[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE
OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-810PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico JIM BAIRD, Indiana
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
C O N T E N T S
June 22, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 19
Witnesses:
Dr. Asmeret Berhe, Director of the Office of Science, Department
of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Brian Greene, Director of the Center for Theoretical Physics,
Columbia University
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Lia Merminga, Director, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Mr. Jim Yeck, Associate Laboratory Director and Project Director
for the Electron-Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 63
Written Statement............................................ 65
Mr. Michael Guastella, Executive Director, The Council on
Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals
Oral Statement............................................... 74
Written Statement............................................ 76
Discussion....................................................... 85
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Lia Merminga, Director, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 106
Mr. Jim Yeck, Associate Laboratory Director and Project Director
for the Electron-Ion Collider, Brookhaven National Laboratory.. 107
Mr. Michael Guastella, Executive Director, The Council on
Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals......................... 109
INVESTIGATING THE NATURE
OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, AND TIME
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jamaal
Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. This hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess at any
time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I
want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff who are
attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a
requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask
while present.
Members who are attending virtually should keep their video
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your
microphones muted unless you are speaking.
Finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for
the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
email address was circulated prior to the hearing.
Good morning, and thank you to our panel of esteemed
witnesses for joining us today to discuss the research and
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy (DOE) in the
exciting fields of high-energy physics and nuclear science. As
part of the discussion today, we will examine the critical
research and facilities supported by DOE's Office of Science
Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs, as well as
related work in its Accelerator and Isotope programs. I
especially want to welcome the newly Senate-confirmed Director
of the Office of Science, Dr. Berhe, to her first appearance
before Congress since being confirmed. I look forward to
working with you, and congratulations.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, I often reflect
on how the work we do here will prepare us for a better and
brighter future for everyone. Experts such as yourselves help
us to understand and fight for better policies here in Congress
that will enable a healthier and safer world through
innovations in science and technology. We need to keep these
big-picture goals top of mind with everything we do. We need to
continue to take urgent action to make these goals a reality.
This starts with supporting robust funding across our
scientific enterprise.
In April, I chaired a hearing in which DOE's Under
Secretary for Science and Innovation, Dr. Geraldine Richmond,
testified on the importance of strong Federal science programs
to maintain our scientific leadership and tackle the problems
of the 21st century, including the climate crisis. We discussed
the lackluster Fiscal Year 2023 budget request from the
Administration for DOE's Office of Science at length and the
impact that will have on our goals by insufficiently supporting
large-scale scientific experiments, research, and associated
facilities. We need to do much, much better.
But the budget request is not the sole focus of today's
hearing, though I'm certain it will be part of the discussion.
We are here to discuss the fields of high-energy physics and
nuclear physics, which probe some of the biggest unanswered
questions on the most basic nature of our world. What is the
universe made of? Why is the universe made of something rather
than nothing? And how do the materials that make up the
universe stay together? We are able to push the frontiers of
human knowledge on these topics through cutting-edge research
and large experiments that attract international participation,
including by supporting a diverse scientific work force that is
necessary to the success of these programs.
A related area of nuclear science that we'll be discussing
today is on nuclear isotope research, development, and
production. Isotopes are materials that we use every day to
enhance our lives. Dozens of isotopes are produced worldwide
for unique applications, ranging from cancer research, to
powering batteries in space exploration, to making the food we
consume safer. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, many
isotopes have a single source in the entire world, and many of
those rely on Russia in some part of the supply chain. Like
many commodities, the Nation's isotope supply is at risk due to
the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Even without policy action banning
the isotope trade between the U.S. and Russia specifically, our
supply is threatened by the impacts we are already seeing in
the banking and shipping industries. We need to have these
conversations to better enable a secure and resilient U.S.
isotope supply.
Before I close, I want to acknowledge the important role
that these fundamental scientific fields play in enhancing our
well-being. Humanity has always been driven to understand the
nature of the universe and our place within it. Thanks to
Federal support for this kind of research, unprecedented
discoveries are within our grasp.
Another huge benefit of fundamental research is the
applications it can have on the Nation's health, prosperity,
and security. For example, the research supported by the Office
of Science in these high-energy and nuclear science fields
contribute to advanced technology development, such as
artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information science.
The materials, properties, and interactions we discover in
these programs are directly applicable to the development of
microelectronics, which in turn are used to strengthen the
experiments these programs steward. These are crosscutting
areas of scientific importance to our country's future.
I just want to emphasize this point to my colleagues here
in Congress as we work to support robust and historic
authorizations for these Federal science programs in
bipartisan, bicameral conference negotiations on national
competitive policies.
With that said, thank you all again for being here today,
and I look forward to this discussion.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]
Good morning, and thank you to our panel of esteemed
witnesses for joining us today to discuss the research and
infrastructure needs of the Department of Energy in the
exciting fields of high energy physics and nuclear science. As
part of the discussion today we will examine the critical
research and facilities supported by DOE's Office of Science
High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs, as well as
related work in its Accelerator and Isotope programs. I
especially want to welcome the newly Senate-confirmed Director
of the Office of Science, Dr. Berhe, to her first appearance
before Congress since being confirmed. I look forward to
working with you.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, I often reflect
on how the work we do here will prepare us for a better and
brighter future for everyone. Experts such as yourselves help
us to understand and fight for better policies here in Congress
that will enable a healthier and safer world through
innovations in science and technology. We need to keep these
big picture goals top of mind with everything we do. We need to
continue to take urgent action to make these goals a reality.
This starts with supporting robust funding across our
scientific enterprise. In April, I chaired a hearing in which
DOE's Under Secretary for Science and Innovation Dr. Geraldine
Richmond testified on the importance of strong federal science
programs to maintain our scientific leadership and tackle the
problems of the 21st century, including the climate crisis. We
discussed the lackluster FY 2023 budget request from the
administration for DOE's Office of Science at length, and the
impact that will have on our goals by insufficiently supporting
large-scale scientific experiments, research, and associated
facilities. We need to do better.
But the budget request is not the sole focus of today's
hearing, though I'm certain it will be part of the discussion.
We are here to discuss the fields of high energy physics and
nuclear physics, which probe some of the biggest unanswered
questions on the most basic nature of our world. What is the
universe made of? Why is the universe made of something rather
than nothing? And how do the materials that make up the
universe stay together? We are able to push the frontiers of
human knowledge on these topics through cutting-edge research
and large experiments that attract international participation,
including by supporting the diverse scientific workforce that
is necessary to the success of these programs.
A related area of nuclear science that we'll be discussing
today is on nuclear isotope research, development, and
production. Isotopes are materials that we use every day to
enhance our lives. Dozens of isotopes are produced worldwide
for unique applications, ranging from cancer treatment, to
powering batteries in space exploration, to making the food we
consume safer. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, many
isotopes have a single source in the entire world, and many of
those rely on Russia in some part of the supply chain. Like
many commodities, the nation's isotope supply is at risk due to
the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Even without policy action banning
the isotope trade between the U.S. and Russia specifically, our
supply is threatened by the impacts we are already seeing in
the banking and shipping industries. We need to have these
conversations to better enable a secure and resilient U.S.
isotope supply.
Before I close, I want to acknowledge the important role
that these fundamental scientific fields play in enhancing our
well-being. Humanity has always been driven to understand the
nature of the universe and our place within it. Thanks to
federal support for this kind of research, unprecedented
discoveries are within our grasp. Another huge benefit of
fundamental research is the applications it can have on the
nation's health, prosperity, and security. For example, the
research supported by the Office of Science in these high
energy and nuclear science fields contribute to advanced
technology development, such as artificial intelligence and
quantum information science. The materials properties and
interactions we discover in these programs are directly
applicable to the development of microelectronics, which in
turn are used to strengthen the experiments these programs
steward. These are crosscutting areas of scientific importance
to our country's future. I just want to emphasize this point to
my colleagues here in Congress as we work to support robust and
historic authorizations for these federal science programs in
bipartisan, bicameral conference negotiations on national
competitiveness policies.
With that said, thank you all again for being here today,
and I look forward to this discussion.
Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an
opening statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The title of today's hearing is ``Investigating the Nature
of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.'' That certainly sounds
like a daunting task. However, there are three programs within
the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are doing
exactly that. The High Energy Physics (HEP) Program probes the
fundamental characteristics of matter and energy, including
interactions through the study of particle physics. This
program supports research and development (R&D) activities that
involve investigating the nature of dark matter, accelerating
particles to the highest energies ever produced by man and
colliding them to study the results, and then using particle
beams and detectors to discover new physics.
As you can imagine, studying the smallest building blocks
of matter requires cutting-edge facilities. Fermi National
Acceleratory Laboratory, the particle physics and accelerator
laboratory within the Department's national laboratory complex,
hosts thousands of scientists from all over the world. Their
accelerator, detector, and computing facilities are some of the
best in the entire world, and more exciting new projects are
under construction.
One such project, the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility
(LBNF) and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), or
LBNF/DUNE, will be the first large-scale international science
facility in the United States. It will help us answer some of
the most fundamental questions we have about our universe,
including why matter exists. This is valuable science that will
continue to support our position at the cutting edge of
discovery.
However, building these facilities will take a steady
funding stream commitment. And recent budget requests from the
Administration are low and would actually extend the completion
dates, which will risk our international advantage.
We will also discuss the progress of the Office of
Science's Nuclear Physics Program, which provides approximately
95 percent of the United States' investment in fundamental
nuclear physics research. To support this work, the Department
has initiated construction of the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC),
located at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The Electron-Ion
Collider will collide high-energy electrons with high-energy
protons and nuclei to produce a view of these particles' inner
structure.
Last but not least, we will access--assess the Office of
Science's Isotope Research and Development Program and its role
in preventing shortages of the stable and radioactive isotopes
needed for essential activities such as medical treatments,
industrial processes, and explosive detection, just to name a
few. In addition to conducting research and development on
isotope production and processing techniques, this program
produces and distributes critical isotopes that are in short
supply or that no domestic entity can produce.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance
of this program and the risks of reliance on foreign supply
chains for critical isotopes. And let me opine kind of
parenthetically that that's true in so many instances. We need
to be producing things here. We need to have that--our supply
chain right here in the good old United States of America. For
example, we currently rely on Russia's State nuclear energy
corporation and its subsidiaries to supply us with a number of
critical medical and industrial isotopes. We must pursue
domestic production solutions to counter this disturbing
vulnerability and a whole lot of others I just mentioned.
We will not effectively address our most urgent energy-
related challenges such as lowering household energy costs or
reducing dependence on foreign supply chains if we neglect the
fundamental research and development required to unlock the
next generation of technologies. Additionally, if we do not
demonstrate a commitment to maintaining and modernizing our
research infrastructure, we actually risk losing our seat at
the head of the table when it comes to international scientific
standing.
For those reasons, I am proud to be part of the Science
Committee's ongoing bipartisan effort to get H.R. 3593, the DOE
Science for the Future Act, enacted into law. This legislation
authorizes robust funding for all three Office of Science
programs I highlighted, as well as LBNF/DUNE, the Electric-Ion
Collider, and other critical infrastructure projects. This
legislation is absolutely critical to supporting the future of
U.S. research and development, and I'm hopeful we can move it
forward as we negotiate our competitiveness legislation with
the Senate.
I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. Dr.
Berhe, I offer my word of congratulations also on your recent
confirmation as Director of the Office of Science, and we are
delighted to have you appear for the first time before the
Committee today. Please don't make it your last. So I look
forward to working with you to ensure the success of the
Office. And I want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman.
The title of today's hearing is, ``Investigating the Nature
of Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.'' That certainly sounds
like a daunting task. However, there are three programs within
the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are doing
just that.
The High Energy Physics Program probes the fundamental
characteristics of matter and energy, including interactions
through the study of particle physics. This program supports
research and development activities that involve investigating
the nature of dark matter, accelerating particles to the
highest energies ever produced by man and colliding them to
study the results, and using particle beams and detectors to
discover new physics.
As you can imagine, studying the smallest building blocks
of matter requires cutting- edge facilities. Fermi National
Acceleratory Laboratory, the particle physics and accelerator
laboratory within the Department's National Laboratory complex,
hosts thousands of scientists from all over the world.
Their accelerator, detector, and computing facilities are
some of the best in the world and more exciting new projects
are under construction. One such project, the Long- Baseline
Neutrino Facility and Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, or
``L-B-N-F / DUNE'' will be the first large-scale international
science facility in the United States.
It will help us answer some of the most fundamental
questions we have about our universe, including why matter
exists. This is valuable science that will continue to support
our position at the cutting edge of discovery.
However, building these facilities takes a steady funding
commitment. And recent budget requests from the Administration
are low and would extend completion dates, risking our
international advantage.
We will also discuss the progress of the Office of
Science's Nuclear Physics Program, which provides approximately
95% of the United States investment in fundamental nuclear
physics research. To support this work, the Department has
initiated construction of the Electronic-Ion Collider, located
at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
The Electronic-Ion Collider will collide high-energy
electrons with high-energy protons and nuclei to produce a view
of these particles' inner structure.
Last, but not least, we will assess the Office of Science's
Isotope Research and Development Program and its role in
preventing shortages of the stable and radioactive isotopes
needed for essential activities such as medical treatments,
industrial processes, and explosive detection.
In addition to conducting research and development on
isotope production and processing techniques, this program
produces and distributes critical isotopes that are in short
supply or that no domestic entity can produce.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has underscored the importance
of this program and the risks of reliance on foreign supply
chains for critical isotopes. For example, we currently rely on
Russia's state nuclear energy corporation and its subsidiaries
to supply us with a number of critical medical and industrial
isotopes. We must pursue domestic production solutions to
counter this disturbing vulnerability.
We will not effectively address our most urgent energy-
related challenges, such as lowering household energy costs or
reducing dependence on foreign supply chains, if we neglect the
fundamental research and development required to unlock the
next generation of technologies.
Additionally, if we do not demonstrate a commitment to
maintaining and modernizing our research infrastructure, we
risk losing our seat at the head of the table when it comes to
international scientific standing.
For those reasons, I am proud to be part of the Science
Committee's ongoing bipartisan effort to get H.R. 3593, the DOE
Science for the Future Act, enacted into law. This legislation
authorizes robust funding for all three Office of Science
programs I highlighted, as well as LBNF/DUNE, the Electric-Ion
Collider, and other critical infrastructure projects. This
legislation is critical to supporting the future of U.S.
research and development and I'm hopeful we can move it forward
as we negotiate our competitiveness legislation with the Senate
I thank all of the witnesses for their testimony today. Dr.
Berhe (``bear-hay''), congratulations on your recent
confirmation as Director of the Office of Science, and we are
delighted to have you appear before the Committee for the first
time today. I look forward to working with you to ensure the
success of the Office.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber. If there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Chairman Bowman, thank you for holding this important
hearing today, and thank you to our esteemed panel of witnesses
for being here.
We are here to examine the Department of Energy's role in
advancing our understanding of the foundational underpinnings
of matter, energy, space, and time. DOE supports research in
these areas through the Office of Science's High Energy and
Nuclear Physics programs. We will also use this occasion to
highlight how progress in these fields can be translated into
technologies, such as particle accelerators and isotope
production systems, that improve the health and welfare of
American citizens across the nation. The latter has become a
particularly salient issue due to Russia's war on Ukraine and
its impact on the supply chains for several important isotopes.
The High Energy Physics program studies fundamental
particles and their interactions with each other to gain
insight into the very nature of our universe. This program
pursues this mission through research at universities and
national labs, and through its stewardship of unique scientific
facilities and large-scale experiments.
Many other scientific disciplines and economic sectors have
benefited from the advanced technologies, research tools, and
analysis techniques pioneered by this program. For example, the
superconducting magnet technology first developed for this
research now comprises the core of MRI machines, which as we
all know have significantly enhanced our medical diagnostic
capabilities.
Of equal importance is the Department's Nuclear Physics
program. This program aims to discover, explore, and understand
all forms of nuclear matter observed in nature, and translate
that knowledge into technologies that can benefit society in
the areas of commerce, medicine, and national security.
This program has led to practical outcomes that benefit
Americans every day, including advances in nuclear power,
medicine, and environmental and geological sciences.
Also of note, until recently, DOE's Isotope R&D and
Production program was a part of its Nuclear Physics program,
and it still benefits immensely from that research. The Isotope
program develops production methods and supplies critical
radioactive and stable isotopes for a variety of uses. These
isotopes are high-priority commodities of strategic importance
because of the essential role they play in medical diagnosis
and treatment, discovery science, national security, and a host
of other areas. As we will hear today, this program is a vital
source of isotopes that are in short supply or that we are not
yet capable of producing domestically.
As illustrated by a slate of recent hearings, other
oversight activities, and current legislation including the
America COMPETES Act, a top priority of this Committee is the
overall health of the DOE Office of Science, especially in
light of its lackluster budget requests over multiple
Administrations. This is particularly true of its portfolio of
construction projects and user facilities, each of which is a
unique resource that drives scientific progress and serves as a
magnet for international research talent. I look forward to
discussing these issues and more with our witnesses here today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses. Dr. Asmeret Berhe is the Director of the Office
of Science at the Department of Energy. She is on leave from
the University of California Merced where she is a Professor of
Soil Biochemistry and holds the Ted and Jan Falasco Chair in
Earth Sciences and Geology. Dr. Berhe's scientific leadership
has been recognized by multiple national awards, including the
Joanne Simpson Medal from the American Geophysical Union, the
Bromery Award in the Geological Society of America, and she was
selected as a new voice in science from the U.S. National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in 2018. Dr.
Berhe also is a founding investigator of the ADVANCEGeo
Partnership, a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded effort
to empower geoscientists to transform their workplace climate
through interventions to reduce harassment, discrimination, and
bullying.
Dr. Brian Greene is a Professor of Physics at Columbia
University and Director of Columbia's Center for Theoretical
Physics. He is recognized for a number of groundbreaking
discoveries in his field of superstring theory, including the
discoveries of mirror symmetry and topology change. Dr. Greene
has written four New York Times bestsellers that explore
physics for general audiences. He also co-founded the World
Science Festival, which aims to cultivate a general public
informed by science and take science out of the laboratory and
into the streets of New York City and beyond.
Dr. Lia Merminga is the Director of Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory and a renowned accelerator physicist.
She previously led the Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II)
project at Fermilab that will enable the world's most intense
neutrino beam for the lab's flagship Long Baseline Neutrino
Facility and a Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, LBNF/DUNE,
and drive a broad physics research program. Dr. Merminga has
held leadership roles at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
in California; TRIUMF in Vancouver, Canada; and the Thomas
Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia. She is a
Fermilab distinguished scientist and a Fellow of the American
Physical Society and a graduate of the Department of Energy's
Oppenheimer Energy Science Leadership Program.
Mr. Jim Yeck is the Associate Laboratory Director and the
Project Director for the Electron-Ion Collider at Brookhaven
National Laboratory. He has over 30 years of project managing
experience, including serving as the Director General of the
European Spallation Source. He has also previously served as
the Department of Energy's Project Manager for the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and a U.S. contribution to the Large
Hadron Collider (LHC). As Project Director for the construction
of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, and as the Deputy Project
Manager for the National Synchrotron Light Source II facility
at Brookhaven. Mr. Yeck serves as Chair for numerous advisory
committees for large projects supported by DOE, NSF, and
international funding agencies.
And last but certainly not least, Mr. Michael Guastella is
the Executive Director of the Council on Radionuclides and
Radiopharmaceuticals Inc., or CORAR. CORAR is a trade
association that represents developers, manufacturers, and
distributors of radiopharmaceuticals and radioisotopes. Prior
to CORAR, he worked in the nuclear pharmacy industry with both
SENCOR International Corporation and Cardinal Health, holding a
number of leadership positions over 18 years. Mr. Guastella has
served on the CORAR Board of Directors for 10 years. Thank you
all for joining us today.
As our witnesses should know, you will have 5 minutes for
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included
in the record for the hearing. When you all have completed your
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member
will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
We will start with Dr. Berhe. Dr. Berhe, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ASMERET BERHE,
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
Weber, and the distinguished Members of the Committee. It's
with great pleasure that I join you today to represent the
Department of Energy at this hearing on the Office of Science.
As Members of this Committee know, it was only a little
over a month ago that I was sworn in as the Director of the
Office of Science. But I have a long history with the
Department of Energy, dating to my time as a graduate student
when I was a Ph.D. student at Berkeley when I conducted
research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the Pacific
Northwest National Lab, both Office of Science stewarded
laboratories, and I'm deeply familiar with the research goals
of the Office of Science.
Perhaps the deepest and most awe-inspiring questions
humanity asks are about the nature of matter, energy, space,
and time. Today, world-leading research into these questions is
being conducted by scientists supported by the Office of
Science's programs on high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and
isotope research and development and production.
The Office of Science is crucial to progress in these
fields. We provide approximately 85 percent of the funding in
particle physics research and 90 percent of the funding in
nuclear physics research in the United States. As Director, it
is my priority to ensure that these and all other Office of
Science programs are robustly supported and maintain their
world-leading status.
High energy and nuclear physics, as much as any scientific
endeavors, demonstrate that scientific research is evolving
more rapidly perhaps than most time since the scientific
revolution. Science in these fields is also becoming more
reliant on large-scale, cutting-edge facilities and
technologies is becoming more data-centric and more democratic.
The Office of Science is uniquely positioned to support these
transformations and to unlock the future of science and
technology.
Large-scale, multi-institutional, multidisciplinary science
is a core competence of the Office of Science. Research we
support, including in high-energy and nuclear physics programs,
require some of the largest and most complex experimental
facilities ever designed and built. The Office of Science makes
these projects a reality.
We are--we not only support the construction and management
and operation of the facilities but also the research and
development of new technologies needed to realize their
scientific potential. Science in the fields of high-energy
physics and nuclear physics also prioritizes the production,
dissemination, and analysis of massive amounts of data in both
fields experiments. Experiments that are done in both fields
have tens of millions of events that are generated in the
largest and most complex scientific instruments ever designed.
The resulting big data must be captured, curated, stored,
shared among scientists and analyzed using the fastest
supercomputers and most sophisticated algorithms in the world.
The Office of Science uniquely has the expertise and
infrastructure needed to achieve these Herculean tasks.
Enormous data repositories, the fastest data transfer networks,
the world's fastest performance computers, including Frontier,
the Nation's first exascale computer at Oak Ridge National Lab,
and the expert staff needed to leverage these tools for
discovery.
Further, many of these technologies end up benefiting
society outside the lab in fields as diverse as national
security and medicine. The Department of Energy's Isotope R&D
and Production Program stewarded by the Office of Science
supports world-leading research and development to create novel
and more efficient isotope production and processing
techniques. Isotopes are vital for ensuring the Nation's
security and prosperity and enabling components and
technologies used for numerous mission-critical applications.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has significantly impacted the
availability of many critical isotopes, given Russia's outsize
role in isotope production and distribution in the world.
Removing U.S. dependence on Russian isotopes is a long-term
project for the Department, one we began 5 years ago and
continue today. We are committed to building the needed
infrastructure to produce critical isotopes domestically, and
we'll continue to work tirelessly with our Federal industrial
and academic partners to help alleviate the challenge with
isotope supply in the near term.
Across all scientific areas we support, the Office of
Science is committed to training, recruitment, retention of
highly skilled work force that draws from the best minds across
the full spectrum of backgrounds and cultures within the
Nation.
In closing, the DOE's Office of Science is supporting
science that continues to push the frontiers of knowledge today
and will enable discoveries of tomorrow. DOE Office of Science
is uniquely capable of providing the physical, human, and
intellectual infrastructure needed to do big, multi-
institutional, multidisciplinary science and do it well. And we
deliver the science and technology needed for building the
cutting-edge science and experimental facilities and for
training the diverse and talented STEM (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) work force that the future will
demand. With support for infrastructure and continuing programs
for developing the diverse and highly skilled work force, the
Office of Science will continue to provide insights into the
fundamental nature of matter, energy, space, and time.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Berhe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much.
Next, we will have Dr. Greene.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BRIAN GREENE,
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR THEORETICAL PHYSICS,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Dr. Greene. Thank you so much for this privilege to speak
about some of the vital issues of science as it relates to the
future of United States. Now, in my professional life I
actually wear two related hats. First, I direct the Center for
Theoretical Physics at Columbia University where I undertake
mathematical research to investigate nature's forces and to
determine what the insights that reveal can tell us about the
fundamental structure of space and time, the goal being to
answer some of the questions we've already heard. What is
matter made of? Does space go on forever? What happened before
the Big Bang, questions that puzzle young children and even
adults who have an interest in understanding their place in the
cosmic order.
My second professional preoccupation is related but
distinct, bringing cutting-edge scientific insights to broad
swaths of the general public through books and articles,
television documentaries, live public events, performances,
activities that can reach and have reached hundreds of millions
of people worldwide. And while I'm happy to share in the
question period relevant insights from either of these
pursuits, research or public engagement, as my distinguished
colleagues on the panel will speak directly to various and
vital research efforts, I'm going to focus my remarks on the
impact of public engagement with science has on the health and
vitality now and in the long run of our country and the world.
Now part of this impact is manifest. We've already heard
some of it. I suspect at least a few of us are old enough to
think back to our own experiences with rotary telephone,
electric typewriters, bottles of Wite-Out, and for those of us
who are technically savvy in that earlier era, large stacks of
computer punch cards ready to be loaded into card readers,
delivering instructions to massive computers that filled entire
rooms. And while I can personally testify to having experienced
all of that, and they are fond memories I admit, I can't
imagine going back to those days. And historians, of course,
can trace with great detail the roots of our modern electronic
age.
But the coarse yet sufficiently accurate summary is that
the modern era emerged from breakthroughs in the very subjects
we're talking about here today, understanding the constituents
of matter and the forces that govern these constituents. And
briefly put, if you want to manipulate matter on small scales,
the very capacity at the core of everything from cell phones to
the relatively tiny computers sitting on our desks, you have to
understand matter on small scales.
And here is the amazing thing. In the 1920's, as
researchers were feverishly rewriting our understanding of
matter on subatomic scales--it's a body of work known as
quantum mechanics--they had no idea what impact the revelations
would one day have, or the scientific titans of those early
pursuits who have testified here. And were you to have asked
them how their work would impact the world, most would have
focused on things like human curiosity, the human urge to
understand, with barely a mention of the far-off and, at that
time, difficult-to-envision applications.
And yet, fast-forward 100 years, and a non-trivial portion
of the gross national product of the United States can be
traced back to those seemingly esoteric investigations into the
heart of matter, forces, and energy, which is a wonderful
demonstration of how the fundamental science of one era can
become the economic engine of the next.
And of course, the impact goes well beyond economics. As my
colleagues today will no doubt mention, sophisticated and
lifesaving medical diagnostics and medical treatments have also
emerged from these foundational scientific works. So it is
anything but hyperbolic to describe these scientific pursuits
is having radically transformed both life and death.
Now, this is heavy stuff. These are profound impacts. Yet
to leave the discussion there would be to miss what I consider
an even more important aspect, which is this. The reason
science really matters is because science is a way of life.
Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us
from confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise,
predictive, and reliable, a transformation for those lucky
enough to experience it that is empowering and emotional. To be
able to think through and grasp explanations for everything
from why the sky is blue, to how life formed on Earth, not
because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal
patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, well, I must
tell you, that is one of the most precious of human
experiences.
Now to be sure, as a practicing scientist, I know this from
my own work and study. But I also know that you don't have to
be a scientist to experience the transformative power of
science. I've seen kids' eyes light up as I've told them about
black holes and the Big Bang, and I've spoken with high school
dropouts, who stumbled on popular science books and then
returned to school with newfound purpose. I've received letters
from soldiers on the battlefield and incarcerated prisoners
seeking in the beginning----
Chairman Bowman. I'm sorry, Dr. Greene, you're a few
seconds over. We'll come back to you on questioning.
Dr. Greene. Oh, OK, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Greene follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you.
Next, we will have Dr. Merminga.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LIA MERMINGA, DIRECTOR,
FERMI NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY
Dr. Merminga. Thank you. Energy Subcommittee Chairman
Bowman and Ranking Member Weber and other distinguished Members
of this Subcommittee, I'm Lia Merminga, Director of Fermilab
since 2 months ago, an honor to speak with you today about
high-energy physics.
As we meet here today, the U.S. high-energy physics
community is getting ready to assemble in Seattle for what is
called Snowmass, the decadal planning exercise that outlines
the future vision of particle physics. From Snowmass, the
Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel, or P5, will
produce a 10-year plan that prioritizes major projects and
experiments to maintain the United States' global leadership in
the field.
Particle physics research probes from the smallest
constituents of matter to the entire cosmos, in pursuit of the
most profound questions of humanity. How did our universe come
to be? How does it work? And why are we here? But investing in
physics research goes beyond helping us understand such
fundamental questions. We also push the boundaries of knowledge
and develop technologies that improve lives.
The crosscutting nature of our research fosters
applications beyond particle physics. Emerging technologies
such as quantum science, artificial intelligence, and novel
microelectronics find great synergy with our core HEP mission.
This has engendered new frontiers well beyond their initial
scopes. MRIs, proton therapy, X-ray lasers, and the World Wide
Web have all resulted from particle physics research and
collaboration. Continued investment in HEP, including in
research, infrastructure, and people, are critical to driving
major discoveries and new technologies in the future.
HEP is a powerful training ground that attracts and
inspires young minds and helps build the best and most diverse
STEM work force. HEP students and researchers develop state-of-
the-art technologies, build tools to handle massive data, and
cultivate the creativity to bring the imagined into reality,
whether in HEP or in other STEM pursuits.
And particle physics is a global endeavor. We work with
almost every country in the world, and our flagship projects
are great examples of this collaboration. The 2014 P5 report
recommended Fermilab to host the largest and most complex
neutrino research program ever undertaken. The Long Baseline
Neutrino Facility, or LBNF, will provide the infrastructure for
the massive Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, or DUNE,
largest international scientific project on U.S. soil.
LBNF crews are now excavating caverns a mile underground at
the Sanford Lab in South Dakota, while 1,400 DUNE collaborators
from over 35 countries are building the cutting-edge detectors
that will fill these caverns starting as early as 2024. LBNF/
DUNE will be powered by Fermilab's new superconducting
accelerator known as PIP-II, the first built with significant
international contributions. In fact, together, LBNF/DUNE and
PIP-II have attracted more than $1 billion in in-kind
contributions from international partners, including CERN, the
European Particle Physics Laboratory, marking its first time
investing in physics outside Europe. Twenty-one hundred U.S.
scientists use CERN's Large Hadron Collider for their research.
Since its startup, more than 2,000 scientific results have been
published, including the Higgs Boson discovery in 2012. Ongoing
LHC upgrades will enable scientists to unlock key questions in
particle physics for decades to come.
LBNF, DUNE, PIP-II, and LHC upgrades are our highest
priorities at Fermilab. The projects are proceeding well, and
we are incredibly grateful to the Department of Energy for
their support thus far, particularly in helping us to address
the challenges of LBNF/DUNE and accelerating its schedule. Our
international partners have seen the United States' ongoing
commitment and investment in these efforts, and this has
resulted in expanding contributions and our sustained global
leadership in the field.
I thank the Members of this distinguished Subcommittee for
your attention. Your continued support of the DOE Office of
Science means we can continue to pursue our--the mysteries of
the universe and improve lives, both here in the United States
and around the world. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Merminga follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much.
Next, we will have Mr. Yeck. And, Mr. Yeck, let's try to
make it in 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JIM YECK,
ASSOCIATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR
AND PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE ELECTRON-ION COLLIDER,
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Yeck. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. My name is Jim Yeck. I have
participated in and led big science projects around the world,
as noted in my introduction by Chairman Bowman.
I'm here today as Project Director for the Electron-Ion
Collider, or EIC, a nuclear physics research facility being
built at Brookhaven Lab in New York in partnership with
Virginia's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, and
funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. I
thank the Committee for authorizing the EIC as part of the
America COMPETES Act of 2022.
Today, all our technologies and much of our economy depend
on what we've learned about the atom and its orbiting
electrons. Experiments on the behavior of electrons in the last
century led to the development of batteries, semiconductors,
smart materials, and more. With an EIC, we will be able to look
inside the atom nucleus to image its constituents, the quarks
and gluons. EIC experiments will reveal how the strong nuclear
force drives interactions among completely massless gluons and
nearly massless quarks to buildup the mass, structure, and
properties of visible matter in the universe. Like the
discoveries of the last century that power today's electronics-
centered society, new discoveries about gluons could lead to
the like technologies of tomorrow.
Tools we are developing for the EIC could also lead to new
innovative accelerators for making and testing computer chips,
killing cancer cells, and designing drugs and new materials;
detector technologies for medicine and national security; and
computational tools that can be applied to modeling climate
change, global pandemics, even financial markets.
EIC planning has been underway for more than 2 decades. The
nuclear science community and the National Academies consider
its scientific promise to be timely, compelling, and worthy of
investment. Our field has a strong track record of delivering
on the goals laid out through this careful planning process and
for delivering projects within budget.
As a Project Leader, my key ingredients of success include
ensuring the project remains a priority of the science
community, securing funding commitments, and establishing a
strong role of the host funding agency and laboratory,
appointing project leaders who enable the success of all
stakeholders, encouraging collective ownership of problems and
solutions, establishing realistic goals, making the most of the
team's experience, and sustaining energy and enthusiasm over
the decade required to construct the project. To make the EIC a
reality, we need all of these ingredients.
I'm confident that we have the scientific and technical
knowhow, the team, and other ingredients in place, but I'm
concerned about the current funding realities. EIC construction
cost estimates range from $1.7 to $2.8 billion. That investment
will create thousands of jobs in construction, materials, and
manufacturing in New York State, Virginia, and beyond, and
hundreds of highly skilled technical jobs over the EIC's
operational lifetime. Brookhaven Lab was selected as the EIC
site in part to capitalize on the $2 billion-plus already
invested in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider or RHIC, the
only operating collider in the United States. RHIC and its team
of talent will serve as a backbone for the EIC after RHIC's
scientific mission is complete in 2025. Reusing components of
RHIC and leveraging its highly trained work force with its
decades of experience will reduce the overall EIC project costs
and ensure the handoff of knowledge from today's scientists,
engineers, and technicians to the next generation critical to
building and operating the new facility.
But without several years of sufficient, dedicated funding
to ensure a smooth transition from RHIC to EIC, we anticipate
layoffs impacting those same individuals. To date, funding has
been well below the levels required to keep the project on
course and on budget. Funding constraints also affect our
ability to attract the next generation of American physicists,
technicians, and engineers and will compromise U.S. leadership
and competitiveness in accelerator science and nuclear physics.
And those constraints will also impact our international
partnerships. Currently, a robust EIC user community of about
1,300 scientists from 250 institutions around the globe have
been helping to develop the science program.
Finally, a word about education. Brookhaven Lab takes great
pride in its internship programs with a 50/50 gender diversity
mix and nearly 40 percent of our students coming from
underrepresented groups. These populations are developing the
diverse work force of the future. The EIC will be a unique
resource for driving that progression.
I hope this testimony convinces you of the enormous value
an investment in Electron-Ion Collider will deliver to our
Nation and the need for sufficient funding to make it a
reality. EIC will extend the frontiers of discovery, lead to
benefits to science and society, and maintain our Nation's
undisputed leadership and competitiveness in nuclear,
accelerator, detector, and computational science, areas
essential to economic advancement, national security, and
technological development for decades to come.
Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yeck follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Yeck.
And finally, we will have Mr. Guastella.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MICHAEL GUASTELLA,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE COUNCIL
ON RADIONUCLIDES AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Guastella. Good morning, Chairman Bowman, Ranking
Member Weber, and Members of the Committee. I'm Michael
Guastella, the Executive Director of the Council on
Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals. We're an association of
companies that manufacture and distribute radioactive sources
and medical isotopes here in the United States. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide the Committee with our comments on
the current supply of radioactive and stable isotopes.
Our supply chain issues have been the focus of several
government efforts over the last 15 years to address the lack
of a reliable and sufficient supply of domestic medical and
industrial isotopes. And the recent invasion--Russian invasion
of Ukraine highlight further these issues. The problem is
significant. And my member companies are appreciative of the
Committee's interest in these issues and our suggestions on
what needs to be done.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Weber, for your support and assistance over the last several
years. Your Committee has recognized the importance of medical
and industrial isotopes, and you have advocated for Federal
policies that would ensure that our patients have the isotopes
necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Nuclear medicine involves the injection of medical
radioactive isotopes and radiopharmaceuticals into a patient's
body to diagnose and treat disease. Nuclear medicine is
integral to the care of patients, and we estimate that there
are 20 million nuclear medicine procedures performed annually
for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's
disease, and Alzheimer's disease.
Now, let me update the Committee on U.S. isotope supply
challenges and opportunities. There are over 40 stable and
radioactive isotopes that we have identified that are important
for medical or industrial purposes, and that the United States
relies largely on Russian companies to supply. For example, to
serve U.S. patients, a significant portion of the molybdenum-99
supply chain relies on uranium-235 that is sourced from Russia.
Several other isotopes sourced from Russia include stable
isotope zinc-68, which is used for the production of
therapeutic--the therapeutic radioisotope copper-67,
gadolinium-153 for calibrating medical devices, and krypton-85
using industrial-sealed sources to measure thickness and
density.
Various companies are currently developing reactor and
nonreactor capabilities to help scale up domestic production of
essential isotopes. However, these commercial activities may
not be adequate to address the immediate risks to the
radioactive and stable isotope supply chains posed by the
Russian invasion of Ukraine and potential sanctions being
considered on Russian suppliers by the United States and our
allies.
DOE especially plays a critical role in producing and
distributing isotopes needed in scientific research and for
initial medical, clinical development, and industrial purposes
when there are not sufficient commercial incentives for
production of such isotopes. CORAR and its member companies
believe that, where commercially feasible, medical and
industrial isotopes should be produced by the private sector.
However, for a number of these isotopes where commercial
domestic production has not been established or is not
sufficient to meet U.S. medical and industrial needs, the DOE
Isotope Program can potentially provide a bridge to ensure
domestic supply.
CORAR would recommend that the Committee continue to
support the DOE's research, development, and production
activities. CORAR supports your Committee's work contained in
section 311 of the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Provisions of
the COMPETES Act will improve the mission of the DOE Isotope
Program, including the establishment of a new Advisory
Committee and the authorization of appropriations for the DOE
Isotope Program to be used to support the new DOE isotope--the
DOE Stable Isotope Production and Research Center, Radioisotope
Processing Facility, and the Clinical Alpha Radionuclide
Producer Project. However, the current level of funding
supports project completion timelines that stretch to the early
2030's. CORAR encourages the Committee to consider accelerating
the authorization of appropriation rate for the DOE Isotope
Program that would allow these projects to be completed on an
accelerated timeline, ideally over the next 4 to 5 years.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I
would be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guastella follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. At this point, we will begin our first
round of questions. The Chairman now recognizes himself for 5
minutes.
My first question goes to Mr. Yeck. It's for you as the
Director of--the Project Director of the Electron-Ion Collider,
which is funded and supported by the DOE Office of Science
Nuclear Physics Program and located in my State of New York. I
understand from your testimony that research at this facility
will not only continue to advance our fundamental understanding
of matter and reality but could also pave the way for further
breakthroughs in medicine, electronics, advanced computing, and
much more. Can you please elaborate on how the Electron-Ion
Collider is envisioned to contribute to maintaining our
country's leadership and innovation in these and other critical
technology areas?
Mr. Yeck. Thank you. One of the features of the Electron-
Ion Collider is that it's an extremely challenging and complex
machine, which requires innovations in accelerator physics. And
the result that we're pursuing in performance parameters that
push the envelope in terms of the energy of the collisions, the
luminosity, the polarization of the beams. All of these
techniques have been used in the past to benefit other fields.
So it's basically the development of accelerator science and
technology which is motivating the interest of collaborators
around the world. And the detector technologies are also quite
challenging. And if history is any guide, as was discussed
earlier in other testimony, this is made available to these
other fields. Thank you.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Dr. Berhe, can you comment on
this as well?
Dr. Berhe. Yes, I agree with Mr. Yeck that, you know, the
Electron-Ion Collider represents an important--and thank you,
first of all, for your question, Congressman. And, as I said, I
agree with Mr. Yeck on the importance of this incredibly
exciting facility that the science community is looking forward
to. And I also agree that even though some of these research
questions that the facility might address might be more
fundamental, there are significant advances and benefits that
we can look forward to from these facilities. And I think it's
a really good reason why there is a widespread support for this
facility and the science that it will enable across the board
in the Office of Science.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. My next question is for Dr.
Greene. Thank you for your testimony. Here on the Science
Committee, we have delved deep into how to better involve
students in STEM around the country, from K to 12, to the
university and graduate level.
In your written testimony, you state that the American
education system has failed to teach science effectively. You
go on to say that, as a society, we are too focused on what
science can do for us instead of valuing science for how it can
change the way we understand and see the world. Can you
describe this educational failure? How can we here on the
Science Committee and in Congress in general address that
problem?
Dr. Greene. Yes, thank you for the question. Briefly put,
we focus in the classroom on teaching kids the details of
science so that they can regurgitate it back on an exam so we
can evaluate them. But science is not simply the details.
Science is the big ideas, as we've already heard in the
testimony from many on the panel today. And if you can take a
kid out to the stars and reveal to them the wonders of the
cosmos and the wonders of life and the wonders of mind, this
can inspire them to want to learn the details.
So I think there needs to be a fairly significant shift in
the way that we teach science to the young and the way we bring
adults and families into the scientific enterprise because,
ultimately, what we're doing is continuing a journey that our
species has been on for thousands of years. And we have, as a
species, tried to understand ourselves and the cosmos, and it's
perhaps the most exciting of adventure stories.
So what we need to do is extol science as something vital
to life and fun, the ability of scientists to go out into the
world and spread the message of how these ideas can help us
shape our place in the universe.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. I yield back the
balance of my time and now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We can all agree that isotopes are strategic commodities
that are essential to the Nation's economic, scientific,
medical treatments, industry, national security is not
negotiable or replaceable. Therefore, I'm extremely concerned
about DOE's solution or dare I say the lack thereof to the
instability of isotope supply chain resulting from the Russian
aggression in Ukraine.
So Dr. Berhe, welcome once again here. We'll give you one
of the hard questions first. I'll ask you. What exactly is
DOE's short-term outlook here, and do you believe that the
Department's plan to build both a Stable Isotope Production and
Research Center and a Radioisotope Processing Facility will be
quick enough and sustainable enough in the long term to avoid
the short--the supply shortage that is already appearing
absolutely inevitable?
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I
agree with you that the importance of isotopes is clear, as was
elaborated by my colleagues on the panel and the urgency of
this matter is also very, very clear. One thing I could say is
the fact that contingency planning for scenarios like what
we're experiencing right now actually started at the DOE about
5 years ago, so we've been anticipating and planning for
something like this and disruptions. And, as a result, we've
been able to actually speed up production in facilities that
are existing, but also are continuing to push for newer
facilities to come online as soon as possible. And we
appreciate the bipartisan support that we've received from your
Committee on this area.
And as, you know, it was discussed earlier, the two Stable
Isotope Facility, as well as the Radioisotope Production
Facility that are in construction, are going to be very
critical for helping us address the needs.
I want to be clear also about the fact that this is an
extremely technically challenging area, so there's not going to
be any very, very quick fixes in the matter. But I think, as
has been demonstrated in the last several months, the DOE
facilities and the personnel involved in this work and the
partnerships that we have with both universities and the
industry have been able to limit the impact of the supply chain
disruptions because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And we'll
continue to work with the Congress, as well as these different
stakeholders, to make sure that we address these issues.
In the short term, there might be some challenges,
obviously. But I think continuing to receive support for these
upcoming facilities will definitely help us bring them online
faster in the timelines that hopefully can alleviate even more
significant----
Mr. Weber. Well, let me ask you two questions to follow up
with that, Doctor. And that is No. 1. If that process was
inevitable 5 years ago, where are we in that process, No. 1?
And the second question is, how long are you on loan from the
university?
Dr. Berhe. Well, to answer your first--second question
first, I'm in this position for--you know, I'm a Presidential
appointee, so--but I think--rest assured, though, this is not
about me or one person, right? Obviously, there's a program and
dedicated staff with DOE.
Mr. Weber. Is there an administrator to that process?
Dr. Berhe. Yes. Yes, there is----
Mr. Weber. Who is that?
Dr. Berhe. There is a program--Joann Gallon--Gillian--
sorry----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Dr. Berhe. The last name, I'm butchering it a little bit.
But Jehanne Gillo is the Program Manager for Isotopes. And I
should also mention that the scientific community in this area
has been very invested, as you heard. They're trying to set up
their own advisory committee actually outside NP and
continuing----
Mr. Weber. And if I may interrupt, and that answer, do we
think that we have to build a facility like this each time or
could we get the private industry on board as quickly as
possible, have them taking this over?
Dr. Berhe. I think, as has been demonstrated, there's
multiple different pathways that could be followed in the long
term. Obviously, many of us have been engaged in the short term
trying to address with the facilities that we already have and
ones that have been planned and are currently under
construction. But there are obviously possibilities around the
world to do this in different ways.
Mr. Weber. OK, thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I'll go ahead and yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is now
recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
Bowman, and Ranking Member Weber, and thank you for our
witnesses for being here this morning.
I'm honored to be selected as a Member of the Conference
Committee tasked with negotiating a bipartisan innovation
package. And as part of the House-passed version of this
legislation, the Science Committee included a provision
authorizing nearly $1 billion over 5 years to establish a
development, demonstration, and commercialization program at
the Department of Energy to strengthen our global
competitiveness in the field of microelectronics. The House-
passed bill would establish microelectronics science research
centers to address the foundational challenges in design,
development, and manufacturing.
So the district I represent in northwest Oregon is often
referred to as the Silicon Forest. It's particularly affected
by innovation in microelectronics. Thousands of my constituents
and more than 40,000 Oregonians currently work in the
semiconductor industry.
So I want to ask Dr. Merminga, in your written testimony
you note that Fermilab was a leader in advancing science and
technology that drive advancements in microelectronics
capabilities. So will you please expand on the interplay
between the DOE's High Energy Physics Program and
microelectronics development and offer your perspective on why
our national labs are uniquely positioned to accelerate
progress in advanced microelectronics research and development?
Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much for this question. So
Fermilab experiments create massive streams of data at very
high rates. Just to give you an idea--excuse me--the data
generated per second in just one large collider physics
experiment like the LHC is equivalent to the average internet
traffic across North America. Now, in order to monitor these
data and make decisions about what events to read out, the
readout must be located on the detectors themselves. So this
creates naturally a need for microelectronics code design,
which is a prerequisite to allow us to interpret and monitor
the data that we produce in our large-scale particle physics
experiments. It's part of our business.
In addition, our applications of microelectronics have
additional cutting-edge requirements, for example, cryogenic
operation, ultralow power consumption, and radiation hardness.
It turns out industry now is interested in all of these
challenges. Their requirements are easier than ours. We have
more stringent requirements. And industry is very interested in
working with us to codevelop a lot of these capabilities.
To give you an another idea, we were the first laboratory
in the complex to put AI on a chip. And so advances now----
Ms. Bonamici. Dr. Merminga, I'm sorry to cut you off, but I
want to get a couple other questions in and I don't have much
more time.
Dr. Merminga. Sure.
Ms. Bonamici. I'm sorry to cut you off. I want to ask Dr.
Berhe, briefly, how can basic research fields like high-energy
physics and nuclear physics more effectively support work force
issues and help our U.S. high tech industries? And if you can
summarize and then I want to ask, Dr. Greene, thank you for
your work, how can we better communicate the importance of what
we do to the general public?
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congresswoman. So this is a very
important area for me personally and the Department and the
Administration. And we are currently actually working on a
comprehensive plan that would allow us to support a diverse,
dynamic work force that we could develop and support right here
in the United States so that we are, you know, providing the
best training possible for the scientists that will go on to
make the discoveries of the future, but also the work force
that will be needed for these highly technical industries out
there.
And you know, both the HEP and NP programs, for example,
support a significant part of the training of the skilled work
force in these areas, and so providing the support, being very
intentional about recruitment, being intentional about also--
oh, OK, sorry, the buzzing sound--being very intentional about
the training, recruitment, and retention of staff and--is a
very important priority area and that's how we think it's--this
is going to work. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Dr. Greene?
Dr. Greene. So in 13 seconds I would simply say that public
engagement is cheap. So with a little bit of funding, you can
have an army of scientists who are out there talking to the
public and getting the public excited about these key ideas.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that and appreciate all your
efforts to bring science to the people of this country and the
world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, is
now recognized.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte, is now
recognized.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all the witnesses. This has been a fascinating hearing.
I'd like to continue the line of questioning that Ranking
Member Weber had started. Like him, I am very concerned about
the supply chain issues that have arisen in our radioisotope
production. Mr. Guastella, I found in your written testimony
some of the things that you had to say about that extremely
interesting. You had pointed out that it's possible to use
commercial power reactors as neutron sources for the creation
of radioisotopes, but you also pointed out that, currently,
power reactors in the United States lack the technology to
irradiate a target, which is really what you'd need to make
this work.
So a number of us here on the Committee have been vocal
advocates for next-generation nuclear, both fission and
upcoming fusion, but the--you know, really, as we confront the
problem of global climate change and decarbonization, nuclear
energy is probably at this point the cleanest energy that
mankind knows how to produce. And, you know, we think it's
gotten a bad name. Next-generation nuclear has amazing promise
and much lower failure modes.
So as you see these next-generation nuclear programs and
the modular reactors come on board, is there a possibility for
some synergy of designing in the technology to be able to
create these radioisotopes as we develop these new reactors?
Mr. Guastella. Well, Congressman, thank you for the
question. And yes, as you've acknowledged, some of the power
reactors in Canada, generally CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium)
reactors, are using--they're using the power reactors as
neutron sources for moly production, as well as lutetium-177,
which is a beta-emitting isotope. The current power reactors in
the United States, unfortunately, generally don't have the same
type of technology that allows them to irradiate these targets
while they're online.
We have one member TerraPower, a Bill Gates company, who
was looking at a next generation, a small modular reactor.
They're going to test it in Wyoming. As far as I know--and
we've asked this question--TerraPower does not plan to include
medical isotope production into their mission and into the
design of the reactor. I'm not aware of any of the other
projects right now that are including medical isotope
production, unfortunately, but----
Mr. Obernolte. What would be the technical barriers to be
able to--to adding that kind of capability?
Mr. Guastella. To be honest, I'm not quite sure. We can
certainly look into that a little bit more and maybe provide a
response as a question for the record. But in asking
TerraPower, who is looking at actinium-225 production in
partnership with the DOE, they've basically said the design of
their reactor does not allow right now for the--a production of
medical isotopes, but not sure of some of the other projects
that are currently in development.
Mr. Obernolte. Do you know if any other countries are
planning on building in this technology? It just seems like an
incredible missed opportunity if we're having the supply chain
pressure not to take advantage of the fact that we're deploying
this next-generation technology currently?
Mr. Guastella. Yes. Well, as far as next-generation
technology, I'm not aware. Obviously, there are projects in
Europe right now, research reactor projects that are on the
books right now and with the design of medical isotope
production as part of their mission. So there are some
projects. I'm not aware of any--of the next-gen small modular
reactor projects involving medical isotope production at this
time.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you. Well, let me ask you, Dr.
Berhe, is this something that your department is pursuing,
perhaps talking with the Office of Nuclear Energy as you
interface between the Radioisotope Program and this upcoming
technology?
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. We
all agree that this is an important area. It's also fast-moving
in terms of the technical advances that are happening. And I
think your--the point that you make is an important one, and
the Isotope Program at DOE Office of Science continuously works
with the nuclear energy side of the house and other
stakeholders to figure out what is--what other things that we
should be thinking about because it's not just a production
program, right? It's also a research and development program so
that we are thinking ahead about what are the new technologies
that we're developing. So in consultation with the scientific
community and the different stakeholders, they are continuously
assessing what needs to be the next goal that we target.
And just to mention one, the Radioisotope Production
Facility at Oak Ridge National Lab that's, you know, in
development will actually have capacity to add a number of the
isotopes that we currently source from Russia that are produced
on a reactor, and obviously will help accelerate the
availability of a number of radioisotopes that are critical,
including in the medical field.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. I see I'm out of time. but I'd
like to encourage you to continue to have those discussions
because it would certainly be a missed opportunity if we didn't
build that capability into the new commercial power reactors
that are in development.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Lamb,
is now recognized.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start off
with a question for Mr. Yeck about the facility being built at
Brookhaven. I was wondering if you could kind of compare that
for us to similar facilities around the world if they exist in
direct comparison. In other words, you know, how urgent is it
for us to complete and maintain that facility in order to
maintain an edge over competitor nations, or are we merely
matching them by building the facility at Brookhaven?
Mr. Yeck. Yes, thank you for the question. So the EIC, when
it's constructed, will be a unique facility in the world. And
there's worldwide interest in the realization of the facility.
It's been a priority, obviously, in the United States but also
in the European community, and participation is encouraged.
There is potential competition. I mean, China is interested
in building an electron-ion collider. They've made plans. We're
ahead. We have a unique opportunity, as I mentioned in my
testimony, with the successful conclusion of the RHIC program,
which will end in 2025, with a work force that can be mobilized
immediately into the construction work of the EIC. The timing
here is absolutely critical. We cannot lose these people. We
need these people in addition to our partnerships and
collaboration with Jefferson Lab and other laboratories and
universities. So the timing is now for the realization of the
Electron-Ion Collider, and it will maintain U.S. leadership in
this field with creating a facility that will have
international interest and participation. Thank you.
Mr. Lamb. I appreciate that. Thank you.
And, Dr. Behre, to kind of enlarge that to all 28 of the
user facilities under your purview, can you maybe update us on
the the overall state of those 28 in comparison to the
portfolio of other nations? And has that changed over time?
Like in other words, are we pulling ahead? Are other nations
catching us in terms of the concrete user facilities that we
have?
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I
think it's fair to say that the United States remains one of
the strongest, you know, kind of nations with respect to the
user facilities that we have, the capabilities that--and the
science that they enable. And many of the research programs
that enable and support the facilities remain one of the
strongest, anywhere, really.
But I think it's important also to acknowledge that there
are in fact nations out there, as we just heard, that are, you
know, also making similar investments in their institutions.
And so there is competition coming down the pike. I think
that's widely acknowledged. But continuing, I think, efforts to
support these facilities is--I think, again, it will ensure
that the United States remains preeminent on top of our--you
know, on top of the field across many areas. These user
facilities, as you mentioned, there are many, they're diverse,
they're some of the most renowned in the world in the areas of
research that they enable, and they remain important priority
areas that are supported and have widespread support by the
Office of Science.
Mr. Lamb. I agree. Thank you.
And Dr. Greene, last question for you. You know, you've
referenced several times some of the really important
scientific and particularly physics discoveries of the 20th
century. And, you know, my limited knowledge of that story is
that a lot of the most important characters started off in
Europe and found refuge in the United States around the time of
World War II and made many other discoveries here as a result.
Do you think that we are still seen around the world as a
refuge and a destination of that type? And are these
investments we're talking about today critical to our ability
to continue that way?
Dr. Greene. Yes, I think we're definitely still seen as a
center of forefront research and a place where scientists who
aspire to great things will want to spend time here at American
universities, at our national labs, and so forth.
But, you know, I think the the more important lesson to my
mind is that science is a worldwide effort. Sure, it's
important for American competitiveness, we want to be the
leaders and so forth, but ultimately, the questions that we're
asking transcend national boundaries. And if I was going to use
one model for the way the world could be a better place, we
scientists, we speak to each other across national boundaries.
It doesn't matter where you're from. What matters is the work
that you do, the contributions that you make, the insight that
you provide. And that, to me, is an inspiring message that
really transcends national considerations and is a global
concern that should drive us all.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Baird, is now recognized.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my question goes to
Dr. Yeck. You know, Purdue University is in my district, and
it's just one of the institutions that have participated in
research with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. So I
appreciate your testimony and your update on the Electron-Ion
Collider, the EIC. So here's my question. You noted in your
testimony that funding for the EIC has been well below that is
required for most efficient construction models and schedules.
How would such delays impact academic users in institutions
anticipating the use of the EIC facility? Dr. Yeck?
Mr. Yeck. Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question. The
impact is profound. I mean, the delays and the realization of
the EIC result in a gap as there are many users involved, as
you mentioned, from your district that are involved in the
science of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and are planning
for the science that will come with the Electron-Ion Collider.
And so the plans that we've laid out and the funding plans that
are proposed minimize the gap between the conclusion of RHIC
operations and the start of operations and the data-taking with
the Electron-Ion Collider. This is an issue that the plans have
addressed. That funding is clearly identified what is needed to
minimize that gap. And so I think it is--the answer is it's
profound. I mean, we need to move forward on the EIC now so
that we can move the people that are interested in the science
into the program in as graceful a way as possible. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Well, thank you. And Dr. Merminga, a number of
news stories in recent months have featured concerns about--and
it's along the same vein of this last question--about the
progress of the LBNF and DUNE, so including the cost in recent
years, extended completion times, and the decision to split
this project into subprojects. So in your new role, how do you
plan to reassure international and institutional partners
regarding Fermilab's and the Department's commitment to
completing this project in a timely and cost-effective manner?
Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much for this question, and
thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight. The
splitting in phases was something that was envisioned in the
2014 P5 report originally. It is not a recent development. LBNF
and DUNE, the DUNE experiment was going to--came in two phases.
Phase 1 was the installation of two detectors in the first
South Dakota sight and beam power from PIP-II equal to 1.2
megawatts. And then phase 2 was the installation of the
remaining two detectors in South Dakota and increasing the beam
power to 2.4 megawatts. That was originally conceived.
Now, the LBNF experiment is proceeding on track. The first
side excavation is already more than 30 percent, the excavation
complete. Eight hundred thousand tons of rock is being
excavated right now. And furthermore, delays would be very,
very detrimental to the project. However, a couple of months
ago, the Office of Science reaffirmed their commitment in front
of our international partners in a funding--international
funding agency forum their commitment to LBNF and DUNE and
announced a new funding profile that increases funding in 2024
to 2027 and allows completion of the project in early 2031, 2
years compared to the earlier profile, 2 years earlier, and in
alignment with the original P5 expectations.
So the way I'm going to convince the communities who are
doing--still--were--the science is profound from LBNF and DUNE.
We are managing the cost. The cost has been stable to around $3
billion since 2019. We are delivering the project on schedule,
and we're accelerating in order to win the competition as well.
Mr. Baird. Thank you very much. I appreciate the witnesses
and their expert testimony. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. The gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms.
Ross, is now recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member
Weber, for holding this hearing and to all of our witnesses for
joining us.
What's clear from the witness testimony today is the far-
reaching impact of particle and nuclear physics research. And
I'm proud to say that my district is home to the world's first
nuclear reactor used for teaching, research, and public service
at the North Carolina State University School of Engineering.
Nuclear engineers at NC State University are at the forefront
of research on neutrino detection to advance nuclear
nonproliferation, food irradiation--you guys are going to have
to help--irradiation to prevent the transmission of pathogens,
and nuclear forensics and medical imaging. That work and the
work of researchers at academic institutions across the country
is more important than ever as we face both energy shortages
and the ever-present potential for nuclear conflict.
So, Dr. Greene, as the only panelist today representing an
academic institution, what are your thoughts on the interplay
between the research community and these large-scale
experiments funded in the range of hundreds of millions to
billions of dollars? And how do you think the Federal
Government can better nurture relationships with our academic
institutions, as well as improve partnerships with
universities, national labs, and international projects?
Dr. Greene. Great, thank you. Thank you for the question.
There's an enormously fruitful interplay between the national
labs and academics at universities. Ever since I was a graduate
student, the number of my colleagues both as students and then
when I was a faculty member as well, who freely move between
the university and various of the national labs. That's a
commonplace occurrence. There are many graduate students at a
given university, including my own, who spend most of their
time at a national lab where their thesis work is part of the
laboratory's work, part of the undertaking of that facility.
So I think it's a very fruitful interplay between the two.
And it's a vital one because, look, the charge of a university
is different from the charge of a national lab. We're seeking
to both educate broadly, as well as be a research institution.
Managing a large-scale facility is usually not within the
purview of most universities, so I think it's a very symbiotic
relationship between the labs and the academic universities in
America. Thank you.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. And Dr. Merminga, I
understand that one of the areas of cutting-edge research in
nuclear nonproliferation is the use of antineutrino detectors
to monitor nuclear power plants from long distances. And North
Carolina State University's Dr. John Mattingly is part of the
team of researchers working on this potentially game-changing
research. Could you speak a bit to the promise of this approach
and other novel approaches to nonproliferation research?
Dr. Merminga. I'm sorry, I don't think I can speak to this.
Ms. Ross. OK. Anybody else?
Dr. Merminga. I will get back to you though.
Ms. Ross. Does anybody else on the panel know anything
about nonproliferation research? OK. Well, then I'll move to my
last question, and hopefully, Dr. Merminga, you can speak to
this. I was recently in Japan, which is moving rapidly on a
competing project known as Hyper-K, which is similar to LBNF/
DUNE. Can you briefly comment on the difference between the
scientific approaches favored by LBNF/DUNE versus Hyper-K?
Dr. Merminga. I'm very happy to speak about this, and thank
you for the question. So Hyper-K is an experiment that aims at
similar scientific goals as the DUNE experiment. However, it
follows fundamentally different approaches. Simply put, DUNE
brings together exceptional capabilities due to the following
key characteristics of the facility and the experiment. And I
will draw the difference between DUNE and Hyper-K. These
experiments are called long baseline experiments because the
distance--because of the long distance between the source where
neutrinos are produced and where they are being detected at the
far side. So for DUNE, the distance is 1,300 kilometers and for
Hyper-K is 295 kilometers. Furthermore, the DUNE experiment is
going to be--to have the most intense beam of neutrinos ever
built in the world. Already the Fermilab complex delivers today
the most intense beam of neutrinos with nearly 900 kilowatts of
beam power today. And for DUNE, we're going to go to 1.2
megawatt, eventually to 2.4 megawatt. And importantly, this
beam of neutrinos is wideband. It has a wide band of energies
that covers the oscillation spectrum. And the neutrino
oscillations is a key scientific objective of these
experiments.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
Dr. Merminga. And third----
Ms. Ross. I see my time has expired. And, Mr. Chair, I
yield back. But thank you so much for that explanation.
Dr. Merminga. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Bowman. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms.
Stevens, is now recognized.
Ms. Stevens. Our Chair strikes again, an amazing hearing on
investigating the nature of matter, energy, space, and time.
Five amazing witnesses. I cannot believe what we are hearing,
the quiet murmurs of the Science Committee ringing across the
universe. One testimony alone from Dr. Berhe, neutrinos, quote,
``Neutrinos may hold the key to why matter exists at all in the
universe, as opposed to nothing,'' quote, ``a broad range of
the epochs of the universe,'' end quote, in your testimony.
That alone is just absolutely remarkable. And we could spend
all day with every one of you, so thank you so much for your
expertise and your time.
We are certainly in a competitive moment. My colleague
referenced our work in microelectronics and the chip shortage
and supply chain disruptions, but this is broader, this is more
international, and this is, dare we say, universal. So in terms
of what we're looking at with--and my--you know, there's just
so much to unpack here. But in terms of what we're looking at
with isotopes--and this is of importance to us in Michigan--
we've got this new isotope research lab, the FRIB (Facility for
Rare Isotopes Beams) that--the Department of Energy's Michigan
State University Facility for Rare Isotope Beams. And just last
month, everyone was all together, and we certainly want to talk
about the importance of these programs. But I actually--I would
like to hone in, you know, in the testimony of Dr. Berhe, you
were talking about how we compare with Russia, and how the war
in Ukraine is impacting our abilities, and that the U.S. and
Russia are the only two in this type of space. How do you feel
as though we are measuring up today as it relates to the
pandemic, a war, inflation, access to materials? And let me let
me pause on that question. I'm going to come back and ask about
CERN as well. Thanks.
Dr. Berhe. Thank you, Congresswoman Stevens. I definitely
share your excitement about the importance of this area and the
questions. And also, you know, I think everybody shares your
excitement about the FRIB facility that was newly opened in--at
Michigan State University, which I might say is my alma mater,
too.
So to kind of answer your question about where do we stand
in terms of, you know, kind of the--our ability to produce and
supply these isotopes, though, I think it's fair to say we are
in a much better place now than we would have been if we didn't
have a lot of the contingency planning in place, but I think
this problem is pretty widespread and, unfortunately, affects
not just us, but it basically affects the whole world, as a lot
of the isotope supply systems had been concentrated in Russia
for a long period of time.
But right now, you know, again, even though we're not
expecting--and we're pretty--everybody's pretty clear about the
fact that there are no quick fixes, the--there's actually quite
a lot of improvements that have been made. There are roughly,
for example, 31 radioisotope supply chains in which the United
States had dependence on Russia, and 19 of them are--have
experienced some disruptions. But of those, the DOE Isotope
Program has developed capabilities to produce 19, and another
11 of them are at various stages of development. So that says
that we're doing OK, but we're continuing--we're going to have
to continue to work on this.
Ms. Stevens. Well, in Mr. Guastella's group, which is
talking about this association of companies in the U.S. and
Canada and what we manufacture, you know, I do Manufacturing
Monday. Every Monday, I go to a small manufacturer and geek out
with them. That and this Committee will keep you sane in the
Congress in these polarized times. But we signed a trade deal,
as you know, we renegotiated NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement). Are you seeing us--are you seeing that help us--
helping us compete in terms of what we're talking about here?
Obviously, we've got a global, you know, race going on here.
But is that benefiting some of the work in the space that your
association is focused on with radionuclides and
radiopharmaceuticals?
Mr. Guastella. Well, thank you for the question. The--most
of the radio isotopes--and I'd say well over 90 percent are
sourced either from Europe, Russia, South Africa, Australia.
And we do obviously work with Canada, some of our member
companies, obviously work with manufacturers in Canada. The
actual impact of the trade agreement I can't speak to, but I
can say that we've had a long relationship with organizations
in Canada. And in fact, we have some organizations within CORAR
that are based in Canada. So we have a nice cross-relationship
between the two countries.
Ms. Stevens. A fantastic border and a fantastic part of our
supply chain and thank you. With that, I'll yield back, Mr.
Chair.
Chairman Bowman. The gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster,
is now recognized.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses. I--
first, I'd like to echo my congratulations to Dr. Berhe and to
Dr. Merminga on your new roles. And I'd like to thank the
Chairman and the Ranking Member for their opening statements,
which articulated very clearly the strong bipartisan support,
both for the flagship Department of Energy facilities that are
essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in fundamental
science, and the DOE's contributions to immediate concerns like
medical isotopes.
We've also been very encouraged recently to hear President
Biden lament the fact that the R&D intensity, the fraction of
GDP (gross domestic product) that we devote to R&D has dropped
precipitously from its historic levels. So at a time when our
Nation's GDP is growing strongly, faster than inflation, fixing
that should mean significant real increases in the research
budgets of DOE's Office of Science and should in fact be
growing even faster than our GDP.
But when we see the budget proposals, both from the
Administration and from our Appropriations Committees, which
for many accounts do not even cover inflation, we realize how
far short of the mark we're falling, and perhaps gain some
insight into the mechanisms that have promoted the short-term
thinking that got us into this situation that really is putting
our scientific leadership at risk.
Now, as a Member of the House Science Conference Committee
on the COMPETES Act, I'm confident that we will be authorizing
a budget envelope to begin restoring R&D intensity to historic
levels, but these must be followed through by appropriations.
You know, for example, Dr. Berhe, in your testimony you wrote
in depth about the DOE national lab infrastructure and some of
the needs of the network of labs that Office of Science
oversees.
Last year, Senator Lujan and I introduced the Restore and
Modernization Our National Labs Act, which authorizes $30.5
billion in funding for the National Laboratories to address
this critical shovel-ready backlog of overdue infrastructure
repairs and improvements. I was very pleased that we were able
to include this legislation in the America COMPETES bill as an
amendment and hope that it survives the Conference Committee.
So, Dr. Berhe, could you speak a little bit about how
funding to--specifically directed at laboratory infrastructure
would assist your ability to prioritize and execute the series
of projects that really are essential to maintain a healthy
enterprise?
Dr. Berhe. Thank you very much, Congressman Foster. I first
would like to start by thanking you and the Committee for the
support that we've received in this area. As you've articulated
very well, we all agree that the--maintaining the
infrastructure and the facilities and operations at the
national labs is critical for the science that we conduct. It's
also critical for us to be able to, again, train, recruit, and
retain the next generation of scientists that will take on the
next challenges, both in--you know, in research as well as in
industry.
So, you know, we're constantly evaluating the needs in
consultation with the national labs and figuring out how to
prioritize, obviously, the infrastructure projects that cannot
wait that will lead to even bigger problems if they're not
addressed or ones that are urgent, so figuring out basically
all the ways that we have at our disposal to balance the
different--many different competing needs.
But I think we're all on the same page about the need to
address infrastructure and facilities ops, and all very, very
supportive of have you all as partner, as we address the--as we
seek more support and funding to address these challenges,
which I think are extremely important. And----
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And Dr. Merminga and Mr. Yeck, could
you just describe briefly what it's like being a project
manager of something where--in a laboratory where there's a big
backlog of overdue infrastructure repairs, and that a lot of
these infrastructure repairs get offloaded onto your project
and making your project look more expensive than it might
otherwise have to be? It's--I'm sure it's a universal
experience, and so if you could start--we'll start with Dr.
Merminga.
Dr. Merminga. Thank you, Mr. Foster. I must say that, as
the Project Director of the PIP-II project, we were very
fortunate to have some GPP projects, general----
Mr. Foster. Infrastructure.
Dr. Merminga [continuing]. Infrastructure projects.
Mr. Foster. Infrastructure projects.
Dr. Merminga [continuing]. That were complementary and
necessary for the PIP-II project to advance. And so these were
executed, were mostly funded by the SLI (Science Laboratories
Infrastructure) program and were executed in time--on time, and
so that was very helpful for us.
Mr. Foster. Yes, and my time is up, but I would get--Mr.
Yeck, if you'd just acknowledge that you've had comparable
experiences in managing projects, I'd----
Mr. Yeck. Yes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. My time is up. Yes, Mr. Chairman, if
it was feasible, I'd be interested in another round of
questions if the witnesses and our time can accommodate.
Chairman Bowman. So I'm going to ask--I'm going to begin
another round of questions if that's OK with the witnesses.
Thank you very much. Yes, just--yes. So I'll start. And my
question is for Dr. Greene.
Dr. Greene, your expertise is in the area of research
called string theory, which hundreds, maybe even thousands of
physicists around the world are currently studying. If proven,
it could fulfill Einstein's dream of having a theory of the
universe, a set of mathematical formulas that explains all of
our physical laws. But is such a theory even provable? Are
there extremes of nature that we can never achieve and examine
up close to test these theories?
Dr. Greene. Yes, thank you for the question. Indeed, your
summary is correct. There are many of us in America and around
the world who are trying to realize the dream that Einstein
initially articulated of a single set of mathematical laws that
would govern the entire universe, the big, the small, and
everything in between. So it is a hugely ambitious undertaking.
Remarkably, we have a theory on the table, the one you
mentioned, string theory. That may be the theory that Einstein
was looking for, but the key question you ask is, is it
testable? And we don't know. As of today, our technology and
our understanding is probably too limited to be able to specify
a test that could establish the theory right or refute it. But
that's what research is all about. We are working intensely on
the mathematical aspects of the theory to try to bring our
understanding to a point where we can make predictions that
perhaps some of the machines that we're hearing about on the
panel might one day be able to test.
So we would not be working on the theory if it were somehow
fundamentally philosophically unprovable, but it's a challenge
to prove a theory that manifests its distinct characteristics
at enormously high energies and incredibly small distances. So
the answer probably is best summarized as not yet, but
hopefully in the future.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much. I now yield to the
Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, for a question.
Mr. Weber. Oh, gosh, that was quick. Thank you. I
appreciate that. I can answer a part of that last question.
That is, as long as I do what my wife says, things add up. And
if I don't, not so much. That's the most important answer for
me.
Mr. Guastella, in your written testimony, you state that
your organization's members support private sector production
of important isotopes. What are some of the major barriers to
the domestic commercial production--this is going to be kind of
a three-part question--of important medical and industrial
isotopes for which we currently rely on other countries or DOE
production? What are some of the major barriers to domestic
commercial production of those? What suggestions do you have
for the DOE Isotope Program for encouraging and supporting
private-sector production, No. 2? And then No. 3, does it
concern--should we be concerned--in earlier testimony, one of
the things about the EIC, for example--or ECI--I can't read my
own hen scratch--was that it was motivating the interest of
collaborators all around the world. Do we trust that? How do we
vet them? How do we know that they're not here just to steal
our information? And I'll yield to you?
Mr. Guastella. Well, Congressman Weber, thank you for the
question. First of all, Dr. Berhe has mentioned on a few
occasions that the technology can be somewhat complicated and
certainly capital-intensive. So I would say with some of the
newer isotopes, and depending on the opportunities, if you
will, for commercialization, those can create barriers. And
that's why in certain instances industry has relied on the DOE
Isotope Program, and the DOE Isotope Program has been a great,
great partner.
Mr. Weber. Let me ask something real quick. Does the NRC
(Nuclear Regulatory Commission) get involved in that process
that you're describing?
Mr. Guastella. Absolutely. And we deal with not only the
NRC, but the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the DOT
(Department of Transportation), international organizations
like the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). So when
you're talking about manufacturing and transporting radioactive
materials, obviously, you have to satisfy regulations from all
those regulatory bodies.
I mean, we have several suggestions that I've included in
our testimony, one mentioned earlier, and that is fully fund
the Stable Isotope Production and Research Center and the
Radioisotope Processing Facility. The DOE, from my
understanding, is in desperate need of additional processing
capabilities, and having those facilities come online sooner
rather than later would be very important to increase the
ability to have those isotopes produced in the United States.
Also came up a----
Mr. Weber. But there are entities in your group that stand
ready, willing, and able to get onboard with that if that
becomes a possibility.
Mr. Guastella. Absolutely. I think, though, that kind of
leads to my response in the second part of your question, and
that is kind of to introduce, if you can, opportunities to
expedite production commercially. And that may be in providing
public-private type opportunities. Now, I understand right now
that the DOE Isotope Program is not part of their mission. But
public-private funding opportunities in the future could
accelerate the introduction of commercial production of some of
these isotopes that we're relying on Russia right now. So that
would certainly be another opportunity.
You know, another thing I would mention is what I hear
sometimes is that the importance of isotopes may not be fully
realized through the government and the Administration. And
we've also suggested and requested that the Administration
institute a White House-level supply coordinating effort. We
found that to be very successful when we had issues with
molybdenum. Molybdenum is an important isotope. The daughter
isotope of molybdenum is technetium-99, which basically is used
in about 80 percent of all nuclear medicine procedures. And the
DOE obviously was very involved in helping to move toward
domestic production of moly, but we found that the coordination
within the Administration and the OSTP (Office of Science and
Technology Policy) was also helpful and brought to light a
number of issues that needed to be addressed as we were moving
toward domestic production.
Mr. Weber. I'm running out of time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'm going to yield back. And unfortunately, I have
another meeting that I have to leave for. Thank you so much.
Mr. Guastella. Thank you.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. The Chair now yields to Ms.
Stevens from Michigan.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. As it pertains to CERN and our
collaboration with the European Organization for Nuclear
Research--and this is also the Large Hadron Collider that we've
all been reading about for the balance of a decade and
recognizing as the world's largest and highest energy particle
collider--I was just actually wondering if any of you could
shed some light on how that collaboration is going? How
prominent is the United States in that collaboration? How much
will we receive from that collaboration and its benefits? Why
is it located in Europe and not the United States for the kids
watching at home? Yes, Dr. Merminga, we'll start with you.
Dr. Merminga. Thank you very much. So I would say CERN is
our most important partner in high-energy physics in the United
States right now. As you know, particle physics is--the
experiments and the facilities and infrastructure are of such
great scale that in order to realize our collective ambition
worldwide, we have split, if you like. And so Europe has the
energy frontier with a Large Hadron Collider. and the United
States participates in great numbers in those experiments at
the LHC, as well as we participate in the upgrades to the LHC,
both the accelerator----
Ms. Stevens. And who's paying for that? Is it moneys to
your agency or how is that being supported?
Dr. Merminga. DOE is supporting the upgrades to the LHC.
And at the same time, CERN is contributing to our DUNE
experiment because the neutrino science is in the United
States. And our aspiration with the completion of LBNF and DUNE
is that the Fermilab and the United States becomes the world
center for neutrino science. And CERN for the first time in its
60-year history is investing in infrastructure into DUNE. And
in fact, they're contributing the two cryostats for the two
detectors that will go in South Dakota for the DUNE experiment.
And they're paying for this, so it's truly a reciprocal
relationship. And--yes.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Berhe.
Dr. Berhe. I would completely agree with Lia on this point.
Both at CERN and the--you know, the ongoing projects at LBNF/
DUNE, they're both collaborative in that the United States
contributes financially to making the CERN experiments happen,
but our scientists in turn get a huge part of the benefit and
they get to participate and be, you know, leaders in the
science in the areas of CERN. And once, you know, the LBNF/DUNE
is realized and it's completed, then the European scientists
will also be important partners here in the United States. And
this field, as you've heard, is a very highly international,
multidisciplinary--collaborations are what makes it possible.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. And so we just want Fermi to have the
same attention that, you know, CERN is getting in many
respects. I mean, we want to be seen as the leader. And it
appears from both of your responses that we have the human
capital, we have the trained and ready scientists who we can
send over to CERN. You know, we've spent a lot of time on this
Committee--and I'm a Subcommittee Chair for Research and
Technology on, you know, our scientific research enterprise,
our STEM education work force, making sure we're not leaving
our own talent behind. But some of that is so dependent on
these global exchanges, right?
And so, you know, if we've got people going over there,
they've got folks coming over here--and let's just--again, for
the folks watching back home--and obviously, it should be
everyone's homework to read these testimonies because they're
brilliant--but what are we getting out of that partnership? I
mean, how is this going to impact industries of scale or even
our economy as it's appropriate to ask? Because it's not just
research for research sake. I mean, this has got wide-ranging
applications into how we live, conduct business, transport
ourselves, and on if I'm right. Yes.
Dr. Merminga. I just wanted to say, in addition to training
our work force, we're getting--as I mentioned earlier, AI on a
chip was first tried for the CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid)
detector, which is a detector of the LHC. And so
microelectronics also originate from research in order to sort
out data collected by the LHC and quantum computing as well. So
a lot of these advances have then societal applications.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, yes. Yes----
Dr. Merminga. Transfer to technology.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you.
Dr. Berhe. Yes, as both Dr. Merminga, as well as Dr. Greene
and others have spoken to, we get a lot of benefits from these
fundamental science experiments. They may be curiosity-driven,
trying to understand the fundamental processes and nature of
matter and other issues. But eventually, we get sometimes even
benefits that we didn't even realize they're going to be
possible, right, benefits that are byproducts of the--you know,
the scientists working on the process itself.
But I think we don't even have to go far, as Dr. Merminga
just explained. We've already realized a lot of benefits for
society, for, you know, for industrial applications and others.
And I think the field is rich. We will only continue to benefit
going forward.
Ms. Stevens. Right. Well, and, Dr. Greene, too, we
appreciate you being here. You are right in the room with us
and it's--look, this is just so exciting. It's really wide-
ranging. And I think even to the point about where we're going
with nuclear, you know, there's, again, energy benefits. And so
we can come back on more hearing topics on this front. Our
Chair is totally focused on these subject matters. And I think
in terms of it's budget season, and how we're funding our
agencies and making sure your work is funded, this couldn't be
more timely.
So with that, Mr. Acting Chair, I'll yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Foster [presiding]. Well, thank you. And as Chair pro
tem of this Committee, I will now recognize myself for the
final 5 minutes of questions here.
You know, I've always found that Congress understands well
the near-term needs like, you know, supply chain, medical
isotopes, and things like that. We have a lot of trouble
understanding the--you know, the benefits of fundamental
research that are harder to explain and the payoff is much
longer term. Dr. Merminga, you sit on the--stand on the
shoulders of giants at your laboratory, Dr. Wilson, Lederman,
Peoples, Witherell, Oddone, Lockyer. But your first
predecessor, you know, your--you know, Dr. Wilson, the founder
of Fermilab, when he was pressed by a Senator in front of a
Committee many decades ago about of what use the research--the
fundamental research that's done at Fermilab is, that--you
know, what exactly does Fermilab's research have to do with
national defense? He responded with some--with a response which
I think which echoes today. So when he was asked what is it
that Fermilab's research has to do with national defense, say,
or whatever the question of the day is, do you recall his
answer?
Dr. Merminga. Absolutely. It has nothing to do with
national defense, but it makes the country worth defending.
Mr. Foster. That's right. And that is the correct answer.
It's also important to remember that when we think about the
the difficulties of international collaboration, Robert Wilson
always was proud that in the depths of the cold war when
Fermilab was founded, when, you know, Russian soldiers were
shooting antiaircraft missiles at American pilots in Vietnam,
we--at the same time, one of the first experiments that was
conducted at Fermilab had Russian collaborators. And the--you
know, so it's a two-edged sword. We have to be very careful to
protect our real national interest, but the benefits of
international collaboration are not just the dollars that come
in to experiments.
Mr. Yeck, is there a significant international interest in
the Electron-Ion Collider?
Mr. Yeck. Yes, thank you. The user community, which was
formed in 2016 and now reaches over 1,300 members from 250
institutions, is about half U.S. and half worldwide. And so
there's significant interest--and they together developed a
report on the planned science that the EIC can deliver and how
best to deliver it with the detectors. It's fully
international. So I would say the EIC will be an international
facility. Thank you.
Mr. Foster. Yes, Dr. Merminga?
Dr. Merminga. I'd like to also add a couple of more points
on this. As you said correctly, to my opinion, it's the
benefits from international collaboration go--are a lot more
than just the monetary benefits, in-kind contribution to the
facility. We've--in the case of PIP-II and LBNF/DUNE, we really
gathered from around the world the world's best experts in the
corresponding technologies. And those experts contribute their
expertise, their capabilities, their own facilities in their
own countries, to develop infrastructure that's going to be
housed in U.S. soil, on U.S. soil, to enhance our scientific
infrastructure here in the United States.
And I'd like to point out that Fermilab has taken
international collaboration to the next level through the
recent LBNF/DUNE and PIP-II with more than $1 billion in
contribution, as I mentioned earlier. Thank you.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And, Dr. Greene, I will be asking
you a question for the record about the implications of Wick
rotations on lattice gauge theories, which always seemed to me
to just fundamentally alter the locality and causality of these
theories because of the--trying to hide the granularity from--
after the Wick rotation. And so I'll be asking you about that.
But more immediately, you know, you and I both struggle
with the difficulty of explaining complex science in simple
terms to the public and particularly doing that without
simplifying it too much so that it makes this--your scientific
friends cringe at the oversimplification. Could you say a
little bit about what you found the effective techniques for
that is? Because it's crucial.
Dr. Greene. Yes, I think you're absolutely right, and thank
you for the question. It is part of the art of trying to find
the right language, the right visual metaphors for
communicating some of the most abstract of ideas to the general
public. And you don't want to turn your explanation into a
cartoon or a caricature. The goal is to find the core
understanding and find a bridge between the unfamiliar and the
familiar so you can cross that bridge and bring these insights
to the general audience.
And if I was going to give one lesson learned, it would
simply be this. If we teach and communicate science as a
narrative, as a story, as a human endeavor, not just the cold,
hard facts that make it into the textbook, not just the
equations, but if we give the narrative of discovery so that
you see the human part of the journey, then the drama of
scientific adventure comes across in a sparklingly clear way.
And I find that that's the most powerful way of inspiring the
general public with these ideas.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And as someone who brings, you know,
all the charisma of the typical physicist to this job, I really
appreciate it when an artist like yourself gets involved in
this. Thanks much. I will yield back to the Chairman.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Before we bring the hearing to
a close, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before
the Committee today. The record will remain open for 2 weeks
for additional statements from the Members and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Lia Merminga
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Jim Yeck
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Michael Guastella
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]