[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PROVIDING THE TOOLS FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY AND BASIC ENERGY RESEARCH:
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE MISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 30, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-278 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ZOE LOFGREN, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY WEBER, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
October 30, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Dr. Pat Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs, Office of
Science, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Horst Simon, Deputy Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Dr. John Hemminger, Chairman, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee, Department of Energy............................
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Discussion....................................................... 62
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Pat Dehmer, Deputy Director for Science Programs, Office of
Science, Department of Energy.................................. 78
Dr. Horst Simon, Deputy Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. 98
Dr. John Hemminger, Chairman, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee, Department of Energy................................ 101
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Supporting material submitted for the record by Dr. Horst Simon,
Deputy Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab................ 154
PROVIDING THE TOOLS FOR SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
AND BASIC ENERGY RESEARCH:
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SCIENCE MISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:34 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia
Lummis [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Good morning. We are all scampering in
to gather for this hearing that we are delighted to be holding,
and we want to welcome everyone to the hearing. It is titled
``Providing the Tools for Scientific Discovery and Basic Energy
Research: The Department of Energy's Science Mission.'' In
front of you are packets containing the written testimony,
biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today's
witness panel.
Again, we are delighted that you are here, and I am going
to now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
The Department of Energy is the lead Federal agency
supporting fundamental scientific research for energy and the
largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences.
It funds basic research at universities, owns world-class
national laboratories, and makes available unique scientific
user facilities to conduct groundbreaking research. These
fundamental science and basic research activities provide the
underpinnings of America's long-term economic competitiveness
and result in scientific discoveries which change the way we
look at the natural world. This scientific research has led to
113 Nobel Prize winners affiliated with the DOE or its
predecessor agencies. We must continue to pursue this standard
of international excellence. A vibrant scientific ecosystem
fosters innovation and discovery. The Department should
continue to work with its academic national lab and industry
stakeholders to achieve this goal. This includes providing the
tools to the national laboratories to reduce bureaucratic
paperwork and regulations, as we heard in an Energy
Subcommittee hearing in July. These efforts will enable
taxpayers' funding to be used more efficiently.
Given the current budgetary outlook of skyrocket
entitlement spending crowding out discretionary funding, it is
imperative to maximize the value of limited tax dollars. DOE
must prioritize its activities and assure each dollar is
allocated effectively. I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses on how this can best be achieved.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing titled Providing the
Tools for Scientific Discovery and Basic Energy Research: The
Department of Energy Science Mission.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is the lead federal agency
supporting fundamental scientific research for energy and the largest
supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. It funds basic
research at universities, owns world-class National Laboratories, and
makes available unique National Scientific User Facilities to conduct
groundbreaking research.
These fundamental science and basic research activities provide the
underpinnings of America's long-term economic competitiveness and
result in scientific discoveries which change the way we look at the
natural world. This scientific research has led to 113 Nobel Prize
winners affiliated with DOE or its predecessor agencies. We must
continue to pursue this standard of international excellence
A vibrant scientific ecosystem fosters innovation and discovery.
The Department should continue to work with its academic, National Lab
and industry stakeholders to achieve this goal. This includes providing
the tools to the National Laboratories to reduce bureaucratic paperwork
and regulation, as we heard in an Energy Subcommittee hearing in July.
These efforts will enable taxpayer funding to be used more efficiently.
Given the current budgetary outlook of skyrocketing entitlement
spending crowding out discretionary funding, it is imperative to
maximize the value of limited tax dollars. DOE must prioritize its
activities and assure each dollar is allocated effectively. I look
forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how this can best be
achieved.
Chairwoman Lummis. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to you later,
and I am delighted to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Swalwell, for his opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished panel of witnesses.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the
Nation's largest supporter of research in the physical
sciences, so it is impossible to overstate its important role
that it will play in establishing our energy future and to our
innovation enterprise. Our witnesses today will be able to
speak in much greater detail about the Office, but I want to
start by highlighting just a few of the amazing activities that
this program supports.
The Basic Energy Sciences program builds and operates a
number of major user facilities, including several massive
light sources and neutron sources that allow us to examine new
materials and to watch fundamental chemical and biological
processes almost in real time. About 14,000 researchers across
the country use these facilities each year. These users include
not only Department of Energy scientists, but university
scientists as well as their students, as well as researchers
from approximately 160 companies including names like Boeing,
Dow, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Merck, and Pfizer. I would be
remiss if I didn't also mention that this program supports the
Combustion Research Facility at Sandia National Laboratory,
which has been working closely with U.S. engine manufacturers
for more than 30 years to improve efficiency and reduce harmful
emissions from internal combustion engines.
As we touched on in a hearing earlier this year, the
Office's Advanced Computing Research program is supporting
facilities and developing software tools that address our
scientific community's major supercomputing needs today, and it
is providing the scaffolding necessary to build the next
generation of high-end computing systems for tomorrow. This
capacity will enable researchers across the scientific arena,
from materials science to climate change to astrophysics, to
acquire unparalleled accuracy in their simulations and achieve
research breakthroughs more rapidly than ever before.
This is why I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the
bipartisan American Super Computing Leadership Act recently
introduced by my colleague on the Science Committee, Mr.
Hultgren, and I am encouraged to see its language incorporated
in various versions of a reauthorization of the Office of
Science.
The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports research into
plasma physics and the underlying engineering challenges of
fusion energy systems. If successful, these efforts would
provide us with a practically inexhaustible source of energy
with almost zero environmental impact. And the Nuclear and High
Energy Physics programs allow us to make discoveries from the
atomic all of the way up to the cosmic level, engaging human
beings' innate curiosity about the origin and makeup of our
universe and our place in it. I could spend my entire opening
statement talking about the great research supported by the
Office of Science, but I will spare all of you that.
It is important to note that many of these programs and
activities would not be possible without the world-class system
of national laboratories supported by the Office. These labs
are rightfully described as the backbone, or crown jewels, of
our country's research and development infrastructure. They
house facilities and provide capabilities that are impossible
for academic or industrial research institutions to support on
their own, and we know that they won't. They employ some of the
world's brightest scientists and engineers, and they help train
our country's next generation of researchers. I may be a bit
partial toward the labs because I happen to have two in my
district, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore, and just about a
three-iron away is the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where Dr.
Simon comes from, and we will talk about shortly, but without a
doubt, the research and technologies that come out of these
labs have produced an immense return on investment for American
taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the funding levels in the draft legislation
that the majority is asking us to consider are simply
inadequate to allow the Office of Science to continue to
support the great research and facilities that it does. At a
first glance, one might believe that the majority's bill
actually increases funding for the Office, but a closer look
reveals that it is actually a cut to the funding because the
rate of inflation for research is approximately three percent
annually, but the bill only provides year-to-year increases of
1 to 1.7 percent. In effect, it is a cut to the Office's
budget. I hope that we can work around this, increase the
budget and give the Office of Science the research and funding
that it deserves.
We hear a lot of talk about America being the greatest
country in the world. I certainly believe that, and it
certainly is, but if want to maintain our leadership and
standing in technology and innovation and the jobs that will
come with it, we can't afford to continue to cut our research
budgets, cede leadership on important areas like fusion to
China and Russia without any consideration of the impacts such
cuts will have on our Nation's competitiveness.
I look forward to discussing these and other issues with
this distinguished panel here, and Madam Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Eric Swalwell
Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing, and I also want
to thank this excellent panel of witnesses for their testimony and for
being here today.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is the nation's
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences, so it is
impossible to overstate its importance to our energy future and to our
innovation enterprise. Our witnesses will be able to speak in much
greater detail about the Office, but I want to start by highlighting
just a few of the amazing activities and programs that it supports.
The Basic Energy Sciences program builds and operates a number of
major user facilities, including several massive light sources and
neutron sources that allow us to examine new materials and to watch
fundamental chemical and biological processes in almost real-time.
About 14,000 researchers use these facilities each year. These users
include not only DOE scientists, but university scientists and their
students, as well as researchers from roughly 160 private companies
including names like Boeing, Dow, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Merck,
and Pfizer. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention that this program
supports the Combustion Research Facility at Sandia National
Laboratories, which has been working closely with U.S. engine
manufacturers for more than 30 years to improve efficiency and reduce
harmful emissions from internal combustion engines.
As we touched on in a hearing earlier this year, the Office's
advanced computing research program is supporting facilities and
developing software tools that address our scientific community's major
supercomputing needs today, and it is providing the scaffolding
necessary to build the next generation of high-end computing systems
tomorrow. This capacity will enable researchers across the scientific
arena, from materials science to climate change to astrophysics, to
acquire unparalleled accuracy in their simulations and achieve research
breakthroughs more rapidly than ever before. This is why I am pleased
to be an original co-sponsor of the bipartisan American Super Computing
Leadership Act recently introduced by Mr. Hultgren, and I am encouraged
to see its language incorporated in various versions of a
reauthorization of the Office of Science.
The Fusion Energy Sciences program supports research into plasma
physics and the underlying engineering challenges of fusion energy
systems. If successful, these efforts would provide us with a
practically inexhaustible source of energy with almost zero
environmental impact. And the Nuclear and High Energy Physics programs
allow us to make discoveries from the atomic all of the way up to the
cosmic level, engaging human beings' innate curiosity about the origin
and makeup of the universe and our place in it. I could spend my entire
opening statement talking about all of the great research supported by
the Office of Science, but I will spare you all.
It's important to note that many of these programs and activities
would not be possible without the world-class system of national labs
supported by the Office of Science and other offices at DOE. These labs
are rightfully described as the backbone, or the ``crown jewels,'' of
our country's R&D infrastructure. They house facilities and provide
capabilities that are impossible for academic or industrial research
institutions to support on their own. They employ some of the world's
brightest scientists and engineers. And they help train our country's
next generation of researchers. I may be a bit partial toward the labs
because I happen to have one or two in my district (and a few more
nearby, as Dr. Simon may rightfully point out) but, without a doubt,
the research and technologies that come out of these labs have produced
an immense return on investment to American taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the funding levels in the draft legislation that the
Majority is asking us to consider are simply inadequate to allow the
Office of Science to continue to support the great research and
facilities that it does. At first glance, one might think that the
Majority's bill actually increases funding for the Office, but a closer
look reveals that they are actually cutting funding--the rate of
inflation for research is about three percent, but the bill only
provides year-to-year increases of 1 to 1.7 percent, in effect cutting
the Office's budget. This is simply unacceptable and seems to be a
pattern on this Committee. We hear a lot of talk about America being
the greatest country in the world, and it certainly is, but if want to
maintain our leadership in technology and innovation--and the jobs that
come with it--we can't afford to continue to cut our research budgets
without any consideration of the impacts such cuts will have on our
nation's competitiveness.
I look forward to discussing these and other issues with this
distinguished panel here today, and with that I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the Ranking Member and now
recognize the Chairman of the full Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I also want to
thank you for your statement and the Ranking Member for his
statement, which I thought was largely positive, and I
appreciate that. We may have a slight difference on funding but
I think overall we all are very encouraged by what the Office
of Science at the DOE does.
The Department of Energy at its core is a science agency.
Its science mission is carried out through its basic research
activities executed by the Office of Science. This research
provides the foundation for innovation that drives long-term
economic growth and serves as a valuable investment in
America's future.
The impact of DOE basic research activities is evident in
our daily lives. Thousands of lives have been saved by DOE-
sponsored research that developed MRIs and noninvasive cancer
detection methods. Technological revolutions such as smaller,
faster computer processors and breakthrough discoveries in
energy storage can be traced to DOE basic research programs.
Today's hearing will focus on draft legislation titled
``Enabling Innovation for Science, Technology, and Energy in
America Act,'' or EINSTEIN America Act. Yes, we like acronyms.
The EINSTEIN America Act supports high-impact research that
promotes economic innovation and revolutionary scientific
research such as the development of X-ray light sources and
high-performance computing programs. It recognizes the role of
discovery science programs which explore the most fundamental
questions about the nature of the universe.
The discussion draft requires the Department of Energy to
coordinate with other Federal agencies to streamline workplace
regulations. This reduces burdensome red tape and provides the
national labs flexibility to more effectively and efficiently
execute the Department's mission. This ensures that American
taxpayer dollars are better utilized and enables labs to do
more with less. The EINSTEIN America Act prioritizes science
activities within the Department. It provides for an almost two
percent increase above current spending levels.
The discussion draft and today's hearing serve as a
starting point in the legislative process. I look forward to
the witnesses' testimony and to working with Committee Members
to advance this bill.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
The Department of Energy (DOE) at its core is a science agency. Its
science mission is carried out through its basic research activities
executed by the Office of Science. This research provides the
foundation for innovation that drives long-term economic growth and
serves as a valuable investment in America's future.
The impact of DOE basic research activities is evident in our daily
lives. Thousands of lives have been saved by DOE-sponsored research
that developed MRIs and non-invasive cancer detection methods.
Technological revolutions, such as smaller, faster computer
processors and breakthrough discoveries in energy storage, can be
traced to DOE basic research programs.
Today's hearing will focus on draft legislation titled ``Enabling
Innovation for Science, Technology, and Energy in America Act'' or
EINSTEIN America Act.
The EINSTEIN America Act supports high-impact research that
promotes economic innovation and revolutionary scientific research,
such as the development of x-ray light sources and high performance
computing programs.
It recognizes the role of discovery science programs, which explore
the most fundamental questions about the nature of the universe.
The discussion draft requires the Department of Energy to
coordinate with other Federal Agencies to streamline workplace
regulations. This reduces burdensome red tape and provides the National
Labs flexibility to more effectively and efficiently execute the
Department's mission.
This ensures that American taxpayer dollars are better utilized and
enables Labs to do more with less.
The EINSTEIN America Act prioritizes science activities within the
Department. It provides for an almost two percent increase above
current spending levels and a one percent increase above the House-
passed appropriations level for Fiscal Year 2014.
The discussion draft and today's hearing serve as a starting point
in the legislative process. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony
and to working with Committee Members to improve and advance this draft
bill.
Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and now the
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full Committee, the
gentlelady from Texas, Mrs. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair,
for holding this hearing today, and I would like to thank the
witnesses as well for being here.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is actually
the largest supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences in the country, and it operates more than 30 national
scientific user facilities whose applications go well beyond
energy innovation. Our Nation's top researchers from industry,
academia and other Federal agencies use these facilities to
examine everything from new materials that will better meet our
military's needs, to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat
disease, or even to examine the fundamental building blocks of
the universe. I believe that this stewardship of unique
scientific research, including the Nation's major national user
facilities, is an important role that I hope the Department
will continue to make one of its highest priorities.
I appreciate the majority's efforts today to shine a
spotlight on the good work carried out by the Office of Science
and to authorize many of its important programs. However, I do
have some significant concerns about the funding levels in the
majority's discussion draft, which essentially amount to
harmful cuts because they do not even keep up with the rate of
inflation for research. These levels for Fiscal Year 2014 are
actually less than the Senate Appropriations Mark and the
Administration's request levels by almost nine percent. I am
also concerned with the language that is clearly aimed at
shifting support away from critical activities that the Office
carries out to examine the science and impacts of climate
change.
That said, I believe there is common ground in our support
for many of the Office's programs. Yesterday I was pleased to
circulate a discussion draft of the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2013, produced by my staff, which
includes several similar provisions to the majority's draft. It
also includes authorization for the Advanced Research Projects
Agency for Energy and a number of important legislative changes
that would accelerate technology transfer and improve the
management of our national laboratories.
With these two drafts in mind, I look forward to working
with the majority and the science and technology community to
seek out that common ground and to see if the concerns that I
have raised can be reconciled.
I thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing today, and I
would also like to thank the witnesses for being here.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is actually the
largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the
country, and it operates more than 30 national scientific user
facilities whose applications go well beyond energy innovation. Our
nation's top researchers from industry, academia, and other federal
agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new materials
that will better meet our military's needs, to new pharmaceuticals that
will better treat disease, to even examining the fundamental building
blocks of the universe. I believe that this stewardship of unique
scientific research, including the nation's major national user
facilities, is an important role that I hope the Department will
continue to make one of its highest priorities.
I appreciate the Majority's efforts today to shine a spotlight on
the good work carried out by the Office of Science, and to authorize
many of its important programs. However, I have significant concerns
about the funding levels in the Majority's discussion draft, which
essentially amount to harmful cuts because they do not even keep up
with the rate of inflation for research. These levels for fiscal year
2014 are actually less than the Senate Appropriations Mark and the
Administration's request levels by almost 9%. I am also concerned with
language that is clearly aimed at shifting support away from critical
activities that the Office carries out to examine the science and
impacts of climate change.
That said, I believe there is common ground in our support for many
of the Office's programs. Yesterday I was pleased to circulate a
discussion draft of the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2013,
produced by my staff, which includes several similar provisions to the
Majority's draft. It also includes authorization for the Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy and a number of important
legislative changes that would accelerate technology transfer and
improve the management of our national laboratories.
With these two drafts in mind, I look forward to working with the
Majority and the science and technology community to seek out that
common ground, and to see if the concerns that I've raised can be
reconciled.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentlelady.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness today is Dr. Patricia Dehmer, Deputy for Science
Programs at the Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Previously, she served as the Deputy Director for Science
Programs at DOE. From 1995 to 2007, she served as the Director
of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences at DOE. She also started
her career at DOE as a postdoctoral fellow at Argonne National
Laboratory in 1972. Welcome, Dr. Dehmer.
I would also now like to yield to the gentleman from
California, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Swalwell, to introduce our second witness.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
Today I am very pleased to introduce Dr. Horst Simon,
Deputy Director at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Dr.
Simon joined the laboratory in early 1996 as the Director of
the National Energy Research Science Computing Center, and
under his leadership, the Center enabled important discoveries
for research in fields ranging from global climate modeling to
astrophysics. Dr. Simon is an internationally recognized expert
in computer science and applied mathematics, and he received
the Gordon Bell Prize for Parallel Processing Research twice,
first in 1988 and again in 2009. He was also a member of the
team that developed NASA's Advanced Supercomputing Parallel
Benchmarks, a widely used standard for evaluating the
performance of massively parallel computing systems. Dr. Simon
holds an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a Ph.D. in
mathematics from the University of California at Berkeley,
clearly a great university, given how close it is to the 15th
Congressional District.
I also should personally note that during my last visit to
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, as I was nearing the end of the
tour and had to go to another meeting, Dr. Simon had the
unfortunate distinction of drawing the shortest straw, and his
presentation was at the very end, and he was following me all
the way out to the parking lot. He was so excited about the
research and what he was working on. I am happy to continue
listening to you, Dr. Simon, by inviting you here to testify
today in Congress, and I really appreciate the work you do for
the Bay Area and the international science community.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman. It appears your
enthusiasm is infectious, and you have infected the Ranking
Member of this Committee with your enthusiasm, and we
appreciate that very much, Dr. Simon.
Our third and final witness today is Dr. John Hemminger,
Chairman of the Basic Energy Science Advisory Committee for the
Department of Energy. Dr. Hemminger is the Vice Chancellor for
Research and a Professor of Chemistry at the University of
California Irvine.
Now, as our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each after which the Members of the
Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions.
Okay. We are ready to begin. I now recognize Dr. Dehmer for
five minutes to present her testimony. Welcome, Dr. Dehmer.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PAT DEHMER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE PROGRAMS,
OFFICE OF SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Dehmer. Thank you so much, Chairman Lummis, Ranking
Member Swalwell and Members of the full Committee and the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here today to represent DOE's
Office of Science, often called the best-kept secret in town.
For more than six decades, the Office of Science and its
predecessors have been a U.S.and world leader in scientific
discovery and innovation. We have led the world in high-
performance computing. We helped drive the transition from
using only those materials that are found in nature to the
directed design of new materials at the atomic level. We have
played an important role in initiating the modern biotechnology
revolution through the creation of the Human Genome Project. We
have pushed the frontiers of understanding the origins of
matter and the universe, and we have built and operated dozens
of large-scale scientific user facilities, which are major
pillars of the U.S. scientific enterprise. Today they serve
29,000 users annually. From the earliest accelerators in the
1930s to today's supercomputers and the Linac Coherent Light
Source, the world's first hard X-ray laser, these facilities
have redefined what is possible over and over again.
As the Federal agency funding the largest fraction of basic
research in the physical sciences, we need to continue to
provide the scientific research community with the tools and
opportunities for the future. Here are half a dozen or so areas
of priority for us. The first is high-performance computing. No
other nation has been as successful in scientific computing as
the United States. The United States has more supercomputers on
the list of top 500 machines than any other nation and it has
held this advantage since the list was first compiled in 1993,
but our lead is precarious. To retain this lead, we are
planning the next phase in high-performance computing,
sometimes known as exascale computing, or the Exascale
Initiative. This is not simply a machine capable of ten to the
eighteenth operations per second. Rather, it is a journey to a
new level of predictive design using computation. This will
require advances in applied math, computer science,
manipulation of big data, and the development of community
codes so that we are ready on day one and that we are ready to
be the first to benefit from these new machines.
The second area is predictive design of materials. The
energy systems of the future, whether they tap sunlight, store
electricity or make fuel by splitting water, will involve
materials that convert energy from one form to another. New
materials will require exquisite control and functionality and
they must be synthesized with precisely defined atomic
arrangements. Of critical importance in doing this are our
major scientific user facilities that probe materials at the
atomic level, and these are the big light sources, the neutral
scattering facilities and the electron beam scattering
facilities.
As a partner to predictive design of materials is
predictive design of biological systems. Understanding how
genomic information is translated into functional capabilities
will enable design of microbes and plants for sustainable
biofuels production, improved carbon storage and biological
transformation of materials such as nutrients and contaminants
in the environment.
Next in line is scientific discovery and technology
innovation through new funding constructs, often employing what
we call team science. Examples are the Bioenergy Research
Centers, now in their second five-year term, the Energy
Frontier Research Centers and the Energy Innovation Hubs.
Next is earth systems modeling. As a major supporter of the
leading U.S. climate model, the Community Earth Systems Model,
we recognize that today's models must be significantly improved
to modernize the code, make the code compatible with our
advanced high-performance computers, incorporate realistic
biogeochemical systems--that is atmosphere, land, ocean, sea
ice and subsurface--improve resolution and improve uncertainty
quantification.
Next is the fundamental nature of matter of energy. This is
high-energy physics and nuclear physics. Understanding how the
universe works by studying the properties and constituents of
matter and energy, largely through the use of advanced
accelerators and detectors, has been the responsibility of the
Office of Science since the 1930s. Our scientific reach has now
expanded through incorporation of underground science and
cosmic science. In addition, we have taken on two new roles:
stewardship of accelerator R&D for the Nation, and the Isotope
Production program.
Finally, the last important priority for us is harnessing
plasmas, the fourth state of matter. Controlling matter at very
high temperatures and densities builds the scientific
foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source.
Thank you, Chairman and Members. I would be pleased to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dehmer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Dehmer. My daughter, she
is in her 20s. She is obsessed with lists, and I can't wait to
call her and tell her there is a list of the top 500 machines,
and she will undoubtedly be checking it out before the end of
the day. Thanks for your testimony.
I now recognize Dr. Simon to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. HORST SIMON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB
Dr. Simon. Chairwoman Lummis, Ranking Member Swalwell and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
holding this important hearing and for inviting me to
participate. I would like to deviate from my script very
slightly and mention that I am a coauthor of the Top500 list,
so if there are specific questions on ranking supercomputers, I
would be very happy to answer these questions.
As I was introduced, my name is Horst Simon. I am the
Deputy Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a
multi-program Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory
managed by the University of California. Berkeley Lab has a
very long and distinguished history of producing world-leading
science, and today continues to be an international leader in
many scientific fields and technology areas from the mysteries
of the universe to delivering new energy solutions.
Considering the challenges that our Nation is facing, there
are few issues that are as critical to the Nation's well-being
as the vitality and productiveness of our innovation ecosystem.
We do have a national ecosystem and it is comprised of
universities, the national labs and, of course, industry, and
it is the interplay of these three components that make us so
competitive and make us very unique. In my daily work, I
encounter almost every week visitors from around the world from
Asia, from Europe, who come and visit the national labs and
want to find out how does a national lab work, how do we
interact with industry, how do we interact with universities
because that system is very difficult to build and difficult to
replicate. All three pieces of the system--universities,
industry and national labs--are equally important and need to
be supported.
In my comments I would like to focus on what the national
labs do. There are three important contributions that the
national labs make. One, as has been mentioned by my colleague,
Dr. Dehmer, we operate large-scale scientific facilities. These
are facilities that are unique, very large, very difficult to
build, difficult to maintain and operate, and that require
consistent support over many years. These facilities are
unique, not just in the Nation but worldwide. They provide a
tool for our scientists to engage in really innovative new
basic science and advance our state of knowledge.
The second element is large-scale, multidisciplinary team
science. Many of the challenges that we are facing today
require the approaches that combine the input from very
different disciplines. One example, which was mentioned, are
the Bio Energy Research Centers. For example, the JBEI Research
Center in Berkeley involves scientists that have backgrounds in
agriculture, that have backgrounds in chemical engineering,
that have backgrounds in biology. They work on a very
challenging problem that will take many years to resolve, that
is, getting from cellulosic matter to biofuels. Bringing all of
them together and solving of these large, challenging projects
is a characteristic of the national labs.
Third, I would like to point out that the national labs
have a very important element of education to do. We are
supporting, for example, in Berkeley close to 900 postdocs and
graduate students. These are individuals who come through the
national lab on an ongoing basis. We actually have each year on
the order of several hundred students that spend some time at
the lab. The labs have an important element for training and
educating these students because they learn what the real
problems are that the Nation is facing and how the tools of
science can be brought to bear on solving these problems. Even
if they don't stay in the national lab system, they move on and
become either academicians or work in industry and contribute
to our innovative national ecosystem. So all three elements are
equally important.
I would like to conclude my testimony with a very personal
comment. I came to the United States in the 1970s as a graduate
student from Germany, and I received my Ph.D. in 1982 in
Berkeley. I had not planned to really stay here but being a
graduate student in one of the top universities, I found out
very quickly that for a scientific career, the United States is
the best place to be. I had spent some time in universities and
industry and then came back to the national labs in 1995 and
had a very, very productive career. I became a citizen a long
time ago and very much enjoyed the support that you are
providing to scientists like me that advanced my career and I
have hopefully contributed significantly to the American
innovation ecosystem.
The unfortunate statement that I have to make at the end of
my testimony is that if I were to meet myself today, a graduate
student getting a Ph.D. in 2013, I am not sure if I could tell
him or her the same thing that was true 30 years ago. It is not
clear to me that this country has all the tools in place to
provide an environment to be a productive environment for
scientific inquiry. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Simon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Dr. Simon, thank you for your statement.
I now recognize Dr. Hemminger to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN HEMMINGER, CHAIRMAN,
BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Hemminger. Thank you, Chair Lummis, Ranking Member
Swalwell and Members of the Energy Subcommittee. My name is
John Hemminger. I am Professor of Chemistry and Vice Chancellor
for Research at the University of California at Irvine. I also
serve as Chair of BESAC, the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee, of the Office of Science. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide my insight
into the Office of Science and the Office of Basic Energy
Sciences of DOE and to provide information on the activities of
the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee.
In 2005, the U.S. National Academy sounded an alarm about
the erosion of our global scientific and technological
leadership with the publication of the report ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm.'' I think it is fair to say that a
majority of somewhat complacent U.S. public and science
infrastructure was stunned by this report. The response was
swift and aggressive as this committee and the Congress passed
the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which was then reauthorized
in 2010. Last month, the chancellors and presidents of over 200
U.S. universities sent an open letter to Congress and the
President expressing their serious concerns about what they
referred to as the increasing U.S. innovation deficit. Their
call to action was echoed in a similar letter from over a dozen
associations representing the U.S. high-technology business
community.
The origin of the U.S. innovation deficit is clear. It is a
direct result of our success. Since World War II, the U.S.
Federal Government has invested heavily in all areas of
fundamental science and technology. The result is the
technologically sophisticated society we have today. Our
success has not been lost on our global competition, especially
countries in Asia and the European Union are investing heavily
in fundamental science and technology. We have taught them by
example. The growing innovation deficit is nowhere more
critical than in energy science and technology where the United
States is being challenged by increasingly sophisticated
competitors. In my written testimony, I provided a concrete
example, pointing out that the longstanding U.S. global
leadership in large-science user facilities such as those
managed by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences is being
challenged as a result of major investments by countries in
Europe.
In my testimony, I described how the Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee provides advice to the Office of Science and
the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. I have provided the
Committee with copies of reports that have resulted from three
recent studies. Each report has specific findings and makes
specific recommendations. I would like to take this opportunity
to applaud the leadership of the Office of Science and the
Office of Basic Energy Sciences for acting rapidly and
effectively to implement the recommendations that resulted from
these studies.
Since I was asked in my invitation letter to do so, I would
like to conclude with a few remarks regarding the draft
language for the EINSTEIN Act. I did provide a few observations
in my written testimony. I would like to make two additional
observations at this time.
First, there are several examples in the draft legislation
where specific areas of science are called out for attention,
prioritizing them above other activities, and yet other
important areas are not mentioned. One example is in the
language associated with the Office of Biological and
Environmental Research, which is given a broad charge ``to
carry out a program of research, development and demonstration
in areas of biological system science and climate and
environmental science.'' Yet only biological systems and
genomic science and low-does radiation research are addressed
in detail in the draft legislation. Based on my own expertise,
I would suggest that areas such as the development of a
complete molecular-level understanding of the chemistry that
underlies environmental pollution such as smog production and
climate change should receive an equal emphasis from this
office, given the importance to energy technology in the United
States.
I would also like to reiterate my concerns about the U.S.
innovation deficit. I am concerned that the slight increase in
funding associated with the draft legislative language I was
provided will not be sufficient to allow the United States to
recapture our leadership role in many areas of energy science.
Let me assure you that I and my colleagues in the U.S. science
community recognize the complex and serious budget issues
facing our country. However, I am convinced that strategic
investments in fundamental science research and education will
be part of the solution, not of the problem.
I want to thank you once again for your leadership and
historical support of U.S. science and technology and also for
the opportunity to be here today. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hemminger follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, panel, and now the Members
will begin asking the questions, and the Chair yields herself
five minutes to begin the questioning.
And of course, I am going to start with something that is
near and dear to my heart. As a graduate of the University of
Wyoming and later someone who was involved in state government
in Wyoming, I was on something called the EPSCoR Coordinating
Committee, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research, which is a DOE program in part, Office of Science,
and it provides limited funding to states that don't receive
substantial funding for their universities. Wyoming is an
EPSCoR state, as I mentioned, so I was on the panel that got to
vet and approve proposed EPSCoR projects and advance them to
DOE and to the National Science Foundation for funding
recommendations.
DOE has proposed scaling back funding to the states, so my
first question is for you, Dr. Dehmer. Many of the EPSCoR
states are leading states in energy exploration and energy
production, and that is certainly true of my State of Wyoming
because of their limited funding and in spite of our massive
contributions to the Nation's energy security. What is your
view on the role of the EPSCoR program and how can energy-
producing states become more competitive in receiving funding
through the Office of Science?
Dr. Dehmer. Thank you very much for the question. As it
turns out, I know quite a lot about EPSCoR. When I came to the
Department of Energy in 1995 to lead BES, Basic Energy
Sciences, the EPSCoR program had sort of accidentally had a
lapse in funding. It was not funded out of my office. My
division directors at the time were so committed to EPSCoR that
we took over the EPSCoR program and we funded it out of our
base program because of that commitment. So I have known the
EPSCoR program for a very long time. It does outstanding work.
We are very committed to that program. We work in partnership
with all the other offices in the Office of Science and offices
elsewhere to see if we can find partnering funds to increase
the funding that goes to EPSCoR states. We try very innovative
funding mechanisms to see if we can get individual
investigators at EPSCoR states to become part of the program.
We have worked very hard. The program has a checkered history
of funding in the Congress, ups and downs, but we are committed
to keeping that stable and to increase it at roughly the same
rate that the other base programs in the Basic Energy Sciences
increase.
Chairwoman Lummis. U.S. Senator Conrad Burns from Montana
was very much instrumental in founding the EPSCoR program and
was its main champion, so when he was no longer in the U.S.
Senate, I think that it dropped as a priority with some
Senators, which may have contributed to the fits and starts in
terms of funding. So we miss him as a leader in the EPSCoR at
least and Congress, and I appreciate your response to the
question.
Dr. Simon, what opportunities exist to have DOE and
specifically its site offices reduce day-to-day micromanagement
of lab operations? And what would the resulting impact be on
the labs?
Dr. Simon. I think we are facing an overall trend of
increasing oversight by DOE in many different aspects of our
operations. I think in terms of interacting with our sponsors
in headquarters with respect to science, the interactions are
very good, but when it comes to issues such as EH&S or other
operational opportunities, I think the laboratories would be in
a better position if they would have more autonomy, less
oversight, and I can mention as an example what I put in my
written testimony, the topic of DOE's self-management of
Environment Health and Safety. We are just like any other
large-scale industrial enterprise and so we could have been
easily provided oversight by OSHA yet DOE has its own sets of
rules and we have to comply to these rules. These rules are
sometimes very restrictive and very burdensome. I have a longer
description of that issue that I am willing to supplement in
written testimony.
Chairwoman Lummis. A follow-up question then. If day-to-day
oversight of lab operations is reduced, how can the national
labs be held accountable for their stewardship of American
taxpayer-supported investments, so you have flexibility, but we
have accountability.
Dr. Simon. Yes. The national labs are operated by companies
or universities that have a contract to operate the national
lab. The contract has requirements, and these requirements can
be enforced and oversight provided through annual reporting
mechanisms, through reports back to the sponsors, and can be
also reviewed on an ongoing basis. That is different from
describing on a daily basis on how particular instances of our
operation need to be carried out in terms of what level of
inspections need to be done, what level of support needs to be
put into a particular operation. So I think the outcome-
oriented management is important as opposed to theoretical
operational management.
Chairwoman Lummis. Thank you, Dr. Simon.
I gave myself a very generous fiv minutes, and will do the
same for our Ranking Member. I recognize the gentleman from
California.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
The research community often cites sustained growth and
predictable funding as being among their top priorities. Not
surprisingly, private industry cites predictability as one of
its top priorities, and in necessity, if we really want the
United States to continue to be a world leader in technology
and innovation.
Dr. Hemminger's testimony specifically refers to the
innovation deficit that the United States is experiencing, and
as I discussed in my opening statement, while I appreciate the
majority's draft and its aims to improve the authorization of
several important programs and activities carried out by the
Office of Science, I have concerns about the draft's funding
profile. It supports budget levels that are below research
inflation rates so they are effectively cuts, and nine percent
below the bipartisan Senate Appropriations Mark for the Office
of Science. I am also concerned that the funding profile in
this draft runs for only two years rather than a much longer
time. I would prefer something like five years to give more
certainty to the laboratories and those partners in the Office
of Science.
Dr. Hemminger, do you think that a short-term two-year
reauthorization that cuts the Office's budget, provides the
certainty and stability that the research community needs, and
how does this help to increase the innovation deficit?
Dr. Hemminger. Thank you very much for that question. You
know, I think that it is widely recognized that the predominant
programs that are run by the Office of Science and particular
the Office of Basic Energy Sciences are long--are addressing
long-term questions and long-term issues. These are not science
questions that one can expect answers to in very short periods
of time, and I think that the only way that a short-term
reauthorization works is with the expectation that the U.S.
government isn't going to go out of business and fall off a
cliff and so on. So, I think it certainly would be advantageous
to have a longer reauthorization bill, and I think this is
particularly a problem or an issue with respect to the large
science facilities. In my written testimony, I pointed out the
issue of the international competition with respect to our
global leadership for X-ray light sources and other facilities,
and these are really major long-term projects that require
stability in terms of funding and authorization. I would
encourage the Committee to support that.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Hemminger.
Dr. Simon, what are your thoughts on funding and length of
funding, or length of authorization?
Dr. Simon. As I said in my opening statement, the national
laboratories have long-term projects in research and have
large-scale facilities that require a predictable, continued
operation. It is very difficult in both instances to have a
very highly variable budget that changes from year to year and
that is not predictable. With respect to large facilities, the
issue is that ongoing upgrades, plans may need to be postponed
at an increased cost to the taxpayer later on. With respect to
research projects, the high variability in funding makes it
very difficult to plan personnel, and we are talking here about
highly critical talent that if it is junior researchers, if
postdocs see that there is uncertainty about funding, about the
longevity of a project, they will go elsewhere and leave the
national lab and weaken our innovation ecosystem. Thank you.
Mr. Swalwell. And Dr. Simon, could you talk a little bit
about some of the other Federal agencies and private-sector
users that you have at Lawrence Berkeley? We have heard that
DOE labs are using--are having other agencies like NIH, NSF and
NASA use their laboratories, and I know from touring LBL that
there are private-sector partnerships as well. Can you talk
about who those users are and how they are benefiting the
technology transfer to the private market?
Dr. Simon. Thank you for the question. So let me first talk
about other Federal agencies. The national user facilities that
are operated by the Office of Science are available to all
researchers, that is, university, national labs and industry
researchers, so we have, for example, at the Advanced Light
Source in Berkeley a large number of researchers funded by NIH.
These are biologists who are interested in determining the
structures of large biomolecules of proteins. There are
significant examples of major progress that has been obtained
using the DOE facilities. For example, a research project that
was just completed a couple months ago is looking at the
structure of the influence of the flu virus. As you know, the
viruses are mutating rapidly and there is still a quest for
finding a common vaccine that would address all these flu
viruses. So in order to understand this, one has to look at the
structure. There was a major project that was NIH funded that
used the ALS to identify the structure of many of these
viruses.
With respect to NASA, I could mention an example of a
collaboration between the Department of Energy's Office of High
Energy Physics, with NASA to collaborate on an astrophysics
project called the Planck project, which is an exploration of
the cosmic microwave of background radiation where both
agencies have worked together, and the supercomputing center,
NERSC, in Berkeley is actually the data repository for the
Planck data.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. And Dr. Simon, I have gone over my
time.
Dr. Simon. I haven't gotten to industry but I will be happy
to----
Mr. Swalwell. Yes, and hopefully we can get back to that.
He is so passionate, he has so much to talk about, Chair. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Lummis. And we are delighted for that, so we are
going to have a generous clock today.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hultgren, the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
Thank you all for being here, and I really do appreciate
the work that you are doing. I hope you know from us, certainly
from me, my passion for the work of the Office of Science and
how key the work of the Office of Science is to determine our
competitiveness on the world stage, and just absolutely
convinced that we must right now be committed to maintaining
our leadership in basic scientific research so that we can
continue our leadership on the world stage as far as being an
innovative nation going forward. I also have the great
privilege of representing Fermilab, many of the brilliant
scientists at Fermilab, Department of Energy employees at
Fermilab, as well as many scientists over at Argonne. So I see
firsthand the incredible impact that our laboratories have on
the communities where they are located but much larger than
that, the impact that they have on our university systems. I
travel to all of my universities around Illinois and I am just
amazed at the incredible opportunity that our students have
working with our national laboratories to do truly
groundbreaking research, and what a great opportunity. But then
even beyond that, to see something like Fermilab where I think
the numbers I saw was 39,000 K-12 graders are impacted every
single year by Fermilab through programs, through work with
teachers, by scientists going into the schools, incredible
impact, and I am absolutely convinced that we must continue our
commitment to basic scientific research at our national
laboratories if we are going to be a great nation going forward
with great opportunities for our kids and our grandkids to be
able to learn and study here but also apply that knowledge for
new discovery here in America, so thank you.
A couple questions I had. Dr. Dehmer, I wanted to ask you
your thoughts on the long-term future of the Department's High
Energy Physics program as it continues to regain its leadership
role on the international level. There is no question that the
United States was essential in experiments at CERN with
programs like the LHC and Atlas. But I wondered what is next
and what your thoughts are on the Long Base Neutrino Experiment
and our unique underground research space in South Dakota and
Minnesota? What does America have to lose if we do not begin to
act on this, and how can we leverage international funding to
realize the potential discoveries that it has to bring?
Dr. Dehmer. Well, thank you for the question. I spent 23
years at Argonne National Laboratory just down the road from
Fermilab. Fermilab is one of our most important laboratories.
As you well know, it is transitioning now from work at the
energy frontier to work in the so-called intensity frontier.
The accelerator and detector expertise at Fermilab is going to
be critical to make the United States world leading in the
intensity frontier. We need very intense beams. We need very
high-precision detectors in order to do that. Fermilab will be
at the forefront of doing that. Right now, as you probably well
know, there was a very large meeting called the Snowmass
Meeting in Minnesota that went on for a couple of weeks with
about 500, 700 participants. That is going to be followed very
closely now by an advisory committee study. Our expectation is
that that study will be done in the spring, and that is going
to inform not only the future of high-energy physics but we
hope that it will also endorse a very vibrant future for
Fermilab. As you well know, there is a new laboratory director
at Fermilab, Nigel Lockyer, who is extremely talented, very
aggressive, and so we are looking forward to a very good future
for high-energy physics and the laboratory.
Mr. Hultgren. Good, and I hope there is a specific
commitment with the Long Base Neutrino Experiment. I think we
are in a unique position there on the forefront. If we let that
slip away, there are certainly other nations that are willing
to step in, like has happened in other areas where we haven't
followed through on opportunities that we have had, and we have
seen focus come away from America and go over to Europe or
other places. I really think it is so important that we don't
let this slip away.
Dr. Dehmer and Dr. Simon, if I could get your thoughts?
Earlier this year, DOE prepared a roadmap to develop exascale
computing systems that I had the opportunity to sit down and
discuss with Secretary Moniz on. I wondered if you could
summarize the key findings and recommendations and also let the
Committee know what ways DOE and non-DOE stakeholders can
collaborate and utilize this capability?
Dr. Simon. Thank you for the question about exascale. Let
me state first that I believe moving towards exascale is an
incredibly important opportunity for the Department of Energy
Office of Science but not just the Office of Science, other
parts of DOE, NNSA and the U.S. research community in general
to maintain leadership in high-performance computing. It is the
path towards exascale, and not exascale in and of itself that
is important. The reason why that is, is because I think there
are fundamental changes that are currently happening in
computer technology. You all are aware of technology shrinking,
become more available at the iPhone level. These type of
changes fundamentally alter the landscape of computing. What
exascale really is about is envisioning how the computer
landscape will look in 10 or 15 years. A good analogy is the
early 1990s when there was a High Performance Computing
Initiative, HPCC, that was a very well-coordinated, well-funded
initiative with national coordination which allowed all the
agencies that have interest in computing to work together. I
still look back to this time and say this should be a model for
exascale. We should look at this as a challenge that is not
just for the Department of Energy but for other agencies as
well because whoever will control this technology in the near
term will have a long-term economic advantage in the computing
world.
Mr. Hultgren. I agree with you.
My time is expired. I do have some more questions, if it
would be all right if we can follow up in writing and get your
response. Dr. Dehmer, we would love to hear your thoughts on
the exascale computing work that we see as important but also
some other things. With that, I yield back. Chairman, thank you
so much for your generosity.
Chairwoman Lummis. And thank you for your expertise and
enthusiasm for this topic. We are always impressed with your
presence and your commitment to this subject, so Mr. Hultgren,
my compliments.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Lipinski. He and I came up on the elevator today and we were
both concerned that we were enthusiastically rushing to this
Committee, so the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. There are so many things to talk
about here. Let me quickly get to it, and some things I might
leave for follow-up questions for the record.
I first want to say that I am glad to see that Congressman
Hultgren's bill, which I cosponsored, on high-performance
computing has been incorporated into the discussion draft. I
know it is vitally important that we keep up investments in
high-performance computing that push the boundaries of what is
possible and keep us on a path towards exascale computing as we
were just talking about. I have seen firsthand how impressive
these high-performance computing projects are by visiting the
Mira supercomputer at Argonne, which is in my district, so it
is great to have Argonne there. It is a great example of what
we can do and what we should be doing more of. I may come back
or maybe for the record ask Dr. Dehmer about the ASCR program,
but I just wanted to move on to talk about tech transfer.
It has been one of my top priorities since I have been in
Congress, making it easier to get these research findings that
then become new technologies, new inventions, get them out of
the lab and into the market. Our national labs have been real
leaders in this space as many of them have taken money that
they receive from licensing agreements and put it towards funds
that help accelerate the commercialization of new technologies.
Still, I think more can and should be done, both at the labs
and at DOE.
I want to ask Dr. Dehmer, could you tell--can you talk
about how the Office of Science approaches technology transfer
and how you look to partner with the labs primarily funded by
the Office of Science in these activities?
Dr. Dehmer. Well, I will tell you briefly what the Office
of Science is doing in our SBIR program. We have a new part of
that program called TTO, Technology Transfer Opportunities, and
it allows applicants to the SBIR program to use technologies or
R&D results from our laboratories in their work and the SBIR
grants, and having looked just recently a couple of days ago at
the latest funding opportunity announcement from the SBIR
program, there are dozens of technology transfer opportunities
noted in that for applicants. So we are aggressively working
with our laboratories and also our universities but mostly the
laboratories to take the results of their R&D and move them to
small businesses.
I also want to comment on what the Secretary is doing,
Secretary Moniz. He is very interested in reducing barriers to
the laboratories working with small business and industry, and
his lab policy council, which was just established and had its
first meeting last week, was devoted about 50 percent of the
time to talking with lab directors and others about how we can
reduce barriers and make it easier to do exactly what you are
saying.
Mr. Lipinski. Very good. It is great to hear those things,
and I think there is--I am sure there is more that we can do.
One thing I am interested in is having DOE participate in the
Innovation Corps program, and that is something I would like to
continue to talk about.
One other thing I wanted to get to right now is flexibility
for the labs, and I think there is a need to have more
flexibility. I am glad to see that the language in the bill
expands the use of ACT agreements that can be entered into
between labs and small businesses without an extra layer of
review from the DOE. It is a good start, and I applaud DOE for
working with the labs on the pilot program for these
agreements. But I want to ask Dr. Dehmer if DOE is looking at
other areas from tech transfer to facilities construction where
perhaps the labs could be given a bit more leeway in what they
are doing for the more minor decisions. I understand the need
to follow DOE's lead on larger strategic investments, it is
always going to be there, but in terms of giving a little more
flexibility to the labs.
Dr. Dehmer. Yes. That is one of the things that has
actually concerned me for a long time. Sometimes it is called
atomization of budgets where budgets are put out in very small
amounts. One of the things that we have done in the Office of
Science is, we have created funding constructs that put money
to the laboratories, in fact, even to the universities, in much
larger amounts, and having a larger amount of funding to work
with gives the labs that flexibility. And examples are the
Nanoscale Science Research Centers, five of them, that we put
in place about ten years ago now, the first one not quite ten
years ago. That is a $25 million budget item, and the labs have
flexibility to use that subject to annual or biannual or
triannual review. The Energy Frontier Research Centers, the
Bioenergy Research Centers and the Energy Innovation Hubs are
all constructs that put funding to the performers, in many
cases largely to the laboratories, in chunks of money that give
the lab just this kind of flexibility and discretion in
spending that you are talking about. I think that is something
that I started almost ten years ago when I was in Basic Energy
Sciences and I am pleased to see is continuing. I also don't
like to see too many constraints put on laboratories with too
small amounts of money.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much. And just very briefly, I
just want to bring everyone's focus back to two things that Dr.
Simon said. One is the great cooperation we have in this
country--universities, the national labs, industry. We need to
not only appreciate that, we need to do what we can at the
Federal level to help to continue and to help grow those, and I
am glad Dr. Simon pointed those things out.
And also the last thing that you had said in your
testimony, Dr. Simon, about the future and what the future
looks like for a young scientist today, and I think we all need
to focus on that and do what we can to make sure that it
continues--we continue to be the place that young scientists
want to come to and to stay. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and
the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Takano. You know, our California Members make that long trek
every week that our witnesses from California made today, and
so they are grateful for your willingness to come this far. I
now recognize Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. I know our Chair travels from the
great, wonderful State of Wyoming, a beautiful state. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
I am fortunate to represent UC Riverside, a top-notch
research university, sister school of an empire that includes
both Berkeley and Irvine. I want to get straight to the
questions.
Dr. Dehmer, in the majority's draft authorization of the
Office of Science, the Biological and Environmental Research
Program is directed to ``Prioritize fundamental research on
biological systems, genomic science over the rest of the
portfolio.'' This is clearly a way to implicitly say take money
from climate and environmental research. Do you support this
language in the discussion draft?
Dr. Dehmer. No, we do not support that. The climate and
environmental sciences part of Biological and Environmental
Research is extremely important, and we do not want to
disadvantage that in the way that the language in the majority
bill has been interpreted.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Dr. Simon?
Dr. Simon. I concur with this answer, and I would just like
to add that the environmental and climate research in the
Office of Biologic Environmental Research is an important,
integral part of the DOE mission. We shouldn't really think of,
say, climate as a standalone enterprise but think about how it
interacts with other parts of the program. For example, climate
science allows us to predict rainfall, precipitation in the
West. That ties into the availability of water. The
availability of water again has energy impacts in terms of how
hydropower will be generated, how water will be used in energy
technologies. So the Department of Energy is uniquely situated
to explore not just climate itself but the interaction of
climate with the ecosystem, and in a situation where this
fundamental research can lead to important insights for our
future.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Dr. Hemminger, I believe you sort of stated your opinion in
your opening statement. Would you care to add anything?
Dr. Hemminger. No, I just want to say that as I said in my
opening statement, I think it is a mistake to try to
legislatively prioritize topics within the Office when
important topics such as the environmental sciences at sort of
a really molecular level of understanding are so important.
Mr. Takano. These sciences are so important to my district
and southern California in general where there is actually
seven or eight Congressional districts the size of several
states that suffer from air quality issues, and our
understanding of the way in which environmental--how the
environment interacts with climate is very important to us.
Dr. Simon, you mentioned the fact that you became an
American citizen, that you saw this country as a place for you
and a future for you in science, and you said you could no
longer really say that to a graduate student today or--I am
assuming that is what you were thinking. Can you explain a
little bit more what you were talking about?
Dr. Simon. Thank you for the question. I think if I look at
the steady state today and if I look at what the research
facilities are, what the infrastructure is, what our
educational institutions are, what our opportunities are to
work with industry, how industry is working with us, America is
still very clearly number one. However, what I am concerned
about is the trend, and just to give a very recent example, if
we have issues such as sequestration, which means that we have
to look at future staffing, if we look at the partial shutdown
where uncertainty goes through the system, what we are
signaling to the next generation of scientists is, is that the
future of science in the country is no longer as certain as it
was. We are sending a very strong signal saying yes, there is a
great infrastructure here, there is the opportunity here to
work with top minds in the field but we cannot guarantee you
that 30 years from now that situation will be the same because
if we are on a path of continued reduction in funding,
continued uncertainty about the longevity of some of the
research projects, somebody who has to stake a 30-year career
in front of them will have to very carefully look where he or
she will go.
Mr. Takano. So many of our top, bright graduate students
might place a bet on other countries that seem to have a
different trajectory.
Dr. Simon. Yes. I think we are at an inflection point where
it could very well be that some of our brightest researchers
will look elsewhere, in particular looking at Europe. From my
personal experience, I would say particularly in my field, to
put this in historical context, in 1980 there was no doubt
about the differential between what was happening in America
and what was happening in Europe. Today I would say Europe has
pulled up and is in many areas even and in some areas even
ahead of us.
Mr. Takano. Thank you so much for your testimony. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman, and we will have
an opportunity for those of us who are here to ask a second
round of questions, and we are going to limit the time, so the
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, who
has a bill on the Floor, and we are delighted you were able to
stay this long. Thank you.
Mr. Hultgren. Thanks, Chairman.
Dr. Dehmer, I will follow up with the question I had asked
Dr. Simon just in regards to exascale computing, if there is
any shortly key findings, recommendations or if there are ways
that DOE and non-DOE stakeholders can collaborate to utilize
this capability?
Dr. Dehmer. Yes. Let me just say what is happening inside
DOE. Secretary Moniz--you said you spoke with him--is very
strongly supportive of this, and he is having NNSA and the
Office of Science work collaboratively and collaboratively with
the community to make sure that the exascale program, and as
Dr. Simon said, it is not an endpoint, it is a journey, a ten-
year journey to a computer this large, is successful. He has
also asked his advisory board, the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board, to listen to the presentations from the Department and
from others and to provide him with advice on the path forward.
This is one of the very highest priorities in the Department of
Energy right now.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Dehmer, different subject. In your testimony, you
stated that HEP is the steward of accelerator R&D technology
for DOE. I wonder if you can just discuss the interagency
collaboration on this technology, where it lies in the draft
legislation and the benefits accelerator research has for
America.
Dr. Dehmer. The Office of High Energy Physics has been very
aggressive in the last couple of years reaching out to others--
NIH, the medical community, all communities that use
accelerators--to find out how we can help them. As you know,
the State of Illinois built IARC at Fermilab, and that is
another way that we are going to reach out to non-traditional
users of accelerators to see how we in the High Energy Physics
program through the laboratories can help others who need
accelerator technology but don't have the expertise to do it
themselves.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Last question I will ask, Dr.
Dehmer. There is a couple different parts to it. The United
States is currently a partner in ITER, a more than $20 billion
international project to demonstrate the concept of fusion
energy. Unfortunately, this project has been plagued by delays,
increased cost estimates and poor project management, and I
understand more bad news may be on the way in terms of our
European partners' ability to meet their project obligations.
Dr. Dehmer, do you have full confidence in the construction and
financing of ITER within a reasonable time frame and cost
structure?
Dr. Dehmer. Well, let me answer that in a slightly
different way. As you know, in the 2014 budget which is now
before Congress, the Department of Energy capped its
contribution to ITER at $225 million a year with a $2.4 billion
cap to get it to first plasma. We are awaiting the results of a
couple of reviews now. One of them is an international review
of the management of the project at the International
Organization, the IO, and the other is an Office of Project
Assessment, sometimes called a Lehman review, and based on the
results of those two reviews, we will take another look at how
we are approaching ITER.
Mr. Hultgren. You kind of touched on this, but I wonder if
you could maybe go a little bit further and just describe any
upcoming project milestones and how the Department will
evaluate its future participation in contributing to ITER?
Dr. Dehmer. Well, we are responsible--the U.S. part of
ITER, the U.S. project office, USIPO, is responsible for
certain deliverables, and we review progress toward meeting
those deliverables on a regular basis through the Office of
Project Assessment, and that tells us about how we are doing.
The so-called management assessment, which won't be released
until late November, will tell us a little bit about how the
ITER project office in France is doing, and again, based on the
results of those two reviews, we will take a look at what our
position is going to be.
Mr. Hultgren. What were the dates on that again?
Dr. Dehmer. Late November is the council meeting, and the
management assessment will be briefed to the ITER council at
that point.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. I think for us, and you understand
this, our responsibility is certainly to see the Department do
well and be in the forefront of some important work but also
making sure that we are being responsible for the taxpayer
dollars, so just kind of in conclusion, I just ask, will you
assure the Committee that you will continue to be vigilant in
protecting taxpayer dollars from waste and cost overruns
specifically associated with ITER to the point of considering
U.S. withdrawal from the project if necessary?
Dr. Dehmer. Yes, we will do that.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. Again, thank you all for being
here, and thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to jump ahead a
little bit in the line here. Thank you.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis.
Dr. Simon, could you complete your remarks from earlier
about private industry partners that your laboratory has been
working with and how you see their work transferring out to the
private sector and creating jobs, helping the economy, making
us more energy independent?
Dr. Simon. Thank you for the question. I would like to
follow up on this. Yes, there are of course several individual
collaborations of our laboratory with private industry. There
are the standard ways of transferring technology through
licensing and intellectual property rights agreements. I could
mention a couple of exciting examples. Dr. Dehmer mentioned
previously the Nanoscience Centers. We now have ten years later
the first examples of technology coming out of Nanoscience
Centers that is actually used in industry in terms of small
company startups but using very innovative ideas to build new
products. I can mention a small company that has just started,
Heliotrope, that is using a nanocoating on windows that makes
windows electrochromic so it can switch from on and off. In
winter you make windows bright so sun can go in and heat stays
inside and in the summer you switch in reverse, and this is by
the flip of a switch. Of course, this is technology that is
proven in the lab. It will take years to make it a real
product. But this is the path that we have from basic research
at the lab to an actual innovation that could change maybe in
ten years or so how we build houses.
More fundamentally, I think I would mention two other
things. One project, one area is so-called work for others. The
labs engage in projects that are funded by industry. It is a
very important element because it allows industry to work
directly with us, sponsor work at the lab and benefit from the
investment that the Department of Energy has made. It would be
very desirable if these work for others projects could be made
a bit easier to implement and maybe the labs would have
authority to in particular sponsor small work for otherd
projects quickly without DOE oversight. That is important
because often we work with small companies that cannot wait for
eight or nine months to get approval. Those companies need
commitments from VCs or have other constraints. So speed is of
the essence.
A third area that I would like to mention is the use of
national user facilities. These are open to industry. Industry
has worked with the national user facilities. As an example,
the Advanced Light Source has a very long-term agreement with
Sematech, exploring extreme ultraviolet technology for future
generations of chips. Large companies and consortia like
Sematech know how to do this. I think what we need to do is
find a way of getting small and medium sized enterprises
access, better access to our facilities, again, reducing
paperwork, making it easy and efficient and possibly even
providing support for small and medium sized companies to
access the facilities.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Dr. Simon, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman, and I have kind
of a follow-up question about the EINSTEIN America draft bill
as it relates to signature authority on agreements for non-
federal entities. The discussion draft delegates signature
authority on agreements under 500,000. Is there a threshold
which may provide for added flexibility to the national labs
while preserving the Department's oversight responsibilities
for larger projects? And I open this question to any of our
panelists.
Dr. Dehmer. Yes, we noted that provision, and that is
something that actually I think we may have to talk with
general counsel about because that adds to the contract of the
laboratory, and I am not sure what role DOE can relinquish in
doing something like that. I understand the sense of this, that
it is to give the labs more flexibility and more freedom to
work quickly. You know, as I mentioned earlier, one of my goals
is to give the labs more flexibility in research dollars by
putting out dollars in larger amounts and letting the M&O
contractor manage that. I think the same philosophy holds for
work for others in technology transfer, and I think there are
mechanisms that the Secretary would like to put in place to do
that. I am not sure that this is one of them but we will
certainly explore it.
Chairwoman Lummis. Dr. Simon, is 500,000 a good threshold
from your perspective?
Dr. Simon. It is certainly a good threshold but I think a
million would be better.
Chairwoman Lummis. Okay. And I hear you. Thank you for your
candor.
Dr. Hemminger, any thoughts on this?
Dr. Hemminger. Yeah, I just agree with Dr. Simon. You know,
coming from the University of California, which is part of the
contract management for several of the labs, I think this would
be an important step if it is legal, and----
Chairwoman Lummis. Well, we make it legal.
Dr. Hemminger. Yeah. Very good. You know, I think that
moving in this direction would be positive.
Chairwoman Lummis. Let me ask just as my final question, is
there anything that you would like to share with us that we
have not asked? So I leave the option to say something that is
a burning answer that you wish you could leave us today with.
Dr. Dehmer. Well, I would like to add something to the
discussion that we have had already today on the funding levels
in the EINSTEIN Act. One of the things that I noted over the
weekend when I was poring over numbers was that the
authorization in the 2010 COMPETES Act for Fiscal Year 2013 was
a hair over $6 billion for the Office of Science, and when we
see something like that, we tend to plan toward something of
that order of magnitude. The actual appropriation was $4.6
billion, so we are significantly below what the authorization
was, and it is very hard to plan. When I was the director of
Basic Energy Sciences for all those years, for 12 years, I
carried with me a single sheet of paper and that single sheet
of paper was a ten-year projection for what the Basic Energy
Sciences program would do in construction and in research. It
was a single Excel spreadsheet. And those years, we didn't have
a huge amount of funding but we knew what was coming or we
could plan what was coming. And today there would be no way
that you could carry a spreadsheet like that because things
change so much.
Chairwoman Lummis. Dr. Simon?
Dr. Simon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment freely.
I of course support very much what Dr. Dehmer said. I would
like to draw your attention to another topic that is very, very
important for the future. Many of our national laboratories
were created and formed in the time after the second World War,
and are really still in the legacy of the Atomic Age as far as
their physical infrastructure is concerned. We have, for
example, in Berkeley Lab, the average age of buildings is more
than 50 years. We are an 80-year-old lab, so you can really see
from this that there was a big building boom in the 1950s and
1960s and we are still in buildings that are by now outdated
and in many cases no longer safe. There is a program in the
Office of Science called the Science Lab Infrastructure, which
allows for gradual renovation of buildings, upgrades and also
doing important things in California such as earthquake safety.
We are very supportive of this program because it is the best
way of accomplishing a gradual upgrade of very old and aging
facilities.
In addition to that, of course we understand that we are in
a time of very constrained budgets. It would be very helpful if
we could find innovative and quick ways to use other sources of
funding. For example, the laboratories would be very interested
to use third-party financing for buildings and we would like to
work with the Office of Science and DOE to find quick ways to
accomplish this within the existing framework. So,
infrastructure is as important as people and scientific
facilities.
Chairwoman Lummis. Dr. Hemminger?
Dr. Hemminger. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
make some general comments. I would like to come back to the
concept of the importance of the Office of Science with respect
to dealing with what I call the innovation deficit. I think
this is a really critical issue for the United States, and we
have not yet approached, I think, the problem that led, for
example, to the brain drain out of Europe after World War II,
but I think we have--we are seeing a situation which could in
fact lead to that, as Dr. Simon has mentioned.
One of the things that I think has not yet been pointed out
is the tremendous and unique capability or asset that the
United States has with respect to the staff at the national
labs, not just the staff but the users at the national lab
facilities. The light sources, for example, that the Office of
Basic Energy Sciences manages have on the order of 12,000 users
annually, and this is really a unique, worldwide asset that
needs to--that the United States has that we should continue to
support, and I guess I would like to finish just by thanking
the Committee again for its strong support for science over the
years, and for the opportunity to be here today.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman and the panel, and
certainly you passed our test, Dr. Hemminger. We have those
bells and whistles come on while you are speaking so we can
test your ability to focus, and you passed our test swimmingly.
So thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Dehmer, as a former high school teacher, improving STEM
and STEAM education is one of my top priorities. We must ensure
we are preparing our students and teachers to succeed in the
21st century. Overall, what will the role of the Department of
Energy be in furthering STEM education, especially as it
relates to meeting future energy workforce development needs?
Dr. Dehmer. Yes, the major role that we play is the support
of graduate students through our grants program. However, we
also have a program called Workforce Development for Teachers
and Scientists. I know this program well because I am actually
the director of it, and in addition to the other things I do.
That program places a thousand people a year at the labs for
internships. It is undergraduate students, a new graduate
program that will place graduate students for periods of three
months for up to two years at the laboratories to do their
work, and visiting faculty and students that they might bring
with them. So through this program, the Department of Energy
Office of Science hopes to get students and faculty engaged in
laboratory research, seeing the laboratories as an excellent
place to have a career or an excellent place to collaborate
with staff at the laboratories.
Like Dr. Simon, when I was getting out of graduate school,
I really had no knowledge of what the laboratories were or what
they did or what the workforce was like. I had a postdoc at
Argonne National Laboratory. I thought it would be a couple of
years. It turned out to be 23 years. And unless we bring people
into the laboratories and let them understand what those
laboratories do, I don't think that we will have as vibrant a
workforce as we might have. So this is a very important program
to us. STEM is very important to us.
Mr. Takano. The Computational Science Graduate Fellowship
program, which is a partnership between the DOE Office of
Science and the DOE National Security Administration is widely
considered to be a success in meeting the DOE's national
laboratories' computational science workforce needs. Under the
President's budget proposal, will this program still be
administered by the NSF?
Dr. Dehmer. We don't know what the implementation of the
consolidation of the STEM programs is going to look like
because that hasn't been fully explored. I agree with you that
the Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship program is one
of outstanding fellowship programs that we have run for over 20
years. It has reviewed outstandingly, and it is essentially the
who's who of computational sciences have gone through that
program. So that is one of our concerns in the consolidation.
Mr. Takano. Great. Madam Chair, I have no further
questions. I yield back.
Chairwoman Lummis. I thank the gentleman. I thank all of
our Members who attended this hearing today, and I particularly
want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony. The
members of the Committee may have additional questions for you.
I know Mr. Hultgren had suggested he may follow up with some of
you in writing. There may be other members of the Committee who
will do so. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from members, and
with our gratitude for our fine panel today, for your
attendance and for your thoughtful responses to our questions
and our gratitude once again, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Pat Dehmer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Supporting material submitted for the record by
Dr. Horst Simon, Deputy Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]