S-4932-118
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 633.
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would expand and reauthorize Department of Energy (DOE) programs focused on quantum research and technology. It would require DOE to create an early-stage quantum computing research program, study quantum supply chain needs, and launch a university-based training program to build a quantum-skilled workforce. It would also reauthorize existing quantum research centers and programs through 2028–2029, and establish a new instrumentation and infrastructure program to develop domestic quantum equipment, laboratories, and manufacturing facilities called "quantum foundries."
Who benefits
University researchers and graduate students who would gain access to new training programs and research funding; quantum technology companies and startups that would benefit from DOE-supported foundries and supply chain development; national laboratories receiving reauthorized funding; domestic manufacturers of quantum hardware, software, and materials who would gain from supply chain programs; the broader scientific community gaining access to new instrumentation and infrastructure; and U.S. technology workers who could fill new quantum-sector jobs.
Who is hurt
Foreign quantum technology suppliers and manufacturers who may lose market share to a strengthened U.S. domestic supply chain; U.S. taxpayers who would fund the expanded programs; competing federal research priorities that may receive relatively less attention or funding; and private quantum companies that do not receive DOE support but compete against those that do, potentially creating an uneven playing field.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that quantum computing and quantum networking represent a foundational technology shift that will define national security, economic competitiveness, and scientific capability for decades. They contend that China and other nations are making large, coordinated government commitments to quantum technology, and that without a comparable U.S. federal effort, American leadership in this field would erode. They argue the bill directly addresses two critical vulnerabilities — a shortage of trained quantum workers and dependence on foreign supply chains — by funding university training pipelines and domestic manufacturing infrastructure. Supporters also contend that early-stage quantum research carries risks too high for private industry to bear alone, making federal funding the appropriate mechanism to advance the technology toward commercial viability.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the federal government has a poor track record of picking technology winners, and that directing DOE spending toward specific quantum approaches may crowd out private innovation or lock in research directions that the market would not have chosen. They contend that existing DOE quantum programs and the National Quantum Initiative already address these goals, making additional reauthorizations and new programs duplicative and wasteful. Opponents also argue that workforce and supply chain development are better left to industry and universities responding to market signals, rather than government-designed programs. Finally, they raise concerns that expanding DOE's programmatic footprint without rigorous oversight benchmarks could result in spending that produces limited measurable scientific or economic return.