[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE: EXPLORING THE
NEXT FRONTIERS IN ENERGY
RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
January 15, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-913 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
JERRY McNERNEY, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
January 15, 2020
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lizzie Fletcher, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written statement............................................ 13
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 14
Witness:
Dr. Chris Fall, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Discussion....................................................... 20
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Chris Fall, Director, Office of Science, U.S. Department of
Energy......................................................... 40
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE: EXPLORING THE
NEXT FRONTIERS IN ENERGY RESEARCH
AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lizzie
Fletcher [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time. Good afternoon, and welcome to our first Energy
Subcommittee hearing of 2020 entitled, ``The Department of
Energy's Office of Science: Exploring the Next Frontiers in
Energy Research and Scientific Discovery.'' I'm glad to be here
today as the new Chair of the Energy Subcommittee, and I'm
looking forward to leading us through an important and busy
year of hearings and legislative action to help provide clean,
reliable, and secure energy resources and services for every
American, and for the world.
We're here today to discuss the role of the Office of
Science at the Department of Energy (DOE) in fulfilling this
mission. The Office of Science is the Nation's premiere Federal
agency that supports research in the physical sciences for
energy and other applications. It oversees 10 of DOE's 17
national labs, and it houses 6 program offices, focused on
everything from advanced computing and material science to
biological and nuclear physics research. It is also the home of
DOE's work on climate modeling.
The Office of Science plays a critical role in our fight
against climate change. It is uniquely positioned to help us
reach our shared goals of developing energy that is clean,
sustainable, reliable, and affordable. This is no small task.
We need everyone working together to achieve this goal, and to
do so as quickly as possible. That's why it is essential that
we invest our shared resources in this research, and that we
identify and enable the critical research that we need to
invest in.
In order to develop effective solutions, we need to start
with the science. The Office of Science supports a wide range
of research efforts to ask the right questions and find the
best answers, and the Office of Science has an important role
to play in the advancement of the physical sciences as well. In
the past year, scientists and researchers supported by this
Office have contributed to the development of nanoscale cancer
treatments that provide targeted drug delivery, a Dark Energy
Survey that will help answer fundamental questions about why
our universe is expanding, and algae that can capture and store
carbon dioxide, and those are just a few examples of the
various efforts supported by the Office each and every year.
Collaboration on these issues is critical. It is what I
have witnessed on this Committee time and again, and I've seen
the Office of Science do this successfully. Working with
researchers at Rice University in Houston has led to a
breakthrough way to use imperfections in lithium-ion batteries,
which had typically been expected to degrade battery
performance, to make this important technology perform better
instead. This is just one of many exciting research
collaborations between the Office of Science and the companies
and research institutions that call Houston home. I'm glad Dr.
Fall is here today, and look forward to hearing more about the
recent developments at the Office of Science, and ways that we
can all work together to help it achieve its mission.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Fletcher follows:]
Good afternoon, and welcome to our first Energy
Subcommittee hearing of 2020.
I am glad to be here today as the new Chairwoman of the
Energy Subcommittee and am looking forward to leading us
through an important and busy year of hearings and legislative
action to help provide clean, reliable, and secure energy
resources and services for every American--and for the world.
We are here today to discuss the role of the Office of
Science at the Department of Energy in fulfilling this mission.
The Office of Science is the nation's premier federal agency
that supports research in the physical sciences for energy and
other applications. It oversees ten of DOE's seventeen national
labs, and it houses six program offices focused on everything
from advanced computing and materials science to biological and
nuclear physics research. It is also the home of DOE's work on
climate modeling.
The Office of Science plays a critical role in our fight
against climate change. It is uniquely positioned to help us
reach our shared goals of developing energy that is clean,
sustainable, reliable, and affordable. This is no small task.
We need everyone working together to achieve this goal, and to
do so as quickly as possible. That is why it is essential that
we invest our shared resources in this research and that we
identify and enable the critical research we need to invest in.
In order to develop effective solutions, we need to start
with the science. The Office of Science supports a wide range
of research efforts to ask the right questions and to find the
best answers.
And the Office of Science has an important role to play in
the advancement of the physical sciences as well. In the past
year, scientists and researchers supported by this office have
contributed to the development of nanoscale cancer treatments
that provide targeted drug delivery, a Dark Energy Survey that
will help answer fundamental questions about why our universe
is expanding, and algae that can capture and store carbon
dioxide. And those are just a few examples of the various
efforts supported by this Office each and every year.
Collaboration on these issues is critical. It is what I
have witnessed on this committee time and again. And I've seen
the Office of Science do this successfully. Working with
researchers at Rice University in Houston has led to a
breakthrough way to use imperfections in lithium-ion batteries,
which had typically been expected to degrade battery
performance, to make this important technology perform better
instead. This is just one of many exciting research
collaborations between the Office of Science and the companies
and research institutions that call Houston their home.
I am glad Dr. Fall is here today and look forward to
hearing more about recent developments at the Office of
Science, and ways that we can work together to help it achieve
its mission.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. I will now recognize Ranking Member
Weber for an opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and
congratulations, I think, on getting appointed to this
Committee. You may have second thoughts about it after a while,
but we're glad you're here. We appreciate you hosting this
hearing, and thank you, Dr. Fall, for being here this
afternoon. I'm excited to hear about the critical work being
performed at the Department of Energy, DOE's, Office of
Science. As we know, DOE is the largest Federal sponsor of
basic research in the physical sciences. This Committee's
jurisdiction includes all of DOE's civilian research, including
almost $13 billion, with a B, in research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application programs, as well as
the Department's 17 national labs, which amounts to about one
third of DOE's total budget. As Ranking Member of the Energy
Subcommittee, I take great pride in this responsibility, and I
believe that one of the most important pieces, if not the most
important piece, of our portfolio is the DOE Office of Science.
That's why I'm a little surprised, quite frankly, that this
Congress this is the first hearing we've had held on this
agency, especially since the Office of Science is a $7 billion,
with a B, dollar program that represents actually more than
half of this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Instead, last year we had many hearings on advanced
renewable energy technologies, from solar and wind, to
sustainable transportation, to geothermal and hydropower. Now,
while I'm very supportive of these technologies, I think we can
all agree that there's one key weakness that they have in
common, one that industry will never address. In order for
these technologies to truly provide reliable and affordable
grid scale electricity across these United States, they will
require access to next generation energy storage materials and
technologies. To meet this need, strong and strategic support
for basic research in material science and computing through
the Office of Science is absolutely critical. And that's just
one example of the importance of this agency's work.
In the past few decades, research conducted through the
Office of Science has led to monumental discoveries in material
science in computing, in fundamental physics, and biological
sciences, and has enabled the development of innovative energy
technology. Each DOE lab has made invaluable contributions to
U.S. scientific progress, and they have repeatedly demonstrated
that basic science research is the most effective way to
encourage that innovation. Additionally, the unique open access
user facilities at these Office of Science labs provides our
Nation's researchers with the most cutting-edge tools of modern
science, like advanced light sources, particle accelerators,
and the two fastest supercomputers in the entire world. Each
year thousands of researchers from academia, other Federal
agencies, and U.S. industry partners, from Fortune 500
companies, to even small businesses, rely on those DOE
facilities to perform new scientific research and develop those
new technologies.
Thanks to the Office of Science and its decades of
excellent work, the United States is the world leader in basic
science research and technological development. But even as we
speak, other countries, for example China, are making
significant investments in science and threatening our global
leadership. The Department's continued investment in basic and
early-stage research is vital, absolutely vital, to the
maintenance of our technological edge. By investing wisely in
this research, the Department can achieve its goal of
scientific discovery and technological breakthrough for our
future generations.
DOE must also invest in facility upgrades, and basic
infrastructure that attracts and retains the best scientists in
the world right here at home. I look forward to hearing from
Dr. Fall about his plans to address these issues. I also look
forward to hearing from Dr. Fall about DOE's ongoing
implementation of several key pieces of bipartisan Science
Committee legislation that was signed into law last Congress,
in fact, including the DOE Research and Innovation Act, and the
National Quantum Initiative Act. When basic research is the
priority of Federal support, everyone has the opportunity to
access these fundamental knowledge that can lead to the
development of those future energy technologies.
I'd like to take a moment to thank my friends across the
aisle for holding this hearing. I'm pleased to see, especially
with our new Chairwoman, that we're starting off the new year
on the right foot by focusing on this key aspect of our
jurisdiction. I'm going to thank Dr. Fall for being here today,
and, a point of personal privilege, if I may, Madam Chair, it
turns out that there's a bit of sadness here today because we
are losing one Ms. Emily Domenech, who is sitting behind me.
She has been with our part of the Committee for a long time.
She keeps us on the straight and narrow, and that's a full-time
job. So let's give her a hand. Can we recognize her help? And
with that, Madam Chair, she's red, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, for hosting this hearing,
and thank you Dr. Fall for being here this afternoon. I am
excited to hear about the critical work being performed at the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science.
DOE is the largest Federal sponsor of basic research in the
physical sciences. This Committee's jurisdiction includes all
of DOE's civilian research, including almost $13 billion in
research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application programs, as well as the Department's 17 national
labs. This amount totals one-third of the DOE's budget.
As Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee I take great
pride in this responsibility. And I believe that one of the
most important pieces, if not the most important piece, of our
portfolio is the DOE Office of Science.
That is why I am a little surprised that this Congress,
this is the first hearing we have held on this agency.
Especially since the Office of Science is a $7 billion dollar
program that represents more than half of this Subcommittee's
jurisdiction.
Instead, last year, we had many hearings on advanced
renewable energy technologies from solar and wind, to
sustainable transportation, geothermal and hydropower.
And while I am very supportive of these technologies, I
think we can all agree that there is one key weakness they all
have in common. One that industry will never address.
In order for these technologies to truly provide reliable
and affordable grid-scale electricity across the United States,
they will require access to next generation energy storage
materials and technologies. To meet this need, strong and
strategic support for basic research in materials science and
computing through the Office of Science is critical.
This is just one example of the importance of this agency's
work. In the past few decades, research conducted through the
Office of Science has led to monumental discoveries in
materials science, computing, fundamental physics, and
biological sciences, and has enabled the development of
innovative energy technology.Each DOE lab has made invaluable
contributions to U.S. scientific progress. And they have
repeatedly demonstrated that basic science research is the most
effective way to encourage innovation.
Additionally, the unique, open-access user facilities at
these Office of Science labs provide our nation's researchers
with the most cutting-edge tools of modern science, like
advanced light sources, particle accelerators, and the two
fastest supercomputers in the world. Each year, thousands of
researchers from academia, other Federal agencies, and U.S.
industry partners, from Fortune 500 companies to small
businesses, rely on DOE facilities to perform new scientific
research and develop new technologies.
Thanks to the Office of Science and its decades of
excellent work, the United States is the world leader in basic
science research and technological development.
But even as we speak, other countries, like China, are
making significant investments in science and threatening our
global leadership.
The Department's continued investment in basic and early-
stage research to vital to the maintenance of our technology
edge.
By investing wisely in this research, the Department can
achieve its goal of scientific discovery and technological
breakthroughs for future generations. DOE must also invest in
the facility upgrades and basic infrastructure that attracts
and retains the best scientists in the world here at home. I
look forward to hearing from Dr. Fall about his plans to
address these issues.
I also look forward to hearing from Dr. Fall about DOE's
ongoing implementation of several key pieces of bipartisan
Science Committee legislation that was signed into law last
Congress--including the DOE Research and Innovation Act, and
the National Quantum Initiative Act.
When basic research is the priority of federal support,
everyone has the opportunity to access the fundamental
knowledge that can lead to the development of future energy
technologies.
I'd like to take a moment to thank my friends across the
aisle for holding this hearing. I am pleased to see that we are
starting off the New Year on the right foot by focusing on this
key aspect of our jurisdiction. Thank you again Dr. Fall for
taking the time to be here today.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Weber. And I would now
like to recognize Mr. Lucas for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and today we welcome Dr.
Chris Fall, the Director of the Department of Energy's Office
of Science to discuss the program's priorities for Fiscal Year
2020 and beyond. Before he joined the Office of Science in
2019, Dr. Fall served as the Acting Director of the Advanced
Research Project Agencies--Energy, ARPA-E, near and dear to
many of our hearts. These are two DOE programs where I'm
pleased to say the Science Committee has found a lot of
bipartisan agreement over the years. I look forward to carrying
on that tradition this Congress, and I would like to thank Dr.
Fall for his work.
DOE is a world leader in technology development and
scientific innovation. Through the Office of Science, the
Department funds robust research programs across the scientific
disciplines, from material science and mathematical modeling,
to fusion energy science, and the study of neutrinos.
Discoveries made through the Office of Science are the force
behind the development of next generation energy technologies.
They are the cornerstone of our clean energy future. If we are
serious about the climate issues we discussed this morning,
then we should equally be serious about our support for this
agency and bold investments in basic research. The Science
Committee has jurisdiction over all of the Office of Science
research and development activities, and its 10 DOE national
laboratories, which total $7 billion in annual spending at DOE.
This afternoon our discussion with Dr. Fall will focus on the
programs within this critical jurisdiction.
This Committee has consistently supported robust funding
for the Office of Science. In particular, its basic energy
sciences, high energy physics, advanced scientific computing
research, and fusion energy sciences programs have long
received bipartisan support from this Committee. For example,
Committee Members on both sides of the aisle have steadily
supported full funding for the U.S. contributions to ITER, a
high-priority fusion energy experiment funded through the
Office of Science. I was pleased to see the Fiscal Year 2020
appropriations package included enough funding to maintain our
participation in this world-leading international research
collaboration. Fusion is the next generation scientific
frontier, and with the potential to produce near limitless zero
emission power for centuries.
Another one of our great areas of bipartisan agreement is
the Advanced Scientific Computer Research (ASCR) Program, one
of the Science Office's top priority programs. ASCR supports
the Department's goal of completing the world's first exascale
computing system. Exascale systems will perform one billion
calculations per second, and developing one is critical to
enabling scientific discovery, strengthening national security,
and promoting U.S. industrial competitiveness thanks to DOE's
targeted investments. The United States now hosts the top two
fastest supercomputers in the world: Summit at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Sierra at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory; and the Department is on track to reach exascale by
2021.
As other countries, like China, race to develop exascale
systems of their own, DOE's continued strong support of
advanced computing is essential to the maintenance of U.S.
leadership in this field. In order to support innovation in
next-generation science, DOE must also invest in research
infrastructure and cross-cutting research initiatives with
other Federal agencies. This includes Office of Science
initiatives in critical research areas like quantum information
science and artificial intelligence, as well as key investments
in our Nation's light resources and neutron resources.
I want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher for holding this
hearing, and Dr. Fall for his testimony today. I look forward
to a productive and valuable discussion. Our twin goals of
addressing today's climate challenges with affordable, reliable
clean energy solutions, and ensuring that the United States
remains a world leader in science and energy technology for
years to come, while we continue our shared commitment to
prioritize basic research supported by this critical agency.
And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Today we welcome Dr. Chris Fall, the Director of the
Department of Energy's Office of Science to discuss the
program's priorities for fiscal year 2020 and beyond.
Before he joined the Office of Science in 2019, Dr. Fall
served as Acting Director of the Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy (ARPA-E). These are two DOE programs where, I am
pleased to say, the Science Committee has found a lot of
bipartisan agreement over the years. I look forward to carrying
on that tradition this Congress and I would like to thank Dr.
Fall for his work.
DOE is a world leader in technology development and
scientific innovation. Through the Office of Science, the
Department funds robust research programs across the scientific
disciplines--from materials science and mathematical modeling
to fusion energy science and the study of neutrinos.
Discoveries made through the Office of Science are the
force behind the development of nextgeneration energy
technologies. They are the cornerstone of our clean energy
future. If we are serious about the climate issues we discussed
this morning, then we should be equally serious about our
support for this agency and bold investments in basic research.
The Science Committee has jurisdiction over all of the
Office of Science research and development activities and its
10 DOE National Laboratories--which totals $7 billion in annual
spending at DOE. This afternoon, our discussion with Dr. Fall
will focus on programs within this critical jurisdiction.
This Committee has consistently supported robust funding
for the Office of Science.
In particular, its Basic Energy Sciences, High Energy
Physics, Advanced Scientific Computing Research, and Fusion
Energy Sciences programs have long received bipartisan support
from this Committee.
For example, Committee members on both sides of the aisle
have steadily supported full funding for U.S. contributions to
the ITER project, a high priority fusion energy experiment
funded through the Office of Science. I was pleased to see that
the fiscal year 2020 appropriations package included enough
funding to maintain our participation in this worldleading
international research collaboration. Fusion is the next great
scientific frontier--with the potential to produce near-
limitless, zero emission power for centuries.
Another one of our great areas of bipartisan agreement is
for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program,
one of the Office of Science's top priority programs. ASCR
supports the Department's goal of completing of the world's
first exascale computing system.
Exascale systems will perform one billion, billion
calculations per second and developing one is critical to
enabling scientific discovery, strengthening national security,
and promoting U.S. industrial competitiveness. Thanks to DOE's
targeted investments, the United States now hosts the top two
fastest supercomputers in the world--Summit at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, and Sierra at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. And the Department is on track to reach exascale by
2021. As other countries like China race to develop exascale
systems of their own, DOE's continued strong support of
advanced computing is essential to maintain U.S. leadership in
this field.
In order to support innovation in next-generation science,
DOE must also invest in research infrastructure and cross-
cutting research initiatives with other Federal agencies.
This includes Office of Science initiatives in critical
research areas like quantum information science and artificial
intelligence, as well as key investments in our nation's light
sources and neutron sources.
I want to thank Chairwoman Fletcher for holding this
hearing and Dr. Fall for his testimony today. I look forward to
a productive and valuable discussion. Our twin goals of
addressing today's climate challenges with affordable and
reliable clean energy solutions, and ensuring that the United
States remains a world leader in science and energy technology
for years to come, require that we continue our shared
commitment to prioritize basic research supported by this
critical agency.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas, for
that opening statement. If there are other Members who would
like to submit additional opening statements, your statements
will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you Chairwoman Fletcher for holding this hearing
today, and I would also like to thank Dr. Fall for being here.
The Department of Energy's Office of Science is actually
the largest supporter of research in the physical sciences in
the country, and it operates more than 30 national scientific
user facilities whose applications go well beyond energy
innovation. Our nation's top researchers from industry,
academia, and other federal agencies use these facilities to
examine everything from new materials that will better meet our
military's needs, to new pharmaceuticals that will better treat
disease, to even examining the fundamental building blocks of
the universe. I believe that this stewardship of unique
scientific research, including the nation's major national user
facilities, is an important role that I hope the Department
will continue to make one of its highest priorities.
Now, while this Office supports many critical research
programs and facilities, I would like to take this opportunity
to briefly talk about your role in fostering fusion energy
research and, specifically, the ITER international fusion
project. I was pleased that back in 2018, the President signed
into law the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act,
which I was proud to sponsor with the Committee's Chairman at
the time, Mr. Smith. That law requires the Office of Science
Director to, among other things, establish an innovative
concepts program as well as an inertial fusion energy program
to further pursue breakthrough ideas that, thus far, had no
real home in the Department's research portfolio. I hope that
you are already taking steps to finally address this important
legislative direction as soon as possible.
I am also quite happy that the President just signed into
law a substantial increase in support for the ITER
international fusion project, which I and Ranking Member Lucas
strongly advocated for. It is crucial that we honor our
commitment to this project, and ensure that we are providing
the funds that the Department of Energy itself determined would
be necessary to maintain its construction schedule and minimize
its total cost to U.S. taxpayers. The completion and operation
of ITER will make major contributions to what we know of fusion
energy today. And if successful, this project could be a huge
game changer in the energy future of not only our nation, but
for humanity as a whole. I hope that the Department's next
budget request finally reflects the support that this project
requires and certainly deserves.
Thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my
time.
At this time I would like to introduce our witness. Of
course, we got a nice preview. As Ranking Member Lucas
mentioned, Dr. Fall is the Director of the Department of
Energy's Office of Science, the lead Federal agency supporting
scientific research for energy applications, and the Nation's
largest supporter of research in the physical sciences. Prior
to his current role, he served as senior advisor to DOE's
Undersecretary for Energy, and as acting director of DOE'S
Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, better known as
ARPA-E. Before coming to DOE he worked in various roles at the
Office of Naval Research, and at the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Fall began his career in
academia, serving as a faculty member at the University of
Illinois, Chicago, in the Bioengineering and Anatomy and Cell
Biology Departments.
Dr. Fall, you will have 5 minutes for your spoken
testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
record of the hearing. When you've completed your spoken
testimony, we'll move on to questions. Each Member will have 5
minutes to ask questions, and we look forward to hearing from
you, and then having an exchange, so your testimony can begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. CHRIS FALL,
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Fall. Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking Member Weber, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of being
here today on behalf of Secretary Brouillette to discuss the
remarkable work being done by the Office of Science at the U.S.
Department of Energy. I've been Director of the Office since my
swearing in at the end of May, and together with the
researchers we support at our laboratories and universities,
and in the private sector, we're working both to discover the
secrets of the physical world, and to bring scientific
discovery to bear on critical needs for energy security,
economic competitiveness, and national security.
I'm lucky to come to the Department of Energy at a special
time of opportunity for American science. The House and the
Senate clearly are aware of the intense landscape of
international competition in research and development, and the
critical importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in science.
With your support, the Office of Science funds tens of
thousands of scientists, students, and technical and
administrative staff. We continue to build some of the most
amazing scientific instruments and open access user facilities
in the world, and to upgrade those that we already have. The
Office of Science is currently beginning work on the Deep
Underground Neutrino Experiment a mile underground in South
Dakota, and astronauts in December just extended the life of
the Alpha-Magnetic Spectrometer orbiting 200 miles above
ground, attached to the International Space Station. We're
upgrading both the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National
Laboratory, and the Advanced Light Source at Berkeley, and
we're building not one, but three game-changing exascale
supercomputers, in conjunction with the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
Just last week we announced the launch of a new effort to
build a game-changing Electron Ion Collider for nuclear
physics, and, while robustly supporting the traditional
physical science mission of the Office of Science, we're in the
process of launching and expanding a number of exciting new
initiatives, including building the Quantum Information Science
Centers as part of the National Quantum Initiative authorized
by Congress, incorporating artificial intelligence and machine
learning into many of the things that we do across the
Department, advancing biotechnology to grow the bioeconomy and
to enhance biosecurity, and other research to promote the
growth of industries of the future now being supported by the
Administration. We collaborate with the best scientists from
around the world in our laboratories and in theirs, and at the
same time we're paying close attention to emerging threats like
misappropriation of intellectual property, and dual use
technology, and we're taking the necessary steps to help
mitigate those threats.
As we strive to push back the frontiers of science, we're
mindful of the need to be the best possible stewards of the
Department's labs and user facilities. Most of the 10 Office of
Science laboratories date to the cold war or earlier. In our
planning, and in our budget requests, we're asking to renew and
refurbish the physical infrastructure of these laboratories in
order to sustain them for the future. It simply would be
irresponsible to build something like a new accelerator or
light source on a foundation of crumbling and unreliable
electricity, water, and other critical infrastructure. So as we
build new capabilities, we must continue to maintain and
modernize our laboratories' basic infrastructure. I hope that
you and your staffers will appreciate this balance that we are
trying to achieve as you evaluate our budget requests.
I'd like to mention in closing that the 2019 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry was awarded to John Goodenough, Stanley Whittingham,
and Akira Yoshino for the development of lithium-ion batteries,
a technology I think we can all agree has essentially changed
our way of life. Both Goodenough and Whittingham are long-time
DOE-supported researchers. For the Department of Energy's
science enterprise, identifying and supporting incredible
talent like these researchers is just one part of the
commitment we have to push back the boundaries of what's
possible. And as amazing as winning even a single Nobel Prize
is, the Department has supported over 100 Nobel Prizes. Because
of the investment the American people make in robust support
for basic research, because of the scope and scale of our
laboratory system and the universities we partner with, and the
remarkable scientists and staff we attract, the amazing happens
each and every day.
So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to share the
DOE leadership team's pride in the people and programs of our
Office of Science and our laboratories. We are in awe every day
of their dedication and their accomplishments, and I'm deeply
honored to be their Director. And with that, I'd like to try to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fall follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you so much, Dr. Fall. We will
begin our first round of questions. I will start, recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
And I thank you for the update, and congratulations to the
entire team. I think we are all impressed by the incredible
work that's being done, and I want to touch on two things you
just talked about in your testimony. First, you mentioned
competitiveness in the current environment, and we know that
the Office of Science's national labs have several world-class
user facilities, including five light sources, two neutron
sources, an array of particle accelerators, the fastest
supercomputer in the world, Summit, which is located at Oak
Ridge National Lab. In terms of the technological capabilities,
power capacity, and access, how do these facilities compare
with competitors around the world, and how do our investments
in these facilities contribute to the U.S.' global leadership
in scientific research?
Dr. Fall. Well, thanks for the question. I'd say they
compare very favorably. Most obviously, supercomputing is the
most famous, where we're sort of strikingly ahead at the
moment, but it's a ``horse race,'' and so it's not a place
where you can let up, you know, your guard. We're developing
new technologies, particularly important are accelerator
technologies, and these are also fundamentally dual use. So
while we're pushing forward the frontiers of science, and the
capabilities of these machines, we're also developing
technologies that are relevant to national security, as are
other countries around the world. We mentioned China earlier.
They are very keen to compete with us not just to have
capabilities, but to attract scientists from around the world,
which is what these world class facilities do. So I'd say we're
in a reasonably good place, but it is a ``horse race.'' Europe,
the United States, China, Japan, it's not so differentiated
when it comes to those key technologies.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, that's helpful. I think the
other topic I definitely want to touch on, in the context of
this ``horse race,'' and this competitive international
environment, there also is an emphasis on international
collaboration, and in your testimony you mention the global
nature of the research conducted at the Office of Science, and
threats of misappropriation of technology that that raises with
the international collaboration. Kind of relating to that
topic, I think one of the things that's going on simultaneously
is that the Administration's been taking steps to restrict U.S.
researchers from participating in some foreign talent
recruitment programs as well.
So I think what would be helpful to us is to understand
what actions the Office of Science has taken in response to
that directive, and also how you can balance the need, or how
you are balancing the need, for protecting against potential
misappropriation, while at the same time participating in the
collaborative international efforts that benefit the American
research enterprise. Can you just talk a little bit about that
to us?
Dr. Fall. Sure. Well, let me start by saying for the
Department of Energy, it's not just the Office of Science. This
has been--the effort to deal with misappropriation of
technology, and foreign talent programs, and other sorts of
behavior we characterize as not in the best scientific and
technological values around the world. We're following the same
guidance from originally the Deputy Secretary, now Secretary
Brouillette. Yes, we've made it clear that if you are a member
of a foreign talent recruitment program, particularly related
to countries at risk, you will not be employed by the
Department of Energy. It's sort of that simple and that
complicated.
Now, at our laboratories we've announced publicly that
we've developed a technology risk matrix of key technologies,
and their relevance to economic and national security, and so
we use that to evaluate how likely we are to collaborate with a
number of foreign partners, particularly those for countries at
risk. That's now a part of our laboratory structure as well--
whether or not we will collaborate in certain technology areas,
and that's where we are right now.
And what we're doing at this point is pausing a little bit
to see what the effect is because, at the end of the day, I
think we all understand that China is a science and technology
juggernaut, and in the long term we're not going to be able to
just close the doors and shut the windows. We're going to have
to find a way to modify behavior and work together in some
areas with the Chinese. So we're looking for a response, and
we're also pausing to allow the interagency to take a breath,
figure out what we've all done, and together--what's more
important than the Department of Energy putting out a new
policy about this, that, or the other aspect of this, it's that
we do all of this together with the other agencies, like the
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense, and
others who fund research. So largely looking inward at our
laboratories and our employees, not yet imposing policies on
the extramural community that we fund at universities and so
forth.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, that's very helpful. And I
just have a little bit of time left. I did also notice in your
testimony that you mentioned the hope of renewing and
refurbishing some of the facilities, so that comment was not
lost, and part of my last question that maybe you can just
touch on throughout the hearing is the ways that we in Congress
can help advance these policy and other initiatives from this
Committee, the things we can do to be helpful to you would be
very useful to us.
So I've now gone over my 5 minutes, and I will recognize
Mr. Weber for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Fall, last week I was
pleased to see that DOE announced the selection of Brookhaven
National Laboratory as the site for the construction of the
electron ion collider, an essential new nuclear physics
research facility. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I
feel strongly that these types of DOE national laboratory user
facilities provide American industry and researchers with the
tools they need to maintain our leadership in science, and
develop new materials and technologies. But some of these
facilities, like the advanced photon source at Argonne National
Lab, and the advanced light source at Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab, are in need of those critical infrastructure
upgrades we talked about. We want them to remain the best in
the world. These are upgrades we pushed for with bipartisan
infrastructural legislation that passed the house last
Congress.
In your prepared testimony you mentioned that the Office of
Science is currently working to upgrade both of these
facilities. Can you give us a status update on both of those
projects, and then what new opportunities they might afford
American researchers, please, sir?
Dr. Fall. Yes. I want to be careful to--I'll circle back
with particular details of dates and so forth, but we've
certainly, for both of those, entered into what we call, in DOE
jargon, CD-3A, which is advance procurement for the kinds of
long lead time things that we need to buy for these facilities.
The magnets, for example, take a long time to build and source,
and other materials like that.
So the projects have gone through our stage gates, and are
on track, and on budget, and we feel both of those are in good
shape. And I do just want to differentiate, as you did, the
projects, which are in great shape, from the underlying labs,
which we still have some work to do on, in terms of the
infrastructure, like electricity, in the case of these
synchrotrons, light sources, that need to be reliable. As you
may have heard, Berkeley National Laboratory, because of the
fires in California, had to shut down twice, at a significant
cost to the taxpayer, because you don't just turn off the
lights at these laboratories, and as far as the current
leadership is aware, it had never shut down before. So twice in
the space of just a couple of months, so the reliability of
multiple power sources, that sort of thing, is kind of
important.
Mr. Weber. And new opportunities it might afford American
researchers?
Dr. Fall. Absolutely. Every time we--so there's the
science, and then there is the technology, and the engineering
that goes into building these amazing machines, and that is--
absolutely, you know, diffuses out from the laboratory complex,
and has wider applicability. Magnetic--I'll just say something
you may know already, that magnetic resonance imaging came out
of the magnets for these facilities, right? I mean, the
original magnet technology led to the development of magnetic
resonance imaging that has changed our lives, and so all sorts
of opportunities.
Mr. Weber. All right. We never know when that next great
discovery is just right around the corner, so this is pretty
exciting stuff. Dr. Fall, last week the DOE announced the
launch of the Energy Storage Grand Challenge, a comprehensive
program that builds on the Administration's Advanced Energy
Storage Initiative to accelerate the development,
commercialization, and the utilization of next generation
energy storage, the technologies that will sustain American
global leadership in that particular area. As director of this
Office of Science, what will you do to support and help make
sure we maintain these initiatives?
Dr. Fall. Thank you for the question. It is a huge
opportunity. As we know, there's phenomenally good penetration
of renewables in our country: Wind, solar, others. The Achilles
heel is grid-scale storage, and so that's why not just the
Office of Science, but the Secretary has directed the whole of
the Department of Energy--this grand challenge is a whole
Department initiative, including at NNSA (National Nuclear
Security Administration), partially. They have less of a role,
but the Applied Offices, and of course the Office of Science,
where we do the fundamental work on batteries, characterizing
batteries, for one, basic material science that feeds into the
applied side for batteries and other modalities as well. So
we're participating fully. Again, it's a whole of department
effort at a very high level. This has the personal attention of
the Secretary.
Mr. Weber. Real quick, in the time I have left, in your
opinion, what basic research programs in the Office of Science
are the most essential to development of that next generation
energy storage technology?
Dr. Fall. Typically energy technologies in general are a
material science problem. Critical materials and material
science, that's what leads to a lot of advances in all sorts of
advanced energy technologies.
Mr. Weber. OK. I thank you, sir, and, Madam Chair, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Weber. I'll now
recognize Mr. Lipinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I'd like to thank the Chairwoman
for holding this hearing today, and thank you Dr. Fall for
being here today. As Director of DOE's Office of Science,
you're responsible for overseeing the Department's Advanced
Scientific Computing Research Program. I think it's more
important now than ever that the Nation's leadership in high
performance computing is maintained because of national
security, economic prosperity, and innovation that are critical
to our country. And I'm proud that the first exascale computer
in the Nation, Aurora, will be built at Argonne National Lab,
which is in my district, but I'm concerned that we're in a
tight global race through the completion of the first exascale
computer in the world. I mean, it could be the first one in the
world if we got there before China does.
So I'd like to ask if you can give an update on the Aurora
project, and discuss the potential for exascale computing, and
the ramifications if we fall behind in this race. And I just
want to say I know Ranking Member Lucas has been there--also
had mentioned exascale computing in his opening.
Dr. Fall. Well, thanks for the question, sir. I think we're
in pretty good shape with the program. I will tell you we're
spending every penny that you apply to this program to move as
quickly as we can. I think we will get there first with the
machines, but there's so much more to high performance
computing than just the machines, and I just want to brag a
little bit that we're covering all of those bases in a way that
we believe that our competitors are not, and that includes the
high speed Internet, interconnects between the generation of
data and the computation on the data, our ESNet. That includes
completely, at the same time we're building these exascale
machines, reworking and modernizing the software stack that
goes into those machines.
And that's a top down, sort of once in a generation
reworking of this to move it from what amounts to cottage
industry scientific computing to using the best software
development tools, and cross-disciplinary libraries for
computation, and that sort of thing. So there's a lot more to
it than just the machines. We still think we're going to get
there first on the machines. And, again, we're spending every
dollar that you appropriate----
Mr. Lipinski. So are you saying you need more? More money?
Dr. Fall. I can't--no, I wouldn't say that. I'd say we're
just right where we want to be. But we're spending every dollar
that you give us.
Mr. Lipinski. No, go ahead, say you need more money. I'd be
happy to hear you say it. So Aurora and other DOE
supercomputers are just part of the Department's work in
artificial intelligence (AI), and I know that the
Administration has taken steps to improve coordination on AI,
but I believe that these coordination efforts could be
improved.
Earlier this year I introduced the Growing Artificial
Intelligence through Research Act, which, in part, ensures that
there is a central coordinating entity. So, Dr. Fall, can you
describe how the Office of Science, particularly the Advanced
Scientific Computing Research Program coordinates with the
Department's Office of Artificial Intelligence and Technology?
Dr. Fall. Sure, and maybe I could offer just a little more
beyond that. So the AITO, as it's called, Artificial
Intelligence Technology Office, is simply a coordination
entity, so it doesn't run programs, it's not appropriated to
run programs. The programmatic decisions on what to spend money
on, on hardware, on software, and so forth, happen in the
Office of Science. They happen in the laboratories and programs
under the Undersecretary for Energy, and also in the National
Nuclear Security Administration, but there's a lot of things
that we don't need to do three different, four different, X
different times. Develop the technology once, try a new
hardware example once, and the AITO's job is to make sure that
we are being as efficient as we can, and also, you know,
getting out of our parochial focus on science, and looking out
to the remarkable blossoming of AI across the commercial
sector, and make sure we're buying what we can buy, instead of
having to grow it ourselves or build it ourselves. So this
Office does play a really important role, and we're completely
synced up with it.
Mr. Lipinski. And how would your AI efforts benefit from
additional coordination with other Federal agencies?
Dr. Fall. Well, we're there also. So I guess that's what I
could've gone into there. So this is a place where the White
House is doing an exemplary job of coordinating across the
Federal Government. There are at least two, that I can think
of, AI-focused bodies, one at a higher, you know, level, and
then a more working level. They meet regularly. I participate
in those. We are connected, because of them, with the JAIC
Program in the Department of Defense, and with other major, you
know, many agencies are now working on this. So I'd say the
coordination is actually pretty--this is a good news story
across the government, coordination, and a sense of purpose
about the need to actually win at this game. And it is very
important.
Mr. Lipinski. And if I can't return for another round, I'll
give you a question about the National Quantum Initiative for
the record, though so I yield back.
Dr. Fall. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. I'll now
recognize Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Fall, as you know,
bipartisan Science Committee legislation H.R. 4091, the ARPA-E
Reauthorization Act of 2019, authorizes key reforms of the
Department of Energy's ARPA-E program regarding research scope,
program evaluation requirements, and efforts to avoid
duplication. And, being the next questioner after Mr. Lipinski,
it's only appropriate that I ask you, as current Director of
the Office of Science, and the former Acting Director of ARPA-
E, can you please describe, using specific examples, if you
can, the level of intentional complementary research performed
between the Office of Science Programs and ARPA-E funded
programs?
Dr. Fall. Yes, and I could probably offer you, after the
fact, more of a laundry list of the opportunities, but let me
just give you one. Earlier today----
Mr. Lucas. And this leads us over into discussion about how
you facilitate and----
Dr. Fall. Right.
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Make that happen. If you would?
Dr. Fall. I can do that as well. We talked about fusion
energy a little while ago. There's an example where just now we
are working with ARPA-E to put together a joint funding
announcement. There's one concrete example. The benefit to the
Office of Science of working with ARPA-E is this sort of
special forces nature of ARPA-E, that they can move quickly,
attack a problem with a lot of focus, and with energy derived
from bringing people in from the outside to run those programs,
and so we're always happy, if not to co-fund, then to co-scope.
So when we're working up a funding opportunity in the Office of
Science, just as a routine matter, be involving program
officers, and even contracting officers because of the way they
know how to do business in a different way, into our process.
This is what we did with the quantum initiative that we just
launched last week. This was a cross-agency effort that
included ARPA-E to, what are we missing here in terms of the
ability to move quickly?
Before Secretary Brouillette became Secretary, as Deputy
Secretary he started something called the RTIC, Research and
Technology Investment Committee, at the Under Secretary level
so NNSA, Energy, Science, and the Deputy Secretary, and ARPA-E,
for just his high-level coordination function, and that's going
very well. The working group under that does topical deep
dives, like advanced energy storage, like artificial
intelligence, and so forth, and reports up to the Under
Secretary level to assure that we are doing all the cross-
fertilization that we can find opportunity for. And so that's
relatively new, you may or may not have heard of that already.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Fall, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, I'm pleased to see that the fiscal 2020
appropriations numbers have adequately provided for U.S.'
contributions to the ITER Program, the world leading
international research collaboration into fusion energy that's
received strong and continued bipartisan support from this
Committee. As Director of the Office of Science, what will you
do in FY and beyond to help ensure that U.S. ITER programs
receive the resources that it needs?
Dr. Fall. Well, we will follow the law. You've appropriated
the money, and it will go----
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, first. That's a very important point.
Dr. Fall. Yes. Of course we'll follow the law. We're also
working very hard, frankly, to stimulate our domestic fusion,
including fusion energy startup community that, at the end of
the day, will feed into ITER, and projects that go beyond ITER.
We recognize the intent of Congress, and we will follow the
law.
If I can just offer a little awareness--I don't know if it
was intentional, but I think it bears understanding that we did
receive an increase of $110 million in order to fund ITER, but
received an overall increase for fusion energy for only about
$107 million, and so the obvious consequences, we're making
some choices there. And I understand budget negotiations are
complicated, but we'd like to see, if I may--always great to
have super support. We'd like to also support the domestic, you
know, be able to say that we're doing something in a relatively
balanced way, in terms of increasing support. If money goes to
ITER, we'd also love for money to go to the domestic side as
well.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, Doctor. And, as you well know, as
authorizers, part of our process is to help, in a polite way,
educate the appropriators about common goals we all have
together. With that, thank you, Dr. Fall, yield back the
balance of my time, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas. And I
would just like to note, Dr. Fall, that for the upcoming year,
one approach you could take that would be particularly helpful
would be if you submit a budget request for both of those
items, and that would be very helpful to us. And now I would
like to recognize Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank the Chair, and I thank you, Dr.
Fall. I think you have one of the most interesting and fun jobs
in government. Little bit of jealousy here. But in your written
testimony you noted that your agency is, ``in the process of
launching and expanding a number of new initiatives, including
incorporating artificial intelligence and machine learning into
many of the new things we do across the Department,'' sort of
following up on earlier questions. I know that the DOE has
recently established an AI and Technology Office, which was
already discussed. Can you speak to some of the DOE's plans for
leveraging its existing computing infrastructure to develop AI
and keep our leadership in that area?
Dr. Fall. Well, I would say, yes, sir, existing and
planned. All of these new exascale machines have artificial
intelligence in mind, so we're designing the processing ability
from the ground up to be able to handle traditional and
artificial intelligence problems. And we're also, as we
contemplate the construction and installation of these new
supercomputers, thinking of a sort of plug-in test bed model.
So I don't think there is technology available yet to scale to
some of the new computing architectures that really fulfill the
promise of AI, but small machines can be plugged into the large
machines to test that capability, for example.
So this is being done in an extremely thoughtful way, I can
say. Again, both the hardware question for AI, the software
question, and the use cases. So there's just a whole variety of
use cases across the Department of Energy, and one that I'm
particularly excited about, because I'm responsible for these
10 laboratories, is, you know, it's no secret that Amazon, and
Google, and companies like that use AI to improve their bottom
line, right? They make more money by extracting data and
understanding it. We think that we can use AI for operations in
the Department of Energy as well. So think about acquisition,
human resources, the use of, you know, spending we do on
energy, lights, and so forth, that we can turn those tools on
the operation of our laboratories, and even the Department as
part of this cross-agency AI push, and get efficiency using AI,
in addition to the science and technology mission. So that's
pretty exciting, I think.
Mr. McNerney. Well, if you do that, then I hope you sort of
develop products that can be used in the private sector as
well. So, for the world to meet meaningful emission reductions
in the next few decades, we'll need to invest in negative
emission technology. I was pleased to see that in Fiscal Year
2020, the Energy and Water Appropriations Report directed
funding to be used for cross-cutting initiatives between the
Office of Science, Biological Environmental Research, and Basic
Energy Sciences program. Can you elaborate on specific plans
and research in this area and the Office of Science?
Dr. Fall. I can tell you that we just discussed it this
morning. We have specific plans to do it, we don't know exactly
what those plans are yet. You know, it--just come out of the
budget cycle. But the question that we have, and we haven't
made a decision, is whether to increase funding of existing
hubs and mechanisms that we already have in place that do some
of this work, or to go down different avenues, or both. We just
have to make some choices. But we're on it, and I assure you
that the money will be spent as directed.
Mr. McNerney. Yes. Do flow batteries have promise?
Dr. Fall. That's something that ARPA-E invests more in. We
do, you know, we could help with the basic chemistry there, but
both the basic chemistry and the engineering of those things--
that's not my area of expertise, and so I'd like to get back to
you on that. But on the negative emissions, I do want to
acknowledge your direction to work with the Office of Fossil
Energy on negative emissions, and we're having those
conversations already, so the direction is being followed.
Mr. McNerney. So following up on Mr. Lucas' questioning,
I'm enthusiastic about fusion power, the prospects of fusion
power. What are the different types of fusion power that are
moving forward in your Department?
Dr. Fall. Well, the two big ones are, obviously, inertial
and magnetic confinement, and that's been the case for some
time. One interesting opportunity that our ARPA-E organization
has explored is that middle ground. You know, and that middle
ground is being sort of attacked by this amazing growth of a
community of startup companies in this country, thinking that
these intermediate technologies--you don't need to build
something as big as ITER, or as big as NIF (National Ignition
Facility), in order to get to a successful place in fusion
energy. And we're very interested in continuing to support this
community, you know, both through traditional science and
technology funding, but also through new mechanisms, using our
labs as resources that these companies can access, potentially
even moving toward what NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) calls their COTS (Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services) model for, you know, Space Act sorts
of authorities to put together public/private partnerships to
grow industries. There's a lot of opportunity here, sir, and
we're extremely excited about this, you know, both the
participation in basic research, and in demonstration projects
like ITER, but also in this intermediate startup space.
Mr. McNerney. Well, you know, there used to be the joke
that it's 50 years away. I don't think that's the case anymore,
is it? I mean, we have real prospects now, right?
Dr. Fall. Well, I don't want to do math in public, but it
still is a ways off, but we're certainly moving quickly toward
that goal.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. I'll now
recognize Dr. Baird for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Dr. Fall, in your
prepared testimony, you state that one of the Office of
Science's goals is to enhance the U.S. biosecurity. So I come
from an agricultural background, and I represent a district
that is deeply rooted in agriculture, so could you share what
might be being done in the biosecurity, and that agricultural
industry?
Dr. Fall. Well, less in agriculture, because that's the
mission of the Department of, you know, we're sort of
constrained a little bit by the rules and the laws about what
we can work on, but the enabling technology is something that
we've been doing stretching back to our participation in the
Human Genome Project. So we know how to sequence genes, we know
how to understand what genes do in cells. We're very interested
to leverage one of our superpowers in the Department of Energy,
and that's convergence. That's putting together biology with
physics, and mathematics, and computing to understand biology
in a fundamentally new way, and explore the opportunities of
engineering biology for health, for products, for agriculture,
but also, you know, when you can change biology, there's a
threat involved, and so understanding what the threat space is,
and being prepared to defend against that is something that we
can do at the Department of Energy in a sort of unique way.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Also, you gave us some indication
about the implementation of DOE's policies to prevent foreign
infiltration, specifically in DOE's basic research space and at
the national labs. Could you elaborate on that, or at least
give us some idea how we're preventing foreign infiltration
into our basic research?
Dr. Fall. Well, I did mention that we have a policy about
the foreign talent recruitment program, so this is, you know,
this is a way of recruiting, you know, basically appropriating
technology from other countries. That's a no for us. At the
same time, we are, you know, massively increasing our ability
to understand who is at our laboratories. You know, who's at
our laboratories, where are they from, what are they asking to
do there, and have a filter for that. That's really important,
while recognizing that science is a fundamentally international
activity, and we lose by saying no to everybody. So it's a
tough problem.
So the Foreign Talent Program's relatively easy. The
understanding who's in and who's out of our laboratories is
also relatively straightforward. Then we have to make the
decision about, you know, who to let in, and who not to let in.
Fundamental to all of this is enforcing policies that we've
actually had in place, as have other agencies for quite a long
time, and that's disclosure. You know, if you're going to come
and either work for us or work with us, we ask you to tell us
who's funding you, where are you from, what are your
affiliations? And, you know, the first step is to require a
disclosure.
Second step is to ask, well, is the disclosure truthful?
That's a, you know, whole separate line of business. But just
that act of saying, in order to work with us, you need to tell
us who you are, and what you're all about, is important. And,
surprisingly, over the decades, agencies, not just ours, but I
think all of us have gotten a little bit lax about enforcing
the requirements that always came with grant applications and,
you know, applications to come visit, and so forth. So that's a
really important part, the disclosure part.
Mr. Baird. I can appreciate that is a real challenge,
because you don't want to be so restrictive that we can't
advance, you know, scientific advancement, but at the same time
you'd like to have others share in the cost of getting that
done, not just American taxpayers. So I thank you for your
comments, and I appreciate you being here today, and I yield
back.
Dr. Fall. Thank you.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Dr. Baird. I'd now like to
recognize Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Fletcher, Ranking
Member Weber, and Dr. Fall for joining us today. First off, I'd
like to congratulate you on the siting decision on the EIC at
Brookhaven. You know, these siting decisions are really tough,
and Congress often does not make them easier, but as someone
who's sort of a connoisseur of technical design reports, and
also, probably even more importantly, the physics capability
documents that really are the important ones to look at on
these--when you have competing proposals. I can tell you, at
least from my opinion, you made the right decision technically,
and for the physics, from these. And your timing was also
excellent because the National Labs Caucus was already planning
a visit to Brookhaven at the end of this month, which you're
very welcome to come to, if you can make it there, or send
somebody to join multiple Members of Congress.
Now, as you know, Argonne National Lab in my district is
working very hard on supercomputing, as well as artificial
intelligence. Last November sort of snuck under a lot of
people's radar screens, but Argonne tested in a commercial
partnership with Cerebras, a giant wafer scale--the fastest AI
engine in the world. And this is a commercial partnership that
is, you know, it's great. It's the wave of the future in AI,
with so much commercial money going into it. But, you know, the
main program at Argonne is Aurora, which we hope will be the
first exascale computer on Earth, certainly will be in our
country.
But I'm a little less sanguine about the probability that
the Chinese won't beat us in this, and, you know, at least some
of that's due to the fact that Congress delivered a little less
money than Brookhaven had requested in this year. There's a
shortfall there. But one of the ways that you have available to
partly make up this shortfall is with the $71 million for AI
and machine learning--for a number of Office of Science
programs. I was wondering, have you come up with a plan for how
to allocate that money, and is it likely that that may be
useful for helping some of the shortfall in the Aurora effort?
Dr. Fall. Well, I'd be reticent to commit to moving money
from one to the other, because then we get the other side
complaining.
Mr. Foster. But there is certainly opportunity there.
Dr. Fall. But we haven't decided how to spend all the
dollars in terms of exactly where they're going, but we kind of
know what we're going to spend it on. There's just a ton--as
you know, from your background, just a ton of opportunity, from
enhancing the ability of these machines to do calculations in a
new way to, at the front end, sort of pre-computing, pre-
calculating, pre-sorting the mass of data that comes out of the
science machines, right, all along the way. Never mind, you
know, running something like an accelerator using AI as an
assistant, if you will.
So across everything we're doing in the Office I talked
about AI for operations at the laboratories. That's, I think,
novel and innovative for a Federal agency, but what's clear is
the opportunity for us across the basic sciences--that's why
we're spending so much money on it. It's not by accident. So I
want to be cautious about committing to moving money around.
You can use----
Mr. Foster. Yes, it's obvious that these are combined
hardware/software efforts, and then there is some degree of
fungibility once the money hits the laboratory. And if you
build the hardware, and don't have the software in place, the
algorithms, the scientific participation, you don't get nearly
as much out of that hardware. Another thing that came up,
actually, in response to the previous questions involving
biology, is one of the real areas of growth recently is in so-
called cell-free technologies, you know, where you take
advantage of the enzymatic pathways that nature provides, but
you don't have these annoying cells around that proceed to
evolve and do other things to wreck your culture. I was just
wondering if that's something where you think there may be a
natural area of participation for the Office of Science.
Dr. Fall. Well, absolutely, because what that allows is
science at scale, which is what we do. It's the high through-
put paradigm. When you can do cell-free systems in multi-well
plates, using robotics to do the mixtures and so forth, that's
where you get a whole lot of information very quickly, and
that's the kind of thing that the Department of Energy does is
big science, big machines, integrated data, and so forth. So I
would say yes.
Mr. Foster. So I'd just encourage you to have a look at
that, because it's a new field, and it sort of falls between
the cracks in some ways. And then finally, on quantum, there
are three broad buckets. There is building quantum computers
with technology at hand, there's quantum instrumentation and
sensing, which is often separate thing, and then there's
developing fundamental sciences, new materials, and devices in
support of quantum. And, to make it even more complicated, you
have the military off on the side, you have significant
efforts, commercial. So how do you make sure that the Office of
Science is focusing on what you can uniquely do best there?
Dr. Fall. And I would also add--I think you mentioned, but
I'm not sure, quantum communication, exactly, which is also a
low hanging fruit. So, yes, we're the Nation's experts in
material science. Quantum is another place, like advanced
energy, it's all about materials at this point, and also
systems engineering, when you start to think about the cooling
required, and so forth. So we are being very cautious.
I think that some of the direction that we're going to go
in will shake out of the process by which we choose these
quantum centers that we've just announced. We're expecting a
whole lot of input. Not just innovative science programs, but
innovative collaboration models and so forth, and so I think
there's a lot of opportunity there. And I don't want to get
ahead of my skis in public here, but I think you're going to
hear more very soon about quantum networking and communications
on a larger scale. And so we're moving as quickly as you allow
us to with the resources you provide----
Mr. Foster. Thank you. My time is up, and I'll have to
yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much. I'll now
recognize Mr. Cloud for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Fall, we appreciate
you being here. You mentioned that China is a technological
juggernaut, and it occurs to me that this isn't because of
necessarily major breakthroughs that they've made, but rather
our naivete toward them over the last few decades, and the fact
that they're stealing technology from us and others. You
mentioned some things that we're doing, in the sense of being
careful about who we're allowing to work at the labs and such,
but could you speak to what else DOE is doing to better secure
the Office of Science Research against, for example, cyber
theft?
Dr. Fall. Well, yes, let me start by saying much of what we
do in terms of results is public science anyway. You know, we
publish the work because we're a basic science organization.
Many, but not all, of our laboratories, because they're funded
by multiple sources, also have national security missions, and
we sit in a department that has perhaps the most sensitive
national security mission in the country, with the strategic
deterrent and those weapons. We know how to do security, and we
live in an environment--it's funny that I often complain about
how most Americans don't understand the role that the
Department of Energy plays in science. They don't know that we
have labs, they don't know that we do all this work, and that's
because we spent the first 70 years of our existence not
telling anybody what we do, right? So we understand security. I
think, part of the problem is actually advertising the amazing
things that we do.
Secretary Perry, before he left, stood up CESER,
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response
division, and a whole new Assistant Secretary in the Department
of Energy just focused on cybersecurity, and that's
cybersecurity of the grid, cybersecurity of the lab,
cybersecurity of operations. We're attacking the problem. We
understand that it's a problem always, and--but we do come from
a posture of understanding security problems. It's not a
naivete----
Mr. Cloud. Right. I get the picture, I always have, with
regards to China and funding, I mean, we spent I think $7
billion last year from Congress, and it's the picture of this
bucket that we're pouring into, but there's a hole in the
bottom going into a bucket that China's sitting there, you
know? And so when we think about how to expand our capacity,
it's not just more funding as it is, sometimes, I think,
closing that hole a little bit so more stays in our bucket.
We know China's sending foreign actors to universities, for
example. Some of our research dollars are going to
universities, and working with that. Of course, that's not
every student there, but certainly there are foreign actors. Is
there anything that we're doing in regards to making sure that
research funding that's being funded by taxpayer dollars isn't
going to fund the China government initiatives?
Dr. Fall. Yes, sir. We're not rolling out any policies at
this point, but we are having--a little bit earlier I mentioned
that we are participating with the inter-agency--we want to
make sure that any steps that we do take regarding extramural
research to universities and other organizations is done in
coordination with all the agencies so that we do it the same
way. For all sorts of reasons, it's not going to work for the
Department of Energy to have sort of rules, and NSF another
set, and so forth. We recognize the problem, and we are
actively discussing alternatives. It will probably take some
authorizing, you know, changes to authorization and so forth,
because there are rules about how you, you know, open access
here to funding and so forth.
Mr. Cloud. Right. OK. Shifting gears a little bit, could
you compare/contrast where we are in China when it comes to AI,
and then specifically what the DOE's doing to apply
advancements in AI toward how we manage our electric grid?
Dr. Fall. Yes. I would defer Part B, which is the electric
grid, to the Assistant Secretary for Electricity--but I can
tell you that we're working closely together. The Office of
Science provides the basic AI technology, the machines and so
forth, and, frankly, the connections out to industry and
academia. They're leveraging it. I'm not current on exactly
what they're doing, but I know it is a complete priority. The
Office of Electricity and Cybersecurity, and Emergency Response
Assistant Secretary is for protecting the grid, which is
largely an Internet of Things. I mean, it's absolutely a
threat. Part A was, I'm sorry, China and----
Mr. Cloud. Compare our capacity to China when it comes to
AI.
Dr. Fall. You know, this is another place where it's a
footrace with no clear--I would say no clear--it's hard to say
who's ahead in AI, frankly, and I think most experts would
agree AI is a little bit still of a boutique industry. There
are more researchers in China working on AI than there are in
this country. And also, one of the key enablers of AI is data,
and we all know you don't need to have a poor social score to
understand that China is amassing a lot of data on people, and
things, and processes, and putting it together for use in a way
that we don't in this country on principle. And so there is an
advantage there for them in terms of AI, but, of course, the
consequences are things that we prefer not to entertain, like
personal social scores.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Cloud. I'll now
recognize Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Fall, thank you for
joining us today, and for all your service to the country. In
2018, the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act was
signed into law, and I believe it required the re-establishment
of a low dose radiation research program, the idea being that a
lot of the basic scientific data underpinning radiation limits
and requirements had a lot to do with survivors of the atomic
attacks. It might not have been as directly relevant to, for
example, the plant workers at the nuclear plant in my district
who experienced low levels over a long period of time, so with
the goal being just accuracy as far as what we know about where
those measurements and what those regulations need to be for
the health of the workers, but also the competitiveness of the
industry.
I think again in FY 2020, we directed the establishment of
another low dose radiation research plan, or same one, just
funding for it. Just asking for an update on progress in that
area. Does that sound familiar to you?
Dr. Fall. Yes, sir, of course. And I'm going to be really
careful with the words, because I think it was established, not
re-established, and that's germane because our position is that
there are some new opportunities here, technologies that we
didn't have originally, things like computational, things like
cell-free and other mechanisms so we're actively--we understand
we've been directed to do this. We understand that we're
directed to spend a certain amount of money, I believe it's $5
million this year. We're going to do that.
We are in active conversations with the National Cancer
Institute at NIH (National Institutes of Health), who has
similar problems, if you think about the causes of cancer, and
the impact of imaging, like x-rays and so forth, so they want
to understand this as well. So we're working with them, as well
as an inter-agency group under the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, who's getting together and saying, ``hey,
here are our options here. It doesn't make sense to do five
different things. Let's get together on a low-dose program.''
So we are following the guidance, we think, in a way that makes
sense, and I'm happy to get you more detail on that. I do know
that we haven't made any particular funding decisions on people
or places yet, but happy to keep you up on the details.
Mr. Lamb. Great. Just making sure it's underway. Thank you.
Dr. Fall. Absolutely it is, yes, sir.
Mr. Lamb. And then I wanted to ask about fusion, and some
of my colleagues did as well. And I had the chance last summer
to visit the project up at MIT, which is really just an
impressive and fascinating piece of work, and they're doing
pretty well now with private-sector funding. And one of the
things that I came to understand in the history of that project
was the importance of Federal funding, you know, throughout so
many years of their history, particularly on the research on
the magnets, and now they're not really receiving Federal
funding for that project anymore. And so first question is just
of in line with what you said earlier about the $110 million
and the $107 million, are you concerned that too much of our
Federal share of fusion research, or all of it, is going to
ITER, basically, in the sense that we're kind of putting all of
our eggs in one basket, as opposed to cultivating some fusion
research here at home at the same time?
Dr. Fall. Well, I wouldn't go that far, because obviously
it's a $670-something million dollar program, fusion, plasma
sciences, and so forth, and some part of that is going to
fusion, $240-something, I believe. I'm more worried about the
balance. I'm worried about sustaining both. If we're going to
participate in ITER, we also should be paying attention to
nurturing these folks. We have a lot of great ideas, and, of
course, there is an enduring question, if there's going to be a
demonstration project in this country, should there be one
here? Sorry, in the world, should there be one also here? I can
offer that there's probably, you know, we love all of our
programs equally. I think I can offer that our Undersecretary
for Science, there's no program that's more important to him
than getting fusion on a right path, and so we're paying an
awful lot of attention to this.
Mr. Lamb. Perfect. And if I could just ask you, right
before my time runs out, there was this National Academies'
report at the end of 2018 that kind of talked about doing
demonstration here at home, but particularly emphasizing the
advances in high temperature magnets in kind of a smaller,
faster, more efficient approach. Is that promising? Is that
something you think the government should be investing in, and
will we need to give new authority to make that possible.
Dr. Fall. Right, high-temperature superconducting magnets.
Yes, and then--well, I don't want to say we should go forward.
What we are going to do, what we've already done, is contacted
the National Academies, it was the Burning Plasma Report, and
asked them to do a follow-on discussion. They recommended doing
a demonstration plan, but with no guidance beyond that. We'd
like them to explore that in detail, tell us the options, tell
us what they think it would cost us to do that. We've already
started the conversations with that to get more information.
It's certainly something we should understand, and then we
weigh, you know, the costs and benefits of doing it here versus
other places.
Mr. Lamb. Excellent. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Lamb. I'll now
recognize Mr. Casten for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Dr.
Fall. I think I'm the only thing between you and the end of the
evening. Really appreciate you coming out. I have the good
fortune to have a district that just to my west is Fermi Lab,
and just to my south is Argonne, and have had the pleasure of
touring both, and meeting with a lot of your scientists
multiple times, and I appreciate having the opportunity to nerd
out so close to home, so I appreciate that.
I want to talk specifically about climate change, and what
we're doing for it, which is, in many cases, a deployment
problem. We under-deploy lots of proven technologies, but
there's a hugely significant role that the national labs play,
and in particular there's some really interesting work going on
at Argonne around energy storage, and I've been involved in the
Promoting Grid Storage Act to increase funding, and I don't
know if it's sufficient, frankly, but, you know, but at core we
have more than enough clean, zero cost energy to run the
country, but it isn't where the loads are, and it's not always
running at the time that the loads are there. And either we
need to figure out how to build a lot more transmission than
we've figured out politically how to build, or how to deploy a
whole lot of storage around the grid at an efficiency level
that's much higher.
So could you, you know, I think we gave you a $420 million
increase in your budget last year, which I look forward to
hearing how you're going to use, but tell me, if you would,
where you see the gaps in energy storage, and, if you'd like,
transmission, from a science perspective, what we are doing,
and what we should be doing more of to try to bridge those
gaps.
Dr. Fall. Well, thank you for the question. Someone was
asking earlier about cybersecurity for the grid, and the
intersection of AI with the grid. I would say also what hasn't
been mentioned here today is the opportunity that automating
the grid provides for squeezing more out of it. So, you know,
using AI, using Internet enabled, using, you know,
computational technology to understand energy flow on the grid
lets us do more with less generation, for example.
But, that said, this is why the advanced--we talked a
little bit, excuse me, earlier about the Energy Storage Grand
Challenge. I think that we feel in the Department that we're on
a great track, and moving rapidly, mainly due to market forces,
frankly, on the deployment of renewables. But the ``Achilles'
heel'' for more renewables, you have to have storage. You've
got to have the load, you know, available, as you said.
Reliable electricity is really important, and so storage is the
most important piece. And I would say, of all of this, of
storage and renewables and so forth, something we do in the
Office of Science, in terms of materials science, something
that ARPA-E does a lot more of, something that EERE, Energy
Efficiency Renewable Energy, does a lot more of, in terms of
closer-end technologies. I don't know if I've--happy to go back
and forth here----
Mr. Casten. Yes, and I'd love to continue to conversation.
There's no right answer to the question. I just know that if
we're going to get to 100-percent renewables, we've got to
solve that storage problem, in terms of the technology and the
deployment. With the time I've got left I want to talk about
the science of climate change. It strikes me that we have two
significant gaps. There's one gap that we talk about ad
infinitum, which is true, that climate models are uncertain,
and they get tighter and tighter, and there's better and better
computational power, and I've never met a scientist who didn't
want a bigger computer. And that's fine. As against that, we
have really limited tools to understand what the impact is of
the policy. So, you know, we had, you know, hearings this
morning that, you know, one of our witnesses was talking about
changes in agricultural policy, trying to get a good
understanding of, OK, if we want to get to this goal of parts
per million in the atmosphere, how much can this agricultural
policy change, on a permanent basis, accomplish? These are
scientific questions. So you can take either or both, but what
do you think we could be doing better both to have better
predictive models of what is going to happen under various
scenarios, and on the other side, better models to understand
for a given policy change, or behavioral change, what's the
impact going forward? Because that's going to affect the amount
of flow into the system.
Dr. Fall. Right. Well, I'll pass on the second, because
that's not my area of expertise, and I'll maybe talk about the
computational side. We made a big deal today about these
exascale computers. I talked a little bit about the software
stack that goes into that, and one of the things that we are
doing under the BER division is completely rebuilding these
Earth systems models. At the end of the day it turns out that
size matters, and what do I mean by that? The scale at which
you do these computations, actually, you have to go small. You
have to use an exascale supercomputer in order to capture the
nuances in these Earth system models, and so that's what we're
buying with these exascale machines, exactly what you said,
better precision on the computation. And it's not just a wish
list for scientists. You have to do that in order to be able to
predict the weather. You know, the better you do, the smaller
spatial and temporal scale you compute on for these
predictions, the longer your prediction is valid. That's for
weather, that's for Earth systems, that's for all of these
things. And so I think we're moving in a great direction. This
is a huge effort in this division of ours, to fundamentally,
from the ground up, rebuild--with the inter-agency. It's not
just the Department of Energy. It's working with NOAA (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and these other
agencies who have a dog in this fight to rebuild the Earth
systems modeling. I don't know if that's helpful.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Casten. Dr. Fall, we
are almost finished, but because you gave us some really
interesting things to think about, I'm going to just----
Dr. Fall. Where did I make a mistake?
Chairwoman Fletcher [continuing]. An additional round of--
--
Mr. Weber. When you showed up.
Chairwoman Fletcher [continuing]. Just a question, so for
any remaining Committee Members, if you have an additional
question, I'm going to open it up for that. I wanted to follow
up on your question and answer with Mr. Lamb, and just follow
up a little bit on the ITER question, because my understanding
is, since his appointment as Director General of the ITER
International Fusion Project 5 years ago, Dr. Bigot and his
team have made remarkable progress in improving the management
of what may well be the most complex scientific project in the
world.
As you know, the U.S. played a leading role in pushing for
major personnel and management changes that have gotten the
project back on track, but the last three budget requests for
ITER have been a fraction of the DOE-approved estimates for
what it will take to minimize the project's total cost to U.S.
taxpayers, and to maintain the current schedule. So my question
is, do you agree that the DOE's most recent budget requests for
ITER have been a fraction of what it will take to minimize the
project's total cost to U.S. taxpayers, and to maintain the
current schedule, and if so, how will you address that going
forward?
Dr. Fall. OK.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Easy question.
Dr. Fall. Well, first of all, let me say that Bernard Bigot
is an international hero. He absolutely has turned around the
ITER Organization, absolutely brought a remarkable difference
to the management of the project, and things are going in a
much better direction. And it is true that the budget request
that we made is less than what we've, frankly, committed to in
the international agreement that we're a part of. I'm not
willing to go beyond that, in terms of motivation. That's
between you all and the President at some point. What I will
commit to, as always, is, you know, you tell us what we're
going to do, and we will do that. We will follow the rules, the
law, and spend the money that you instruct us to do.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you very much for that, and I do
appreciate your answer in explaining to us where we are, and I
know that this Committee has been particularly interested, and
Chairwoman Johnson, in particular, has worked hard to ensure
that the funding is appropriated, and that that goes through
the process. So thank you for clarifying that for us. That was
my one question, so now I'm going to turn it over to and
recognize Mr. Weber for a question.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Fall, earlier in your
testimony about infrastructure, and the need to upgrade the
basic infrastructure of the National Labs, and we talked about
we couldn't attract the world's best talent if we didn't do
that. One of the questions I didn't get to ask was, have you
see that state of our national labs, the basic infrastructure
state needing repair? Have you noticed, seen, or heard, has
that impact or had a high impact on the workforce retention out
in community, out in industry? Are you aware of any of that?
Has that had an impact on workforce retention?
Dr. Fall. In our laboratories, yes. At the end of the day,
you know, in a tight labor market, where there are a lot of
choices, these things start to matter a lot. The one thing that
brings folks to our laboratories is the mission, but at some
point, you know, if they get paid less, and they also show up
to a leaky building with old computers and all that kind of
stuff, it starts to take a toll. It's important to provide
modern, effective workplaces to technical people.
Mr. Weber. So that's obviously impacted the labs. When
people leave the labs, do you have a sense or know where they
go, and the quicker they come in and out, has it impacted the
workforce? In other words, if we could retain them longer, and
get them trained up, and get them really solid, would that help
industry? Do you have any sense of that at all?
Dr. Fall. It would help industry side. Guess I'm not
following your question exactly, but we're--let me just take
one step back and say my personal opinion is we've got these
three legs of the stool. We've got industry, we've got
academia, and we've got our national labs, and I'm very
comfortable with robust flow between those sectors. The problem
we actually have is we make it hard for people to leave and
come back, and this is what people want to do. So if we could
lower the barriers, I think we'd all be in a better place,
industry, and the Labs, and----
Mr. Weber. Well, that really is my question, because they
can go to the Labs, great training grounds--a lot of good work
in, take that expertise, go out in an industry. And then do
really good stuff for industry, but if we're not kind of a
training ground, if we're not--where they're applying that--I
just didn't know if you were getting any sense from industry
around, look, we're just not getting as many qualified people
as we used to be because they come in, they don't stay that
long, they go somewhere else pretty quick.
Dr. Fall. In the Labs. I mean, this is a, you know, again,
tight labor market, lots of choices, lot more money in other
places. That impacts us particularly in things like AI,
computer science, and so forth. Hard to find too many places
with particle colliders or synchrotrons. You know, if that's
your thing in life----
Mr. Weber. It's not on every corner. Although I've seen
some streets in Texas that there is a lot of colliders on the
corners. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Weber, and thank you
for the comic relief. It's always appreciated. And, with that,
I do want to bring the hearing to a close. But before we bring
the hearing to a close, Dr. Fall, I really want to thank you
for coming and testifying, and answering our questions today.
The record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from Members, additional questions the Committee may
want to ask. But I thank you very much for being here, and now
the hearing is adjourned.
Dr. Fall. Thank you. My complete pleasure.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Chris Fall
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]