Igniting America's Energy Future: The Promise and Progress of Fusion Power

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                   IGNITING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE:5                THE PROMISE AND PROGRESS OF FUSION POWER67=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY1415                                 OF THE1617                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,18                             AND TECHNOLOGY1920                                 OF THE2122                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2324                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2526                             FIRST SESSION2728                               __________2930                           SEPTEMBER 18, 20253132                               __________3334                           Serial No. 119-183536                               __________3738 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology3940[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4142       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov4344                                __________4546                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4761-654 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20264849-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5051              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY5253                   HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman54RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking55JIM BAIRD, Indiana                       Member56DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon57JAY OBERNOLTE, California            HALEY STEVENS, Michigan58CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina59DARRELL ISSA, California             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon60CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina61SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              EMILIA SYKES, Ohio62MAX MILLER, Ohio                     MAXWELL FROST, Florida63RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              GABE AMO, Rhode Island64MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia65VINCE FONG, California               LUZ RIVAS, California66DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware67KEITH SELF, Texas                    LAURA GILLEN, New York68PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina         GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,69SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina               Vice-Ranking Member70JEFF HURD, Colorado                  LAURA FRIEDMAN, California71MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida            APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland72MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   JOSH RILEY, New York73NICK BEGICH, Alaska                  BILL FOSTER, Illinois74VACANT75                                 ------7677                         Subcommittee on Energy7879                   HON. RANDY WEBER, Texas, Chairman80JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina,81CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee             Ranking Member82CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon83PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina         LAURA FRIEDMAN, California84SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          JOSH RILEY, New York85JEFF HURD, Colorado                  VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina86NICK BEGICH, Alaska8788                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S8990                           September 18, 20259192                                                                   Page9394Hearing Charter..................................................     29596                           Opening Statements9798Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Chairman, Subcommittee99  on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.100  House of Representatives.......................................    11101    Written Statement............................................    12102103Statement by Representative Deborah Ross, Ranking Member,104  Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and105  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    13106    Written Statement............................................    14107108Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Committee on109  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    14110    Written Statement............................................    15111112Written statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,113  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of114  Representatives................................................    16115116                               Witnesses:117118Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor, University of119  Wisconsin--Madison120    Oral Statement...............................................    17121    Written Statement............................................    20122123Dr. Will Regan, Founder & President, Pacific Fusion124    Oral Statement...............................................    27125    Written Statement............................................    29126127Dr. Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge128  National Laboratory129    Oral Statement...............................................    42130    Written Statement............................................    45131132Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems133    Oral Statement...............................................    51134    Written Statement............................................    54135136Discussion.......................................................    68137138              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions139140Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor, University of141  Wisconsin--Madison.............................................    92142143Dr. Will Regan, Founder & President, Pacific Fusion..............   101144145Dr. Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division, Oak Ridge146  National Laboratory............................................   113147148Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and CEO, Commonwealth Fusion Systems   119149150                   IGNITING AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE:151                        THE PROMISE AND PROGRESS152                            OF FUSION POWER153154                              ----------155156                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2025157158                  House of Representatives,159                            Subcommittee on Energy,160               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,161                                                   Washington, D.C.162163    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in164room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Randy Weber165(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.166[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]167168    Chairman Weber. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to169order.170    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare171recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.172    Welcome to today's hearing, entitled ``Igniting America's173Energy Future: The Promise and Progress of Fusion Power.''174    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.175    Well, good morning y'all. We've already had a chance to say176good morning. We're glad y'all are here. Welcome to today's177Energy Subcommittee hearing, entitled ``Igniting America's178Energy Future, the Promise and Progress of Fusion Power.''179    After a decade of stagnation, most of y'all--I think the180young lady here was probably still in high school back then--181after a decade of stagnation, U.S. energy demand is once again182on the rise. This surge is driven by several factors, including183the onshoring of supply chains crucial to our national184security, and the rapid growth of commercial artificial185intelligence (AI) technologies across the country.186    At our last Subcommittee hearing, witnesses discussed187nuclear energy's potential role in powering AI data centers.188That conversation led us to focus on nuclear fission, which is189commercially viable today. This hearing will spotlight nuclear190fusion, a field that after decades of promise, has made191remarkable progress across various technology readiness levels192in recent years.193    These advancements have highlighted a growing need for194workforce development. The challenge is not simply producing195more Ph.D.s, but building a robust, skilled, trained workforce.196According to the Fusion Industry Association, only 23 percent197of employees in the sector are scientists, and 44 percent are198engineers, leaving a significant portion of the workforce199without advanced degrees. The industry is expanding rapidly,200growing by a staggering 50 percent in the last 2 years, while201the supply chain has tripled in size in that same 2 years.202    Many fusion companies project operational pilot plants by2032035, with workforce needs expected to increase sixfold at this204stage, not including additional supply chain demand. To address205these needs, our National Labs are considering apprenticeship206programs to help prevent potential worker shortages. Such207programs would complement the cutting-edge research conducted208at DOE (Department of Energy) facilities, which house much of209the specialized equipment necessary for fusion science.210    Due to these unique capabilities, DOE's collaboration with211the private sector is very vital for advancing212commercialization. To foster these partnerships, DOE has213launched several initiatives to connect, support, and indeed214accelerate industry growth. These include a public-private215partnership (PPP) program, a milestone-based fusion development216program, and ongoing funding for fusion projects through the217ARPA-E office. Public-private partnerships leverage DOE's218expertise while encouraging private sector investment.219Milestone programs tie Federal funding to demonstrated220progress. And APRA-E's early fusion projects have already221generated over $700 million in private investment. These222efforts are prime examples of responsible use of taxpayer223dollars.224    For decades, fusion energy was seen as a dream always 20 or22530 years away. But recent successes at the National Ignition226Facility, or NIF, have begun to change that perception. NIF227became the first facility in the world to achieve a positive228net energy output from a fusion reaction, as well as the first229to achieve burning plasma.230    It's important to note that critical basic science231questions still exist before we can see operational fusion232power plants connected to the grid. Fortunately, academia,233along with DOE user facilities, is working closely with the234private sector to both identify and solve these remaining235challenges. Continued Federal investment is essential to236ensuring these foundational science gaps are addressed in a237very coordinated manner.238    The progress we've seen is undeniable, and the fusion239industry is steadily advancing toward delivering fusion power240to the grid.241    It can't get here quick enough, can it?242    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony, and I243look forward to today's discussion on how the Federal244Government can support academia, the National Labs, and private245companies to ensure America leads in this critical race.246    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]247248    Good morning. Welcome to today's Energy Subcommittee249hearing titled, ``Igniting America's Energy Future: The Promise250and Progress of Fusion Power.'' After a decade of stagnation,251U.S. energy demand is once again on the rise. This surge is252driven by several factors, including the onshoring of supply253chains crucial to our national security and the rapid growth of254commercial artificial intelligence technologies across the255country.256    At our last subcommittee hearing, witnesses discussed257nuclear energy's potential role in powering AI data centers.258That conversation focused on nuclear fission, which is259commercially viable today. This hearing will spotlight nuclear260fusion, a field that, after decades of promise, has made261remarkable progress across various technology readiness levels262in recent years.263    These advancements have highlighted a growing need for264workforce development. The challenge is not simply producing265more PhDs, but building a robust, skilled trades workforce.266According to the Fusion Industry Association, only 23 percent267of employees in the sector are scientists, and 44 percent are268engineers, leaving a significant portion of the workforce269without advanced degrees. The industry is expanding rapidly-270growing by a staggering 50 percent in just the last two years--271while the supply chain has tripled in size. Many fusion272companies project operational pilot plants by 2035, with273workforce needs expected to increase sixfold at this stage, not274including additional supply chain demand.275    To address these needs, our National Labs are considering276apprenticeship programs to help prevent potential worker277shortages.278    Such programs would complement the cutting-edge research279conducted at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, which house280much of the specialized equipment necessary for fusion science.281Due to these unique capabilities, DOE's collaboration with the282private sector is vital for advancing commercialization. To283foster these partnerships, DOE has launched several initiatives284to connect, support, and accelerate industry growth. These285include a public-private partnership program, a milestone-based286fusion development program, and ongoing funding for fusion287projects through the ARPA-E office. Public-private partnerships288leverage DOE's expertise while encouraging private sector289investment. Milestone programs tie federal funding to290demonstrated progress. And ARPA-E's early fusion projects have291already generated over $700 million in private investment.292These efforts are prime examples of responsible use of taxpayer293dollars.294    For decades, fusion energy was seen as a dream always 20 or29530 years away. But recent successes at the National Ignition296Facility (NIF) have begun to change that perception. NIF became297the first facility in the world to achieve a positive net298energy output from a fusion reaction, as well as the first to299achieve burning plasma.300    It's important to note that critical basic science301questions still exist before we can see operational fusion302power plants connected to the grid. Fortunately, academia,303along with DOE user facilities, is working closely with the304private sector to both identify and solve these remaining305challenges. Continued federal investment is essential to306ensuring these foundational science gaps are addressed in a307coordinated manner.308    The progress we've seen is undeniable, and the fusion309industry is steadily advancing toward delivering fusion power310to the grid. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony,311and I look forward to today's discussion on how the federal312government can support academia, the National Labs, and private313companies to ensure America leads in this critical race. I314yield back the balance of my time.315316    Chairman Weber. I yield back the balance of my time and317recognize the Ranking Member.318    Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Weber, for319convening today's important hearing on the current landscape of320fusion energy--where we stand, what remains to be done, and how321the Federal Government can play a pivotal role in ensuring322United States leadership in a technology that could well323revolutionize our entire energy sector.324    I also want to thank our very impressive panel of witnesses325for being here this morning. The United States is at a critical326moment in the effort to develop fusion as a carbon-neutral,327sustainable source of energy. Breakthroughs in plasma physics,328technology, public-private partnerships, and private sector329innovation are giving us reasons to believe that fusion can330become a game-changer for clean power, climate resilience,331energy security, and economic opportunity.332    In my home district, North Carolina (NC) State University333has just launched a new remote control room under its Future334Fusion Research Initiative. In July, the Fusion Plasma335Auxiliaries Characterization Lab at NC State successfully336conducted their experiment remotely at the DIII-D fusion337facility in San Diego. This marks a significant step toward338enabling greater student and institutional access to national339and international fusion research facilities. It demonstrates340how Federal investment in infrastructure prepares students for341the high-skilled jobs of tomorrow, fosters innovation and342partnership, and positions the United States to lead globally.343    Universities like NC State, our National Laboratories, and344private innovators depend on steady investments. Many of the345witnesses here today will discuss how our Nation's346competitiveness in fusion is threatened by the absence of347Federal investment in major new facilities, investments that348would help address key gaps in materials science and technology349development. Without that support, the United States will350likely fall behind, both scientifically and economically in yet351another critical new industry.352    The Federal role remains essential. Challenges like353ensuring the stability of burning plasma, materials resilience,354and reactor system design require substantial Federal support,355a trained workforce, and demonstration projects that can scale356from experiments to net energy gain. These are the building357blocks of a new clean energy future for all of us.358    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the359current hurdles on the path to a U.S.-based commercial fusion360industry, and where Federal action could make the greatest361difference.362    I also ask for unanimous consent to permit Representative363Don Beyer, co-chair of the congressional Fusion Caucus, to364attend this hearing and ask questions of the witnesses.365    Chairman Weber. Without objection.366    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.367    [The prepared statement of Ms. Ross follows:]368369    Thank you, Chairman Weber, for convening today's hearing on370the current landscape of fusion energy--where we stand, what371remains to be done, and how the federal government can play a372pivotal role in ensuring U.S. leadership in a technology that373could well revolutionize our entire energy sector.374    I also want to thank this impressive panel of witnesses for375being here this morning. The U.S. is at a critical moment in376the effort to develop fusion as a carbon-neutral, sustainable377source of energy. Breakthroughs in plasma physics, technology,378public-private partnerships, and private sector innovation are379giving us reasons to believe that fusion can become a game-380changer for clean power, climate resilience, energy security,381and economic opportunity.382    In my home district, North Carolina State University has383just launched a new remote control room under its Future Fusion384Research initiative. In July, the Fusion Plasma Auxiliaries385Characterization lab at NC State successfully participated in386their experiment at the DIII-D fusion experiment in San Diego387from this remote facility, marking a significant step toward388enabling greater student and institutional access to national389and international fusion research facilities. It demonstrates390how federal investment in infrastructure prepares students for391the high-skill jobs of tomorrow, fosters innovation and392partnerships, and positions the U.S. to lead globally.393    Universities like NC State, our national laboratories, and394private innovators depend on steady investment. That said, as I395know many of the witnesses here today will discuss further, our396nation's competitiveness in fusion is also threatened by the397absence of federal investment in major new facilities to398address key gaps in materials science and technology399development. Without that support, the U.S. will likely fall400behind both scientifically and economically in yet another401critical new industry.402    The federal role remains essential. Challenges like403ensuring the stability of a ``burning plasma'', materials404resilience, and reactor system design require a substantial405growth in federal support, a trained workforce, and406demonstration projects that can scale from experiments to net407energy gain. These are the building blocks of a new clean408energy future for us all.409    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the410current hurdles on the path to a U.S.-based commercial fusion411industry, and where federal action could make the greatest412difference.413    Thank you, and I yield back.414415    Chairman Weber. Thank you, Ranking Member Ross. And I416recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Dr. Babin.417    Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.418    This morning's hearing will examine the future of fusion419energy and how the United States can maintain global leadership420in fusion energy technologies.421    And I also want to thank our illustrious witnesses here. We422are looking forward to hearing what you all have to say.423    But back to fusion has the potential to revolutionize424electricity generation and reshape entire industries in our425country. Beyond powering the grid, it holds significant promise426for a variety of commercial applications, from providing427medical radioisotopes for cancer treatment, to enabling428advanced materials processing techniques, to propelling429spacecraft in deep space missions.430    The private sector has emerged as a dynamic force in the431commercial fusion energy landscape, with global investments now432exceeding $10 billion, driven largely by American companies.433This reflects a transition from government-led research and434development (R&D) to a market-driven, commercially viable435fusion innovations that could transform energy production436worldwide.437    Even major tech companies such as Nvidia and Google are438investing more in fusion power startups, viewing the technology439as a promising way to meet their growing energy demands.440    Despite substantial private sector investments, the441Department of Energy plays a vital role in making fusion become442a reality. DOE's latest Fusion Energy Strategy aims to443accelerate the path to commercial fusion in collaboration with444industry, while coordinating fusion-related efforts across445government, academia, and the public and private sectors.446    For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)--thank447you for being here--is leveraging its deep expertise in fusion448materials, plasma diagnostics, advanced modeling and simulation449through three new research collaborations through the450Innovation Network of Fusion Energy, or the INFUSE program.451These partnerships focus on addressing practical engineering452challenges essential to delivering fusion power to the grid by453the 2040s.454    Additionally, DOE serves as the central hub for bridging455the science and technology gaps that are necessary to achieve456commercial fusion power. Its role is critical, as the Federal457Government is the only entity capable of undertaking the high-458risk, high-reward, long-term research and development required459to address these challenges. And although significant progress460has been made, much more work remains to fully harness the461potential of fusion technologies.462    The rapid progress of the Chinese Communist Party or CCP in463this sector poses a direct challenge to United States464technological leadership.465    Historically, the United States has led the way in fusion466research. However, the CCP has effectively utilized its467industrial base and civil-military integration to accelerate468technological development and to rapidly scale critical469infrastructure. It is also committed to connecting the first470fusion-fission hybrid power plant to the electrical grid by4712030.472    The nation that successfully commercializes fusion first473will likely set the global standards, the supply chains, and474technological frameworks that will shape this industry for475decades to come. Moreover, the implications go well beyond476merely achieving technological leadership. They also raise477important questions about global governance and our values.478Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed by479nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and480international cooperation, not by authoritarian regimes that481might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.482    The United States must prioritize fusion energy development483to outpace the CCP's aggressive timelines.484    Achieving leadership in fusion technology is not only485essential for energy independence but for ensuring that486democratic values shape one of the most consequential487breakthroughs of the entire century.488    I want to thank our witnesses again for their testimony489today, and I look forward to a very productive discussion.490    And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.491Chairman.492    [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]493494    Thank you, Chairman Weber.495    This morning's hearing will examine the future of fusion496energy and how the United States can maintain global leadership497in fusion energy technologies.498    Fusion has the potential to revolutionize electricity499generation and reshape entire industries.500    Beyond powering the grid, it holds significant promise for501a variety of commercial applications--from providing medical502radioisotopes for cancer treatment, to enabling advanced503materials processing techniques, to propelling spacecraft on504deep space missions.505    The private sector has emerged as a dynamic force in the506commercial fusion energy landscape, with global investments507exceeding ten billion dollars--driven largely by American508companies.509    This reflects a transition from government-led research and510development to market-driven, commercially viable fusion511innovations that could transform energy production worldwide.512    Even major tech companies, such as Nvidia and Google, are513investing more in fusion power startups, viewing the technology514as a promising way to meet their growing energy demands.515    Despite substantial private sector investments, the516Department of Energy (DOE) plays a vital role in making fusion517a reality.518    DOE's latest Fusion Energy Strategy aims to accelerate the519path to commercial fusion in collaboration with industry, while520coordinating fusion-related efforts across government,521academia, and the public and private sectors.522    For example, Oak Ridge National Laboratory is leveraging523its deep expertise in fusion materials, plasma diagnostics, and524advanced modeling and simulation through three new research525collaborations through the Innovation Network for Fusion Energy526(INFUSE) program. These partnerships focus on addressing527practical engineering challenges essential to delivering fusion528power to the grid by the 2040s.529    Additionally, DOE serves as the central hub for bridging530the science and technology gaps necessary to achieve commercial531fusion power.532    Its role is critical, as the federal government is the only533entity capable of undertaking the high-risk, high-reward long-534term research and development required to address these535challenges.536    Although significant progress has been made, much more work537remains to fully harness the potential of fusion technologies.538    The rapid progress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in539this sector poses a direct challenge to U.S. technological540leadership.541    Historically, the United States has led the way in fusion542research. However, the CCP has effectively utilized its543industrial base and civil-military integration to accelerate544technological development and rapidly scale critical545infrastructure.546    It is also committed to connecting the first fusion-fission547hybrid power plant to the electrical grid by 2030.548    The nation that successfully commercializes fusion first549will likely set the global standards, supply chains, and550technological frameworks that will shape the industry for551decades to come. Moreover, the implications go beyond merely552achieving technological leadership; they also raise important553questions about global governance and values.554    Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed555by nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and556international cooperation--not by authoritarian regimes that557might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.558    The U.S. must prioritize fusion energy development to559outpace the CCP's aggressive timelines.560    Achieving leadership in fusion technology is not only561essential for energy independence but also for ensuring that562democratic values shape one of the most consequential563breakthroughs of the century.564    I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today,565and I look forward to a productive discussion.566    Thank you, Chairman Weber. I yield back the balance of my567time.568569    Chairman Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.570    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]571572    Good morning and thank you, Chairman Weber and Ranking573Member Ross, for holding this very important hearing today. And574thank you to this excellent panel of witnesses for being here575this morning as well.576    It is not exactly news around here that I am an577enthusiastic supporter of fusion energy R&D. That said, there578have been some significant developments since this Committee579last held a hearing on fusion about two years ago.580    The National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore581National Laboratory--still the only machine in the world to582achieve fusion ignition--has now achieved it 9 times, with a583big new record output of 8.6 megajoules reached in April.584    Last year, the Department of Energy finalized agreements585with the first 8 awardees of its milestone-based public-private586partnership program. And DOE has made real strides over the587last several months in pivoting its activities to better follow588the recommendations of the fusion community in its most recent589Long Range Plan, which was led by Dr. Carter.590    Meanwhile, the global fusion industry has raised about $3.5591billion in private investment in the last 15 months alone, with592the bulk of this money provided to companies that are currently593headquartered in the U.S.594    On the other hand, in an analysis released just this week,595the Special Competitive Studies Project found that China has596spent at least $6.5 billion on fusion commercialization efforts597since 2023. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Regan and Dr.598Mumgaard about this latest surge in investments at home and599abroad--and what we in the public sector should really be doing600to ensure U.S. leadership in this potentially transformational601industry.602    Now, I remain strongly opposed to the President's Budget603Request overall, and the absolutely devastating impacts it604would have on our nation's research enterprise if it were ever605enacted.606    But I can walk and chew gum at the same time, and when it607comes to the specific request for fusion--while far more608resources are certainly warranted--I believe that the609Administration got it about right within the total funding for610fusion that is being proposed.611    This is why I introduced a bipartisan amendment to the612Energy & Water Appropriations bill with Chairman Obernolte and613my colleagues Mr. Beyer and Ms. Trahan. The amendment simply614aimed to ensure that these important shifts proposed by the615President to better support key commercialization-focused616activities are fully funded, including a larger focus on fusion617materials, fuel cycle R&D, and public-private partnerships.618Unfortunately, for some reason the Majority on the Rules619Committee did not choose to make this amendment to support620President Trump's Budget Request for fusion in order, so it621never got a vote. But I will continue to work with my622colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House and the623Senate to make progress on this wherever I can.624    Lastly, I'd like to again thank my colleague, Chairman625Obernolte for joining me last month in introducing H.R. 4999,626the bipartisan STEM Education and Skilled Technical Workforce627for Fusion Act, to ensure that we are addressing the broad628range of workforce needs for a growing, U.S.-based fusion629industry. I'll look forward to discussing this topic in more630detail with Dr.631    Diem and our other witnesses as well, as this is truly a632crosscutting issue for you all. With that, Mr. Chairman, I am633excited to hear from our panel and I yield back.634635    Chairman Weber. I now want to introduce our witnesses. Our636first witness today is Dr. Stephanie Diem, Assistant Professor637at University of Wisconsin (UW)--Madison. Welcome.638    Our second witness is Dr. Will Regan, Co-Founder and639President at Pacific Fusion. Welcome.640    Our third witness is Dr. Troy Carter--you know, we have a641Troy Carter in Congress, right? No relation, I guess. I gotcha.642Director of the Fusion Energy Division at Oak Ridge National643Laboratory. Welcome.644    And our final witness is Dr. Bob Mumgaard, Co-Founder and645CEO (Chief Executive Officer) at Commonwealth Fusion Systems646(CFS). So we are glad you're here. Thank you.647    I now recognize Dr. Diem for 5 minutes.648649                TESTIMONY OF DR. STEPHANIE DIEM,650651                      ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,652653                UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN--MADISON654655    Dr. Diem. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross, and Members656of the Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing657and for inviting me to testify. My name is Stephanie Diem, and658I am the principal investigator (PI) of a Department of Energy659funded fusion experiment, and a professor at the University of660Wisconsin--Madison. I also serve as the Vice President of the661University Fusion Association and was appointed as the United662States Science Envoy with the Department of State. My remarks663today reflect my own views.664    In a world facing urgent energy challenges and geopolitical665tensions over access to energy and energy resources, fusion666gives us hope. Fusion is a dense, virtually limitless source of667power derived from hydrogen that could radically transform668humanity. Fusion, the process that powers the Sun, occurs when669light elements are forced together and combine under extreme670conditions, releasing a vast amount of energy. On Earth, we use671magnetic bottles or powerful lasers to create these fusion672conditions. The resulting energy could provide large-scale673baseload power and support applications such as hydrogen674production, water desalination, process heat, and district675heating.676    American innovation has long driven global progress in677fusion. The United States is at a pivotal moment, marked by the678achievement of controlled fusion energy at the National679Ignition Facility in 2022, the continued emergence of680transformative technological and manufacturing advances, and681the establishment of public-private partnerships to develop682fusion systems capable of generating electricity. But our683leadership is at risk.684    Europe, Japan, and China are leveraging American innovation685to advance their industries. History has shown us that when the686United States invests boldly in research, it not only secures687global leadership but also delivers transformative benefits to688society. We cannot afford to fall behind. Universities are the689foundation of the fusion energy industry, powering the690breakthroughs that will radically transform how humanity691sources and depends on energy.692    I want to highlight three priorities for retaining United693States leadership, continuing innovation to drive fusion694science and technology forward, developing an agile workforce,695and creating a robust fusion ecosystem.696    First, university innovation drives economic growth. The697field of fusion energy emerged from publicly funded research,698and universities remain the engines of innovation that seed new699industries. Today, over 45 fusion startups are driving700commercialization, 60 percent spun out of universities, and 95701percent of private investment has gone into those university702spinouts.703    At UW-Madison alone, federally funded research led to three704fusion companies, SHINE Technologies, Type One Energy, and705Realta Fusion. SHINE has already commercialized fusion by706domestically providing critical lifesaving medical isotopes,707while Realta and Type One comprise a quarter of the DOE708Milestone Program awardees who are designing first-of-a-kind709fusion power plants. Together, they demonstrate how 20 percent710of Federal support can attract 80 percent of private711investment, create high-skilled jobs, and fuel economic growth.712    Second, we need to build an agile workforce. Fusion energy713is engineering at the extremes, required precision and advanced714manufacturing. Federal funding has solved extraordinary715challenges, but now we must scale those solutions into716economically viable industry. The American fusion workforce717faces personnel shortages, retention issues, education and718training gaps, and limits in public engagement. To meet the719demand, we must expand programs to include community colleges720and launch apprenticeship programs. The recently introduced721Fusion Workforce Act by Ranking Member Lofgren and Subcommittee722Chair Obernolte lays out a coordinated response.723    Fusion can also renew America's industrial base, driving724local and regional growth by revitalizing industries, creating725jobs, and strengthening wages.726    Third, we need to grow a robust fusion ecosystem. Public-727private partnerships like INFUSE and DOE Milestone and FIRE728(Fusion Innovative Research Engine) collaboratives have laid729strong foundations, showing how universities, National Labs,730and companies can close these critical gaps together. To move731swiftly from proving fusion science to developing commercial732fusion energy, we need larger regional hubs supported by733Federal and State funds that coordinate efforts and maximize734efficiencies. Universities will be indispensable partners in735the coordination of these hubs by fostering innovation,736interdisciplinary research that anticipates and meets the737future technological and workforce needs of the fusion738industry.739    Ongoing uncertainty in Federal fusion investments poses740serious risk. Funding delays strain universities that lack741capital to bridge these gaps. These jeopardize workforce742stability, research continuity, and pace of innovation, while743driving talent to other sectors or abroad, threatening the744growth of private companies. Meanwhile, international745collaborators and competitors are advancing with coordinated746strategies, new infrastructure, and natural workforce747initiatives, and major government support.748    Without a stable Federal investment framework and749coordinated effort, the United States risks ceding leadership750in fusion energy. Continued public-private partnerships are751essential to commercialization and sustained Federal funding752will remain the catalyst that seeds innovation and drives the753future of fusion energy. Thank you.754    [The prepared statement of Dr. Diem follows:]755    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]756757    Chairman Weber. You ended right on time. She's good, Dr.758Regan. She speaks at about 400 words a minute with gusts up to759about 650, so you've got a row to hoe. You're up next. Your760testimony, please, sir.761762                  TESTIMONY OF DR. WILL REGAN,763764              FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, PACIFIC FUSION765766    Dr. Regan. Thank you, Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross,767also Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren of the Full768Committee, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the769opportunity to testify here today on the promise of fusion770energy, and for your longstanding support of the field that has771finally brought commercial fusion power within reach.772    I am Will Regan, President and Co-Founder of Pacific773Fusion. As Dr. Diem mentioned, fusion is what powers our Sun.774It is where you squeeze hydrogen and helium and release vast775amounts of energy.776    The way we do it at Pacific Fusion is called pulser-driven777inertial fusion. We run a fast pulse of electricity across a778tiny can of fuel, which squishes the can, squeezes the fuel,779and makes it hot and makes it fuse. We can make power by doing780this over and over, kind of like a piston engine.781    We are about 2 years old, have over 120 staff, and have782raised over $900 million. We are on track to achieve net783facility gain by 2030, so this is more fusion energy out than784all of the energy we start with. This is something that no one785has yet done. It is a critical milestone to get to power786plants. And then we aim to generate net power by the mid-2030s.787    We are all here today because fusion could be the ultimate788power source, creating a new, multi-trillion dollar energy789sector and providing abundant power for industry and AI. What790makes fusion so great? Three things. First, fusion fuel is just791extremely energy dense. You get millions of times more energy792out per unit of fuel than in chemical reactions. The little793speck of fuel in our tiny fuel cans can power your home for a794week.795    Fusion is compact. You can make lots of power on a little796bit of land with a fairly small amount of materials, things797like steel and cement.798    And fusion is safe. It stops when you stop driving it and799makes no high-level waste.800    And the fusion industry, now on the cusp of801commercialization, owes its existence to the visionary support802provided by Congress. We founded our company in 2023 as a803direct result of National Lab breakthroughs in 2022. First804Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility used lasers to805drive controlled fusion ignition, for the first time in history806releasing more fusion energy out than the laser energy they807used to drive that. Around the same time, Sandia's Z Machine808showed that electrical pulses offered a far more efficient path809to achieve ignition, and that efficiency boost lets you take810the next step beyond ignition and get net facility gain, net811energy gain.812    Also, a team at Lawrence Livermore in that same year813demonstrated a compact, modular technology to make those814electrical pulses, which opens up an exciting path to make815commercial inertial fusion power.816    So those three things gave us a great foundation to build817on. And because our system is highly modular, made from widely818available materials, things like steel, cement--steel,819aluminum, plastic, oil, and water, we see a path forward to820rapidly scale up affordable fusion power in America.821    And what's even more exciting is we're not alone. Not just822us, but multiple American fusion companies, like Dr.823Mumgaard's, are poised to soon demonstrate fusion energy.824    The problem is that China has noticed, and they are825investing heavily to own this industry. Just since 2023, China826has put upwards of $10 billion to $13 billion into fusion,827including over $2 billion into a state-owned champion supported828by one of their large power plant builders. And they have been829rapidly constructing four major research facilities. They are830aiming for fusion power by 2031, if not sooner.831    This is an existential threat to American fusion leadership832and energy dominance. Our industry and Congress need to work833together to make sure that America wins.834    How do we win? We need to grow our workforce, not just835fusion scientists but mechanical and electrical engineers,836technicians, welders, and many others. The Lofgren-Obernolte837Fusion Workforce Bill is a great start.838    We also need to start scaling our supply chain now. And I839am thrilled to see the Fusion Advanced Manufacturing Parity Act840that was introduced yesterday. So thank you very much,841Representative Tenney and Representative Beyer for this bill.842    We also need continued regulatory progress and certainty,843building on the momentum of the recent NRC (Nuclear Regulatory844Commission) decision and also Congress's ADVANCE Act.845    But most critically, and why I'm here is America needs to846build fusion power plants before China, with shovels in the847ground as early as 2028. And fortunately, America has a great848playbook for this. We have used public-private partnerships to849reassert United States leadership in commercial space, just for850one example. We can run that playbook again through an851accountable, milestone-based fusion demonstration program to852jumpstart construction of multiple United States fusion power853plants. I don't ask for this just to benefit us, but because854this is what is needed to move the whole United States fusion855industry forward fast enough to win this race.856    Thank you again for your time, Chairman Weber, Ranking857Member Ross, also Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren,858the Full Committee, and Members of the Subcommittee. Look859forward to your questions.860    [The prepared statement of Dr. Regan follows:]861   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]862863    Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Regan.864    Dr. Carter, you're up.865866                 TESTIMONY OF DR. TROY CARTER,867868              DIRECTOR OF FUSION ENERGY DIVISION,869870                 OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY871872    Dr. Carter. All right, good morning. Chairman Weber,873Ranking Member Ross, Members of the Committee, I'll add my874thanks for having this hearing. Glad to be here.875    I'm Troy Carter, Director of Fusion Energy Division at Oak876Ridge National Laboratory. Before I was at Oak Ridge, I was a877professor at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) for878many years, where I led the Basic Plasma Science Facility and879directed the Plasma Science and Technology Institute. Also a880product of NC State. There you go. Big fan of the Wolf Pack.881Degrees in physics and nuclear engineering from there.882    The last time I appeared before this Committee was in 2021.883That was after chairing the process that led to the FESAC884(Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee) long-range plan,885``Powering the Future: Fusion and Plasmas.''886    So OK, let me start. First, I'll say it clearly, the887investment that has been made by the Federal Government in888fusion research has paid off tremendously. Over the decades,889support from Congress, this Committee, thank you, has enabled890the United States to make extraordinary progress. We've891learned, as one example, learned how to heat and control892plasmas, the superheated gases where fusion takes place, at893conditions approaching those required for fusion power plants.894Investments in facilities have been critical. Examples include895the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics in San Diego, several896devices at Princeton, TFTR, NSTX, NSTX-U, Alcator C-Mod at MIT897(Massachusetts Institute of Technology). This was central to898this progress, absolutely important.899    In addition, there have been investments by NNSA (National900Nuclear Security Administration) that have been spoken about901already, so the National Ignition Facility, the Z-Machine at902Sandia. While these were built for stockpile stewardship, the903breakthroughs that have been made there have direct impact,904direct implications for fusion energy.905    International collaboration is vital and remains vital. So906there are a number of examples there. United States scientists907contributed to record results at the Joint European Torus in908the U.K., at the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator in Germany, United909States partnership and involvement in ITER (International910Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), we're learning to build911industrial-scale fusion while strengthening the supply chain912for fusion.913    Investments in fusion R&D have had broader impact. So914Chairman Babin already spoke to this. There's a lot of spinoff915technologies. These include semiconductor manufacturing916techniques using plasmas, extreme ultraviolet lithography.917There have been advances in high-temperature superconducting918magnets that are now reshaping energy technology. And in919developing tools for controlling, analyzing plasmas for fusion,920our community has driven innovations in artificial921intelligence. These methods are now being used in922manufacturing, robotics, and even drug discovery.923    All right, so a lot has happened. The opportunity before us924now is to amplify that return on investment significantly by925fostering the United States fusion industry. Thanks to this926progress, we have a number of U.S. Space-based fusion startups927that have raised significant capital and are targeting pilot928plants on ambitious timelines. I will call out that these929companies that spun out of the public program from universities930and National Labs. The National Labs in the case of Dr. Regan,931and MIT in the case of Dr. Mumgaard. So that investment has932helped lead to this.933    The ambition for doing this on a short timeline reflects934the urgency of energy needs, as well as the confidence in the935scientific foundation that has been laid by the program.936However, we have significant challenges ahead. And they are937shared by all of these companies, and we need to address them.938    Without strong public-private partnerships, these companies939will face unsustainable risk as they move forward. And the940United States risks ceding leadership in this industry that it941helped create. OK? Partnership is essential.942    We need to pair the speed and the innovation of industry943with the depth and specialized tools of the National Labs and944the universities. We need to make these partnerships easier. It945is challenging sometimes to set up SPPs (Strategic Partnership946Projects) and CRADAs (cooperative research and development947agreements) with the companies for National Labs to really do948the work we need to do. We need to improve these processes,949come up with more flexible ways to partner. And this will not950only benefit fusion, it will benefit other fields, U.S.951competitiveness in fields like AI, if we can get the National952Labs lined up with industry and moving faster.953    All right, so we know what we need to do to get there.954We're excellent at planning in the United States. We've955launched a lot of planning studies. The FESAC long-range plan956is one of them. The plan is there, alongside national academy957studies that have called for the goal of fusion power plant,958industry led. We are starting to make progress on this.959    I was before this Committee 4 years ago and said, ``Now's960the time for fusion.'' We have a plan, and we need to act. I961still need to deliver that same message today as we still962haven't fully acted yet. But we're starting. There are some963programs that we've founded. So you look at the Milestone964Program that's been mentioned, the INFUSE Partnership Program965that's been mentioned, and new FIRE collaboratives that are966just launched. These unite labs, universities, and companies on967shared challenges. This is very important.968    We need new facilities. These are called out in the969planning documents. To close the gaps to the pilot plan, we970need new facilities. ITER will give us access to burning971plasmas and experience in building at industrial scale. Fusion972Prototypic Neutron Source, we need that to develop and973understand and qualify materials that can withstand the harsh974neutron environment in a fusion device.975    The Materials Plasma Exposure eXperiment (MPEX)--I choked976up because it's my facility--now being built at Oak Ridge will977study plasma-material interactions and develop solutions for978fusion exhaust.979    We need a blanket and fuel cycle facility to close the gaps980to commercialization.981    And I will end, because I see my time is up, by saying that982we know these facilities are being built in China. Right? These983facilities and more are happening right now. So we need to act984quickly.985    One more message, and if I have more time--I don't, I think986I'm out. I'll just say we need to invest in the public sector987because we need to continue to push innovation forward. We need988workforce. I'll add my thanks on the Fusion Workforce bill, and989just close to say the decisive moment is now. With deliberate990action, supporting facilities, partnership, and innovation, we991can ensure the United States leads in turning fusion from992scientific promise into commercial reality. Thank you.993    [The prepared statement of Dr. Carter follows:]994    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]995996    Chairman Weber. Boy, you're a fast speaker, too, Dr.997Carter. I thought--I could sit here and listen to you all day.998And there for a minute, I thought I was going to have to.999    [Laughter.]1000    Chairman Weber. So, Dr. Mumgaard, you're recognized for 51001minutes.10021003       TESTIMONY OF DR. BOB MUMGAARD, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO,10041005                  COMMONWEALTH FUSION SYSTEMS10061007    Dr. Mumgaard. Chairman Weber, Ranking Member Ross, Members1008of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you1009here today. I'm the CEO and co-founder of Commonwealth Fusion1010Systems. It's the largest fusion company in the United States1011and one of the largest fusion organizations in the world,1012second or third to the Chinese national program and the U.K.1013national program.1014    Since my last appearance here 4 years ago, the fusion1015landscape has continued to evolve. We see a surge of private1016investment. We see significant scientific milestones. And we in1017the United States face an increasing sharp competition from1018foreign rivals, particularly China. We are at a critical1019moment, transitioning from science to demonstration and the1020threshold of commercialization.1021    I want you to take away three things here, three things to1022know. First, a working fusion power plant is not a matter of1023if, it's a matter of when and where. NIF has shown it's1024possible. The window is now open.1025    At CFS, we are assembling our proof of concept machine,1026SPARC (as Soon as Possible Affordable, Robust, Compact). It's1027the largest next generation energy device in the United States.1028And in a couple of years, it will show commercially relevant1029net--not net electricity--net energy from fusion reactions.1030    You know, the entrepreneurs, they see this shift. In 2021,1031there were 23 fusion companies with about $2 billion. Now,1032there's 53 with $10 billion. Eighty-five percent of that is in1033the United States. And it's not just venture capital or1034billionaires. It's sovereign wealth funds, it's banks, it's1035energy companies, hyper-scalers. These are blue chip companies.1036The markets have seen that this window is open. Other countries1037see the window is open. We have significant policy shifts from1038Germany, the U.K., Japan, and most importantly from China.1039    The second thing to know is this is a very high stakes1040race. This is trillions of dollars. Fusion is a foundational1041tool to build an advanced society. It transfers energy from1042being about natural resources, consumption, who has it, how do1043you get it, to being about technology, what do you know, how do1044you innovate, how fast can you build.1045    AI makes this even more important, because AI needs the1046type of power that fusion can make, and fusion needs AI. It's a1047flywheel. And that's why you see AI companies investing in1048fusion.1049    And the race to fusion, that's the race to abundance. It's1050a hopeful message. We can't wait.1051    At CFS, we are simultaneously finishing SPARC while we're1052also designing ARC (Affordable, Robust, Compact), a commercial1053fusion power plant that we will build in Richmond, Virginia.1054    Now, the third thing to take away is the United States is1055not positioned to win. China is. The United States' leadership1056is under threat because we haven't made the investments, and1057we're not sufficiently organized. In China, we're witnessing a1058coordinated state-organized intention to win, with state-1059sponsored companies, with the buildouts of test stands at1060massive scale, with multiple shots on goal. Analysis released1061this week from the Special Competitive Studies Project, which1062I'm a part of, estimates that China has invested $6.5 billion1063in new fusion facilities since the NIF shot. That's three times1064more than what we have spent over the same period.1065    The United States has nothing like this. We are at serious1066risk of falling behind, unless it takes urgent action and soon.1067Our fusion program looks much like it did even 10 years ago.1068Its test stands are aging; its infrastructure is old. It's1069focused on science; it's not focused on moving to1070commercialization. The GAO (Government Accountability Office)1071report recently said that there's only about 2 percent ideally1072funding that's relevant to building a fusion industry.1073    OK. What do we do?1074    So the Fusion Industry Association and the SCSP (Special1075Competitive Studies Project) Fusion Commission and others are1076calling the U.S. Government to do a one-time $10 billion1077investment in fusion research and demonstration. That's the1078level that it would take to do this.1079    So like what would that do?1080    First, you would fund the commercialization programs that1081are already stood up. We've talked here about the Milestone1082Program. That program, it shares risks. The companies that have1083won it have real shots on goal. And they say they need about $21084billion to be able to see what those power plants would look1085like before they start to construct them. That's way more than1086what is currently going into that program, but it's also the1087level that is near the level that's authorized.1088    And then we would need another program on that Milestone1089framework that would actually go and build a few of these power1090plants. And that would be, you know, not unreasonable. It's1091very consistent with what we've done in other advanced1092technologies, if you think about commercial space or fission.1093And if we spend that money now, we won't have to spend 10x of1094that money later to catch up. And so that would amplify a key1095American strength, which is the competitive entrepreneurial1096ecosystem.1097    Second, we need to advance in commercially relevant R&D at1098National Labs and universities. No company can do this alone.1099There is still science and technology to be done, and that's1100where the crown jewel to really, really excel. But they need1101the material test stands, they need the programs that build the1102workforce, they need the mandate to go work on that. And this1103means shifting funding and adding funding. It means shifting1104priorities.1105    And all the roadmaps exist. The planning has been done.1106China is doing it. We just need to do it here. That's going to1107take like $4 billion.1108    Third, we've got to prime the pump for the future. Once we1109have the first power plant selling electricity, we're not done.1110We need workforce, we need supply chain, and we need a1111government program that can actually support that. That means1112an applied program. We should start planning that today.1113    So in closing, the moment is now. And thank you for having1114me testify. I'm happy to hear what the questions are.1115    [The prepared statement of Dr. Mumgaard follows:]1116    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11171118    Chairman Weber. Thank you, Dr. Mumgaard.1119    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for at least 51120minutes.1121    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my1122apologies for being late. I did want to thank you, Mr.1123Chairman, and Ranking Member Ross, for this hearing. As we all1124know, fusion has been a major focus of this Committee and1125myself for some time. And the National Ignition Facility at1126Lawrence, it's still the only machine in the world that's1127actually achieved fusion ignition, has now achieved it nine1128times, with a big new record output of 8.6 megajoules just in1129April.1130    So I agree that the milestone-based public-private1131partnership is excellent. It's made a big difference. DOE1132finalized agreements with the first eight awardees just last1133year. We've seen, as you've mentioned, an infusion of private1134sector investment in fusion, $3.5 billion in the last 15 months1135alone, most of that going to companies located in the United1136States. But as you point out, China is ahead of us. And I am1137very concerned that we are not making the investments necessary1138to be the winners in this.1139    I am very much opposed to President Trump's budget overall.1140But I would like to say that, when it comes to his specific1141request for fusion, it's moving in the right direction. And I1142am glad for that.1143    We introduced, Chairman Obernolte, Mr. Beyer who is here1144today, Ms. Trahan and myself, an amendment to the Rules1145Committee to basically support the President's budget.1146Unfortunately, for reasons I do not understand, that amendment1147that supported the President was not made an order. But I am1148hoping that we will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to1149get to where we need to go.1150    And I would like to mention that Chairman Obernolte joined1151me last month in introducing a bipartisan STEM Education and1152Skilled Technical Workforce for Fusion Act, because we need to1153get, like Wayne Gretzky said, you need to skate to where the1154hockey puck is going to be.1155    So I will just close with this, if I may just turn to1156questions, Mr. Chairman?1157    Dr. Mumgaard, you talked about the need for a $10 billion1158investment in fusion research and the demonstration effort. And1159I think that case has been made for some time. We've just never1160fulfilled it. Actually, we had the roadmap, and China took the1161roadmap and actually funded it. So that would be helpful, and1162you've outlined how it would be used.1163    But we're not going to catch up through the annual budget1164process alone. If we're able to do this $10 billion one-time1165investment, what is next to get us to where we need to be? I1166mean, maybe Dr. Carter and others have views on that as well.1167    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so I think the idea of a kick, like a1168single program that can set the change in the trajectory, and1169that isn't just about the change in trajectory of like annual1170budgets, it's actually about the changing trajectory of the1171mandate. And if we have a goal to have a fusion power plant be1172built in the United States and we have a program that is1173sufficiently scaled to help propel that, not the whole cost,1174the cost share of it, what that will naturally do is mean that1175the programs that are already running, that are sort of going1176off and they're doing good work, but it's not directed, are1177naturally going to align to it. And we see that in other1178programs and other areas of science and technology at the1179transition to commercialization.1180    So I don't think it's a $10 billion one-time program and1181then suddenly we need to be at $5 billion a year of1182appropriations. We actually have a good pot of money. But we do1183need to see that shift and the level of commitment that's1184consistent with the ambition and commitment done in the private1185sector, frankly, and in other countries.1186    Ms. Lofgren. Yes. Dr. Carter, you look eager to----1187    Dr. Carter. Absolutely. No, I agree, a $10 billion1188injection would go a long way to setting us on the course, as1189Bob says--Dr. Mumgaard, sorry--in terms of getting facilities1190together, public-private partnerships. We'll need alongside of1191that the R&D programs to exploit these. Those should be PPP. We1192should be working together on trying to derisk and develop the1193technology.1194    We'll need foundational programs. We need to continue----1195    Ms. Lofgren. Right.1196    Dr. Carter [continuing]. We'll need workforce, we'll need1197to set up supply chains. There's all kinds of things that need1198to be done as part of that investment.1199    Ms. Lofgren. I'd just like to say that the reduction in1200grant funding in research generally has not been helpful in1201advancing our quest to be No. 1 and to achieve fusion as an1202energy source, and we need to address that as well.1203    With that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for1204letting me pop ahead of others, and I yield back.1205    Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.1206    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of1207questions.1208    Dr. Diem, in your testimony, you mentioned that academic1209programs are struggling to meet workforce demand, which is1210resulting in shortages of technical staff and manufacturing1211expertise. I think we'd all agree on that.1212    So suggestions from you. What immediate steps do you think1213Congress can take to strengthen those apprenticeship programs1214and technical training so that we can ensure the workforce is1215ready before large-scale deployment? What do we need to do?1216    Dr. Diem. Thank you so much for that question.1217    So in my research group, about 40 percent of the staff is1218technical staff, and when we had to fill an open position, we1219couldn't do it. So we have to depend on us finding someone with1220similar skills and upscale them in our lab. So an infusion of1221funds would allow us to build partnerships with community1222colleges and National Labs and other fusion facilities to1223provide hands-on training for this.1224    So a lot of the work that we do is very custom made. We're1225working in vacuum environments with strict materials1226requirements. And then we also have tolerances that you have to1227meet. We're working in a high magnetic field. So these are very1228unique things, along with working with exotic materials.1229    And so one example that you could look at is at Princeton1230Plasma Physics Laboratory. They actually started an1231apprenticeship program, where the only requirements is you're1232over the age of 18, high school or GED (General Educational1233Development) requirement. You take classes at a community1234college, and then you're full-time employed at the lab. So an1235apprenticeship for 4 years, and then you gain all these skills1236that you need, and then it's a benefit for the whole fusion1237facility, or whole fusion field. So expanding those programs,1238building that into regional efforts like Wisconsin that already1239has a large manufacturing base.1240    Chairman Weber. Thank you. You said in your opening1241remarks, your testimony, that we should include those community1242colleges. What are you experiencing? Is that happening?1243    Dr. Diem. So right now, I have--what I have is private1244donations to reach out to, to start these seed foundation1245programs. But we need more people dedicated to actually carry1246out the work. So part of it is the infrastructure we have on1247hand, but also the money to get people to help with the1248upscaling.1249    Chairman Weber. OK. Dr. Mumgaard, I'm coming to you. In1250your testimony, you mentioned how several fusion energy1251stakeholders are calling on the U.S. Government to make a one-1252time, $10 billion investment in fusion research and commercial1253development. Have I got that right? Good.1254    What areas do you think should be prioritized to ensure1255that such an investment would deliver a long-lasting,1256competitive advantage for the United States? I know that's1257going to be a little tough because you don't know exactly what1258China is going to do. But what do you think?1259    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes. We need to set--set out a course to get1260the first generation of fusion power plants built. So that is a1261demonstration program that actually puts steel in the ground on1262designs that we've reviewed and looked at and said they're1263likely to work. The Milestone Program is set up to do that. But1264when you look at the total bill that's going to be, the1265companies have raised $10 billion. So like the cost share there1266is billions of dollars.1267    But that's not alone. Because like those--those power1268plants, they're--with technology we have today, like if you1269forced it today, they'd be kind of not great. We have1270technology that's in the pipeline that's at the labs and1271universities. These are things like new materials, blankets,1272fuel cycles that--a lot of good ideas, but no way to really1273advance them or test them, because we don't have the test1274stands and we don't have the mandate.1275    And so directing money to build the test stands and set up1276those programs at places like Oak Ridge, places like Princeton,1277places like Pacific Northwest, that would be really, really1278important as part of the long-range plan. And that would1279naturally--you know, people vote with their feet on where1280things are going, scientists do, and that would create that1281outlet that people are looking for.1282    Chairman Weber. Thank you. Then a follow up for you, Dr.1283Carter. In your testimony, you highlighted the need for new1284facilities like the Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source--say that1285ten times--and the Materials Plasma Exposure eXperiment, MPEX,1286to derisk the path to pilot plants. How would you see this $101287billion actually being distributed to those facilities?1288    Dr. Carter. Part of the $10 billion is targeting the four1289facilities that I discussed before. We'd really like to have a1290blanket test stand that you can test in a nuclear space. You1291can actually generate tritium and do all the things you need to1292do to understand closing the fusion fuel cycle, which is a big1293hurdle to commercialization.1294    To do that, it might be in the billion dollar class. But I1295think we can find ways to do it in partnership with the private1296sector, as well as looking at, you know, out-of-the-box1297thinking on how to get this done that could bring it lower. But1298that's what you're talking about.1299    So you're looking at--$10 billion would go a long way to1300getting you to those facilities.1301    Chairman Weber. I'm close to out of time, but there are1302often conflicting timelines regarding fusion energy which1303becomes commercially viable, with some projections going into1304the 2030s, while others extend into the future. And just think1305about this and I'll come back to you. Given these different1306timelines, how soon--I know this is a guess, a little bit of1307guesswork here, you all can think about this--can we1308realistically achieve fusion energy? No pressure, just give me1309month and day.1310    So I'm going to yield back and recognize the Ranking Member1311for at least 5 minutes.1312    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1313    I think we all can agree that fusion is, in addition to an1314energy issue, is a national security issue. And energy security1315is national security.1316    Recent analysis shows, as we've discussed, that China is1317moving fast. In fact, faster than we are. At the same time, we1318have allies, the U.K., Germany, Japan, South Korea, and others,1319that bring world-class facilities and industrial strengths.1320    This is a question for all of you, so if each of you wants1321to address it, I don't mind using all my time on it.1322    Do you support a tech agnostic, United States-led, trusted1323fusion partners initiative focused on commercialization, supply1324chain onshoring, so that we and our allies together can build1325first and keep Chinese tech and suppliers out of this critical1326ecosystem? And whoever wants to go first, raise your hand.1327    OK, Dr. Mumgaard.1328    Dr. Mumgaard. In general, yes. So the fusion world and the1329future fusion industry will necessarily be global. The type of1330equipment you need to make is of high variety, and the designs1331will benefit from having a global market. And so it makes sense1332to the United States and allies working together.1333    We should also recognize though that an overly constricted1334program would be detrimental. We want to encourage ideas and1335competition as well. So like we don't want to end up in a1336situation that is, we're all going to the exact same place the1337exact same way. But that does mean that we can leverage each1338other's strengths. And I think when you look at the, you know,1339Japanese, the U.K., they have distinct strengths, and the1340United States has distinct strengths. And working together on1341the areas where strength reinforces strength is definitely what1342we should be doing.1343    How to carve in the China angle becomes a little bit1344difficult, because there are some in the middle. If you think1345about some of the places in Europe and some places, say India,1346who--which side are they on?1347    Ms. Ross. Does anybody have anything to add to that?1348    Yes, Dr. Regan.1349    Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Ross.1350    I totally agree, energy security is national security. And1351we want to incentivize as much benefit to the United States as1352we can. And that includes not just making fusion power in the1353United States but making fusion hardware in the United States.1354So I'm, you know, very excited by anything that helps do that.1355And again, thank you to Representative Tenney and Beyer for1356pushing for the Fusion Advanced Manufacturing Parity Act.1357    Ms. Ross. Looks like Dr. Diem has something to add.1358    Dr. Diem. Yes, I can just add pretty quickly, so as United1359States Science Envoy last year, I went with a United States1360delegation through Germany. And so we had a great opportunity1361to visit our allies and what they had and see onsite what1362they're doing to advance fusion energy, and how we can work1363together to not duplicate efforts but amplify what we're doing1364to accelerate the path forward.1365    So one example is like trading of codes or modeling tools1366and capabilities. They have fabulous public-private1367partnerships, which is large spaces with many labs next to each1368other, to foster innovation across that, so looking at those1369kind of models. And in the U.K., I'm working with my colleagues1370on how do we have companion efforts that support each other,1371looking at how do we advance heating of these plasmas. So those1372are kind of a couple of examples that helps both of us without1373duplicating efforts.1374    Ms. Ross. OK. And then would there, if--if this is a good1375idea, what concrete steps in the next 12 to 24 months should1376the Federal Government take to emphasize this across DOE, the1377State Department, and the Department of Commerce? Any1378suggestions?1379    Dr. Mumgaard. The U.K. is the closest. So they have1380facilities that are for tritium and blanket breeding that are1381very significant, multi-hundred-million-dollar facilities. We1382could get access to them, but it would require the U.S.1383Government having the agreement but also putting in some money1384to fund people to go do the work there, the same way that they1385are funding people to do work there, basically to compete for1386time. That's a concrete example of those facilities.1387    Ms. Ross. Maybe we can tell the President before he comes1388home.1389    Does anybody else have any suggestions? Yes, Dr. Carter.1390    Dr. Carter. I'll just amplify what Dr. Mumgaard said. I1391mean, we have strong relationships with U.K., Japan, and1392Germany and the like, we've been working for a long time. But1393we do need that mandate, that investment from the United States1394side, and agreements to clarify how we're working together, how1395that's going to work. Now we're getting into a space where IP1396(intellectual property) is being generated. How do we share1397that? So that's going to require some high-level discussions1398and agreements to get into place, plus the funding.1399    Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you, and I yield back. I only have 41400seconds.1401    Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.1402    The gentleman from Tennessee is now recognized for 51403minutes.1404    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate your1405holding this, this Committee hearing.1406    To each of the four panelists, I know most of you all very1407well. Thank you so much. To our dear friends at ORNL, thank you1408for doing everything very well.1409    As most of you know, I am the Republican lead on the Fusion1410Caucus. My other day job is I am the Chairman of the Energy and1411Water Subcommittee of Appropriations, which funds all of the1412great work that our Department of Energy does, including1413fusion.1414    I have some questions, and I open it up, because I so1415appreciate the fact that we've got a great blend of academia1416and business. And I meet with so many great researchers,1417whether from ORNL or from Princeton. But the fact that there's1418been such a great infusion of capital into--from the private1419sector, so there's great balance out there between R&D and1420seeing all this great capital coming in, and the promise of us1421getting there.1422    So my question for you all is, with limited budgets, and we1423are going to continue to fund fusion, but with limited budgets1424and choices to make, where should our Federal dollars in fusion1425investment be going? And I'm solicitous of all four of your1426comments.1427    Dr. Carter. Well, I'll lead off. I think, I mean, as I've1428said earlier and as you know, we have laid out this plan. We1429have a strategy on where we need to invest. I think that's been1430made clear in consensus documents. You know, as we push toward1431the goal of energy of a fusion power plant, there's clear1432things that we have not invested enough in that we need to put1433money into, the facilities I mentioned, the R&D programs to go1434with them. I'll end with that.1435    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.1436    Dr. Mumgaard. The program right now is not in line with the1437recommendations of the National Academies, the Fusion Industry1438Association, the long-range planning of the FESAC, because we1439haven't funded the programs that are needed to do the applied1440use of harnessing fusion power, so the materials, the test1441stands, Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source, the tritium, the1442blanket. That stuff has not seen significant funding.1443    We still have a program that's very much on operating1444plasma physics facilities that are very large, they're1445expensive, and some of them are a bit old. We can collaborate1446and get results from other nations on some of this. We need to1447shift toward that. That was laid out in the community-driven1448plan, that that shift needed to happen. It's laid out in the1449long-range plan for FESAC. We just need to do the shift.1450    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.1451    Dr. Diem. And to support that shift, universities are1452really critical in being--they're able to be agile and pivot1453pretty quickly to address needs not only currently that are1454being experienced by private companies but anticipate the needs1455down the line.1456    So one example was I had--we were building my experiment,1457we were running it for a while, and we had a failure. And I1458could just go to the building across the street and find1459experts in magnet technology and interfacing and just tell them1460about my problem. And they were like whoa, my expertise can1461help fusion? I didn't realize that.1462    And so that can be a catalyst, not only now but down the1463line.1464    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.1465    Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Fleischmann. And, you1466know, I think we all agree we need to win this race for1467America. And part of that is sustaining the great science we1468have. That is why the United States is the world leader in1469fusion, is because of the great universities and National Labs1470that have brought us to this point.1471    I just wanted to reiterate something I said in my1472testimony, which is I think one of the biggest returns--return1473on investment the government could see is from a fusion1474demonstration program, for a couple of reasons. One, to match1475the intensity of the reinvigorated Chinese effort, but also to1476send a strong signal to the market and bring more private money1477off the sidelines to invest in this industry.1478    Thank you.1479    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I really appreciate all four of1480your comments.1481    And if I may, just a suggestion. As my colleagues on the1482dais know, I chair eight energy-related caucuses, including the1483Fusion Caucus, but the National Labs Caucus, which is1484tremendous. And now, most recently, the American Dominance in1485Energy Caucus. The best thing about the caucus format is it's1486bipartisan. We have Republicans and Democrats. Every once in a1487while, senators come on in and visit, academia. So I welcome1488you. All of our caucuses that I run are free. I welcome you to1489come on in and speak with us. I know Mr. Weber, Chairman Weber1490and Chairman Beyer frequent our caucuses. They are convivial,1491but they're productive. So whenever we have these events,1492please check with us, and you're always welcome.1493    With that, I yield back.1494    Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.1495    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon,1496Representative Salinas, for her at least 5 minutes.1497    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our1498Ranking Member for the hearing. And thank you to our witnesses1499for being here.1500    Dr. Diem, you mentioned the Great Lakes Fusion Energy1501Alliance and suggested there would be value, all of you have,1502in public-private regional hubs to expand the fusion ecosystem.1503This sounds a lot like the hydrogen hub and direct air capture1504hub programs created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.1505However, we also have the Department of Commerce Tech Hubs1506Program created by the CHIPS and Science Act, where several1507tech hubs already focus on areas relevant to the fusion1508industry from materials science to advanced manufacturing or,1509in Oregon's case, semiconductors.1510    Are you suggesting we need a dedicated regional fusion hub1511program of sorts? Or is there potential to expand coordination1512with existing efforts like the regional tech hubs?1513    Dr. Diem. Thank you for your question.1514    So as I mentioned, fusion has really unique challenges that1515are different than the semiconductor industry. So these ultra-1516high vacuum environments, these exotic alloys and things like1517that. So I think a targeted effort that really focuses on that.1518    And the reason why we've worked a lot in the Midwest,1519specifically in Wisconsin, is because we've built so many1520experiments. We worked with a lot of small machine shops. And1521so we built through this relationship. They understand--1522understand our challenges. But to scale up to a large industry1523will take a coordinated, targeted effort to really understand1524the uniqueness of those.1525    So I could see some cross-collaboration, but really a hyper1526focus on the fusion aspects, too.1527    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, that's helpful.1528    Would anyone else care to weigh in?1529    Dr. Carter. Sure, I'll support what Dr. Diem said. I think1530these kind of regional hubs could serve many purposes for1531growing the ecosystem. We talked about these test stands that1532we need to grow. You know, it might be a model in a regional1533hub where you have investment from the industry, from the1534government, from philanthropy, from all over the place to try1535to buildup these--these hubs. You follow the model of other1536consortia, where you have companies buying in to get access to1537facilities, getting shared IP out of it.1538    In addition, there's a workforce angle. These hubs provide1539a focus point for drawing in. You want to coordinate the1540community colleges, the trade schools, and have them all be on1541the same page on what we're trying to do. And so that provides1542an opportunity to do that too. So I'm fully supportive of that1543idea.1544    Dr. Mumgaard. On the idea of like how to blend fusion with1545other things, I think it's always important to start with the1546end in mind.1547    A working fusion industry is a very large industry. And so1548that means in the future, we are likely to have things like1549academic departments that just do fusion, the same way that we1550have academic departments that do aerospace or that do fission.1551And so in that framework, like when is the first time we see a1552fusion hub? Because eventually we would have to have them.1553    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.1554    Dr. Regan, did you want to jump in?1555    Dr. Regan. Yes, I'd like to just double down on Dr.1556Mumgaard's point. I think something that we need to see more of1557is cross-disciplinary programs that bring together folks from1558many different disciplines, mechanical engineering, electrical,1559thermal, nuclear systems engineering, all these things have to1560come together to not just do the fusion science but now build1561fusion power plants.1562    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. So a few of you have mentioned this1563on the intellectual property side and cross-collaboration. As1564we get into this world, and I think I visited Helion a couple1565summers ago, this was a big concern, especially when it comes1566to protecting IP and China.1567    Do any of you have suggestions for how we move ahead and1568how the United States can be a player for the industry in1569protecting that intellectual property and making sure that it1570doesn't fall into the hands of adversaries?1571    To any of you. Sorry if this is a question you weren't1572anticipating. I'm sure my staff is like, where did that come1573from? It's not in my list of questions.1574    Dr. Mumgaard. It's a very good question.1575    You know, the first thing is, IP is really only useful if1576you're able to make a large industrial return on it. And so we1577can oftentimes get too hung up on the IP versus like what is1578the pull that is going to pull the industry into existence. And1579the easiest areas of IP are areas that everyone needs, because1580that means the companies themselves have a reason to share.1581    Whether or not that falls into, you know, adversary hands,1582well, if we don't build something in the United States, it's1583not going to matter if the adversary has it or not. We have to1584actually do both.1585    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Does anyone else care to weigh in?1586    Dr. Regan.1587    Dr. Regan. Yes, I think this brings up another important1588topic, too, which is the balance between what you publish and1589what you protect inside the company. So I think that's1590something that's come up a few times. I think it is important1591to publish and put out scientific, you know, work to stress1592test what your company is claiming against the thousands of1593brilliant researchers in the United States. And it's also1594critically important to have a robust portfolio of, you know,1595patents and trade secrets.1596    Just to add one more thing to what Dr. Mumgaard said,1597another big advantage in addition to IP is knowhow. You know,1598the expertise, the talent base, and capabilities. So the kind1599of machines that our companies are building and, you know, that1600can be built at National Labs do provide an edge that, you1601know, you need those to make progress.1602    Thank you.1603    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I'm just about out of time. I yield1604back.1605    Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.1606    The Chairman now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for16075 minutes.1608    No?1609    Let's go with the gentlelady from South Carolina for 5--at1610least 5 minutes.1611    Ms. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for1612holding this hearing today on fusion energy. And I would also1613like to thank our witnesses for being here.1614    The United States is at a critical point for our energy1615infrastructure. Our energy output has stagnated over the last161620 years, while the demand for energy is increasing rapidly1617across the board. Fusion energy, as part of an all-of-the-above1618solution, offers the United States the chance to maintain both1619energy and technological dominance, to keep rates low, and to1620build out our industry once more.1621    From industry suppliers to university research partners,1622the 3d District of South Carolina is proud to have a role to1623play in the future fusion energy landscape. Many of our1624constituents also work at the Savannah River National Lab,1625which has decades of expertise in working with tritium, an1626essential fuel for the nuclear fusion process.1627    As fusion becomes a viable energy source, expertise in1628handling, processing, and using tritium will be vital in1629establishing a safe and secure process to expand our energy1630infrastructure.1631    So I would like to open my question to the entire panel.1632What steps are the fusion energy sciences program and the1633fusion industry taking to build a robust safety culture around1634operations with tritium in the construction and operation of1635fusion plant--pilot plants?1636    Dr. Mumgaard. This actually dovetails nicely with the IP1637question. So the industry has a pretty consensus view that in1638issues related to safety and public acceptance, we should be1639very open and collaborative with each other. So that means when1640we develop fuel cycles, when we have issues about safety1641cultures, we share.1642    And so there is actually a tritium working group that the1643Department of Energy convenes, it's international, that pulls1644in people from all the different users for tritium, and they1645share best practices. They tour each other's facilities. We1646actually just hosted them out in Devens at the SPARC facility.1647So that's an example. We have a strong culture already in this.1648    The other thing is that when we site these facilities.1649These are new and novel facilities. And that means you have to1650go into communities with an education mindset and a listening1651mindset, that we can't go and put fusion facilities, you know,1652black box facilities, you know, in places that people don't1653know they're there, or that they don't have consultation.1654    The good news is that when we do go and say, hey, would you1655like this, would you like to learn about it, we see broad1656engagement, and we see favorable attitudes.1657    So we've sited two facilities, one in Massachusetts and one1658in Virginia, and in both cases we were surprised at the level1659of questions, very, very educated, and also the excitement1660about a new thing in their community. And they asked questions1661around safety and tritium, and we were able to turn them to1662people like at Savannah River.1663    Dr. Diem. So thank you so much for your question.1664    So Savannah River National Lab has great experience. And1665they're also leading a FIRE collaborative that's focused on the1666fuel cycle. And I think it's very important because you're1667leveraging their historical expertise in that. They're also1668engaging universities in that work as well. And I'm part of1669that, that FIRE collaborative.1670    And part of what we do is around tritium byproduct material1671and also engaging the public in that. So that provides an1672important space in the safety aspect, and also the siting, and1673going out into communities as well.1674    Ms. Biggs. Thank you.1675    Dr. Carter. Just quickly add, I think the National Labs1676provide--especially Savannah River on tritium provide a wealth1677of expertise. And I think that's essential to share that as we1678develop a stance on how we regulate and license fusion devices.1679So certainly Organization of Agreement States is leading the1680way on that with Tennessee taking a lead. And I think making1681good use of the knowledge and expertise at Savanna River and1682Oak Ridge and other places is going to be essential to doing1683that.1684    Ms. Biggs. Thank you. My time is almost up, so I will yield1685back.1686    Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.1687    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Carolina1688for at least 5 minutes.1689    Ms. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the1690witnesses for being here with us today.1691    I'm proud to represent North Carolina's 4th District, home1692to three research universities, including North Carolina1693Central University, one of the ten HBCUs (historically Black1694colleges and universities) in the State.1695    Dr. Carter, what are the most impactful actions Congress1696and the Federal Government can take to strengthen and expand1697partnerships between our National Laboratories and HBCUs to1698build the skilled workforce needed for the future maturation of1699fusion energy technology? One that comes to mind is Hampton1700University and their STAR--Lite Fusion Project, which1701demonstrates how direct investment in HBCU-led research can1702ignite broader participation and innovation in fusion science.1703    Dr. Carter. Thank you for that question. I think it's an1704excellent question. I'll say a few things.1705    So first and foremost, Hampton, I'm going to visit there1706October 1 to tour the facilities and meet with Calvin Lowe, who1707I worked with on Fusion Workforce activity actually. So very1708glad to have connection and grow that connection with them.1709    Partnerships between universities and National Labs to me1710are absolutely essential. Universities, first and foremost,1711bring innovation. Of course, what comes along with that is1712students and workforce development, and that's a huge benefit1713to us.1714    So how do we make this a stronger connection? So Department1715of Energy has funded some activities under RENEW (Reaching a1716New Energy Sciences Workforce) program and Oak Ridge has led a1717couple of these that have been focused on getting regional1718universities, including HBCUs, involved in our programs. And so1719this has led to internships, a fusion energy boot camp that one1720of our programs is starting, modeled after the nuclear boot1721camp that has worked well in that industry, to try to get1722students at those institutions, and importantly the faculty.1723The way you maintain this relationship is not just picking up1724the students and bringing them in, you want to engage the1725faculty and have them be part of your programs, feel like they1726have a leadership role. So we need to have that happen with1727Calvin at Hampton and other institutions like that. Yes.1728    Ms. Foushee. Following up to that, can you share your1729experience with international students at the National Labs and1730universities, and the role they play in pushing fusion research1731forward in our country?1732    Dr. Carter. Yes, we've always got the best and brightest to1733come to this country, because of what this country represents1734and the opportunities. They want to be a part of this program,1735because they see what we're doing in fusion energy.1736    So in my role at UCLA, and in my role now at Oak Ridge, you1737know, international students have been key. They've come into1738our programs and they've made tremendous contributions. All the1739science that's been pushed forward, you can point to people1740coming from all over the world, coming to the United States.1741    I will point out the students that have come through my1742program at UCLA, all of them have remained within the United1743States as they go on their career. And they've made, you know,1744tremendous contributions in doing that.1745    At the National Labs, look at my division now, we have an1746amazing staff that come from all over the world that are there1747contributing their scientific talent, engineering talent, to1748pushing forward fusion. It's essential. We need to embrace1749getting the best and the brightest here to make this work.1750That's been how the United States has gotten where it is now,1751and we need to keep doing that.1752    Ms. Foushee. Thank you for that.1753    Dr. Mumgaard or Dr. Regan, from a private sector1754perspective, how important is it that the United States has a1755sustainable international talent pipeline to pull into1756specified fields such as fusion research?1757    Dr. Mumgaard. It's essential. Fusion is a global exercise.1758The fusion process is a universal thing. And so the investments1759made around the globe to create talent, that's what we thrive1760on. We pull people in from Japan, Korea, Germany. And we need1761to keep that pipeline going. You know, we use the O-1 visa for1762fusion expertise.1763    And that, if you look at just the tech industry overall,1764that's been a backbone of the tech industry. And so fusion is1765no different in the sense that a smart, single individual can1766make a society-level contribution at the birth of an industry.1767And they're essential.1768    Ms. Foushee. Dr. Regan?1769    Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you, I'll add to that a little bit. I1770fully agree with what Dr. Mumgaard and Dr. Carter said. I mean,1771we need the best and the brightest to come here. And1772specifically, we've talked about some of the capabilities that1773our allies have. Like the U.K. and Canada are--Canada is where1774most of our tritium comes from. So it is essential to bring in1775that talented workforce, especially when there's international1776capabilities that we want to benefit from here in the U.S.1777    Ms. Foushee. Thank you. That's my time, Mr. Chairman. I1778yield back.1779    Chairman Weber. The gentlelady yields back.1780    The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 51781minutes.1782    Mr. Harrigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to our1783witnesses for your testimony today.1784    I'll be honest, though, I found it a little bit1785distressing. And I just want to have a quick conversation with1786you, and I want to gain some clarity on this.1787    We have talked--several of you talked about we're really1788falling behind China. And that's happening at a very rapid1789pace. And I really want to kind of understand why.1790    I know Dr. Mumgaard--excuse me--Dr. Mumgaard, you talked1791about how since 2022, China has spent $6 1/2 billion on1792investing in fusion research. And during that same period of1793time, the United States has barely done just over 30 percent of1794that investment.1795    But I really kind of want to wrap my mind around what's1796happened here? Because if we're falling behind, and we've made1797massive strategic investments, you all are here with your hands1798out for another $10 billion, right? Yet the testimony that I've1799heard today really can only be characterized as we're failing.1800And I'm genuinely not saying that as an attack on you. I'm1801saying that from the perspective of an American. This is a very1802bipartisan Committee. The work that we do is critically1803important for the future of our market economy and our national1804security.1805    But we've done something wrong here, because we've invested1806$40 billion over the last several decades in fusion research.1807And we're behind. How did that happen?1808    And is China stealing our research and development? Are1809they smarter than we are? Are their strategic investments1810better because they're doing a significant amount of investment1811in a very short period of time, when we are basically running a1812slow burn of investments across a long period of time?1813    And I say this only from the perspective of I hate losing.1814And I'm not willing to let this country lose to China in this1815space. How do we fix it?1816    Dr. Mumgaard. Thank you for the question. I also hate1817losing.1818    The--what they--what they've done is they've done the same1819playbook they did in other areas. So they're not a leader in1820innovation. We are a long-term investment leader in innovation.1821But when the time comes to put something at risk at scale, they1822have the ability to mobilize to do that in a way that the1823United States doesn't. They have a centralized control system1824that allows them to pool large amounts of money, capital, and1825organizations to go and build things that need to be built.1826    And fusion needs things built. And so the fusion advances1827don't happen just in labs of single PIs of bright people that1828come here. They happen in coordinated fashion by building1829multi-billion-dollar facilities. And the Chinese have seen that1830those facilities will pay off. They saw it in NIF. And they1831immediately said, let's build one that's a little bit bigger.1832It's not as advanced. It's probably a generation behind in1833technology, but will make up for it in speed, scale, and1834coordination.1835    The reports are that there's people working 24 hours a day1836on building that. There are students on cots. Because that's1837the playbook, hard and fast, the minute the window opens.1838    We sort of are still debating whether the window is open.1839And that's to our detriment.1840    Dr. Carter. Yes, just to follow up on what Dr. Mumgaard1841said, I mean, the investment that's been made, there's been1842tremendous payoff. I mean, the United States has innovated and1843got us to the point where we are. The world--you know, China is1844building things that were designed and developed and ideated in1845the United States.1846    So the moment that we have before us is to actually carry1847it forward. So we've set the stage, we've set the ball, right?1848We just need to spike it. And that's where we are. It's not1849that we failed. If we don't take action now, we will. So now is1850the time to move forward. And we have to change our approach1851and our mindset.1852    We're trying to get to a commercialized energy source.1853We've got a lot of R&D to do, but we have to change the way1854we're approaching it.1855    Dr. Regan. Just a few comments, too. You know, I agree, we1856can't afford to lose this. And we wouldn't have started our1857company if we didn't think we could win this, our company could1858win this, and America could win this.1859    I want to reassure you I think we still do have the lead.1860But now is the time to act on that lead.1861    And I point to programs, the NASA (National Aeronautics and1862Space Administration) COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation1863Services) program has come up as a great example. Like that is1864a great example where we were the ones that developed the1865technology, we got to space, we lost that industry to Russia,1866but then the NASA COTS program came in and, with the catalytic1867investment of, you know, that was around $800 million, that1868reasserted United States leadership. We now own that commercial1869space industry again, and that investment is worth, you know,1870500, 1000x what the government put in that for an American1871industry.1872    Dr. Diem. People really drive innovation here. And we see1873it time and time again. And universities spin that, right? And1874we also provide workforce.1875    But if we start contracting those governments--sorry,1876Federal investments in those sectors, we lose people. Right1877now, we're at risk of people leaving for other sectors, I1878mentioned, but also other countries.1879    The day my grant ended this year, in a, you know, Federal1880uncertainty level of funding, I actually coincidentally1881received a foreign talent recruitment email.1882    And so when you're under in stress of like how I'm going to1883fund these early career researchers to keep this innovation1884drive that will then, you know, impact private industry, that's1885really scary, right? And so you're looking at how you can keep1886supporting that innovation. So I think making that certainty1887continue with Federal funds is critically important.1888    Mr. Harrigan. Thank you for your responses, and I1889appreciate the commentary. The only thing I'd tell you is1890outcomes matter. They're everything. We've got to win.1891    Thank you, Chairman.1892    Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.1893    The Chair now recognizes Dr. Foster for 5 minutes.1894    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses.1895    Let's see, I guess I'll start with Dr. Mumgaard. You know1896the question was coming. What's the status of your testing of1897production coils, and how many of them have survived a full1898energy quench and so on?1899    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, so our--we use a machine called a1900tokamak. It's basically a magnetic bottle----1901    Mr. Foster. I understand the machine very well. OK? I'm old1902friends, I'm high school friends with Mike Zanrstorff, who is1903known to many of you.1904    Dr. Mumgaard. We've produced about 95 percent of all the1905required magnet pancakes----1906    Mr. Foster. How many of them have survived a full energy1907quench?1908    Dr. Mumgaard. We've quenched one, and it has survived. And1909we did it intentionally. Full energy, full----1910    Mr. Foster. Full energy? The full magnetic energy?1911    Dr. Mumgaard. Full magnetic energy.1912    Mr. Foster. Of the full system? So this was running above1913nominal current?1914    Dr. Mumgaard. You have to adjust for it's a single coil.1915But, yes, it was--it's not quite full energy. It's maybe--you1916have to do a geometry adjustment. But very, very significant.1917And with the quench protection system working, the same one1918that we developed after the previous coil which we1919intentionally quenched and intentionally destroyed to learn how1920it worked.1921    Mr. Foster. OK. And so then can you briefly say what is the1922quench detection and prevention? And, you know, quench-1923spreading mechanism?1924    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a series of heaters.1925    Mr. Foster. OK.1926    Dr. Mumgaard. It's very similar to what CERN uses to take1927down their----1928    Mr. Foster. Well, it's what we invented at Fermilab to make1929our magnets survive many years ago.1930    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, very similar.1931    Mr. Foster. OK, so this is good. I've been telling you for1932like a decade you're going to need a very serious quench1933spreading system, and I'm glad that----1934    Dr. Mumgaard. It works.1935    Mr. Foster. It's worked once. Your lifetime--you've got to1936cycle this, I don't know, 30 times or something? I don't know1937what your--the lifetime number of quenches. All right, anyway,1938it's good to see that you're doing testing. But it's really,1939really important. You've raised a lot of money and if you have1940a problem with magnets--we've seen in high-energy physics,1941large accelerator projects canceled because they built1942everything, but the magnet didn't work. So keep your eyes1943focused on the magnets and I will continue asking that1944question.1945    The other thing is the energy density on the diverter. Do1946you have a design that actually, at least on paper, might work?1947    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, that's a good one. So actually we do.1948It's called an advanced diverter. And interestingly, the TCV1949(Tokamak a Configuration Variable) tokamak in a collaboration1950recently showed experimental results that looked really, really1951promising, that that actually spreads the heat out, and that1952validates modeling done at Oak Ridge and a couple other places1953that show that by basically magnetically extending the region1954of the plasma interaction, you can get a pretty good light1955bulb.1956    Mr. Foster. OK, all right. I look forward to seeing that1957being published in the whole simulation known.1958    Let's see, Mr. Regan, do you have a parameter set for1959something that would actually make energy, make energy1960economically? I mean, what is the cost per target, the cost per1961pulse, the efficiency? Just a high-level parameter? How much1962energy, fusion energy, do you expect per target?1963    Dr. Regan. Yes, thank you for the question. So the scale of1964our--so right now, we're building what's called the1965demonstration system, that's intended to get net facility gain.1966That stores about 80 megajoules to produce 100-plus megajoules1967of output. In a commercial version of that where we're cycling1968it not once a day but once every few seconds, we're aiming for,1969you know, facility level gains of, say, like 5 or so, 5 or 6,1970so you're storing, say, in this case maybe it's 100, you're1971getting 500 to 600 megajoules of output.1972    Mr. Foster. Do you have a--do you have a published1973parameter set?1974    Dr. Regan. Oh, yes.1975    Mr. Foster. OK, you have----1976    Dr. Regan. Yes, I would refer you to--we published a paper1977called ``AMPS,'' it's ``Affordable, Manageable, Practical,1978Scalable.'' It was a set of criteria and a technical roadmap.1979We put it on the arXiv in April and it's published in Physics1980of Plasmas earlier this month.1981    Mr. Foster. OK. And so then the big difference between1982what's been proposed with normal Z-pinch devices is that you1983have a more efficient drive mechanism, which is basically--I1984think of it as an induction LINAK with a beam shorted with a1985piece of copper for a tapered impedance line. Is that pretty1986much what it is?1987    Dr. Regan. It's--we use a technology called an impedance-1988match Marx generator (IMG), so it's an evolution of the old1989school Marx generator that gets pulse compressed on facilities1990like Z.1991    Mr. Foster. But it's got induction? It's got a bunch of1992ferrite or something equivalent in it?1993    Dr. Regan. Oh, no, no, sorry. So the IMG is an improvement1994on the linear transformer driver, which is a Russian1995technology. So we improved and simplified a Russian technology1996to make the--or the National Labs did, and now we're building1997on that.1998    Mr. Foster. All right, and do you have worries about the1999lifetime of the switch, whatever you're using?2000    Dr. Regan. Yes. Yes, so--so the switch and the capacitor2001are the two components we have to have long lifetimes for. And2002we're working on that, yes, yes. So with our demonstration2003system, we only need, you know, a few thousand, tens of2004thousands of shots. The switches we make today are plenty2005capable of that. And there are known pathways to extend those2006lifetimes to a rep-rated power plant.2007    Mr. Foster. It's good to see you're working on the2008important problems. OK.2009    Dr. Regan. Oh, yes. Oh, no, no. This was very important to2010us at the very start of the company, to make sure that we have2011a path, practical path forward to make a power plant that lasts2012for decades.2013    Mr. Foster. OK, let's see, Chairman, can I have another 152014seconds, 20 seconds?2015    Chairman Weber. If you'll do it in English.2016    [Laughter.]2017    Mr. Foster. OK, all right. All right, sorry.2018    All right, Ms. Diem, you should add to your list of2019spinouts from University of Wisconsin plasma physics a company2020called Electronic Theater Controls. Fifty years ago, I was2021working in the plasma physics lab there as a young student. And2022on the evenings after we completed our work, I kind of took2023advantage of a lot of that equipment to build our prototype. I2024took advantage of two computers at Oak Ridge, the PDP-10 that2025we could get access through that lab, and that was--we didn't2026have a CRADA (cooperative research and development agreement),2027but we had a very strong set of--we made a lot of use of the2028technical resources of the plasma physics lab on an informal2029basis, and that was necessary to get our company going. And2030that company now is $450 million a year, 1,500 employees, fully2031owned by the employees who owned it out in Middleton,2032Wisconsin. So claim credit for that one, too.2033    Dr. Diem. Thank you, I will.2034    Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.2035    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Dr.2036Baird, for his 5 minutes.2037    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member. And2038I always appreciate all of you witnesses taking the time to2039share with this Committee and us your insights into whatever2040the program is that we're discussing.2041    But you know, the thing that's of interest to me, I think2042there's a lot of sentiment to see that all sources of energy2043are available or on the table. We've got fossil fuels, we've2044got nuclear, we've got solar and wind, and there's been some2045concerns about that. And now we're talking about fusion.2046    And Dr. Regan, you mentioned the return on investment. So I2047guess here's my question. You know, Secretary Wright recently2048said that fusion energy was a source of limitless, reliable,2049American-made energy. And I think we want to take back that2050lead in the energy production.2051    So can you explain why this fusion energy is important as a2052potential future energy source? And what role and vision--you2053envision fusion energy can play in the future mix, and how2054fusion can contribute to the concept of energy abundance and2055energy security?2056    I guess what I'm really trying to get at, if we're going to2057invest in that, and I know it takes investment, sometimes, to2058get things moving, and I really appreciate what the National2059Labs do, I really appreciate what the private industry does,2060and I really appreciate what the land grant universities do. So2061I guess I'm trying to--so I guess my question is, tell me why I2062should invest in fusion energy and that kind of research? Am I2063going to get a return on--and that's to everyone.2064    Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Baird. Yes, we fully2065agree. We need all of the above. Energy is prosperity. We want2066more of it. More is better. And just, you know, as has been2067discussed earlier, energy is a critical factor in the AI race.2068You know, we need 24/7 power-dense, sitable, low-cost energy.2069So I see what fusion offers is a new and, you know,2070revolutionary source of energy that, you know, can be low cost,2071the fuel will last us forever. And I think, yes, that's an2072important capability.2073    And like Dr. Mumgaard said, it's not a question of if it's2074going to happen, but it's going to be when and where. And we2075want that to be in America, as soon as possible.2076    Dr. Mumgaard. Energy--energy is prosperity. Like we built2077this country on energy. You cannot have a rich country without2078energy. But, of course, energy comes, historically, with2079externalities. Right? There's a lot of people involved that are2080around an energy facility. And if the energy facility is very2081spread out, there's a lot of people involved in that. And, of2082course, if an energy facility consumes or emits things, there's2083a lot of people that are affected by that.2084    What fusion does is it gives you energy with very small2085externalities. So that means it's like not just energy2086sovereignty for the Nation, it's energy sovereignty for the2087community. It puts things into a plant that you build this2088plant, you put the parts there, and you have energy. You don't2089have pipelines coming in that can be shut off, and you don't2090have smokestacks of stuff coming out that can go places.2091    And so that, that's a different paradigm. It takes a bunch2092of tradeoffs out of the energy equation of like who's giving up2093something for someone to have energy. And it, you know,2094conceptually, it's a facility that you build like you build a2095power plant today, that hooks to the grid, like you build the2096grid today, that has operators that are like the people that2097are there today, that has fabricators that are like the people2098there today. And so it is a continuation. It's not a disruption2099of the energy system in terms of delivery. Those make it very,2100very, very attractive.2101    Dr. Diem. And I think it's an important part of a broader2102portfolio, because a lot of different communities can rely on2103other different forms of energy. But what it brings you is this2104energy density that's just unfathomable. So get a million times2105more energy out when you burn--than when you burn oil. So as an2106example, your whole entire lifetime, if you want to power it by2107coal, you have to burn 280 tons of coal. The equivalent fuel2108would just be you take heavy hydrogen out of two bathtubs full2109of water and six laptop batteries. I mean, that could transform2110everything as far as how we power and how we enter the next2111phase of humanity.2112    Mr. Baird. Anyone else?2113    You know, the other thing that's interesting to me is our2114electric--the people in my district, we're talking about a2115significant increase in the need for energy because of these2116data centers. And so I guess I was kind of interested in how2117that might fit, how fusion might fit in that ballgame.2118    But anyway, my time's about up, and I really appreciate you2119being here. Thank you.2120    I yield back.2121    Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.2122    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas for 52123minutes.2124    Mr. Begich. Alaska.2125    Chairman Weber. Alaska, Arkansas. For Texas, they're all2126the same.2127    [Laughter.]2128    Mr. Begich. It is not the same. I am two and a half times2129the size of Texas----2130    Chairman Weber. The gentleman's time has expired----2131    [Laughter.]2132    Mr. Begich. OK, start the clock. All right.2133    So we talked a lot about the sort of egalitarian motives of2134fusion power. And I am a big supporter of fusion power. You2135know, we talk about what a gift this would be to humanity,2136really. But where at the same time we're talking about how we2137need to beat China, right?2138    And so we talked earlier in the hearing about intellectual2139property, balancing that with collaboration, right? How do you2140maintain those aspects of intellectual property that really2141allow us to beat China and be sustainable in defeating our2142adversaries when it comes to this new power source.2143    And my question is to Dr. Regan. How do you think we should2144reconcile these two concepts? And what do we do about the2145capital investment that will be displaced, potentially pretty2146rapidly, by a fusion breakthrough.2147    Dr. Regan. Thank you, Representative Begich.2148    you know, I think you could do both. You know, we can--we2149can win and beat China while at the same time deploying, first2150in America, a fantastic new power source that provides, you2151know, with reduced externalities to traditional sources,2152abundant, safe, reliable power. And then we can--we can power2153the world.2154    You know, like I grew up in New Jersey. I always--my mom2155and I would drive by this big, steel bridge in Trenton that2156says, ``Trenton Makes, the World Takes.'' That's what I want2157for fusion. I want it to be made here, power our, you know, our2158grid and our manufacturing here, and then also be able to2159deploy it around the world, but it's an American technology2160we're deploying.2161    Mr. Begich. Dr. Mumgaard, fission technology is riddled2162with guarded state secrets. And I'm hearing a lot today about2163open and collaborative research. How much of what we're working2164on in the fusion space should be considered a state secret?2165    Dr. Mumgaard. So fusion was declassified very early.2166Because it's really hard to do, and it's also because it's not2167directly related to weapons.2168    So in fusion, you don't have the chain reaction. You don't2169have the uranium, plutonium. It also means that you don't have2170the--what is the intent of having those things. Which is, when2171we look at a place like Iran, like you're separating out2172intent, energy versus weapons. Fusion doesn't have that,2173fundamentally, the reaction doesn't.2174    And so that was key to why it was declassified. And that, I2175think, is an important principle today. The reaction itself is2176universal, and the materials are universal. But the knowhow is2177the key part. And the knowhow coupled to the ability to build2178things is the economic engine of it.2179    And so if we really want that economic engine to work,2180there's not a lot of reason to have state secrets.2181    Mr. Begich. China is building a new coal plant every 2 to 32182days. They're also investing in fusion, but they're not placing2183all their bets on fusion. Why do you think they lack the2184confidence to place their bets on fusion, given their2185investment in traditional energy?2186    Dr. Mumgaard. A very good question. I think it also--the2187answer, I think, dovetails with your previous thing about2188displacement of energy. The world just needs so much energy2189that you can't really close doors. Right? If you close doors to2190fossil fuels in China today and you bet it all on fusion, like2191there's a possibility that you don't have enough energy to run2192that country. They're not going to do that.2193    And what this is about is about building options, options2194that could expand. And every time we've built a new energy--new2195energy technology, it has not displaced huge amounts of energy2196instantaneously. It's allowed us to go faster and further by2197adding to it. And I think that's what the fusion story is and2198that's probably how they see it.2199    Mr. Begich. Thanks. One more question. This one to Dr.2200Carter.2201    In your experience, is there anything in recent history2202that indicates that China's fusion investments are motivated by2203a global egalitarian impulse?2204    Dr. Carter. I think they are very fixated on their own2205needs and trying to spin up energy technologies and dominate2206them, right? I think that's the focus.2207    We have had interactions with China over the--over the2208years. They do have interactions with Europe. But I think the2209motivation is as I said.2210    Mr. Begich. Thank you. And I yield back to the gentleman2211from Arkansas.2212    Chairman Weber. All right, my previous friend has yielded2213back.2214    [Laughter.]2215    Chairman Weber. And the gentleman from Florida is2216recognized for 5 minutes.2217    Mr. Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I first want2218to--one of the things that a lot of us in the freshman class2219have been really looking at as this big AI issue comes to force2220is just the absolute need for energy. And I'm so glad we're2221having these discussions. The future is clearly at the table.2222And how we make these investments will be maybe if we win or2223lose. And it's a real challenge. And I'm glad to see that we've2224been listening to these type of things, making the decisions2225based on the experts' opinion, not a top down situation from2226Congress. And I think your testimony today is absolutely vital.2227    I will take it from a little different tack. I chair the2228Subcommittee on Space, and it's something that a lot of people2229are talking about, is the idea that will Helium-3 potentially2230move this ball forward? And a lot of people are, you know, as2231always, skeptical about this. But there is a lot of potential,2232given the reality of this being this really move from Moon to2233here in the States and around the world to try to reduce that2234radioactivity that comes traditionally with nuclear energy.2235    So the question, I'll ask Dr. Diem first, if you don't2236mind, do you think this could be that innovative tool beyond2237what we're talking about with the issue today, that could be a2238game changer, and do you think this technology can transfer2239itself in a short enough period of time to make a real impact2240in the energy needs we have in the future?2241    Dr. Diem. Thank you so much for your question.2242    So a lot of our efforts have been traditionally focused on2243fusing deuterium and tritium. Right? Which as you point out2244creates another challenge, which is handling with materials.2245But it happens at lower temperatures. So it's more readily2246achievable.2247    So that's why a lot of work that we're doing has been2248focused on that fuel cycle. And that's, I think, where we'll2249get to first. And then as you're advancing that technology and2250bringing fusion to market, you can also be advancing the, you2251know, the scientific readiness of something that's based on2252helium-3 fuel cycle. So I think it's like a second generation2253to come.2254    But it is really exciting to see with the, you know,2255private investments that we're actually able to dig into that2256deeper, to make that closer to reality.2257    Mr. Haridopolos. Literally, you are correct.2258    So that idea, I think I'll just close with this, Mr.2259Chairman, because I know others want to speak, is I'm really2260glad, and I think it was Mr. Mumgaard that spoke about the idea2261that it's a very difficult challenge to move from traditional2262to these new fuels. Even when we make huge investments, we're2263still relying on traditional fossil fuels. And I think it's2264imperative that we also recognize that, no matter what we do2265here in the States, what they're doing in India and China are2266polluting the rest of the world at magnitudes versus the United2267States. As you know, the actual carbon production in the United2268States has gone down over the last few years.2269    And I've got to admit, it's incredibly frustrating as a2270policymaker when we see our own costs challenged because we're2271trying to diversify our fuel, and you see our competitors doing2272it at a much lower cost and impacting the world. It's not--the2273pollution is not just limited to China and India.2274    So I hope all of us policymakers will look at this as a2275reality that, yes, we want to make these innovative changes,2276but not at the expense of where we cannot be competitive around2277the world. And sometimes I think, sometimes in these buildings2278or even in academia, where I used to serve, we lose sight of2279the book version versus the harsh realities of a free market2280system, or at least a world competitive market.2281    And so I think each--I've been listening to your testimony2282today and I am really grateful that hopefully we can make this2283breakthrough. Because the last thing people want to spend money2284on is energy. And the thing we all are facing in these2285challenging times, the AI revolution, the only thing really2286holding us back, as Sam Altman talked with Congressman Begich2287and I and other freshmen. The only way we're really going to2288maximize AI is we have the energy production to fuel this, as2289we take on the challenges of China, who are using every fuel2290without regard for environmental concerns, despite some of2291their weak promises in places like the U.N.2292    So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for making2293the time for us. This is an important discussion, which I hope2294we can continue throughout this Congress. Thank you.2295    I yield back.2296    Chairman Weber. The gentleman yields back.2297    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 52298minutes.2299    Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for allowing me2300to waive on.2301    And this is my third or fourth or fifth Science Committee2302fusion hearing, and by far the most exciting. We've come a long2303way in the last 4 years from talking about two hydrogen atoms2304hitting each other. And I just want to thank you for the2305progress that we made.2306    Dr. Mumgaard, I am very much looking forward to an2307invitation next year when you turn on SPARC, even without2308tritium. Congratulations on how far you've come.2309    Also, thank you for the announcement that you will build2310perhaps the first fusion energy plant in human history in2311Virginia, where it belongs, rather than Arkansas or Texas. And2312we are excited that Helion Energy broke ground on their new2313thing.2314    Dr. Regan, I'd never even heard of Pacific Fusion 2 years2315ago. So already you're here doing really great things. It's2316come a long, long way.2317    Thank you also for a number of times mentioning our 4-2318person bipartisan 45X bill that we have in Ways and Means. I'm2319very excited and I think can make really good progress.2320    We've had a chance to meet with Secretary Wright and make2321sure that he is as enthusiastic as we are, and that this is a2322bipartisan effort.2323    One of the things I'd love for us to do is, in every speech2324I give, I talk about fusion. But I find that most people are2325still like, what's that? And not only is it, what's that, just2326in terms of the science, but in terms of what the world will2327look like when you are successful in the near years to come.2328    What it will mean for--and what does energy abundance2329actually mean? What will it mean for those of us who believe in2330climate change? For example, one of the things we got done in2331recent bills was 45Q, which allowed us to do direct air2332capture. But right now, if you use fossil fuels, it's a wash.2333But driven by fusion energy, we could make an enormous2334difference on the amount of carbon dioxide that's in our2335atmosphere.2336    We think about it in terms of foreign policy. Most of the2337wars fought over the last couple thousand years have been about2338energy. What happens if energy is abundant? What will this do2339for peace in the world? What will it do for population? What2340will it do for just poverty. You figure you've got 2 billion2341people going to bed hungry every night. The scarce resource is2342not humanity, it's not land, it's energy.2343    So you are ushering in a dramatic new part of human2344history. I am so, so grateful. So it's very exciting.2345    On the $10 billion, I know the gentleman from North2346Carolina talked about $40 billion over the years. I don't know2347where that number came from. But let's just say it's right. Ten2348billion, when you figure we're at $930 million in the budget2349that's floating around right now, and only a small fraction of2350that is going for things like Milestones and FIRE, we would2351love to work really closely with you on exactly how that $102352billion is laid out, and go to the appropriators now, Democrat2353and Republican, get the Rosa DeLauros and Tom Coles and the2354like.2355    I did the quick math. Our overall budget is about $72356trillion. That means one $1 of every $700. Assuming that $102357billion is all spent in 1 year, which is probably not what2358you're trying to do anyway. So you're talking about one in2359every $2,000 dedicated to something that can make the hugest2360difference for mankind.2361    There's so much that I want to talk to you about, but one I2362just want to make sure that we want to work with you to define2363that $10 billion as best we can, knowing that it could change2364year to year based on our successes.2365    On the collaboration, I know it's great with the U.K. and2366China--and Japan. China's spending $6 billion. Is there any2367opportunity for collaboration with them? Especially when my2368good friend's fears about empowering China, already some of the2369most responsible fusion companies are doing peer reviewed2370articles. You're in the journals. They can read them. What's2371the--is there any possibility for productive collaboration2372that's not just about China stealing our IP?2373    Dr. Mumgaard. Yes, it's a really, really good question. So2374there is today a collaboration with China in the U.S. program2375through ITER. And that's an example of ITER is for everyone.2376And so the Chinese are getting what they need out of it, we're2377getting what we need out of it. And our researchers interact2378through that project.2379    And that was really the model that we had in the last two2380decades, where we actually had a policy that we would2381collaborate with China. And we did learn things. They learned,2382I think, more.2383    I do think that going forward, the fundamentals of how2384plasmas work are so universal that like that is the stuff that2385should be in the peer reviewed literature, the same way the2386fundamentals of how the human body works and how genetics2387works, that's--that's, you know, something that everyone,2388everyone has access to and should.2389    The details of how do you design an actual facility, how do2390you manufacture it, how do you put it together, that's where2391the commercial interest is. That's the area that we don't2392collaborate on. And so I think the publication record of the2393company's labs, et cetera, is following those lines, which is2394very similar to what's happened when we wanted to buildup the2395drug industry or when we built the aerospace industry. So I2396think that's healthy.2397    Mr. Beyer. Great, great. Thank you.2398    I had so much more to ask, but my time is out. So, Mr.2399Chairman, thank you very much.2400    Chairman Weber. The gentleman that criticized Texas has2401yielded back and has waived on for the last time.2402    [Laughter.]2403    Chairman Weber. So we appreciate that.2404    I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony,2405and the Members for their questions.2406    The record will remain open for 10 days for additional2407comments and written questions from the Members.2408    This hearing is adjourned.2409    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]24102411                                Appendix24122413                              ----------24142415                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions24162417[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]24182419                                 [all]