[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISRUPTER SERIES: QUANTUM COMPUTING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-131
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-124 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Ranking Member
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
FRED UPTON, Michigan TONY CARDENAS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois Massachusetts
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 3
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 51
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................ 52
Witnesses
Matthew Putman, Founder and CEO, Nanotronics..................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Christopher Monroe, Chief Scientist and Founder, IonQ, Professor
of Physics, University of Maryland............................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Diana Franklin, Professor, University of Chicago................. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Michael Brett, CEO, QxBranch..................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
DISRUPTER SERIES: QUANTUM COMPUTING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:16 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Latta, Lance, Guthrie, McKinley,
Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Walters, Costello, Schakowsky,
Welch, Kennedy, and Green.
Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist Staff Director; Margaret
Tucker Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Melissa Froelich, Chief
Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Adam Fromm,
Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Ali Fulling, Legislative
Clerk, O&I, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena
Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff,
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie,
Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Peter
Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Andy Zach,
Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment; Greg Zerzan,
Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Michelle
Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Caroline
Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; and Michelle Rusk,
Minority FTC Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Good morning. And again, I would like to welcome
you all to the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection here on Energy and Commerce. As I mentioned, we have
another subcommittee that is running right now, so we will have
members coming back from first floor, upstairs, during the
committee from one to the other. But again, I do thank you all
for being here today.
And I will recognize myself for my 5-minute opening
statement. And again, welcome to the subcommittee in today's
disruptor series hearing examining quantum computing. We
continue our disrupter series as we examine emerging technology
supporting U.S. innovation and jobs. This morning, we are
discussing the revolutionary technology known as quantum
computing. This involves harnessing the power of physics at its
most basic level. Unlike the computers we are familiar with we
use today, a quantum computer holds the potential to be faster
and more powerful. This innovation is expected to change every
industry and make problems that are impossible to solve today,
something that can be solved in a matter of days or weeks.
Efforts to develop a commercially available and practical
quantum computer are being pursued around the world. Because of
the tremendous costs involved in developing a suitable
environment for a quantum computer to operate, many of these
efforts involve government support, both the European Union and
China have pledged, or already have spent billions to develop a
quantum computer.
In the United States, development of quantum computers is
proceeding at the academic, governmental, and private sectors.
In addition to the larger and familiar technology companies,
smaller startups are also leading efforts in this area. We are
fortunate to have one of these startups, IonQ, to testify
today.
Although a quantum computer holds tremendous potential to
solve previously noncomputable problems, there are skeptics who
question whether it will be possible to ever develop such
technology. We look forward to our witnesses giving us their
thoughts on this question.
On the other hand, some fear that the threats such a
computer would pose to the traditional computing model,
especially when it comes to encryption and data security. Some
fear that a quantum computer would make it nearly impossible to
keep future computers secure. Data security and consumer
privacy are key concerns of this committee.
We also look forward to our witnesses addressing this issue
as well. Quantum computers hold tremendous potential to help
solve problems involving the discovery of new drugs, developing
more efficient supply chains and logistics operations,
searching massive volumes of data, and developing artificial
intelligence.
Whichever nation first develops a practical quantum
computer will have a tremendous advantage over its foreign
peers. We hope our witnesses will help us examine the state of
the race to develop a quantum computer, and how the United
States is doing in that race. This is obviously a very dense
subject. We also understand there are several other areas under
development leveraging the principle of quantum mechanics. Our
goal today is simple: to develop a better understanding of the
potential of quantum computers, the obstacles to developing
this technology, and what policymakers should be doing to
remove barriers and to help spur innovation, competition, and
ensure a strong and prepared workforce for future jobs.
As we explore this topic today, I would, again, like to
thank our witnesses for coming to share their expertise on this
very complicated and revolutionary technology. I again
appreciate you all being here today.
And at this time, I will yield back my time and recognize
the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good Morning. Welcome to the Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection Subcommittee, and today's Disrupter Series hearing
examining quantum computing. We continue our Disrupter Series
as we examine emerging technologies supporting U.S. innovation
and jobs.
This morning we are discussing the revolutionary technology
known as quantum computing. This involves harnessing the power
of physics at its most basic level. Unlike the computers we are
familiar with and use today, a quantum computer holds the
potential to be faster and more powerful. This innovation is
expected to change every industry and make problems that are
impossible to solve today something that can be solved in a
matter of days or weeks.
Efforts to develop a commercially available and practical
quantum computer are being pursued around the world. Because of
the tremendous costs involved in developing a suitable
environment for a quantum computer to operate, many of these
efforts involve government support. Both the European Union and
China have pledged or already spent billions to develop a
quantum computer.
In the United States, development of a quantum computer is
proceeding at the academic, governmental and private sectors.
In addition to larger and familiar technology companies,
smaller start-ups are also leading efforts in this area. We are
fortunate to have one of these start-ups, Ion-Q, to testify
today.
Although a quantum computer holds tremendous potential to
solve previously non-computable problems, there are skeptics
who question whether it will be possible to ever develop such
technology. We look forward to our witnesses giving us their
thoughts on this question.
On the other hand, some fear the threat such a computer
would pose to the traditional computing model. Especially when
it comes to encryption and data security, some fear that a
quantum computer would make it nearly impossible to keep future
computers secure. Data security and consumer privacy are key
concerns of this Committee. We also look forward to our
witnesses addressing this issue as well.
Quantum computers hold tremendous potential to help solve
problems involving the discovery of new drugs, developing more
efficient supply chains and logistics operations, searching
massive volumes of data, and developing artificial
intelligence. Whichever nation first develops a practical
quantum computer will have a tremendous advantage over its
foreign peers. We hope our witnesses will help us examine the
state of the race to develop a quantum computer, and state how
the U.S is doing.
This is obviously a very dense subject. We also understand
there are several other areas under development leveraging the
principle of quantum mechanics. Our goal today is simple: to
develop a better understanding of the potential of quantum
computers; the obstacles to developing this technology; and,
what policymakers should be doing to remove barriers and help
spur innovation, competition, and ensure a strong and prepared
workforce for future jobs.
As we explore this topic today, I would like to again thank
our witnesses for traveling to DC and sharing their expertise
with us as we examine this complicated and revolutionary
technology. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. We
continue our disrupter series with the exploration of quantum
computing. I want to congratulate all of you for being so
smart. Dr. Franklin, I was just told I think it was your mother
and I graduated from the University of Illinois about the same
time. This was a time before we knew anything about computers
really, it was just beginning. And here you are today, the next
generation leading us into the future. So I appreciate all of
you being here today.
This technology, I understand, is still in the research
phase, but the potential applications are tremendous, from
healthcare to energy efficiency and everything in between.
Given this potential, global competitors from the European
Union to China are rushing to invest in quantum computing. The
U.S. must make strategic investments if it wants to stay ahead.
And those investments really start with STEM education. We must
encourage students, including young women and students of color
to pursue interests in computer science and physics. Fostering
curiosity today prepares young minds to become great innovator
of tomorrow.
As a former teacher myself, I strongly believe that our
future economic success depends on investing in our children's
education. Our research universities are leading the way on
quantum computing. Public investment is crucial to develop
technology until it can be profitable, possibly deployed in the
private sector. However, the Federal Government has so far
failed to provide robust reliable investments in quantum
computing. The lack of investment in STEM education and
research speaks to the misguided priorities of this Republican
Congress. While wealthy shareholders get most of the gains from
a $2 trillion Republican tax bill, Congress is underinvesting
in students and research institutions. We fund tax cuts for the
rich at the expense of our future prosperity.
Now that Congress has passed a budget agreement, we have
the chance to make some of the investments that our country so
desperately needs. But instead of embracing the opportunity to
advance bipartisan appropriations bills, the Republican
majority plans to bring up a rescission bill to pull back
funding for children's health insurance programs and other
programs. And today, we will be voting on a bill to literally
take food out of the mouths of families.
We need to get our priorities straight. The U.S. can be a
global leader in quantum computing and other groundbreaking
technologies, but only if we prioritize investment for our
future over tax cuts for the wealthy.
I look forward to hearing from our panel about the promise
of quantum computing. I will try my best to follow what you are
telling me and the challenges that we face in developing this
technology. I am especially proud to welcome Professor Diana
Franklin from the University of Chicago. The University of
Chicago is one of the leaders in quantum computing research,
and I am eager to hear more about this work.
So thank you, chairman Latta, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
back. The chairman of the full committee has not made it in
yet. Is there any one on the Republican side wishing to claim
his time? If not, at this time that will conclude the member's
opening statements. And to get to the real meat of the issue
today that we want to hear about. And I won't tell you how long
ago, Madam Ranker, how long--when I took computer science in
college, I probably shouldn't say this, we used punch cards and
teletype machines. It was a bad Saturday morning, we went back
to the computer science department, and you were expecting
about that much and came back with that much, and you knew you
had made a mistake. But I want to thank our witnesses for being
here with us today and we are really looking forward to your
testimony today.
And our witnesses will have an opportunity to make 5-minute
opening statements. And our witnesses today are Dr. Matthew
Putman, Founder and CEO of Nanotronics; Dr. Christopher Monroe,
Chief Scientist and Founder of IonQ, and Professor of Physics
at the University Maryland; Dr. Diana Franklin, Professor and
Director of Computer Science at the University of Chicago; and
Mr. Michael Brett, CEO of QxBranch. And so again, we appreciate
you being here today. And Dr. Putman, you are recognized for 5
minutes for your opening statement. If you would just press
that microphone and pull it close to you and we will get
started.
STATEMENTS OF MATTHEW PUTMAN, FOUNDER AND CEO, NANOTRONICS;
CHRISTOPHER MONROE, CHIEF SCIENTIST AND FOUNDER, IONQ,
PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; DIANA FRANKLIN,
PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO; AND MICHAEL BRETT, CEO,
QXBRANCH
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PUTMAN
Mr. Putman. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta,
Congresswomen and Congressmen.
Nanotronics does not make quantum computers. We are the
enablers of technologists and companies that with us strive to
revolutionize the way information can be transformed. We have
provided some of the world's largest companies and smaller
entrepreneurial innovators with the tools of modern computation
and imaging. We work with those that build the most advanced
materials in microelectronics. Nanotronics achieved this in the
only way we see feasible for the continued exponential
progression of technology, which is through artificially
intelligent factories.
Quantum computing not only promises to break the barriers
of encryption, it also breaks some fundamental barriers to
human progress. Many of our greatest achievements have been
characterized in terms of competition and races. Often, a
technological race appears to be a war of ideologies or of
business dominance. With quantum computing, there is an even
greater battle, the fight against physical scarcity.
There are three areas that we must work together on to win,
not only for our nation, but for humanity, agriculture, new
fertilizers can feed the increasing population of the world
while maintaining diversity of crops, drug discovery by being
able to simulate and produce molecules faster and with greater
precision than are possible by traditional means. This will not
only lead to cures for diseases, but reduce the often
financially restrictive experimentation and trials that are
required to make even incremental improvements and treatments.
Materials for power devices from batteries to solar cells.
These have been studied for decades, but in many respects, the
United States is still early on in this journey. Companies are
moving with speed, and with national support, it is possible
that quantum computing can soon reach an inflection point.
The race to achieve a workable quantum computer that can
reduce scarcity to this level requires greater national
attention than has currently been realized by either the vast
majority of companies, or of the country as a whole. The steps
to enabling quantum computing will need to involve, one, an
effort that funds the creation of factories for new quantum
chips.
A semiconductor fab for classical computers can cost as
much as $20 billion. To a large extent, these fabs are not
being built in the United States. We have an opportunity to
acknowledge and to change this trend by leading the way in the
construction of factories for this next generation of powerful
computing.
Two, artificial intelligence. While quantum computing
itself will increase the capabilities of artificial
intelligence, the ability to design materials and software for
quantum computers themselves will come through the interaction
of human and computer agents.
Understanding such key elements as component design,
fabrication conditions, and the number of qubits needed
requires collaboration of humans and machines. The number of
qubits in a quantum computer is directly related to the number
of calculations. A 10 qubit quantum computer can produce 1,000
calculations, and a 30 qubit quantum computer can produce 1
billion. Millions of qubits are required to achieve the full
potential of quantum computing. This exponential growth in
qubit to calculations is beyond the reach of factories as they
are. Without the advanced tools of AI for controlling
factories, a truly useful quantum computer may not be possible.
Three, education. We need to develop the expertise required
for the multidisciplinary nature of quantum computer science.
It is physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, and
application curiosity and expertise are all necessary. We
cannot work in isolation. We need to embrace immigration and
welcome strong talent from around the world with expertise in
these areas.
When we look toward the future, we can see it as a battle
of ideologies, of resources, or of technologies. Quantum
computers encompass all of these to some extent. Quantum
mechanics is the basis of universal behavior at the smallest
scales, but affects the largest of matter. It is, therefore,
not surprising that harnessing this physical property has such
far-reaching implications. It is because of this, that it is
important that we view it with the powerful association that it
warrants, with the weight of risk in a fractured world, or of
great rewards in a unified one.
As we move forward, we see how quantum computing lets us
scale in ways that meet not only the needs of industry, but of
our country and the world.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Putman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you for your testimony, this
morning. And Dr. Monroe, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MONROE
Mr. Monroe. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr.
Chairman. I am honored to be here for this committee's
disrupter series on quantum computing.
I am a Quantum Physicist at the University of Maryland, and
also Co-founder and Chief Scientist at IonQ, which is a startup
company that aims to build and manufacture small quantum
computers. I have also worked with the National Photonics
Initiative, which is a collaborative alliance among industry,
and academics with the interest in developing quantum
technology. And I, with the National Photonics Initiative, we
have promoted the idea of a National Quantum Initiative, and
there is pending legislation that is coming up in the House
Science Committee.
So I have about 1 minute to define what quantum computers
are, and I think I can get to some of the basics. We know that
information is stored in bits, zeros, or ones. The fundamental
difference in quantum information is it is stored in quantum
bits, or qubits, these can be both zero and one at the same
time, as long as you don't look. And at the end of the day, you
look, and it randomly assumes one of the values. But as long as
you don't look, there is a potential for massive parallelism as
you add qubits, you get exponential storage capacity. And
because quantum computers only work while you are not looking,
it involves quite revolutionary, and even exotic hardware to
realize this. Individual atoms, that is the technology we use
at IonQ, superconducting circuits that are kept at very low
temperatures, other competing platforms involved that type of
technology. It is very exotic stuff. And I think within the
next several years, we are going to see small quantum computers
with up to about 100 quantum bits. It sounds pretty small, but
even with 100 quantum bits, it can, in a sense, deal with
information that eclipses that of all the hard drives in the
world. And on our way to a million qubits, where we can do new
problems that conventional qubit computers could never tackle,
we need to build the small ones first.
So in terms of quantum applications, I would say it falls
roughly into three categories, there are strong overlaps. In
the short term, quantum sensors can enhance sensitivity to
certain measurements that could impact navigation, and it may
be in a GPS-blind environment and also remote sensing.
In the medium term, quantum communication networks may
allow the transmission of information that can be provably
secure, because remember, quantum information only exists when
nobody looks at it. If somebody looks at it, it changes. And
that can make communication inherently secure.
In the long term, probably the most disruptive technology
are quantum computers. And quantum computers are not just more
powerful computers, they are radically different, and they may
allow us to solve problems that could never, ever be solved
using classical computers. These involve optimization routines
that could impact logistics, economic and financial modeling,
and also, the design of new materials and molecular function
that could impact the health sciences and drug delivery, for
instance. An even longer term, quantum computers could be used
to do decryption, breaking of popular codes. So there is a
security aspect to everything that quantum information touches.
Now, the challenges are pronounced in this field. There are
a few issues. One involving the workforce and one involving the
marketplace. The workforce issue is that universities are chock
full of students and faculty that are comfortable with quantum
physics, and we do research in the area, but we don't build
things that can be used by somebody that doesn't want to or
need to know all the details. Whereas industry makes those
things, but they don't have a quantum engineering workforce.
The marketplace is also a challenge because we don't know
exactly what the killer app for quantum computers, in
particular, will be. So we have promoted the idea of a National
Quantum Initiative that would establish several large and
focused hub labs throughout the country, and other components
as well, including the user access program for existing quantum
computers. It is imperative that the U.S. retain its leadership
in this technological frontier. As we heard from the chairman,
there are concerted efforts in Europe and, in particular,
China, that is spending lots of very focused investments in
this field.
So, in conclusion, quantum technology is coming and the
U.S. should lead in this next generation of sensors, computers
and communication networks. The National Quantum Initiative
provides a framework for implementing a comprehensive quantum
initiative across the Federal Government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the
opportunity to speak on quantum technology and the need for a
nationally focused effort to advanced quantum information
science and technology in the U.S.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Monroe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
And Dr. Franklin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANA FRANKLIN
Ms. Franklin. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, Mr.
Chairman, and Ranking Member Schakowsky. I am honored to be
here before you in the committee to offer testimony on the
promise of quantum technology. The important role universities
must play to realize commercialization, and the biggest
challenges we are facing in doing so. In my dual roles as
Director of Computer Science Education at UChicago STEM Ed, and
a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Computer
Science at the University of Chicago. I research emerging
technologies and computer science education.
As lead investigator for quantum education for the EPIC
quantum computing project in the NSF expeditions in computing
program, it is my mission to design and implement educational
initiatives at K-12, university and professional venues to
develop a quantum computing workforce.
Quantum computing can be a game changer in promising areas,
including drug design and food production. By accelerating
research time to develop drugs, critical Federal research in
Medicaid dollars could be saved, along with improved quality of
life.
Unlocking the secrets of nitrogen fixation through quantum
simulation could vastly reduce the energy costs of fertilizer
production, and thus food production throughout the world.
While the university has historically been on the forefront of
computer science and emerging technologies, lapses in academic
funding for quantum computer science have allowed global
competitors to make great strides. Putting the U.S. back 10
years from where it could have been in research output and
workforce development.
In the past 17 years, since the inception of quantum
computer science, distinguished from quantum physics and
algorithm development, academic funding has only been available
for 8 of these years, leading to only 10 Ph.D. students being
trained, rather than a potential of almost 200 students, and no
meaningful education programs aimed at this area.
As research groups came and went with the funding, post-
docs were laid off and graduate students were transitioned to
conventional computer science fields. Yet, universities are
critical to commercialization. While companies work
individually and compete against each other to produce
proprietary tools, academics produce results and tools that all
companies can use and improve upon, as well as trained experts
who can work at companies. They are both necessary for the
commercialization of quantum computing.
The challenge of bringing quantum computers to the point of
usefulness cannot be underestimated, both in building reliable
machines and writing software. Professor Christopher Monroe
knows extensive expertise in the former. I am here to talk
about the increasingly important role that computer scientists
must take. Historical funding and theoretical software and
quantum devices has created a chasm between the software, which
assumes large, perfect hardware, and real hardware that is
small and unreliable at this point.
NSF has recently recognized this issue supplementing their
hardware initiative quantumly with a stat program that requires
an interdisciplinary team that works to bridge this gap. One
gap is in software development. There is a difference between a
quantum algorithm and software that can solve a particular
problem. Bridging this gap requires interdisciplinary teams
such as exists at QxBranch. Deep expertise is necessary to
figure out how to modify software that works in one specific
context to another, much more so in quantum computing than in
traditional computing. If this were furniture construction,
what we have right now is piles of wood, screws and nails. An
expert needs to figure out how to use those to create useful
furniture. Instead, what we want in the future is for
nonexperts to be able to go to quantum Ikea, get a prefabbed
kit and easily modify it for their application. This exists for
classical computing, but not for quantum computing.
Another gap is between software and hardware. Current
algorithms are written for perfect hardware, but hardware on
the horizon is very error prone. We are on a journey to that
perfect hardware, but we are not there yet. It is like if you
meticulously planned to prepare a gourmet meal for ten, but
when you arrived, there were only supplies for six, and you
could only use the kitchen for 2 hours prior to the meal, you
would need to adjust your plans. Current and quantum computers
that are on the horizon can only sustain computations for a
limited time, and they are very small. Some modifications can
be automated. However, for more advanced modifications, the
plan needs to be rethought, thus, some of the specific hardware
limitations, like the specific ways in which different
technologies tend to introduce errors, need to be communicated
to the programmers so they can figure out how to adjust their
applications.
In order to realize quantum computing, Federal funding
needs to be, first and foremost, consistent, directed at not
just building hardware and developing algorithms, but to
interdisciplinary teams that include applications developer and
computer scientists. Spread across a range of agencies with
different missions like NSF, DARPA, DOE, and DOD, directed not
just at technology development, but to workforce development,
so there are more people available to write applications and to
perform the engineering work at these companies. And above all,
supporting the K-12 STEM pipeline to train the next generation
of innovators.
With a significant investment in hardware, software, and
workforce development, I am confident the United States can
maintain its dominance in computing.
This concludes my remarks. I appreciate this opportunity to
speak with subcommittee members. And I am happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Franklin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Brett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BRETT
Mr. Brett. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member
Schakowsky, and members of this committee. I am thrilled to be
here today to participate in today's hearing and discuss the
opportunities and challenges presented by quantum computing.
My name is Michael Brett. I am the CEO of a company called
QxBranch. We are an advanced data analytics company based here
in Washington, D.C., also with teams in Australia and the U.K.
We are a fast-growing team of data scientists, software
engineers, and machine learning specialists who design
algorithms for challenging data problems. We are at the cutting
edge of creating algorithms that find patterns, detect
anomalies, and uncover other business insights that help our
customers reduce their costs and to serve their customers
better.
Data analytics is already a rapidly advancing technology
area delivering benefits to people all over the world, but we
are particularly excited about what quantum computing can do
for our business. As we have heard, quantum computers are not
just a faster computer, they enable an entirely different
approach to performing calculations. In the realm of quantum
physics, there is some incredible and surprising phenomena
that, if harnessed, could allow us to solve some interesting
and practically unsolvable problems, like simulating the
interaction between molecules. As these molecules grow in size,
the computational costs grows exponentially larger.
Our friends who build quantum computing hardware are in the
process of creating machines that take advantage of these
unique phenomena. And you heard a great example from Chris
Monroe this morning at IonQ. These machines allows us as
software developers to solve difficult problems using a
different kind of mathematics, quantum math, much more
efficiently than we ever could on classical computers. And our
ambition is simple: Quantum computers will allow us to solve
some of the most intractable and most valuable computational
problems that exist today.
These new quantum solutions will benefit Americans in ways
they might not ever be aware of. Globally, the race is on to
apply quantum computing to problems in transport, energy
production, health science and pharmacology, finance and
insurance, defense and national security. And we want our
applications to be the first apps in a quantum apps store.
Looking forward to the kind of quantum computers that are
likely to become commercially available over the next decade,
there are broadly three classes of application that have become
possible in the near term. The first are optimization problems,
like logistics and transport routing, financial portfolio
optimization. The second is in machine learning, where we can
accelerate some of the most computationally expensive parts of
training and artificial intelligence, to detect patterns in
large and complex data sets.
And the third is in chemical simulation, where we can use a
quantum computer to simulate the behavior of molecules and
materials, and design new processes around them. Across these
three applications, the potential value to everyday citizens is
immense. Now let me give you a concrete example of where this
could apply. QxBranch recently completed a study into quantum
computing applications with Merck, the pharmaceutical company.
We worked together to design a quantum algorithm and test it on
today's available hardware, to look at an approach to
optimizing the production of a particular drug. And the
particular drug that they are interested in has an extremely
challenging production optimization process involved. And
quantum computing gave us the tools to look at the
manufacturing process in an entirely different way that could
radically change the efficiency of creating this drug and
delivering value to the consumer. It is applications such as
this that we are focused on at QxBranch, breakthroughs enabled
by a new approach in computing that allows us to change the way
we think about business and manufacturing processes. There are
some challenges ahead, though, in realizing this technology,
and the Federal Government can help us create the environment
for industry to lead.
The three biggest challenges I would like to highlight
today, first the skills and workforce. As we have heard, if we
are to be successful at bringing quantum computing to market we
need a highly skilled, multidisciplinary, diverse workforce
with core skills in quantum information science, computer
science, data analytics, machine learning and AI, combined with
germane expertise in finance, pharmaceuticals, energy and other
industries. And we need American universities to send us
graduates with these skills.
The second is in international cooperation. As American
companies compete in this emerging ecosystem, we will achieve
our fullest success through international cooperation. There is
valuable scientific research and engineering development that
is being made elsewhere, including in key allies such as
Australia, the U.K., Canada, Japan, and Singapore. We need to
be able to access the best talent and technology globally and
this means partnering.
There will be national security considerations for this
technology, of course, but if export restrictions are applied
prematurely or without your consideration, it will stifle
commercial innovation.
Finally, we need to maximize and leverage private sector
investment into this technology area. Over the past 18 months,
we have seen an incredible acceleration in corporate R&D and
venture capital flying into this technology. It is an exciting
time, but I must stress that we are just at the beginning of
this technology development. And the government can maximize
and leverage this investment through targeted Federal funding
and coordination to reduce the gaps and overlaps in R&D and
help accelerate technology.
So in closing, I would like to reiterate my appreciation
for the opportunity to join you today and share a little about
what we are doing at QxBranch and quantum computing. This
subcommittee is addressing important issues that will help
bring quantum computing to commercial reality and give us a
powerful, new tool to create valuable software.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate all
your testimony this morning, and that will conclude our
witnesses' testimony this morning, and we will begin our
questioning from the members. And I will now open with
questions with 5 minutes. And pardon my allergies this morning,
it is this time of year in Washington.
First, I really appreciated reading your testimony last
night, and a lot of questions in 5 minutes. But if I could
start, Dr. Putman, with you, if I may, because I really was
interested, so what impact does quantum computer have on
manufacturing in the United States? Because, like, in my
district, I have a unique district, I have 60,000 manufacturing
jobs, and I also have the largest farm income producing
district in the State of Ohio. And in your opening statement,
you had mentioned about on the manufacturing side, you talked
about with drugs and agriculture, energy, and this committee
deals a lot with all that, and not really on the agricultural
side, but I was really interested in that. And I would like to
know, especially what the impact would be on manufacturing? And
also, am I correct that it would both create new opportunities
while disrupting those existing industries that are out there
today?
Mr. Putman. Thank you, Chairman Latta, my fellow Ohioan.
This is, of course, extremely personal to me as well, being
from Ohio and creating and trying to enable manufacturing work.
What is important, I think, about your question, is that these
are brand new industries. It is not just about disrupting
current industries, it has been creating jobs that are for the
next generation of technologies. And this is building, I think,
interesting jobs as well for technologists of the future, and
that goes through entire large factories. I mentioned the cost
of a fab. It is not just the cost of building a fab, we would
like to bring down the cost to build fabs. It is the
opportunity for workers to be working with the latest of
technologies. I think that the Midwest and the rest of the
country as a whole can only benefit from this.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Dr. Monroe, what changes would be needed to ensure America
has that workforce that is ready for quantum computing
revolution? You will be hearing from the witnesses, we have to
have that workforce out there in the training. So how do we get
to that point? Do we need on the educational side, especially
at the university levels, do we need universities that would
specialize that in the field or what do we need to do?
Mr. Monroe. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman
Latta. There are a number of things that we can do as a country
to foster this gap, this connection between university and
government laboratory research and I said, industrial
production. At the university side, I am sorry to say that most
engineering and computer science departments haven't really
embraced this field as Dr. Franklin mentioned.
Mr. Latta. Why? Why not?
Mr. Monroe. Well, I have my own thoughts on that. Actually
my daughter is a computer science major at University of
Maryland. And the computer science departments--the students
are keen to get a high-paying job right after they graduate.
Quantum computing, not that it is not a high paying job, but it
is a very speculative field. And it is hard to identify exactly
what the marketplace is. And I think--computer science
departments and engineering departments, I think, they have not
embraced this field as much as the sciences have. And I think
that is changing at some places. My university, the University
of Maryland is one of those, Chicago is another. There are
several across the country that have done that, but it is not
widespread. Many of these departments won't hire faculty that
are doing research in this field. And I think Dr. Franklin
mentioned the National Science Foundation is taking an active
role in trying to change that by instituting new grant programs
that foster the development of quantum computer science for
instance.
So that is on the university side. On the industry side, it
is a tough nut to crack, because this new technology as I
mentioned involves very exotic type hardware that industry
doesn't have so much experience with. And it reminds me of, in
history in the 1950s, when semiconductor devices were being
developed and scaled, the people who did this over the many
decades that gave rise to Moore's law including Gordon Moore,
who founded who Intel, these were not vacuum tube engineers who
had instituted the previous generation of computers. So it
takes time, and it takes risk, and it takes funding from these
corporations to do that.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And my time is about
to expire, so I am going to yield back and recognize the
gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am starting to understand the much-used
phrase taking a quantum leap, because really what you are
talking about is of all the things that I think we have heard
about the most disruptive, in a good way, and in a challenging
way to the future. And so, I wanted to talk to Dr. Franklin
about things I think I know more about, which is about
education. And I do want to hear more about EPIC and the things
that you are doing.
But first, I want to hear about your efforts with younger
students in a minute, but I want to first hear about what is
happening at the graduate and undergraduate level. What I am
hearing really from all of you is that workforce capacity is
really a challenging issue. And if we are going to be
competitive, and if we are going to keep up with countries that
are making the EU and also China, then we need to get serious
about making these public investments. But I am wondering if
you can talk to me a little bit about the urgent need?
Ms. Franklin. Yes. So I think Dr. Monroe mentioned that
computer science hasn't had as much quantum in it. And I think
it all comes back to those funding lapses, because our group
and other groups started and the way courses get created is
that graduate students get trained in a field, they go out and
become professors, create classes and train more students.
Those students need to be able to have jobs in order to make it
worth it for them to take those courses. If no Federal
funding--if a program gets canceled and you are two of six, and
all of the Federal funding goes away, and then graduate
students get put in other fields, you are not going to have an
education program, and so that is what happened twice is that
the Federal funding went completely away for the computer
science portion of quantum computing. And so, groups that were
active in getting into the field left the field.
And so now, with this new stack funding and the new EPIC
program that we have, and we are planning educational
initiatives at all levels, including tutorials for
professionals, we have a tutorial in June and a tutorial in
October for professors and graduate students who are already in
the field who want to transition to quantum computing. There is
an initiative in the institute for molecular engineering at
UChicago that has an undergraduate degree with a quantum track.
We are partnering with them to create some computer science to
add to that hardware track. And there is a program----
Ms. Schakowsky. Is that the quantum engineering degree that
you are talking about?
Ms. Franklin. Yes. There is a quantum track of the
molecular engineering degree, yes. And they also have a program
to embed graduate students that are working in all areas of
quantum with with companies. And so, we are participating in
that. So we are trying to train other research groups so that
they can start doing research in quantum.
Ms. Schakowsky. Given the potential, it seems to me that we
have to have some sort of almost like a moonshot mentality
about investment. And you are so right about all kinds of
research. If it is not steady and consistent, then we either
have a brain drain, people go elsewhere, or that research app
grinds a halt.
But do tell me a bit about some of the things you are
working on in the primary and high school level. That is also
under your bailiwick, too, right?
Ms. Franklin. Right. So at the elementary and middle school
level, we are looking at not doing quantum computing per se,
but computer science in general, because in order to have a
quantum computer scientist, you need a computer scientist
first. And so efforts like CSforALL are critical in getting
computer science early because in science, anyway, if a student
isn't thinking about becoming a scientist by sixth grade, they
are statistically very unlikely to become a scientist. And so
we believe the same thing may be true for computer science. So
we want to have those initiatives early.
On the physics side, we are looking at what are the aspects
of quantum computing that are unintuitive when you get there?
And one of them is this idea of measurement, Chris Monroe said
that all the operations work fine until you look at them. And
it is an issue that the measurement device actually perturbs
the state. For example, if you had Matchbox cars and you wanted
to see how fast they were going, you could put your hand out
and feel how hard it hits your hand. But now that stopped the
car. And so this idea that your choice of measurement actually
affects the system. And in quantum computing you have no other
choices. For a car you could video it and then calculate which
one was faster, but we don't have that opportunity in quantum
computing. And so those sorts of things that are very
unintuitive can become intuitive if you just give the right
examples at young ages.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I am pretty much out of time. I
yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields lack.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, the
vice chairman of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Thank you all for being here. I can understand about 50 percent
of the things you say, so.
Mr. Brett, in your testimony you stated that quantum
computers will allow us to solve some of the most intractable
and valuable computational problems that exist. Can you explain
how doing so will benefit everyday Americans?
Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman. There are some problems
in computer science that as we add more variables to them, or
more factors to them, become exponentially more difficult to
solve. And so that means that the time that is required to
solve that problem doubles every time we add a new variable to
it. And so, we can reach a limit of our computational capacity
to solve those kinds of problems very, very quickly, even with
circuit computers and cloud computing that is available today.
So for everyday Americans that are problems like how do we
optimize our financial portfolio in our 401(k) where the amount
of computational work that is required to do that is already
immense. But if we want to include more factors involved in
that and get the most efficiency for our portfolio, the scale
of computational challenge increases exponentially and so
quantum computing can help with that. We can take on more
complex and more difficult problems and solve them in a much
shorter time with a new type of machine.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Now I am going to be honest Dr. Putman,
I really don't know what I am going to say here, so I am going
to say it and hopefully you understand the question. OK.
When you measure a qubit, it immediately changes its value
to either a solid one or zero. So as I understand, which I
don't, to manipulate a quantum computer, the operator needs to
be able to make measurements indirectly without a qubit
observing you doing so. How do you do that? And how does that
match the capabilities of classic electronic computers and
processors with billions of transistors?
Mr. Putman. This is one I feel like I should have one of
the quantum computing experts answer. This is something that
occurs in physics that has been measured for many, many years.
So how it is implemented becomes our greatest challenge, and
there are several different ways to do it. Generally, you want
to be in a situation where you control the atmosphere. While it
is observable in nature, it is not as controllable as dealing
with information series stringing of zeros and ones which just
adds up in sums. I think I would like to have someone else
explain the actual technology of how it might work. Dr. Monroe?
Mr. Monroe. Sure. First I would like to add that you are in
good company because Albert Einstein never accepted quantum
mechanics. He didn't think it was complete.
Mr. Kinzinger. So I am basically like Albert Einstein.
Thank you, sir. I agree.
Mr. Monroe. Analogies do wonders in all of science,
especially in quantum mechanics. I agree with Dr. Franklin's
statement that finding analogies, you can teach the concepts to
young children in elementary school. I totally believe that.
Here is an analogy for a qubit. It is a coin, imagine a
coin, when we flip a coin, it is in a definite state all the
time, but we might not know what it is or want to know all the
details, but if you think of a coin as being quantum in, say,
both heads and tails at the same time. Imagine now it is in a
black box and you are not looking at it, so it is both heads
and tails at the same time, but I want to control that coin, I
want to maybe flip it. Let's say it is a weighted coin, so it
is 90 percent heads and 10 percent tails. I want to flip the
odds to be 90 percent tails and 10 percent heads. Well, we can
do this from the outside world by just turning the box around,
in a sense.
Mr. Kinzinger. Actually, that makes sense.
Mr. Monroe. So we don't know what the state was, we didn't
measure it, we didn't betray the quantum system but we
controlled it. And so to Dr. Putman's point, this is pretty
exotic hardware, because the quantum stuff is inside and we
have to keep our distance when we control it. We have to do
things without looking and put quotes. What it means is that
the system is so extremely well isolated that we don't get the
information out. So a quantum computation involves
manipulations like that. They can be much more complicated.
Flip one qubit depending on the state of another, for instance,
without looking--and it is possible to do that in a very small
group set of technologies. Then at the end of the day, you
unveil, you open the box, and you measure only one state, but
it could be lots and lots of bits and that one answer could
depend on exponentially many paths, exponentially many inputs
in the device. As Mr. Brett mentioned, this can be put to use
for real world problems, and logistics, and so forth.
Mr. Kinzinger. Awesome. Well, thanks. Nice work. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. That is a large statue of Albert Einstein down
the street, Mr. Vice Chairman, in front of the State
Department. So you might get your statue there some time.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
That was a good example. I am trying to understand this and
move it forward. This is kind of in my family. I didn't get any
of the genetics, but have a nephew at the University Chicago in
the physics department going to CERN this summer. So he is in a
different league than I am. So some of the discussion we hear
is like he and my son talking to each other during Thanksgiving
or whatever, he is a computer science and math person as well,
working in Chicago, but in the financial industry.
So I guess I am trying to figure out, or take in the
theory, not really theory but the things that you are talking
about that is hard to understand and make it to the real world.
So first, Mr. Brett, I will go to you. Can you tell us a
little bit about what your company is doing in the financial
services area? That is where my son is in, in algorithms. He is
in one of the quant guys, I guess, in hedge funds, but how
quantum computing would be an improvement over classical
computing. What difference does this make, I guess? And what is
your firm doing in financial services to be better than what is
currently there?
Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman. The financial services
sector is already a huge user of cloud compute technology. So
they are using immense amounts of computational work, either on
public clouds, like AWS or Microsoft, or their own private
service. And it is important to understand that quantum
computers won't replace classical computers. They will exist
side by side in the cloud. And quantum computers will run some
the algorithms that they are most efficient at. So in a mixed
compute environment of financial services company will run
their daily operation around compliance, portfolio,
optimization, understanding risks, but send some of the
algorithms that are in the program to the quantum computer to
be most efficiently run.
Mr. Guthrie. So what does that do different? In what way?
How is that?
Mr. Brett. So a quantum computer cannot allow us to solve
some particular algorithms that cannot be solved on a classical
machine in a useful timeframe. So we might be able to solve it
over many, many years, or decades even, but what if we need the
answer today? A quantum computer can help give us that speed
advantage.
Mr. Guthrie. So why wouldn't it completely replace the
classical update if it gets to that?
Mr. Brett. It is too expensive, and also, there are some
problems that quantum computers can't do. So quantum computers
aren't particularly good, for example, at addition or
subtraction, so we leave those to classical computers to do
that work, and quantum computers specialize in what they are
good at, which is optimization problems.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. This is a little harder for my mental
capacity to understand something that can't do math, but can do
other things, but simple math, I guess. So I am at addition
subtraction level. I am not an Einstein like my friend, Mr.
Kinzinger.
So Dr. Putman, in your testimony--I am trying to get back
to reality--you did find the problem scarcity as one that
quantum computing could help solve. And how might quantum
computing disrupt traditional models of how resources are
created and distributed in an economy?
Mr. Putman. Thank you, Congressman.
Often, there is an enormous amount of waste in the way that
we currently produce anything. This is not due to humans caring
to produce waste, or a problem with this in general, it is due
to our inability to comprehend and to simulate and to build.
The more precise we are on a molecular level, the better we are
at being able to do that. The examples that I used such as
fertilizer, for instance, or of material science, a classical
computer gets very rough examples of how to actually build
something and understand what is going on molecularly. The more
we are able to do that in ways that quantum computing allows,
the more we can explore the space of possibilities. When we
explore that space and understand it, it gives us a chance to
create it. This just is not possible with humans alone, or with
our classic computing systems. This applies to many areas that
we could go on about.
Mr. Guthrie. OK.
Mr. Putman. But certainly in manufacturing, it creates an
entirely different way of doing manufacturing when we are
precise.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. When we are doing votes in the cloakroom,
I am going to let Adam further explain this to me. So I am
willing to do that moving forward. Thanks.
I understand it is just such a difficult concept for people
not in your space to understand, but it is exciting stuff. I
have about 30 seconds. But Dr. Monroe, I know Dr. Putman
mentioned about qubits, how many in quantum computers. But here
is a question, is what is the signal-to-noise ratio per qubits?
For which I mean, how many qubits does one need for a useful
quantum computer? And of those, how many would actually be
performing calculations?
Mr. Monroe. Ah, thank you for the question. I probably
won't answer it to your liking.
Mr. Guthrie. To my understanding. Probably to my liking,
just not to my understanding.
Mr. Monroe. We don't know yet how many qubits are needed
for something useful that can displace conventional computers.
However, a relatively small number of about 75 or 100 qubits is
enough to show certain, very esoteric and narrow, maybe not
useful, problems can be solved that cannot be solved using
conventional computers. That doesn't mean they are useful. And
so it is sort of a proof of principle, and that is going to
happen very soon. But then the question after that happens,
once we are beyond that milepost, the idea is to find something
useful. And I think the only way to find something useful is to
put these devices in the hands of people that don't know or
care what is inside the devices, sort of like my smartphone. I
don't really want to know what is inside. And to build these
devices, I use the word ``exotic'' a lot; it is exotic hardware
to build these devices. It takes a new generation of engineers.
And it may be that we need hundreds, it may be that we need
thousands or more of these qubits for something useful.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this important hearing. Thank you to our panelists today for
being here. From what I can tell, all of you clearly believe in
the future of quantum computing, that is great. Still, there
are some very smart people out there who are skeptical that
quantum computing won't ever become a practical reality. They
say for instance that quantum computers are too unstable and
error-prone to be harnessed for real world problem-solving.
Dr. Franklin, and anybody else who wants to comment on
this, how do you respond to those skeptics? And what do you see
as the biggest hurdles to a real world application for quantum
computing?
Ms. Franklin. Well, I think that if we made decisions based
on that assumption then we clearly won't build a quantum
computer. And if we are wrong, the stakes are far too high,
because other countries will make one, and then they will be
able to decrypt all of the messages--there are so many
advantages, if it can be realized, that we don't want to be the
ones who decide early and then are wrong. And we are making
great strides.
Yes, right now, quantum computers are very small and very
error-prone. And so physicists like Dr. Monroe are working on
making them more stable, larger, longer running. And then there
is the piece in between. It used to be that classical computers
were very large in size, but very few bits and couldn't do very
much. What we could do in the 1980s in supercomputers is on
your smartphone now. And so we don't know what can be done, and
we need to put the resources in to see where we can go, because
the stakes are just too high.
Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Monroe.
Mr. Monroe. I would add on to that, I think, the question
the same technology we used to build quantum computers is also
used for quantum communication and quantum sensors. And these
are real-world applications that can be and are deployed right
now.
On the sensor side, the ability to detect signals remotely,
the optical techniques, or to detect mass, which means if you
are underwater, you need to know where you are to navigate. If
you are exploring for oil, you need to know what is underneath
the rock. Is it oil? Is it water? Those sensors, the limiting
signal to noise in those sensors is given by quantum mechanics,
we actually exceed those seemingly fundamental limits, in some
cases. I mention this because that same type of technology is
used in quantum computers. I do believe that quantum computers
are most disruptive of all these technologies, but along the
path toward that, there will be other spinoffs.
Quantum communication is largely photonic, optics as we
communicate now over long distance. You can also do this with
single particles of light, photons. And photons can--these are
wonderful quantum bits that can be used for quantum computing
in some cases, but they can also be used to send data in ways
that are hack-proof. If somebody tries to observe it, they
change it, they can cut the line always, they destroy your
communication, but they can't intercept it and understand it.
So what does that have to do with quantum computing? If you are
going to build a big quantum computer, it is going to be a
network. It is going to have optics that fiberize little
modules on a computer. None of this hardware really exists
today to couple those photons to quantum memories in qubits. I
would hang my hat on quantum computing being the most
disruptive of all of them, but along the way many other
technologies related.
Mr. Kennedy. Dr. Franklin, you started to get into
something that I wanted to ask--have got about 1 minute and 15
seconds left or so--encryption and the application of quantum
computing to encryption and the potential for it to render in
encryption obsolete. Can you talk me through that and what is
the reality of that?
Ms. Franklin. Yes, so encryption is all based on the idea
that doing one operation is much harder than undoing it. It is
a lot easier to multiply two numbers than it is to divide or
factor a number. And so there is a quantum computing algorithm
that actually takes a lot this and so that is not one of the
near-term applications, but that makes it so that factoring the
very numbers that are used to create those keys that are
required to encrypt and decrypt, can be broken down very easily
to their components, and their components are necessary to
decrypt. And so if we get a quantum computer of that size, we
are going to have to figure out completely new encryption
algorithms that use mathematical functions that a quantum
computer cannot do quickly.
Mr. Kennedy. And is that time horizon, can you put a time
horizon that actually takes a lot on that.
Ms. Franklin. Chris?
Mr. Monroe. So this factoring problem, it is among the
hardest out of there. You probably need tens of thousands of
qubits, quanta bits and millions, or more, maybe even billions
of operations. I will say, however, the problem is so important
that you need to know--you don't want a quantum computer just
to break messages. You want to know when one exists, that
impacts how you encrypt now. We are talking political time
scale, so if a computer exists in 30 years, that could impact
how you encrypt things now, so you may want to be ahead of the
game and change the encryption standards based on when a
quantum computer will exists, and it is very, very hard to
predict 30 years in the future what technology will bring us.
Mr. Kennedy. If you can predict what is going to happen
tomorrow, we should hang out more. Thanks very much. I yield
back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. I will be as brief as I can to get everyone else
in.
Mr. Brett, in your testimony, you identify three classes of
applications that are possible in the near term, and I know you
talked about these earlier.
Can you briefly explain why you expect those to be the most
possible in the near term?
Mr. Brett. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
With the earliest quantum computers, like the type that
Chris Monroe is building at the moment, the first versions of
these won't have error correction on them. And so the kind of
applications that we can build need to able to accommodate
errors and the potential imprecisions that come along with
that. And so the kind of applications that are best suited to
early stage quantum computers are those which are the most
tolerant or resilient to error. And those are things like
optimization problems, working with chemical simulation and
machine-learning-type problems because the kind of algorithms
we run on there are based on probabilities. And so we already
get a probabilistic-type answer from classical computers out of
that, and a quantum computer best matches what is possible
there.
So the early stage applications are those that are more
probabilistic, more resilient to error. And then, as the
computers become more capable and better, we will be able to
take on the harder type problems that require error correction
around that.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you.
This next question is for the panel. Will quantum computers
be something that anyone can use, which is important, or will
it require a highly sensitive operating environment, such as
that only a handful would be able to operate?
Why don't we start from over here, from afar, please.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Congressman.
It has to be something that has user interfaces that are
possible for everyone in order for it to be incredibly
relevant. The physics and the hardware behind it, just like the
hardware and the physics behind everything else we do, will
have a lot of specialists involved with it. But it is important
for us, it is a challenge and important for us that this is
something that is in the hands of anybody.
So I think absolutely.
Mr. Bilirakis. So it is not going to require additional
training or anything like that----
Mr. Putnam. Well, only to the extent that everything we do
requires some amount of training until it becomes so
commonplace that it becomes natural.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
If you could comment on that, please.
Mr. Monroe. Sure. Thank you for the question. I will be
very brief.
I think the answer is it will be very much like current
computers. The use of current computers to program in certain
languages takes some training. It will be a different type of a
language.
But the fact that there are individual atoms in the device
at the end of the wire will be lost on the user, and it should
be. They don't need to know that. They need to know the rules,
the programming language, and what it can solve.
So I think the answer will be affirmative.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good.
Ms. Franklin. Yes. I think there are sort of three levels.
One is the hardware. We are seeing quantum cloud computation,
so I think it is likely that you won't buy one and maybe have
it in your pocket. But at least the cloud resources will be
there.
And as a user, you may not even know that you are using a
quantum algorithm. The services that you use will have
programmers who have made a combination of quantum algorithms
and classical algorithms and send that computation to the
cloud. When you do a Google search, something like a hundred
programs respond off for that one search to figure out, is it
an airline, is it a mathematical--all these different things.
In terms of the ability to program it, that is where the
most work has to come in. Right now, the amount of expertise
needed to program these is insane. It is a high level of
expertise. But that is how it was when the first women
programmers were given a spec of the first computer and said,
``Here. Program this,'' right?
They did it from the hardware. That is essential where we
are. It is very tied to the hardware. So we need to figure out
what are those abstractions that are still useful computingwise
but also understandable to people who are the current level of
a traditional computer scientist or even an application
developer.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good.
Please.
Mr. Brett. Thank you for the question.
I fully agree with my fellow panelists that we believe that
you shouldn't need to have a degree in quantum physics to
program a quantum computer. And so that is exactly what we are
doing at QxBranch, is building the software that enables
regular software engineers and computer scientists to create
applications and to do so without needing to know the
intricacies of what exactly is happening down at the molecular
scale.
I will also point out that quantum computing is already
becoming accessible. So, in the cloud today, IBM, for example,
have released a quantum computer that we can all access. It is
at IBM.com/quantum. We can go there this afternoon, do a short
course on quantum computing programming, and start to build up
that knowledge and understanding of what is possible and start
to build those skills for the future.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, thank you for continuing to put before us in
our hearings some very provocative thoughts and through this
disrupter series. We have dealt with, over the past 2 years,
some very curious and innovative and, for me, as one of two
engineers in Congress, exciting possibilities where we might go
with this. So I am fascinated with it, but I am also--I am
sorry that the other side of the aisle didn't show up today.
But I was curious to hear more of what Kennedy was talking
about, the skepticism, because when I looked a little into
that, there is some skepticism. And one of the articles I was
reading a couple days ago had to do with reliability of the
results.
So I know from doing my own engineering calculation that we
can--at the end of the day, we know whether that result makes
sense. But what happens when we use quantum computing if we
get--and I think, Monroe, I think you might have said if they
are error prone, do we rely on the result? How do we question
it? If we are relying on our computers to give us the answer
and then we get the answer, how do we know it is wrong? Or how
do we know it is right because of all the variables that you
have all talked about here?
Do you want to answer that?
Mr. Monroe. Yes. Thank you for the question. A very good
one.
I think it speaks to the--so far, the limited research of
what a quantum computer is useful for. There exist problems,
like the factoring problem; you can easily check it. Fifteen is
equal to five times three. When that 15 is a huge number, you
can't do it using regular computers, but you can multiply your
answer together to check and see if it worked.
Mr. McKinley. Talk about encryption.
Mr. Monroe. Yes. If you can factor large numbers, you can
break the popular types of encryption algorithms out there now.
And if you think you have a code breaker, you can check it
quickly.
And so almost all applications of quantum computers, they
are either checkable against some standard, or they could be
better than any classical approach. Say, for instance, in the
financial market or some logistics problem where there is a
cost function, it is in real dollars, and you are trying to
minimize the cost subject to an uncountable number of
constraints and configurations of the marketplace, for
instance.
Well, if your quantum computer comes up with a result that
has lower costs than any conventional computer could compute,
then you found a different solution.
Mr. McKinley. OK. A couple quick points here to follow back
up.
I can see there is a lot more--again, fascinating. I want
to read more. This whole idea has triggered me to do a little
bit more research in this as well.
But let's talk about the timetables. Right now, yes, some
elementary units are out there. But what is the metric? Where
is the goal? Where do we want to achieve? And how do we know
whether we are there? And, secondly with that, what is the role
of Congress on this?
Is this just more money into research? You talk about
building plants or facilities so that we could build these
qubits? Is this what it is? What role is government?
Mr. Monroe. Well, thank you for the question.
Again, I mentioned the idea of a national quantum
initiative and the crux of that initiative is to establish,
indeed, a small number of hub laboratories. They are not new
buildings.
Mr. McKinley. These are hub zones or hub lab--yes.
Mr. Monroe. Yes. Quantum innovation laboratories. They
could be at existing university, Department of Energy, or
Department of Defense laboratories, collaborations with
industry, hubs where students and industrial players are all in
the same sandpit.
And each of these hubs--there will be a small number of
them--they would focus on a very particular aspect of quantum
information or sensing or quantum computing. Maybe develop
particular brand of qubit, for instance.
And the point here is to foster the generation, a new
generation, of engineers in that particular technology.
Industry will be able to connect more vitally with the
university and a potential workforce. Students could have ----
Mr. McKinley. Are we trying to develop a standard qubit?
Mr. Monroe. I think it is too early to do that now. I think
we have several different technologies, and they will probably
all find different uses. Sort of like now we have a CPU on a
computer. We have memory. There are all kinds of different
components, different hardwares that are good for different
things. And we will probably see that in quantum as well.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Again, what is the timetable?
Ms. Franklin. Well, I think it depends on the application.
Encryption might be 30 years off. But we have got 50 qubit
machines now that are growing. And so these near-term
applications, like optimization, are on the horizon, maybe 5
years. The hardware is coming along very quickly. I think
that--and some software, but this is the first I have heard of
a software company. I am very excited.
But that middleware. There is software that needs to be
created that makes it so that algorithms that assume perfect
hardware can be modified to use this near-term hardware so that
we don't have to wait as long and can help close that gap
between the assumptions of the software and the realities of
the hardware.
Dr. McKinley. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And the
chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you for being here. It is a
fascinating subject. I was a surgeon before, so I am kind of a
scientist. I am interested in this. My daughter is sophomore at
Cornell in computer science. So she is, obviously.
I am going to take a little different pathway here on
questioning and stay away from the technical stuff and go
toward research funding. And I was on a committee before that
had jurisdiction over National Science Foundation. I am from
Indiana. I went to all the universities and talked to the NSF
funded researchers. And the one thing that I found is--first of
all, I support that, right? I am a big supporter of research.
One thing I found is, if I said, ``Hey, tell me why what you
are doing should continue to get funding from the National
Science Foundation.'' Just a simple question, right? I found
probably 90 percent of the people that I spoke to couldn't, in
a really tight way, explain that. And for me, they can explain
it in complex way. And I am like, ``Oh, yes. I get it.''
But people like me have to explain this to 700,000 people
that we represent in a way that if we are going to justify
Federal dollars and taxpayer dollars, we have to be able to
give a so-called elevator speech and say--and one example, I
think this is 4 or 5 years ago that was kind of in the press
was about a funded researcher--and this is not a criticism--
that was having seniors play video games. And so it got in the
press, and people said, ``Well, why would you fund that?''
Well, as it turns out, it was Alzheimer's research. You see
what I am saying? And very valid, very important research. But
to try to explain that, when it is written in a line,
government funds video game; having people be better video game
players doesn't play very well, and so people like me have a
hard time explaining that.
So I guess what I am getting at is--and I guess this will
be primarily for the people from the universities--is what is
your pitch for more funding for quantum computing? That is
something, you have already explained it to me, and I get it.
But if we are going to explain it to the broader Members of
Congress and our constituents, how do we explain that, why we
should do that?
Does that make sense?
Mr. Monroe. Yes, it does. Thank you for the question,
Congressman.
Yes. I did speak at length about these very targeted type
hubs. And it should be sort of self-evident what these are
about. They are developing technology. They are more technology
centers.
But there must be an undercurrent of foundational research,
and this is something the National Science Foundation, they are
a very special agency in that regard. Fundamental research is
very inefficient, and we can never tell what is around the
corner. And you can never predict what is going to hit and
what----
Mr. Bucshon. Yes. You don't know what you don't know,
right?
Mr. Monroe. Yes. That is right.
And as the Science Foundation takes all-comers and they
will have to play an important role in any national quantum
initiative in the future, because there may be quantum
technologies that don't exist now. And maybe in 10 years, due
to some surprise and some weirdo material, we see that, oh,
they behave as wonderful qubits.
So, again, it is too bad that it is inefficient, but the
home runs are far reaching, and this field will probably rely
on those in the coming decades.
Mr. Bucshon. Dr. Franklin.
Ms. Franklin. Yes. It depends on how long you are in the
elevator. I think the pitch for quantum computers starts with
the killer apps of drug design for Alzheimer's, right? It is
projected that 40 percent of the Medicaid budget is going to go
toward Alzheimer's by 2040.
So, these are real problems. And if we could model the
molecules and figure out exactly how nitrogen gets fixed and
put into fertilizer, we could have much lower energy, food
production. And so these are big deals, right? And those are
things that can't be done with classical computing.
Then the next step is you have to tie the researchers to
those problems. And that is what sometimes researchers aren't
good at conveying. But that is why I do think that the calls--
we are at the cusp of commercialization, and it might be an
appropriate time for even the NSF funding to be looking at the
broader impacts more. So our group is making tools that
everyone can use, and so that is something that we can hang on
to, right?
Mr. Bucshon. OK. The other thing I am interested in is
technology transfer, obviously, because that is, as you know, a
huge problem, not only in this area but across the research
fields. What percentage of research goes, that is probably
potentially commercially useful. It just goes into a black
hole.
And I know I am short on time, but maybe, Mr. Brett, you
can comment, how we can do better on technology transfer
because it is a pretty big problem, really.
Mr. Brett. Thank you, Congressman.
And we agree. As a small business that is looking to
commercialize some of these innovations, how do we get access
to some of the great work that is being done at the
universities and to incorporate that?
Mr. Bucshon. Because it is proprietary, right, sometimes?
That is some of the problem maybe, right? People are willing--
if they put the research out there, they are worried somebody
will steal it, so to speak, right?
Mr. Brett. An approach that has been particularly
successful for us is being able to partner with universities on
research grants and so for--as an R&D business to also
participate in the collaboration of that research and
contribute to the science and the publication around that and
share some of that intellectual property on a joint project
together. And I think that that cross between the commercial
sector and the research sector working together on funded
proposals will enable a lot of that technology transfer.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. My time is up.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Well, the gentleman yields back.
And I first want to thank our panel for being here today.
One of the great things about serving on this committee and
because we do have such wide jurisdiction, I always say it is
like looking over the horizon 5 to 10 years, that we hear it
here first. And we want to make sure that our nation is on that
cutting edge.
And I am going to say something about some of our folks
that were asking questions. They were a little bit on the
modest side. I have a former Air Force pilot, a West Point
grad, an engineer, and cardiothoracic surgeon over here. So
they are not limited in knowledge.
But what you gave us today was very, very informative
because, again, we have to make sure that, as we go forward as
a committee, that we are making the right decisions as we go
on.
And the gentlelady also would like to make a comment too.
So I just want to thank you all. But I will finish up the
ending, but I will let the gentlelady right now.
Ms. Schakowksy. Thank you.
China is building a $10 billion quantum lab right now. And
they expect to be finished by 2020. And the EU is investing
about $2 billion in advanced quantum technology. So I think one
of the answers in terms of why we should be serious about
making investments may be decryption is--and encryption is--
some decades away. But from a national security perspective, I
think that there are a lot of reasons that we should take this
seriously and make the investments. And, of course, all the
practical things about agriculture and pharmaceuticals, et
cetera, is very, very important, disease cures.
But it seems to me that, despite maybe some skepticism,
there is enough evidence right now that really ought to be an
important priority. So I just want to thank you very much. You
really did enlighten me.
Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
And seeing that we have no further members that are going
to be asking questions today, pursuant to committee rules, I
remind members that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses
submit their responses within 10 business days upon receipt of
questions.
And, without objection, the subcommittee will stand
adjourned.
Thank you very much for attending today.
[Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
before the subcommittee today to discuss quantum computing and
your work in the field. Part of our job at the Energy and
Commerce Committee is to explore ideas and issues that have the
potential to radically alter the way Americans work and live.
Our Disrupter Series allows us to spotlight the emerging
technologies that might one day fundamentally change the status
quo. Quantum computing is just one such innovation that is
still on the cutting edge of development.
Quantum computers could one day revolutionize materials
simulation, data analysis, medicine, machine learning,
communications, and countless other fields. At the same time,
challenges remain to the development of quantum computers
because of their complex and unique operational needs.
Nevertheless, the race is on and the stakes are high. The
U.S. is locked in competition with China, Russia, and Europe to
develop a practical and commercially available quantum
computer.
Research into this promising technology is happening across
the country. America's universities are leading the way, with
advanced research taking place at dozens of institutions
nationwide.
One such effort is at my alma mater, the University of
Oregon, where Nobel-prize winning physicist David Wineland and
other members of the physics department are wrestling with this
complex project. Just last month it was announced that
researchers from U of O, along with those from Duke, UC
Berkley, MIT, Johns Hopkins, and others, have received funding
from the U.S. Army Reserve Office to help develop quantum
technologies. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://edgylabs.com/lsu-receives-federal-grant-to-develop-
quantum-technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind-bending ideas inherent to the physics of quantum
computing are difficult to grasp.
Particles that exist in multiple states simultaneously--
light and matter existing as both particle and wave; entangled
atoms that can share their physical connection even when
separated across the universe --these are complicated topics.
As the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr has been quoted as
saying, ``Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not
understood it.''
This makes it all the more remarkable that efforts to
harness these principles for widespread use are well underway.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how far we
have come in developing a practical quantum computer, and how
far we have yet to go.
The experts before us today will help the committee gain a
better understanding of the complicated physics that underlie
these efforts, and how important it is that America remains at
the forefront of this innovation.
The entrepreneurial spirit of the United States has no
equal. Here at the Energy and Commerce Committee, it is our
goal to support U.S. innovation and the jobs and economic
growth produced as a result. Every day, American innovators
accomplish things that were previously thought unimaginable.
I thank the witnesses for your time today, and the
important work you are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
I do not pretend to understand some of the concepts at the
core of quantum computing. It is reassuring to me that even
Einstein struggled with these ideas.
Fortunately, I do not need to be an expert to understand
that quantum computers may someday be able to perform
calculations far beyond the capacity of even the fastest
supercomputers. I also appreciate that these computers have
great potential to solve many now- unsolvable real world
problems.
The development of life-saving drugs is just one example.
Today, new drug development takes years, produces many false
leads, and costs billions of dollars. A quantum computer could
be used to predict how molecules, proteins, and chemicals
interact with each other and with human cells. The result:
safer more effective drugs, for treating Alzheimer's, cancer,
or opioid addiction, get to market sooner and at more
affordable prices.
The technology has many other promising applications for
agriculture, climate study, financial analysis, supply chain
management, traffic control, and more.
At the same time, quantum computing could open a Pandora's
Box for security, rendering all modern encryption obsolete. In
theory, a quantum computer could someday crack codes in mere
seconds that would take a traditional computer thousands of
years to decipher. That milestone would completely change the
global balance of power.
I am looking forward to learning more from our panelists
about just how theoretical these applications are, and how long
it will take for them to become a reality. Despite dramatic
progress in the past two or three years, there are still major
hurdles to overcome before fully functional quantum computers
are solving real-world problems.
We may not know with certainty when quantum computing will
be a reality. We may not be able to predict all of its
potential uses. We can, however, identify and address current
obstacles to progress. Two clear obstacles are funding and
workforce training.
The federal government must support quantum computing
research as well as basic scientific research. And those
dollars must be continuous and predictable.
We also must be mindful that other countries are investing
heavily in quantum computing and we must stay globally
competitive. China, for instance, is building a 10 billion-
dollar national lab by 2020, and the European Union plans to
invest two billion euros over the next 10 years.
People are just as essential as dollars, but right now
there is a profound gap in education and training. The field
needs more computer scientists, mathematicians, and engineers
with a solid grasp of quantum mechanics. Undergraduate and
graduate programs that combine these disciplines, however, are
rare. And students of all ages must be exposed to the
principles of quantum computing from an early age all the way
through graduate programs. We are fortunate to have Professor
Diana Franklin here today to speak to the education and
training gaps. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from her
and all of our witnesses.
----------
[all]