovation to maintain strategic stability.
A critical component of national security is energy
security. The United States must invest in nuclear power as a
stable energy source that reduces reliance on foreign supply
chains, and Los Alamos is at the forefront of advancing reactor
technologies in partnership with Idaho and fuel innovations
that can support both national security and economic growth.
Today, however, in many areas, private sector investment in
R&D is exceeding government investment, and that requires the
labs to strengthen public-private partnerships to ensure that
advancements align with national interests. Probably artificial
intelligence is the best illustration of this dynamic. From a
national security perspective, artificial intelligence is
transforming global power dynamics faster than any other
technology.
While the United States leads in areas of AI development,
this lead is narrowing as China increases government investment
in AI-driven defense and surveillance systems, which have the
potential to undermine our legacy deterrent. AI is a force
multiplier for national security, and Los Alamos is leveraging
artificial intelligence to improve weapons simulations, to
enhance deterrence, to strengthen cybersecurity against
emerging threats, and optimize defense supply chains to ensure
resilience.
However, our current AI efforts are not operating at the
necessary scale. A national AI initiative is needed to apply
the most advanced AI tools to national security challenges, to
invest in classified AI infrastructure and high-performance
computing and to maintain U.S. leadership in AI-driven
deterrence strategies. The Nation that first scales AI for
national security will shape global stability for decades.
Turning now to infrastructure, regrettably, aging research
infrastructure does threaten innovation. At Los Alamos, many of
our facilities essential for national security are outdated and
in urgent need of recapitalization. The Los Alamos Neutron
Science Center, or LANSCE, is vital for nuclear certification,
as well as medical isotope production, and it's more than 50
years old and requires modernization to maintain reliability.
The LANSCE Modernization Project, which was recently approved
for critical decision zero mission need is crucial for
restoring full capability.
Similarly, our Explosive Research Complex, which supports
national defense and warfighter safety, faces structural
deficiencies that hinder critical research. These facilities
must be updated to sustain scientific and defense innovation.
The data from our experimental facilities is the raw material
for training artificial intelligence, so investing in modern
infrastructure is not just a scientific priority, it's a
national security imperative.
Rapid technological advancements have also made
technological surprise a growing concern. Unlike past areas
where research could be tightly controlled, AI and emerging
technologies are advancing, often in open-source environments,
making them more difficult to monitor. To counter these risks,
the United States must develop classified AI testbeds at the
national labs to assess emerging technologies, leverage AI-
driven intelligence to track adversarial advancements, and
strengthen our collaboration with allies to maintain a
strategic edge. The best way to prevent technological surprise
is to lead in innovation and deployment. We must get there
first.
Because private industry leads in AI and quantum computing
and other disruptive technologies, the national labs must
collaborate closely with industry to accelerate advancements
and ensure they align with our public needs. At Los Alamos,
we've already partnered with leaders like OpenAI and NVIDIA and
can leverage the success of DOE's recently successfully
concluded Exascale Computing Project to integrate AI into
national security applications. Expanding these collaborations
will accelerate scientific breakthroughs in national security
applications, it will ensure that U.S. AI models drive
innovation rather than foreign competitors, and it will keep us
at the forefront of technological leadership across a broad
range of scientific and engineering disciplines. Strong
partnerships between national labs and private industry will
drive American leadership in science, technology, and defense.
To ensure the United States remains the global leader in
science security, we must take decisive action in three areas:
launching a national AI initiative to maintain U.S. leadership
in AI-driven security, investing in modern scientific
infrastructure to sustain innovation, and expand public-private
partnerships to accelerate technology development. This
Committee plays a pivotal role in ensuring the United States
does not fall behind. I urge you to support these investments
in science, technology, and national security to secure our
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mason follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Kearns, you're now recognized for, I guess, 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAUL KEARNS,
DIRECTOR, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Kearns. Chairman Weber, Ranking Members Ross and
Lofgren, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you, really, for
the opportunity to appear before you today. It's my honor to
discuss the Department of Energy's National Laboratories and
the drive to innovation and science at scale which underpins
the economy and our national security. I am Paul Kearns. I'm a
Director of Argonne National Laboratory, which is stewarded by
the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the largest
funder of physical sciences across the Federal Government.
From advancing discoveries in materials science, biology,
high-energy physics, and nuclear research, to driving
innovations in fusion energy, isotope production, and
computational science, the Office of Science fuels research
that spans all 17 of the national laboratories, engaging--
engages over 300 universities and higher learning institutions,
and impacts every State in the union, plus Puerto Rico and
Washington, D.C.
The Office of Science national laboratories featuring--
feature leading-edge scientific facilities that are essential
to the innovation ecosystem. They provide critical scientific
capabilities that propel discovery and American innovation
through partnerships with industry and academia. These
facilities empower multidisciplinary teams to advance bold and
innovative scientific and technological endeavors. They are
also instrumental in attracting and retaining a talented
workforce, vital for Argonne's success, and they offer staff
opportunities to pursue meaningful careers working on matters
of global scale and consequence.
Last year was a transformational year at Argonne, where we
completed the upgrade of two of the Office of Science
facilities, the Advanced Photon Source (APS), which provides
very high-energy X-rays that researchers use to study complex
materials and systems, NRR, one of the Nation's first exascale
supercomputers capable of performing a billion billion
calculations per second.
These facilities are complex engineering marvels. The $850
million upgrade to the Advanced Photon Source replaced the
facility's 30-year-old electron storage ring, 1 kilometer in
circumference, with a state-of-the-art machine increasing X-ray
brightness by up to 500 times. Aurora joins Frontier at Oak
Ridge and El Capitan at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
as the three fastest supercomputers in the world. These
supercomputers dramatically accelerate research. Cosmological
simulations that took years can now be done in months. And
months of drug discovery are now reduced to days.
Last year's Nobel Prize Award in chemistry was a testament
to the important contributions of the Office of Science
facilities they're making to break through fundamental science.
The light sources at Argonne, Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley,
and SLAC National Laboratories identified 1/3 of the 180,000
protein structures in the Protein Data Bank that three Nobel
Laureates trained AI models on to successfully predict the
three-dimensional shape of proteins. Knowing the three-
dimensional shape of proteins is essential to designing new
drugs because it is the protein's shape that defines which and
how other molecules will bind to it. This achievement has been
heralded as perhaps the very first time AI significantly
advanced the frontiers of humanity's scientific knowledge and
will make a significant contribution to the development of a
vast new set of drug candidates for cancer and other diseases.
To continue Nobel-level scientific contributions, we must
reinvest in laboratory infrastructure and facilities that drive
discovery, innovation, and development of the industries of
tomorrow. The facilities' capabilities and resident--expertise
resident in the national laboratories are vital to expanding
America's leadership in critical and emerging technologies such
as artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and
microelectronics, and to establishing the United States as the
pace setter in the race of nations vying for supremacy in
science and technology (S&T).
Adversaries like China are making significant investments
in these industries. Our technological edge of today is not
guaranteed. To maintain U.S. leadership and best position
ourselves in this evolving geopolitical landscape, we must lean
into our core strength in research and development, leverage
our unique scientific assets, and bolster our partnerships.
One of the most significant roles of the national
laboratories is their ability to develop strategic partnerships
with industry and academia and to convene stakeholders to
address complex challenges and opportunities. I could cite many
examples, but a few that come to mind for me are Argonne-led
collaboration with the Greater Houston Partnership, which is
working with regional companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil,
bringing in the laboratory's expertise in advanced
manufacturing and lifecycle analysis to really help the
opportunities and the challenges such as those associated with
low carbon systems for base chemicals. We're also working with
industry leaders that John mentioned earlier, Oklo and
TerraPower, using Argonne's deep capabilities and advanced
reactor technologies and the nuclear fuel cycle really to
accelerate the commercialization of next-generation
technologies.
Our country stands at a pivotal moment. Innovations of
today will see transformational breakthroughs that will enable
our future prosperity. Now is not the time to hold back. With
renewed investments in the infrastructure and expertise of the
laboratories, the United States can contribute to lead in
emerging technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and
advanced manufacturing. By accelerating and scaling our
fundamental R&D infrastructure and strategic partnerships, the
United States can secure its position as global science and
technology leaders of the future.
Thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to
testify today. I do look forward to the questions as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kearns follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. Thank you, sir.
Doctor, is it Budil or----
Dr. Budil. Budil.
Chairman Weber. Budil, Dr. Budil, you're recognized for 5
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. KIMBERLY BUDIL,
DIRECTOR, LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Budil. Thank you. Chairman Weber, Ranking Members Ross
and Lofgren, Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and
thank you for having me here today. I'm honored to speak to you
on behalf of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a DOE
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lab, and proud
member of the DOE's network of national labs.
More than three decades ago, I arrived at Livermore as a
physics graduate student, seeking to do cutting-edge laser
experiments for my research. What followed was a remarkable
opportunity to become part of an amazing multidisciplinary team
dedicated to pursuing world-class science and technology to
advance U.S. national security and global stability. That
commitment to service to the Nation is what animates our
exceptional workforce of nearly 9,000 employees and inspires me
every day.
Today, we find ourselves at a critical time in history with
an evolving global security environment that presents
unprecedented challenges. Sustaining U.S. leadership in this
complex world requires a new approach. Speed and innovation
must be our focus, a sentiment reinforced by our new Secretary
of Energy. We must become more agile and adaptable, not only
through S&T innovation, but also through taking bold, well-
considered technical risks, seizing opportunities, and
streamlining business practices.
This is also a strategic moment for NNSA and its national
security laboratories. The need to modernize the nuclear
deterrent is urgent. We face many challenges, particularly in
aging and inadequate infrastructure, but it's also an
opportunity to use our powerful S&T tools to go faster, develop
new materials, pioneer new manufacturing approaches, reimagine
the design-to-production lifecycle, and deliver new
capabilities to meet emerging needs.
Modernization efforts are underway, and we're building
strong partnerships across NNSA and with partners in the other
labs and in industry to introduce innovative manufacturing
technologies. We propose to create a complex at Lawrence
Livermore called VIPRE where advanced materials and
manufacturing methods will be developed, prototyped, scaled up,
and quickly transferred to industry partners.
Two of NNSA's flagship and world-leading capabilities are
located at Lawrence Livermore. The recently dedicated El
Capitan supercomputer, which debuted at No. 1 on the top 500
list, and the National Ignition Facility both exemplify the
importance of sustained, multiyear congressional support for
investing in the core competencies and capabilities of the
National Laboratories. El Capitan is a remarkable machine. It
provides a 20-fold increase over our last computer and is made
even more powerful when coupled with AI and machine learning.
It's ideal for our modeling and simulation efforts, but it also
has 44,000 GPUs (graphics processing units), making it an ideal
machine for AI investigations.
With strong industry partnerships and continued support,
we're poised to take full advantage of this rapidly evolving
field to accelerate both product delivery and scientific
discovery. Achievement of fusion ignition and energy gain at
NIF in December 2022 was a historic event 60 years in the
making. This success was only possible with that sustained
support over decades. But fusion ignition is not an end point.
It's the beginning of our pursuit of high yield for nuclear
deterrence, energy security, and scientific discovery, and
continued investment will be critical to our success going
forward.
After 15 years of service and more than 4,500 experiments,
the National Ignition Facility urgently needs refurbishment.
NIF sustainment, which is now underway, is an essential
investment, along with the Enhanced Yield Capability project,
which was recently granted Critical Decision Zero (CD-0) or
Mission Need by NNSA to increase NIF's laser energy, a critical
step toward a future high-yield facility. As we learned in the
pursuit of ignition, a little bit of energy goes a long way in
these experiments.
As a national security laboratory, Livermore contributes to
a wide range of important missions for other agencies:
biodefense research to accelerate development of medical
countermeasures; partnerships with other labs and with industry
to computationally design new cancer therapeutics; novel laser
research, laying the foundations for next-generation microchips
or the next generation of EUV (extreme ultraviolet) lithography
developed at the labs; and developing novel optics to create a
new class of space-based platforms. These and other projects
truly exemplify our motto, ``Science and Technology on a
Mission.''
Thank you again for offering me the opportunity to share
how Livermore's multidisciplinary workforce is contributing to
U.S. security, scientific advancement, and global technological
leadership, and thank you for your continued support for our
important work. I look forward to today's discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Budil follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Weber. I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
This will be a question for each of you. Last month,
President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) ``Unleashing
American Energy,'' which pauses funding allocated through the
IRA and IIJA. On January 27, OMB released a memo to temporarily
pause new awards, disbursements of Federal funds under all open
awards, and open notices of funding opportunities. Although two
district court judges issued temporary restraining orders,
would any of your labs have been impacted by the EO or memo if
implemented as it specifically relates to DOE-related work? And
before you answer, to be clear, I'm not asking about lab-
related work from other agencies or departments.
Dr. Wagner, we'll start with you.
Dr. Wagner. Following some time to implement, we have not
been impacted.
Chairman Weber. Short and sweet. Dr. Mason?
Dr. Mason. Yes, if you're excluding other agencies, then
the impacts are rather limited. We've identified $200,000 of
current funding, and there is some additional funding that was
in the pipeline award that's not yet been received that could
potentially be impacted in the future.
Chairman Weber. OK. Dr. Kearns?
Dr. Kearns. Impacts at Argonne are more severe. About $37
million in research activities have been suspended or put on
hold. That represents the work of some 140 staff. Not all our
staffs are fully funded by the activity, so it equates to about
40 FTEs (full-time equivalents).
Chairman Weber. Thank you. Dr. Budil?
Dr. Budil. So we had one project funded under the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act supporting grid
resiliency activities, so this is a $7 million project where
the funds were unallocated on January 28.
Chairman Weber. Thank you. And, Dr. Wagner, I'm going to
come back to you. Under the Nuclear Fuel Security Act, Congress
mandated that DOE provide developers of advanced nuclear
reactors no less than 3 metric tons of HALEU by September 30,
2024. Today, it's February the 12th, 2025, and my understanding
is that DOE has not released a single kilogram of HALEU. Is
that correct?
Dr. Wagner. I would really defer to the Department of
Energy to answer that question, but I think it's probably
correct.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Mason, do you think that's correct too?
Dr. Mason. We have a partnership with Kairos that's looking
at that HALEU fuel, and I have not yet heard from Kairos
whether or not they have had an impact on their planned supply.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Kearns?
Dr. Kearns. I don't have any additional information.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Budil, no? OK.
Dr. Budil. Nothing additional.
Chairman Weber. X-energy, an ARDP recipient, is building
its XE-100 reactor at Dow's facility in Seadrift, Texas, which
is roughly, probably, I don't know, 100, 150 miles south of my
district. So my question for each of you is how important is
HALEU to the success of the ARDP and Gen IV reactors broadly?
I'm going to go in reverse. Dr. Budil, I'll start with you.
Dr. Budil. I'm probably not the right expert to answer the
question since we have very limited involvement with nuclear
fission.
Chairman Weber. We'll go back this way. Dr. Kearns?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, HALEU is certainly important, really, to
the development of advanced reactors, so many of the vendors
that we're working with do have plants to power the reactors
using HALEU, so critically important.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Mason?
Dr. Mason. As I mentioned, we have an activity with Kairos,
which is one of the SMR (small modular reactor) startup
companies, and the particulars of that involve the fabrication
of the TRISO HALEU fuel that would be used for their very first
test reactor that's being built in Oak Ridge. They have built a
fabrication facility in Albuquerque adjacent to Kirtland Air
Force Base, where they've been prototyping the fabrication of
these TRISO pellets. But in order to work with HALEU, which is
necessary for their reactor design, which involves TRISO
pellets and molten salt coolant, they needed a facility that
could handle that sort of material. And actually, at Los
Alamos, we have the capability to work with special nuclear
material. It's not our intention to get into the fuel
fabrication business long term, but it helps solve the chicken-
and-egg problem, which is critical to this technology.
Chairman Weber. But you are--it sounds like you are
confident they're going to be able to get this done?
Dr. Mason. Yes, it's a very promising thing. And once the
technology has been demonstrated in the test reactor, then I
think a commercial supply would be stood up to supply the
ongoing needs, so we're just helping the transition to reality.
Chairman Weber. Dr. Wagner, do you concur with that?
Dr. Wagner. Yes, I concur with that. I'd just say that the
high-assay LEU, or HALEU, is essential to almost all of the
advanced reactor concepts. The supply of that material is
incredibly important, and the timely supply of that material is
important. We are working with the Department of Energy. They
are working to make material available at Idaho National
Laboratory. We do have some stocks of high-assay LEU that we
are working with the Department to make available to private
sector companies, Kairos, Oklo, and many others.
Chairman Weber. OK. Thank you for that.
I now recognize Ranking Member Ross for her opening--for
her questions.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you all heard in my
opening statement, grid resilience and reliability is a key
priority, I think, not just of mine in North Carolina, but this
entire country. And so I'd like to ask a few more questions,
Dr. Budil, about the $7 million that you have yet to receive.
My understanding is that that was in partnership with the
private sector to support a project focused on reliability and
resilience. I'd love to hear more about the project and its
status and whether you've been given any explanation for why
it's--the funding has ceased.
Dr. Budil. Thank you for the question. So the project
involves utilization of a special laboratory we have at
Lawrence Livermore called Skyfall. Skyfall is a cyber physical
testbed so we can use our high-performance computing to run
models of the grid operating and then put real hardware from
grid systems in line with those models. And that's a way for us
to run scenarios where there might be a cyber attack or other
operational upsets and understand how the equipment will
respond to that. So this is a really important partnership for
us, working with utilities and private sector companies, so
that they can understand, in a real-world environment, how
their different types of technology they're introducing into
the grid will operate in that system.
So I think this is critically important work. It's a great
partnership between us and the private sector, and it really
does give them access to a different capability because of this
high-performance computing backbone where we can put a very
realistic scenario together.
It's also a place where we train a great deal of workforce
on questions like cyber resiliency. So we run a cyber program
where we bring in teams of students and teach them about
cybersecurity of complex systems like the grid, and they
actually do an exercise where they work as ethical hackers to
take the system down. We have a little town that we've built
that they do team challenges against so this is a way for them
to gain real-world experience. Most of these students don't
come from computer science background, so this is really their
first experience of cybersecurity. So that nexus of real
hardware, large-scale models of grid, and an understanding of
the threat space, and then the workforce training pipeline, I
think, are all critical to ensuring the next generation of
technologies are deployed securely.
Ms. Ross. Well, I think you're going to love a bill that we
got through with bipartisan support on the House side the last
time that deals with more funding for cybersecurity in DOE, and
we're going to reintroduce it.
I also understand that Livermore had a partnership with the
State Department to focus on cooperative threat reduction, and
this ongoing effort has just been terminated by the new
Administration. Could you give us any more details on that?
Dr. Budil. So this is about a $1 million effort as part of
a program through Brookhaven National Lab's Nonproliferation
and National Security Department to do cooperative threat
reduction work where we have a long legacy doing things like
capacity building, international support for things like
nuclear forensics, and understanding, you know, how to manage
interdicted nuclear materials should they arise. It's about $1
million project, and as far as I know, to date, it's paused. We
don't know if it will be restarted at a later time.
Ms. Ross. Well, hopefully we can work on both of those
things in a bipartisan way.
Several of you have talked about the importance of AI for
our energy leadership, and I don't know who would be the best
person to answer this question. We only have a minute left. But
can you describe how meeting the demand for critical AI
infrastructure can help support both the scientific enterprise
and the public interest? Maybe Dr. Mason first since you
emphasized AI in your response.
Dr. Mason. Yes, AI and electricity go together for sure.
And in fact, the AI demands are kind of baseload demand. It's
always on. You always need to be running, and so that has
implications in terms of the type of electrical supply. But our
ability to support that at the scale that's needed is going to
be challenged just because the rate at which we ramp up
electrical production is very different than the rate at which
AI is ramping up as a discipline, and so I think, as a nation,
we are going to be challenged to respond quickly enough to
maintain the very tenuous lead that we have in this field.
Ms. Ross. OK. With the last 9 seconds, anybody have
anything to add to that?
Dr. Budil. I'll just say that AI is really transforming
everything we think about science, how we use data, how we do
experiments, even how we think about developing new
technologies because AI with advanced manufacturing allows you
to make things you couldn't even conceive of before.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
having this hearing.
To each and every one of the witnesses, thank you. I've
visited many of your labs. I've worked with you all, I guess,
over the past 14 years, now 15 years. In short, our National
Labs are a national treasure. It's probably the most
enlightening experience I've had as a Member of Congress and
now as a senior appropriator chairing the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, which funds the Department of Energy, but could
not be more pleased and thankful for your opening statements
and the questions.
I wanted to ask each and every one of you your thoughts
about this. My district is home to the Oak Ridge National Lab--
actually, Oak Ridge Reservation. We have the NNSA facility
there, Y-12 building, UPF (uranium processing facility).
Nuclear cleanup is near and dear to my heart. At many of your
reservations, I know Idaho has done a great job over the years,
Los Alamos. I chair seven or eight nuclear-related caucuses, so
this is what I do in Congress, and each and every one of you
all have been my partners.
This Committee has long recognized the value of public-
private partnerships--in fact, I think some of you alluded to
this in your comments--that boost our Nation's competitiveness
on a global scale. So I'm going to ask each and every one of
you all, can you explain the benefits and share any examples of
industry collaboration leading to the commercialization of
transformative technological achievements? For example, in my
district, X-energy, which the Chair has already referenced,
developed their TRISO fuel at ORNL and is now building a
commercial facility to produce it at scale.
Dr. Wagner, two companies working at INL are currently
conducting a feasibility study to co-locate their fuel
fabrication facilities and are exploring collaboration on
reprocessing and recycling technologies, which is also near and
dear to my heart.
Can you all comment on the benefit of industry
collaboration and the pathways to commercialization? And I
guess I'll just start with Dr. Wagner and go through. Thank
you.
Dr. Wagner. Thank you, Congressman. And I'd like to start
by thanking you for your support of the national laboratories
in general and for nuclear energy in particular. You've been a
great advocate for the--both of those areas and much, much
more.
So you already are quite familiar with a lot of the public-
private partnerships and the important aspects of going, but
I'd like to maybe just quickly talk about a couple. You
mentioned TRISO fuel. It was the laboratories that came
together with the Department of Energy more than a decade ago
to figure out how to fabricate and then evaluate the
performance of the fabricated TRISO fuel and graphite
associated with those reactor types, working together with
private industry and ultimately issuing a topical safety
analysis report through the Electric Power Research Institute
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that formed a baseline
then for all of these reactor developers to work from, so
really kick starting that fuel form in terms of the
availability for private developers to use that.
Today, one of the things that we're really doing closely
with multiple private companies is providing testbeds for full
system reactor demonstrations that will derisk, as I said,
their technologies and enable their path to commercial
deployment. These things are not possible in facilities other
than facilities like the Department of Energy national
laboratories.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. Dr. Mason?
Dr. Mason. So I guess maybe I'll highlight the importance
of public-private partnerships in artificial intelligence. The
United States is fortunate that we have private sector actors
who are making massive investments in developing these
capabilities. In fact, that's one of our big strategic
advantages. When you look at what's going on in China, there
are investments on a similar scale. And of course, in the
Chinese system, there is no clear distinction between
government investments and private investments and national
security investments.
That's why it's essential that we are able to leverage the
tremendous innovation that's happening in our private sector
for our national security needs. We have been working with many
of the AI companies, OpenAI, Anthropic. We've been using Lava,
the Meta open-source AI, but I wanted to highlight two
partnerships in particular. One is with NVIDIA, the chipmaker.
Last year, we took delivery of a wonderful new machine called
Venado that we agreed to purchase 4 years ago. It's a good
thing we made the deal with NVIDIA 4 years ago because I don't
think we could get it now. And recently, we reached an
agreement with OpenAI to field their raw model weights on that
machine in a classified environment in service of all three of
the NNSA labs, Livermore, Sandia, and Los Alamos.
And this is an example where we can take advantage of the
huge investment that OpenAI developed--expended in developing
their advanced models, but do it in a classified environment
for our national security applications. You know, there may not
be as big a financial model to incentivize the private sector
to do that sort of work, and that's why we need to work to
align our interests and hopefully drive forward the science and
technology as well.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think I've
exceeded my time in all due respect to our witnesses, who I
know very well and respect, but I certainly want to yield back.
I know our colleagues all want to speak.
Chairman Weber. Well, I wasn't going to point that out, but
the gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lofgren,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note that the Chair of
the Appropriations Subcommittee gets extra time.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields her time--no, no, no.
Ms. Lofgren. First I--you know, I want to thank this really
wonderful panel of witnesses, and--not only for being here, but
for the work you do each and every day that advances science
and helps protect our Nation.
Dr. Budil, I--you know, I want to congratulate you again on
the--NIF's stunning achievements. It's fabulous. DOE Office of
Science selected Livermore to lead a multi-institutional
endeavor called the STARFIRE Hub focusing on exploring and
developing immense potential of inertial fusion energy
technologies. Can you give us more details of the STARFIRE Hub
to date and also what private fusion companies you've been
working with and what unique capabilities they're bringing to
the effort?
Dr. Budil. Yes, thank you for the question, Representative
Lofgren. The STARFIRE Hub is a really exciting opportunity for
us to lean into our opportunity to build an inertial fusion
energy ecosystem, so this allows us to work with the many
players emerging in the private fusion industry to begin to
build programs to develop workforce that will support that
industry and to begin work on some of the important technical
challenges that stand between these companies and commercial
deployment of fusion energy.
So in the inertial fusion energy realm, we're a smaller
fraction of the fusion industry in the United States but still
growing day by day. We have CRADAs, cooperative research and
development agreements, with most of the companies in this
arena, so that includes companies like Xcimer, Focused Energy,
Pacific Fusion, and several new ones coming on the scene as
time goes by. And in each of those cases, these companies are
critically dependent on our capabilities and our workforce.
In particular, for inertial confinement fusion, the only
facility where the physics of the igniting target can be
studied is the National Ignition Facility at Livermore. So in
each case, these companies are critically dependent on our
research teams. We're also home to the most advanced modeling
and simulation tools to enable them to design their new schemes
for approaching a commercial scheme for fusion energy. So it's
a small effort, you know, $15 million to $17 million, but very
important as a community-building effort in the beginning.
I'll just note, for the broader fusion ecosystem, this need
for investment in public research infrastructure is also
critically important. And all of the fusion companies, magnetic
and inertial alike, are counting on the infrastructure at the
national laboratories to really fill critical technical gaps
for their schemes going forward.
Ms. Lofgren. I'd just note, I mean, there's probably more
private sector money going into fusion now than public, but
there's some things only we can fund, the basic research that's
going to be beneficial to every single company that's exploring
opportunities.
I would note that China is currently building a NIF replica
that's bigger than what we have, and meanwhile, we have needs
just to keep up with what we've got.
I note that the--in the December releases for fusion from
the Office of Science, there was an award using AI to address
questions as to materials science for first-wall fusion issues.
What else needs to be done in terms of testbeds, which--I mean,
the fusion scientists did an outline of what we should do. We
haven't funded it, but China has fully funded it. What do we
need to do to beat them to the punch on this and to be
successful in our quest for fusion?
Dr. Budil. So I think ramping up the effort at the
facilities that we currently have in the national laboratories
to do things like understand the performance of first-wall
materials and other critical componentry in high-radiation
environments. These companies need us to help them with the
tritium fuel cycle, so each of these reactor concepts that uses
tritium requires a closed fuel cycle concept. Only the National
Labs really have the infrastructure to advance that.
There are other types of materials and systems integration
questions which are difficult to answer without the
infrastructure at scale that we have. So the fusion labs--
Princeton, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Idaho--have a critical role to play, really, in providing that
infrastructure.
There are a set of new facilities that have been proposed
by Fusion Energy Sciences in the Office of Science that would
play a critical role in advancing the cause, but I fear that
the timescale to develop new facilities means that we need to
invest more in existing facilities to really try to fill these
gaps.
Ms. Lofgren. I'm not chairing an Appropriations
Subcommittee, so I will yield back my time since I'm over.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Lieutenant Colonel Representative
Biggs from South Carolina for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Welcome.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Weber, for holding this
important hearing today with the National Laboratories. And I
would like to thank the Directors of Idaho, of Los Alamos, of
Livermore, and of Argonne National Labs for joining us.
And I want to bring attention to our friends, my friends at
the Savannah River National Laboratory. So the security of our
power grid is paramount. The modern world is more
interconnected now than ever before, and with this comes the
risk of cyber attacks from non-State actors and foreign
adversaries alike. Savannah River National Laboratory, through
its Global Security Directorate, supports the United States'
national security community by focusing its efforts on power
grid security, electronic warfare, and wireless test and
evaluation processes.
So my question is for each of you. Because of President
Trump's America First agenda, the United States is ready, once
again, to strive for energy independence and dominance. We must
ensure that our energy infrastructure is secure and that it is
resilient in face of today's threat environment, especially
from the growing perils of cyber attacks. What are your labs
doing to address the challenges to energy resilience, and what
partnerships do you see as critical to the success to reach
this goal?
Dr. Wagner. May I start?
Mrs. Biggs. Please.
Dr. Wagner. Thank you for the question. So at Idaho
National Laboratory, in addition to our energy mission, we do a
lot of work in critical infrastructure security, primarily
cybersecurity for physical control systems, as well as physical
security of those systems, partnering with Savannah River and
other laboratories. We do a lot of work for the Department of
Energy's CESER office--that's Cybersecurity, Energy Security,
and Emergency Response--as well as the Department of Homeland
Security's CISA. That's critical--or Cybersecurity
Infrastructure Security Agency.
So what we do then is we've developed--we've done a lot of
things. As you probably are aware, there's a lot of control
systems in our infrastructure that were put in place before we
understood the cybersecurity risks, so we do vulnerability
assessments to understand where those are, how to address them,
working with the control system and the critical infrastructure
owners to address those risks.
We also have developed methodologies to address
consequence-based cybersecurity measures, such that, as we
deploy new critical infrastructure, that we deploy it in a more
cyber-secure way from the very beginning, multiple tools as
well as training for the different owners of these critical
infrastructures relative to their vulnerabilities. And lastly--
I wanted to give time for my colleagues--we are working hard on
more firm energy sources to shore up the reliability of our
grid as well. Thank you.
Mrs. Biggs. Great. Thank you.
Dr. Mason. I can maybe illustrate with an example something
that relates to your question. At Los Alamos, we've been
collaborating with our colleagues at Oak Ridge National Lab,
looking at the application of quantum encryption to the
controls that support electric grid operation. We've been doing
this in partnership with EPB, the Chattanooga utility that,
several years ago, implemented a fiber network across all of
their grid. And so they're an excellent partner for looking at
what the future of the grid looks like where you have internet-
enabled fiber optical connections between the various circuits
that switch things on and off, which could be a source of
disruption if a malign actor gained access. And so by applying
quantum encryption, we have communications protocols that are
much more resistant to external attack, and so this EPB
partnership allows us to basically operate testbed for future,
more secure grid security.
Mrs. Biggs. Thank you.
Dr. Kearns. There are four, four examples I would cite from
Argonne. Argonne also does quite a bit of work in the
cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection for not
only the Department of Energy, but for other Federal agencies.
A great example is really critical infrastructure
interdependency, looking at, if you will, the impact of
disruptions to our national gas supply to the electricity
availability and transmission broadly across the country.
Another one is securing massive edge assets, and this,
again, is looking at assets at the edge of the grid, if you
will. It might be gas turbines, it might be combined heat and
power, it might be distributed storage, it might be buildings
themselves, and the list goes on. It's really the backbone, if
you will, of the power grid.
The third one is supplying--securing the supply chain.
Certainly, security at multiple levels is critically important,
talk about materials and components in terms of really enabling
the power system.
And the last one is extreme event assessment and
mitigation, really understanding the impacts, if you will, of
extreme weather and how to respond quickly--prepare for and
respond quickly to those events.
Mrs. Biggs. Great. I'm sorry, but my time has expired, and
out of respect for my colleagues, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Well, the gentlelady would like to yield
back, but Dr. Budil, would you like to weigh in before we do
that? I thought you looked anxious.
Dr. Budil. Well, that's--how you decide where we sit
depends on how much you get to talk. But the----
Chairman Weber. It's the same way around our dinner table
just so you know.
Dr. Budil. Exactly. We have many of the same efforts I
mentioned already, our Skyfall lab, where we're really trying
to understand these cyber-physical systems. Because of our work
in national security, we have very strong capabilities in risk
assessment and risk analysis. We understand the threat space
very well and can bring that, again, in our partnerships with
the private sector to critical civilian infrastructure like the
grid, but we also have many partnerships looking at the
intersection between civilian infrastructure and things like
military installations, really trying to understand how to make
those facilities resilient and ensure that critical
capabilities like that always have secure access to energy in
their environment. So thank you, sir.
Chairman Weber. Now the gentlelady South Carolina yields
back. Just remember, you owe me.
Chairman Weber. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from Oregon for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chair Weber and Ranking Member
Ross, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
This is quite timely to have this conversation in the midst
of unprecedented attacks on our research enterprise. Reports
suggest President Trump is looking to cut the NSF (National
Science Foundation) budget by 2/3. Blanket attacks on diversity
have thrown existing research grants into question and caused
panic and confusion amongst researchers. Elon Musk's henchmen
are running amok at NOAA, threatening critical systems like the
National Weather Service that researchers and the public rely
on. Inflation Reduction Act funding has been frozen, and Musk's
employees now apparently have access to DOE IT systems. And
finally, in my backyard, the Oregon NIH (National Institutes of
Health) has announced indirect funding cuts that will cost
Oregon institutions tens of millions of dollars and hamstring
critical biomedical research at the Oregon Health and Science
University.
So I just want to be crystal clear. If the Administration
continues down this path, lifesaving discoveries will fail to
materialize, young Americans will have fewer economic
opportunities, and our Nation will be weaker and less
competitive on a world stage. All of this is a frightening
state of affairs, as we watch China propel its AI development.
So has any one of you been contacted by the Department of
Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and if so, in what capacity or
for what purpose?
Dr. Kearns. I'll jump in first. No, there's been no contact
at Argonne.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Budil. Yes, we've not had any contact at our laboratory
either.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Wagner. The same, no contact.
Dr. Mason. No contact at Los Alamos.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Should anyone from DOGE seek access
to your internal systems or proprietary data, how would you
respond?
Dr. Mason. I mean, we take direction from the Department of
Energy, so, you know, if contract direction was given and all
the necessary requirements were met in terms of security and so
forth, then we would certainly comply with that direction.
Ms. Salinas. If I could follow up on that question, what if
you were asked to forgo the security requirements?
Dr. Mason. The way the labs work is as contractors, we have
a set of requirements that flow from the Department of Energy
in the form of DOE orders. Those orders are in our contract. We
are required to comply with them. If the orders were removed
from our contract or waived, then that might provide a
mechanism. But as of the moment, all the security orders are
still in place, and we are required by contract to comply with
them.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So I imagine we might need
litigation if contracts were not changed to take effect to
override those security mechanisms. Is that correct?
Dr. Mason. I don't know about litigation, but certainly, it
requires contracting officer direction to change any of those
things.
Ms. Salinas. OK. Thank you. The national labs engage in
far-reaching partnerships with researchers at academic
institutions across the country, and in Oregon, these include
Oregon Tech students working on clean energy solutions with the
National Renewable Energy Lab, Oregon State driving quantum
advances with Argonne, and the University of Oregon working
with the Pacific Northwest National Lab to pursue discoveries
in materials sciences, just to touch on a few.
Have any of you proactively directed any university
partners to amend or altogether stop research activities in
response to the Administration's orders on DEI or any other
executive order?
Dr. Kearns. No, not at Argonne.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Wagner. I don't believe we have it either.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Budil. No.
Dr. Mason. No.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Have any of you heard from
university partners with concerns about their ability to
continue research partnerships?
Dr. Budil. No.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you.
Dr. Kearns. No.
Dr. Mason. No.
Dr. Wagner. And no.
Ms. Salinas. Great, thank you. I will yield back my time.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Harrigan from North
Carolina for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harrigan. Chairman Weber and Ranking Member Ross, thank
you very much for holding this hearing today, and to our
witnesses, thanks so much for your testimony, really appreciate
it. I would agree with the gentleman from Tennessee who said
earlier that our National Labs are indeed national treasures.
And as the American taxpayer invests their national treasures
into our national treasures, your labs, we expect to have great
and incredible outcomes from those investments. And I think in
many cases, we do, but this Committee has heard in Full
Committee setting testimony that we are behind in research and
development and a portion of that difference that we've seen
can be attributed to intellectual property theft.
And I'm just curious, as I read through your testimonies
and have listened to you today, you all control collectively
tens of thousands of employees. You have thousands of visiting
researchers. How many of those employees and/or visiting
researchers are citizens of the PRC (People's Republic of
China)?
Dr. Wagner. So at Idaho National Laboratory, we have
approximately 50 foreign nationals from China.
Dr. Mason. As of right now at Los Alamos, there are about
100 citizens out of about 18,000 total people working at the
lab--about 100 citizens of the so-called countries of risk:
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Obviously, with the new
language in the National Defense Authorization Act, we are
working through a process to come into compliance with that by
the April end date, and so that number is going down.
Dr. Budil. So at Lawrence Livermore, citizens of China who
are not yet legal permanent residents of United States, we have
just short of 60 people, and we're working to come into
compliance with the requirements of the National Defense
Authorization Act. And I just noted in my testimony, this is on
top of the significant systems we have in place to manage our
research environment and ensure that we protect sensitive
technology information, important research facilities, and
access to our people on a daily basis.
Dr. Kearns. At Argonne, Argonne is an Office of Science
laboratory. The number of foreign nationals is much higher at
the laboratory. Of the nearly 4,000 total employees, the total
foreign nationals across Argonne's activities is approximately
700. Several of those do come from the People's Republic of
China.
Mr. Harrigan. When you say several, are you talking about
three of the thousand or more than that?
Dr. Kearns. I'm talking a few hundred.
Mr. Harrigan. A few hundred----
Dr. Kearns. Yes.
Mr. Harrigan [continuing]. OK. Have either of you--any of
you, have you had any confirmed cases of espionage at your labs
dealing with these individuals?
Dr. Mason. In terms of the people currently at the lab, no.
Obviously, over the course of history at Los Alamos going back
to Klaus Fuchs in the 1940's, yes, there have been instances of
espionage, which, I would note, generally relates to access to
classified information, which is something that is denied to
any foreign national at Los Alamos.
Dr. Kearns. None at Argonne. We do operate under what we
call the managed research environment, which really provides
really a close look at all we do in terms of engagement with
foreign nationals, including vetting those that want to come to
the laboratory to access our facilities or collaborate. We also
make sure that we are extra careful in terms of scrubbing and
reviewing any potential partnership opportunities, any
partnership activities that we might do with a foreign company,
so no.
Dr. Budil. Yes, I'll confirm nothing in even remotely
recent history at our laboratory. Again, we've been in
existence since 1952 working in sensitive areas. In addition to
the things we've said to date about the managed research
environment, we also have operated across that time with very
strict controls around classified research, which is segregated
both physically and by other controls, and no foreign nationals
have access to that research or those networks.
Dr. Wagner. I'd say at Idaho National Laboratory, just like
the other national laboratories, there's a great level of
interest from foreign countries in the work that we do. We have
a number of safeguards that Director Kearns mentioned in terms
of managing those risks, and we do not have any confirmed cases
of espionage. But I would say that's largely probably because
we work very hard to keep an eye and put safeguards in place
before such things would occur.
Mr. Harrigan. Thank you all very much for your testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Turner, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking Member
Ross. Let me thank you all for what you do. I want to also just
highlight the importance of the research work you all are doing
with the grid. I know in Houston in February 2021 it was
weather-related, but it literally shut down the city and, in
fact, affected even our water systems. So when you talk about
weather cybersecurity, we know how detrimental it can be if we
don't build in resilience and reliability.
And then Mr.--Dr. Kearns, I want to thank you all for your
collaboration with the Greater Houston Partnership with
ExxonMobil and Chevron. Can you just elaborate a little bit
more on what y'all are doing to establish a lower carbon
system?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, thank you for the question. The
partnership really is relatively new, established about a year
ago, really with great engagement from over 20 industry members
in the Houston area. We're in the process of working with a few
of the other laboratories, including the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and NETL, the National Energy Technology
Laboratory, to really settle on a plan of attack, along with
the industry members there in the greater Houston area.
So, right now, we're working to scope this study and really
kind of understanding how we can be best available and able to
really help the greater community there in the Houston area as
they look at low carbon options for base chemical production.
Mr. Turner. Well, let me applaud that collaboration.
And you all have also mentioned the public-private
relationships, and, Dr. Kearns, you mentioned the engagement
with more than 300 universities. Let me just ask, are any of
those historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, yes. Howard University, since we're here
in the district, comes quickly to mind, but many others,
including our North Carolina A&T, for example, working together
in terms of some of our work associated with environmental
monitoring activities, and it's been an area that we've really
been deliberate about in terms of engaging--providing
opportunities for really all, so thank you.
Mr. Turner. OK. And then let me just ask in general. I know
that there are some offices that have had to be closed because
of the conversation, the Executive orders on diversity, equity,
and inclusion. I think recently you had to close an office. Is
that correct?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, at Argonne, we closed the Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion Office. We no longer have a Chief
Diversity Officer. We've discontinued our Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion Councils at the laboratory, so many changes have
occurred, you know, to be in compliance with the new
directives. Much of that activity was driven by a requirement
in our contract to develop a DEI plan. That requirement's been
eliminated as well by the Department.
Mr. Turner. And also, can you tell us--elaborate the impact
of having to close that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Office?
Dr. Kearns. I think in terms of impact, certainly, there
were individuals employed there that are no longer employed
there. We've had to really kind of understand their strengths
and look for other opportunities for them at the laboratory.
Fortunately, we have what we call the Argonne Leadership
Institute, which is really focused on the development of all
our employees at the laboratory in terms of their training,
thinking about career ladders, what opportunities they see,
opportunities for them to engage broadly to really strengthen
their base. And so that's really been what we've talked about
in terms of not only past activities, but future activities. At
Argonne, we have a set of what we call the core values. It's
impact, safety, respect, integrity, and teamwork. That's really
what we're using to engage with the Argonne workforce broadly
as we move forward.
Mr. Turner. And, Dr. Wagner, have you all been impacted by
the Executive orders dealing with diversity, equity, and
inclusion?
Dr. Wagner. So we have not had any employees, you know,
removed or eliminated, and so while we have changed some things
in terms of what we say and how we talk about things, we have
not had any further impacts than that.
Mr. Turner. OK. And Dr. Mason?
Dr. Mason. Similarly, we've made some changes in our
organizational structure consistent with the contract guidance
that we received. However, we have--the lab has been growing,
and we have other needs in human resources, so we've been able
to accommodate the affected employees and have also made the
necessary adjustments to both comply with the order, but
maintain our commitment to maintaining--to having a workplace
that is free from discrimination and is respectful of everyone
and the contributions that they bring.
Mr. Turner. And, Dr. Budil, unfortunately, my time is out,
and your seating is--we'll have to work on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Weber. Well, before you do, let's yield the
gentlelady some time.
Dr. Budil. Our situation is similar to what's described by
the other labs. We did have an office that we closed. Those
people--small team of people--spent most of their time really
working on workforce engagement and building that sense of
community and team that's so critical to doing big team science
the way we do, and so we have restructured our program and
directed them to other activities. So that's the main impact
for us.
And I'll just say that the critical importance of bringing
together a broad range of ideas, of backgrounds, of experiences
is really how we drive excellence in our laboratories, so we're
very strongly focused on continuing that focus on excellence.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady and the gentleman yields
back.
I now recognize the gentleman, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
appreciate all of our witnesses being here today. I'm always
fascinated with the various kinds of basic research that you
do. A lot of times, that's a precursor to industry doing
theirs.
But, Dr. Kearns, you're probably the closest to our
district in west central Indiana. In fact, last time I saw you,
we were at a joint meeting at Purdue University. And I want to
make sure you understood that Purdue University, right, was
the--anyway--so anyway, you know, since that lab is so close,
and I believe the projects really reflect the leading edge on
quantum science in the Midwest has developed. And in fact, our
Nation's sole quantum corridor runs from Chicago to Ohio, as
you're well aware, with most of that corridor in northern
Indiana.
So during this Committee's prior markup of the National
Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act, I offered an amendment
to direct the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee to
study the creation of a national quantum corridor connecting
our National Labs, our universities, and our military bases
across the country with the speed and power of a quantum
computer. So do you think we're headed in the right direction
with that quantum corridor? And, if so, how can we best secure
that corridor against any breaches in research in your opinion?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, thank you very much for the question. I do
appreciate the Subcommittee and the Committee's support of the
National Quantum Initiative, really, in its renewal if you will
in that regard, I think many good things have happened under
the National Quantum Initiative. One that's particularly
important to Argonne has been the stand up of the National
Quantum Research Centers. We operate what's called Q-Next,
really focused on quantum interconnects.
You know, the fascinating thing to me about this is really
the strong interest from industry in many aspects, really, of
quantum information science that we have from industry. We have
11 industrial partners as part of that center. The laboratory
has had to devote 1 day a week for conversation with other
industrial--potential other industrial partners that want to
come to Argonne and talk about quantum science and their own
ideas and how they might partner with us and other national
laboratories. I think that's great.
In terms of pulling things together, you know, I think the
Department of Energy, again, through the Office of Science and
the National Quantum Research Centers--there are five of them--
it's really created a very dynamic ecosystem. I think,
initially, the first 5 years has really been focused on
developing capabilities and building partnerships as we look
really to moving forward, as suggested by the National Quantum
Initiative, it's really about further activation of the
ecosystem that's been established. Many of the, I would say,
geographic regions of the country have developed quantum
networks, quantum testbeds, if you will, for quantum
communications. And there's always interest in thinking about
linking systems. Can we join our efforts together in terms of
that national quantum network that you spoke of?
The big challenge, technology is not just there yet, and so
it's really important that we continue to invest both in the
fundamentals and the engineering aspects associated with
quantum information science.
Mr. Baird. You know, right along with that, it's amazing to
me how much energy these data centers take. I've had energy
suppliers indicate to me it's going to quadruple their demand
for electricity.
But anyway, I'm going to go to everyone for this question.
You know, I mentioned Purdue University, and we've been working
on the small modular reactors in a nuclear study, and we're
working with Duke Energy to study the feasibility of using the
SMR to power an entire college campus. And recently, the
reactor at Purdue was fully digitized and started back up.
So can you elaborate on the challenges that that kind of
transition and taking it from analog to digital and the
consequences of that related to the SMRs? And we got 46
seconds, so I'm going to start----
Dr. Wagner. So I'll be very quick, but there are increased
risk in cybersecurity and transfer--transitioning from analog
to digital. And researchers around the laboratory complex at
multiple laboratories have been working with utilities and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address those considerations.
And actually there's progress been made on a utility in the
United States to do that as a frontrunner pilot to addressing
that--those concerns. And I do see that going in that direction
in the future.
Mr. Baird. We got 12 seconds for three of you. You got 4
seconds apiece.
Dr. Mason. I would just note that, actually, this is an
area where DOE did pave the way because the High Flux Isotope
Reactor at Oak Ridge reached the digital controls well in
advance of industry. And that, I think, perspective informs
some of the work that my colleague discussed.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a couple more
seconds to get----
Chairman Weber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Baird. I'd like to get--thank you.
Dr. Kearns. Yes, certainly, as has already been commented
on, it's underway. I think it's important that we really stay
really engaged and really look at the opportunities with open
eyes and be as smart as we possibly can to make sure that we're
at the cutting edge in terms of the transition.
Dr. Budil. Agreed. And I think Thom's point about
highlighting the role that we can play in partnership in the
public sector. We have facilities and experience in many of
these areas that could really help accelerate this transition
for industry.
Mr. Baird. Thank all of you, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman recognizes the Representative from
California, Representative Friedman.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chair Babin and Ranking Member
Lofgren. For the record, I firmly believe in continued Federal
funding into basic research, and I am deeply alarmed by Musk
and President Trump's basic freezing of all Federal funding
that has very much damaged American scientific leadership. And
we've heard today about what cuts are doing to your
institutions. There is massive return on investment from these
research dollars, as we know, and I think it's idiotic to
indiscriminately cut funding when we get such a massive return
for those dollars. Even beyond nuclear energy, which we've
heard a bit about today, this is key for our national security.
And the value of those investments can be seen very clearly
in California, where we're proud of our scientific leadership.
We have a long history of being both a national and global
leader in science and have set the standard for groundbreaking
research, from aerospace to advanced computing to climate
change research and clean energy. And that work continues today
with new technologies like artificial intelligence. We're home
to leading universities and research institutions that attract
the best and brightest from around the world, and we are proud
that our children have access to those great institutions as
they look for opportunities as they grow.
We have collaborations between our national labs and
leading universities that have fostered a real culture of
innovation in California. In fact, right outside my district,
Cal Tech's Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis has
brought together 100 world-class scientists and engineers from
Cal Tech to partner with Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Those lab-driven advancements translate to high-
quality jobs, the kind of jobs that people want for upward
mobility, and they grow our local economies in California and
beyond.
But we have huge challenges in California. We recognize
that manmade climate change has led to huge challenges just in
our State. We are grappling with droughts and huge swings in
weather, and we know that the megafires that we have seen in
the last 10 years are a direct result of that climate change.
And, at the same time, our new--our President is saying that we
should ``drill, baby drill.''
Now, we know what burning fossil fuels means in California,
where we have the worst air quality in the Nation, especially
in the Central Valley, and we are suffering in Los Angeles from
devastating fires that were certainly fueled by drought, made
much worse by climate change.
Director Budil, I am wondering how your research is
figuring into the clean energy solutions that are not only
creating great jobs in California but will help us lead the
world out of the climate change impacts that are being felt,
not just in California, not just in the United States, but all
over the globe. And we know that other governments will--are
looking desperately for solutions, and I think it's pretty
clear that whoever--whatever country comes up with the
solutions that will help us escape climate change are going--is
going to have the world's leading economy because that
technology is so highly sought after.
So what are you doing and what do you see on the horizon
for those clean energy solutions?
Dr. Budil. Thank you for the question. I divide my answer
into two parts. In the near term, our researchers have been
working hard to manage carbon in our environment, so how to
make fossil fuel burning technologies cleaner, how to capture
and store carbon, how to utilize oil and gas infrastructure
after it's been expended for some of these efforts. And we have
been a big part--the labs have been a big part of building the
national--natural gas economy in the United States. So I think
that adaptation of those technologies in a way that makes them
sustainable in the near term is critically important.
For the future, we are right at the heart of building this
future fusion economy, and the United States has an
extraordinary opportunity to lead on this front. We have many
of the leading facilities in the world and the only facility in
the world that's ever achieved energy gain in a fusion
experiment. So that moves fusion technology from the realm of
fantasy technology into perhaps a relatively nearer-term
solution for large-scale baseload energy development with a new
technology.
So we're working very hard to buildup the ecosystem that
goes along with that and addressing the R&D challenges that
still remain to making fusion energy commercially viable,
working with companies to understand the gaps they have, and
then directing our research to rapidly fill those gaps--again,
materials, tritium fuel cycle being two notable ones--and
advancing the state-of-the-art in key technologies for things
like inertial fusion energy where advanced laser technology,
high-repetition rate experiments, and higher gain target
designs, which we can work on at our National Ignition
Facility, will be central to success.
Ms. Friedman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York,
Representative Riley.
Mr. Riley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all the witnesses here. I really appreciate hearing
about all the incredible work you're doing on everything from
fusion to machine learning, all these things that we really
need to do to stay competitive in our global economy. It's
really, really important stuff.
I wanted to use my time today to talk about something
different that's really immediate and hitting close to home in
upstate New York and something that I want to ask for your help
with, and that is the opioid epidemic. It's just ripping
through towns across upstate New York. In west Endicott, where
I'm from, we've lost some of my high school classmates or their
parents because of overdoses and addiction. In Sullivan County,
we're losing two people per month because of overdoses, and
we're having 10 overdoses per month, so two deaths and 10
overdoses per month in just Sullivan County. Greene County in
my district, we've got the second highest overdose rate in the
State. I was at a diner in Catskill in the fall, and it was one
of the issues that came up over and over again. We're losing
kids and parents and friends and neighbors.
And I think there's a lot of reasons for this. A big part
of it is, frankly, we've just got a wide-open border when it
comes to fentanyl trafficking. So you've got China sending
these ingredients to Mexico, and then the cartels are making
fentanyl, and then they're smuggling it into America, where
it's killing our people, and it's got to stop. It's got to
stop. And I think we really need the help of the best and the
brightest scientists in this country to do it.
We need better technology at the border to stop the
fentanyl trafficking and to detect the fentanyl. It seems like
the sort of thing that if we were able to harness the best and
the brightest scientists in this country, we could find a way
to detect fentanyl as it's coming to the border. I know that
there's already some work being done with our national labs in
partnership with the Department of Homeland Security on this.
I put to you all, as some of the leading scientific voices
in this country, how can we start detecting this fentanyl? What
do you need from Congress in terms of if we have to give you
the mission, if we have to have--what do we need to do to
galvanize some folks to put some of our best and brightest
minds on this issue?
Dr. Mason. I actually have something that might be of
interest to you, but I'm not able to discuss it in an open
forum.
Mr. Riley. I understand. I would--that sounds even more
interesting now that you put it that way. And because it's a
response to my question but also it sounds--now, it sounds even
cooler. So let's find a time. I'm going to drop off my card
with you, and let's talk about that.
Dr. Budil. So we have something that we can tell you about,
which is a development of a new countermeasure to counter the
effect of fentanyl on those who might come in contact with it,
perhaps not an overdose, but, for example, first responders who
go out into the field. So using the combination of our
experimental and computational capabilities, we were able to
develop a therapeutic that counters the toxic effects of
fentanyl that could be used for that purpose.
Mr. Riley. Incredible. Yes, that's exactly the type of work
I think we need.
Anybody else have suggestions on this? One of the things
I'd like to work with you all on and work with the
Administration on is whether there's a way--I mean, you guys
are just doing incredible stuff, like amazing breakthroughs,
and I just think that we have the best scientists and
researchers in this country, and we have this immediate problem
that is literally killing my constituents. And what I want to
do is take all of your talents and your skills and put folks to
work on this mission of detecting this stuff before it gets
into the country. We've got to get the border secure. We've got
to do it, and to do that, we need better technology. And to get
better technology, we've got to have our scientists working on
it. So I want to support you in supporting that kind of work.
And, Dr. Mason, we'll talk after about the super-secret,
cool stuff that you guys are doing.
Thank you, and I'll yield back my time.
Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair and recognizes Dr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And I guess since we were just
talking about fentanyl, I can't resist pointing out that
Argonne National Lab, one--research performed at Argonne won
the Nobel Prize for the study of the G protein-coupled
receptor. And this is the actual mechanism when the opioid
molecule hits the receptor in your brain that causes the addict
to become addicted. This can be directly imaged and has been at
the Argonne APS. They can see exactly what happens when the--
well, the fentanyl and--it's everything that happens after that
to the fentanyl molecule hits the brain and how that works.
And when you get that kind of understanding, we are now
rolling out medically assisted treatments that directly crowbar
that receptor so that when the--you know, when the opioid
molecule arrives, you actually don't--you don't feel it. And so
it is this kind of research over decades that really--you know
there are many lines of defense we need against fentanyl and
the damage it's doing. The last best line of defense is the
human brain. And if we can find simple ways to crowbar the
response of the human brain to fentanyl, you won't need border
security or anything else because no one will be--we won't have
addicts desperate to buy the fentanyl. And so I'm just really
proud that that's happened in my district. It was Argonne
National Lab and the APS.
That's--you know, as I mentioned, I--you know, I have
Argonne in my district, and that was a really, really
impressive line of research. And I hope--you know, I hope that
all of the labs will really survive this review that's coming
up with flying colors because for years prior to COVID, I was
the Chair of the National Labs Caucus where I got to drag
Members of Congress to the national labs. And when they
arrived, they'd--I have no idea this neat stuff is happening.
And then they were big advocates for preserving the--and
expanding the budget of the national labs.
And so at some point, now that COVID is over, I think we'll
resurrect that because it's really--you know, it's really
breathtaking, what's happening. And a lot of it--the labs serve
as a very powerful flywheel because things tend to go in and
out of fashion. You know, and fusion--you know, fusion's gone
in and out of fashion and--in different forms several times
during my career in science. And it's--and so it's really nice
that the national labs have a capacity that is there in good
times and bad. And to make that happen, you have to have
Congress and the Department of Energy that understands the
permanent value of keeping the team together, even when, you
know, it's not popular.
And that's why I think it's really going to be an all-
hands-on-deck moment to preserve the budgets of these so you
don't see layoffs just because you can during bad times on the
budgets here. So I think that's--let's see. I have now used up
like way too much of my time and things--let's see. Is there--a
little bit--you know, there's a really valuable thing the
national labs do, which is to curate datasets. You know, I
think that was mentioned, the protein folding problem datasets.
That was generated, you know, in large part, well, at Argonne
and other labs, and that gets curated at national facilities.
Sometimes that's necessary because of national security
reasons. Other times, when they're--you know, when there are
medical privacy reasons that there's been a role for
laboratories to keep those secret and yet appropriately
accessible to researchers. And, you know, it's a tough thing,
and the labs have the background to do that.
Director Kearns, can you say a little bit about what
Argonne's been doing in terms of just curating datasets and
providing compute for, you know, researchers?
Dr. Kearns. Yes, thank you very much. It's a critical
matter for sure. It is something that not only Argonne but
several of the other laboratories have strengthened as well.
Thank you for mentioning the Advanced Photon Source, a
tremendous opportunity here to work with the broader scientific
community, over 7,000 users on an annual basis. I mentioned
earlier that we've just completed the upgrade, which will make
it--I think create even more demand for the science that one
will be able to do there.
It does generate a tremendous amount of data, and we're
working hard to really understand how best to really help the
researchers take that data and really use it to provide needed
information to further their experiments and so critical in
that way.
We also have the honor, really, of having a leadership
computing facility at Argonne, Aurora I mentioned earlier,
exascale system. Certainly, one of the key aspects in terms of
really having that kind of compute capability is really being
able to store and work with large amounts of data. All of the
exascale systems across the Department, all three of them have
really been built with, certainly, modeling, simulation, data
science, and AI in mind. I think Kim mentioned earlier that El
Capitan has over 40,000, I think, GPUs. Argonne's Intel-built
system at Aurora has about 60,000 GPUs, so really fantastic in
terms of----
Mr. Foster. So I'm afraid my time is now up, and so--but I
just want to thank the Chair and the staff for letting me----
Chairman Weber. Well----
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Come back here. I miss this----
Chairman Weber [continuing]. Mr. Foster, if you need to
move on with two more questions for the other witnesses, we
don't want to feel--them to feel left out.
Mr. Foster. Well, I know I could ask about scientific
breakeven versus economic breakeven, but I guess I won't go
there right now.
Chairman Weber. I'm getting the--so the gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman of the Full Committee,
Dr. Babin.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Chairman Weber, appreciate it.
And I want to say thank you to our witnesses here for being
here today with your valuable introspection and expertise and
knowledge.
I'm going to ask this of all of you witnesses if you don't
mind, and I would ask you, please be brief because I have other
questions I want to ask.
When we talk about the importance of maintaining critical
infrastructure facilities and workforce to support our basic
research, it's important to understand the context of where
funding went recently. Over the last 5 years, the Department of
Energy recently close to $100 billion--received close to $100
billion in supplemental appropriations from the IIJA, the IRA,
which established over 70-plus new programs. Of the $97 billion
appropriated to DOE, what percentage and amount went to the
National Laboratories out of that $97 billion? And how much did
each of your labs receive from these supplemental
appropriations? Please answer very, very briefly. How much did
you get out of the $97 billion?
Dr. Wagner. So I cannot speak to the percentage that went
to the Department of Energy laboratories. I can get back to you
with that information.
Chairman Babin. Please do.
Dr. Wagner. For Idaho National Laboratory, we received $150
million, and we use those dollars toward modernization of
facilities at our Materials and Fuels Complex----
Chairman Babin. OK.
Dr. Wagner [continuing]. And Advanced Test Reactor.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Yes, sir?
Dr. Mason. Los Alamos received $200,000.
Chairman Babin. So $150 million, $200,000. Next, please?
Dr. Kearns. Sixty million dollars really devoted primarily
to helping us with the exascale computer at the laboratory,
Aurora, and also some work in terms of heat recovery systems at
the Advanced Photon Source.
Chairman Babin. Got you. Thank you.
And Dr. Budil?
Dr. Budil. So we had a $7 million project that was recently
de-obligated from the lab.
Chairman Babin. OK. Thank you very much.
And then, Dr. Wagner, Abilene Christian University in Texas
received its NRC permit for the construction of the first
liquid salt fueled reactor and--at Abilene Christian University
in my State of Texas. However, the project is currently facing
issues with procuring HALEU fuel for its reactor. How can
Congress help accelerate this procurement process, and what is
the current status of the Experimental Breeder Reactor II, EBR-
II, spent fuel being converted into HALEU? If you could answer
that, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Wagner. Yes, I'll try to be quick. Congress has already
done quite a bit to try to establish the capabilities
domestically to produce high-assay LEU or HALEU fuel----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Dr. Wagner [continuing]. Including $700 million in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and, more recently, $2.7 billion
to establish domestic capability. I don't know what Congress
can do relative to the procurement aspect. That's something the
Department of Energy is pursuing.
On EBR-II, we are reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from the
Experimental Breeder Reactor II. That was a high-enriched
uranium fuel. We recover that material, we down-blend it to
high-assay LEU, and we are making that--we will work with the
Department to make that available to private companies and
perhaps Abilene Christian.
As of now, we are on our path to reprocessing all that
material that will result in about 9.2 metric tons of high-
assay LEU by the end of this decade. We're about halfway
through that material.
Chairman Babin. That's great. It's kind of disconcerting to
the university to have gotten their permit but not able to be
able to obtain fuel.
OK. As I wrap up, I'd like to address one thing that was
brought up today that caught my attention. My colleagues have
mentioned that the Trump Administration's spending pause is
unprecedented. I'd politely remind my colleagues that the
previous Administration delayed allocation of funding from the
IIJA, the IRA and CHIPS and Science laws to add non-statutory
conditions like union requirements, unnecessary environmental
reviews, and DEI conditions, not to mention the fact that the
Biden Administration actually canceled and redirected funding
for our border wall, which Congress had voted on, signed into
law, even to the point of selling off the materials of the
border wall that was unused for 10 cents on the dollar.
Unlike the previous Administration, if funding is required
to be disbursed by a specific time, this Administration said
that it would do so. If the law allows discretion, the
President has the authority to review this funding. Given the
billions of dollars that went out the door at the end of the
last Administration--specifically, the Loan Program Office at
Department of Energy that gave out over 50 billion in loan
guarantees in just the last 5 days of the Biden
Administration's term, some of those very risky--asking
questions about funding that was described by previous
Administration officials as throwing gold bars off the Titanic
might be a good idea.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Weber. The Chairman yields back.
The Chair would like to enter into the record a letter from
the Partnership for AI Infrastructure. Without objection, so
ordered.
I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The record will remain open for 10
days for additional comments and written questions for the
Members. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]