American Global Competitiveness at 250: Legislative Proposals to Secure U.S. Technology Leadership.

good afternoon the committee will come to order good afternoon the chairman recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement again good afternoon and welcome to today's hearing on us technological leadership and global competitiveness this committee has long been committed uh to advancing american innovation and ensuring the united remains the world's leader in developing technologies that will define the future. Today, we will examine several pieces of legislation that promote technological advances, and help ensure America continues to lead in industries that are critical to both our economy and our national security. With the rise of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies across industries and households, we must ensure the US remains at the forefront of innovation. Leadership in these fields will determine not only our economic competitiveness, but also our ability to safeguard our national security and maintain our strategic advantage over our adversaries. It is essential that our supply chains and manufacturing capabilities are strong and stable. The US currently risks falling behind our competitors in areas such as semiconductors, especially with the current memory chip shortage, which is sign- significantly impacting numerous industries, unfortunately, ranging from broadband and cars to cars. The legislation before us today addresses a range of topics and obstacles, but all reflect an overarching theme. american leadership in critical and emerging technologies is not guaranteed from quantum computing and robotics to artificial intelligence and bio-manufacturing our geopolitical competitors are investing aggressively to gain an advantage we can't let them do that we must respond by fostering innovation here at home supporting research and development and creating an environment where american companies can continue to compete and succeed to address these challenges and keep america in the lead we must continue

ok ok

to prioritize policies like the ones we have before us today these are issues that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree on and i look forward to moving these bills swiftly through the committee process So, I wanna thank our witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate it. We look forward to hearing from you. And I'll yell back and recognize the uh the ranking the the ranking member of the whole committee, uh Miss Schakowsky for her five minutes for an opening statement.

Oops.

You're recognized.

There we go. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um The uh the trump Administration? unfortunately the trump administration has uh really cut off Our research. Research. hmm our research funding our research funding, think about that, we should be spending money on our children and making education a uh a a top priority but that's really not at all what is happening right now um we should be we should invest in education yeah as i said we should invest invest in education if we wanna talk about what is really worthwhile that's where we should be spending our our money um i wanted to um

yes

lead um i'm a webcaster hmm webcaster Representative Castor, I want to call on you to begin now.

Right.

Mm-hmm, sure.

Well, thank you, uh, ranking member Schakowsky. American leadership in technology is a goal that every member of this committee shares, and several bills before us reflect that. The Chip Equip Act, the Robotics Commission, the bipartisan biosecurity and immersive technology bills are serious, constructive efforts, and I look forward to working together uh to strengthen and move them forward. But we've also gotta be honest about the current state of play here in America. Um, every one of these bills, uh every one of these subjects, from chips to quantum to bio-manufacturing, is underpinned by scientific research and the scientists who power it. This administration is dismantling that infrastructure in real time. At this very moment, China has overtaken the United States in total R and D spending, while the administration has canceled or frozen more than seventy-eight hundred research grants. Even more concerningly, our scientists are leaving. The administration has driven them out of federal labs and increasingly out of the country. You cannot decide in twenty thirty that you need quantum engineers in twenty thirty-one. Uh, Or you can't you can't decide in twenty thirty that you need quantum engineers and have them ready in twenty thirty one. We can pass every bill on this list, but if we keep starving our labs, then we are just naming technologies for China to implement. However, there wa- is one bill today that is beyond fixing, and that's the uh Protect USA Act. It would give companies an impossible mandate. It tells any American company doing business in Europe, our largest trading partner, that it must break European law to satisfy this Congress, or follow European law and be punished here at home. This bill does not make American companies more competitive. It shields polluters and corporate bad actors from environmental accountability, while leaving responsible businesses trapped between conflicting laws. We should re- instead refocus on competitiveness through innovation, instead of economic self-sabotage. We already know how to do this. When this committee passed chips and science, we bet on American science and American workers. And that bet is paying off in plants and jobs across the country. That is what true competitiveness looks like. So I look forward to uh our hearing from our witnesses today and and furthering this discussion. Thank you and I yield back.

Generally, yields back. Appreciate and I'll recognize Mister Albre- uh, D Nelty for uh actually s- pen-sharing for uh for our good chairman, and I'll recognize him for five minutes for his uh opening statement.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, it's an honor to give this opening statement on behalf of Chairman Guthrie. Good afternoon, thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. For decades, the United States has been the world leader in technological advancements. American innovation in AI, semiconductors, quantum, and other critical industries has set the foundation for our digital economy. To maintain US global leadership, we must create the right conditions that enable US innovators to flourish on the world stage. We cannot allow our adversaries, such as China, to overtake our position through aggressive state-driven industrial strategies. Today's legislative hearing takes an important step in evaluating policies necessary to proposition America's technological leadership and global competitiveness. One element of this is addressing foreign regulatory regimes such as the EU sustainability due diligence directive, which reaches far beyond the EU's jurisdiction and would impose significant compliant cost on American companies diverting resources away from investment innovation and job creation here at home. To remain a global powerhouse, we must bolster our supply chains and support the adoption of critical and emerging technologies, which have the potential to define the future of American prosperity. Another key focus of this committee is the semiconductor industry, foundational to nearly every modern technology and a core national security priority. As demand grows and global competition intensifies, it is essential that US semiconductor manufacturing capacity continues to expand and outpace foreign competitors. I'm encouraged by the discussion today and I'm confident that by working together we can develop policies that keep the United States at the forefront of global innovation and ensure our leadership for generations to come. I go back.

Gentlemen, the yield's back. We appreciate now recognizing the ranking member of the full committee, mister Pallone, for his five minutes and uh giving his opening statement. But before I do that, I wanna congratulate all the committee members. Uh, the chairman and the ranking member, and all the members for that uh bipartisan win yesterday on the floor. Uh, we passed the kids act. Uh, and it was a, I'm tell you what, what a victory, now we gotta get it across the the finish line. and get it to the president's desk uh but let's keep it going guys uh cause we're doing really good work uh for the american people so with that i will recognize the ranking member of the full committee and i appreciate all his uh work thank you

thank you chairman bilirakis and thank you for all your work on it and certainly to to uh our ranking member miss caster for all the work that she spent on this over the years the two of you really did uh a lot of the work on this and i do wanna recognize that as well as well as chairman guthrie let me get back to this issue so when we talk about the issue before us today i i just wanna stress that american ingenuity and inventiveness are things that we can all celebrate over the course of our two hundred and fifty year history america has been the birthplace of countless innovations from telephones to airplanes to the technology that underlies the internet and all of us wanna see that success continue over the next two hundred fifty years but there's a growing, there's a growing evidence that China is pulling ahead in research and technological development. While China advances an integrated industrial strategy, the Trump administration unfortunately is dismantling ours. The Trump administration illegally froze more than seventy-eight hundred federal research grants. The cost of these research cuts is enormous. Studies estimate as much as a trillion dollars in GDP. And top talent is leaving the country or choosing not to come here in the first place, handing a generational advantage to our competitors. The Trump administration has also repeatedly tried to shut down the manufacturing institutes that train our workforce and develop the advanced manufacturing technologies of the future. And just this made the administration propose rule changes for federal grants that politicize science and threaten the independence of the scientific research that has made America research the envy of the world. We can't compete with China and others while gutting the very institutions designed to make competition possible. And Democrats have offered a different path. Through investments like the Chips in Science Act, Democrats fought for the future of American innovation with historic investments to modernize critical domestic sectors, and create jobs for Americans. The Chips in Science Act invested nearly fifty-three billion dollars in the domestic semiconductor supply chain, and every public dollar has catalyzed five to seven dollars of private investment. Since enactment, private companies have created fifty-eight thousand jobs across twenty-eight states and committed more than four hundred and fifty billion dollars in investment and the chips and science act invested in america our workers and our industries many of the bills before us today address important sectors in technologies for american economic leadership for example the chip equip act will insure the chips and science act dollars are not used to bolster our adversary's capacity other bills and discussion drafts in this hearing address important issues including robotics immersive technologies, biosecurity, biomanufacturing and supply chains for quantum technologies, automobiles and memory chips. And I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle on these bills. I do have concerns about the Protect USA Act, which would force American companies to choose between violating the act, which exempts companies from foreign regulations related to sustainability and social impacts or facing penalties in the European Union. This would push our allies away at the very moment we need them in our corner to coordinate a response to China's sustained strategy of hollowing out critical economic sectors and it would and it in my opinion it would cut American businesses off from global competition which will make them weaker in the long run not stronger. So ultimately American leadership in the next generation of technologies requires investment in research and talent not the cuts we've seen from the Trump administration. And with that, I thank you and and yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, I appreciate it very much. And uh, we'll go ahead and uh, recognize the witnesses. Our witnesses today are Mr. Jace Jason Fiorillo. He's the Chief Legal Officer for Bon- uh, Boston Dynamics. Thank you, sir, for being here. Next, we have Mr. Neal Chilson, who is head of the AI Policy at Abundance Institute. thanks for being here and next we have doctor chidaya uh eisler i hope i said that right uh chief science officer for the federation of american scientists and next we have mister uh marty durbin senior vice president for policy at the us chamber of commerce so i'll recognize uh mister jason perilo for his five minutes of testimony you're recognized sir

Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. I'm the Chief Legal Officer at Boston Dynamics, one of the world's leading developers of advanced mobile robots. Previously, I worked at a global semiconductor company. Collectively, I've devoted nearly twenty years to enabling domestic enterprises to serve as trusted sources of critical technology to the United States, its allies, their commercial and industrial enterprises. I'm here to request your support for measures that advance the domestic development scaling and deployment of physical AI and to position the United States to lead in the manufacturing and use of advanced mobile robotics Boston Dynamics was founded more than thirty years ago as a spinoff from MIT for much of our history we served as a pioneer in the mobile robotics space Six years ago, our spot robot became the first commercially available industrial-grade quadruped in the world. At that time, our pioneering humanoid robot ATLAS stood alone in its unique capabilities. Our company now has eleven hundred employees, and we plan to double both the number of employees and our footprint in the near future. Our robots are used in manufacturing facilities, semiconductor manufacturing plants, energy production, and by first responders. Our robots save lives and have even taken bullets in the line of duty. They are used by DHS, the military, and federal law enforcement to neutralize improvised explosive devices, provide perimeter security, and facilitate safe entry in dangerous spaces. In such sensitive applications, robots that contain cyber vulnerabilities or backdoors, especially those that are produced by adversarial actors, pose a variety of very serious risks. Inspired by our success, others have followed in hot pursuit. China has more than one hundred and forty humanoid robot manufacturers who have been hyper-accelerated by governmental programs and state sponsorship. China's strategy for advanced robotic technologies mimics the approaches that it has used in other sectors. It markets its products at prices only possible by government support or overproduction. Most recently, China's government has issued a directive to its provinces and local governments to deploy at least ten thousand humanoid robots in more than one hundred high-value application scenarios with state-owned enterprises directed to serve as real-world training spaces. The physical AI race is well underway with strategic implications for US manufacturing, energy, public safety, and national security. Left unaddressed by policymakers, Chinese suppliers will flood global markets with below-cost, government-subsidized robots and will drown competition. An all-of-government strategic approach is necessary to support the long-term competitiveness of the advanced mobile robotics industry. It is time for a national robotics strategy. We have been advocating for one for the past three years, but this has now become a view expressed by an overwhelming consensus of think-tank leaders and trade associations, including A three, AUVSI, SCSP, ITIF, CSIS, the Jamestown Foundation, and AEI. Such a strategy would comprise a broad set of policies designed to support the growth and success of the industry. The recently introduced National Commission on Robotics Act, on today's agenda, would kick-start this process. We strongly encourage Congress to promptly pass this bill. While that legislation advances and the commission gets to work, we cannot let time slip by. In the interim, government should take the following four concrete steps. First, government agencies should adopt and use advanced robotics technologies. Congress should instruct and fund agencies to deploy advanced mobile robots in the interest of government efficiency and economic competitiveness and to save lives and improve society. Second, Congress should explore tax mechanisms. that incentivize the domestic manufacture and adoption of advanced mobile robots, including accelerated appreciation, tax credits, and grants. Third, the government should champion and promote the use of advanced mobile robotics across industrial domains, articulate best practices in close coordination with industry, and encourage the embrace of advanced robotics technologies. And fourth, the government should stim stimulate domestic and friend-sured supply chains. We should be thoughtful to address high-tech and low-tech ingredients alike. As the physical manifestation of ai, the robotics industry is developing and evolving at an exponential pace. There is broad consensus in support of a national robotics strategy and an urgent need for the government to act now. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Fiorito. Now we're uh recognize Mr. Neal Chil- Chilson, again head of uh ai Policy Abundance Institute. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you and thank you uh Chairman Bilirakis, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Neil Chilson, I'm the Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, which is a non-profit that's working to build a policy environment where emerging technologies can thrive and enable widespread human prosperity. American competitiveness relies on three capabilities, the capability to invent new technology, to commercialize it, and to deploy or adopt it. Over the past two hundred fifty years, we have become the best in the world at all three. But that lead is neither permanent nor inevitable. And today, China is nipping at our heels. So I'm glad this committee is engaged. These ten bills are evidence that Congress is serious about keeping our edge. I support these efforts and I look forward to discussing their details during questions. I did want to focus in these remarks on the capability that I think overlooked more often uh than not. The depl- the third one, deployment and adoption. Discovery and commercialization, they get a lot of policy attention. Basic research and technology transfer policies are are are often mentioned uh on the Hill. Yes. But the bre- a breakthrough that's been invented and commercialized but sits waiting for government permission slip, cannot raise wages, lift productivity, save lives, or strengthen our security. more than just inventing the future, it requires putting the future to work. And we have a problem. America is now inventing the future faster than we will allow our builders to use it. Look at AI. Right now, government decision makers are holding back our very best AI models, OpenAI's ChatGPT five point six and Anthropics Fable five, from American businesses, entrepreneurs and consumers who would put them to work. Other than cyber security, vague cyber allegations, we don't know why they're being held back. There is no clear standard to meet, no defined process, and no timeline for resolution. These are questions that Congress should address. At the same time, our states have in introduced more than seventeen hundred AI bills this year, a rising tide of confusion in cost for those who build and use AI. We are in effect tying our own hands. And at this very moment, China is giving its AI technology away. It's releasing open way AI models that are cheap, capable, and they're fast becoming the world's default. That's why, among the other bills uh that we'll discuss today, I support the open-source AI leadership act. US-built open models matter. They're a vital source of competition, innovation, and even security. They let businesses run AI locally, customize it, and build on it without depending on a single ven- vendor. They put American technology and American values in the hands of users around the world. But today, China dominates this space, producing the best performing and most widely used open models on Earth. The Open Source AI Leadership Act is a good first step to get American open models back on track and I strongly support it. Turning from China to Europe. American entrepreneurs should not have to answer to far-away governments they had no say in electing. I've spent twenty years in technology policy and I've watched Europe's regulators reach further and further beyond their borders. Pressing their preferences onto American firms or extracting billions when those firms resist. Europe's new corporate due diligence mandate, which the Protect USA Act addresses, is only the latest example. European laws like the Digital Markets Act clearly target American companies. I support the Protect USA Act as a valuable statement of an important national policy. Opening a market to American companies does not grant a foreign government unlimited authority over how that company operates everywhere else. Congress should extend that principle to other overreaching foreign laws. But we should also be honest that the same thing is happening here, inside our borders. A few large states, California, New York, Illinois, are writing technology rules designed to bind the whole country. Whether the mandate comes from Brussels or Sacramento, one capital should not set the rule for all fifty states. Let me close where I began. America still invents like no one else on earth. The question before this committee is whether we will let ourselves use what we invent and whether we will keep the right to set our own rules. Get that correct and America's next two hundred fifty years can look a lot like the last. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate now recognize Doctor Eisler for her five minutes of testimony. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Bilirakis, uh, Ranking Member Pilon, uh, Ranking Member Schakowsky. uh for the opportunity and the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak. Uh my name is Doctor Judita Eisler, I'm an observational astrophysicist by training and chief science officer at the Federation of American Scientists. FAS is a non-partisan, non- uh non-profit science and technology policy organization, dedicated to using science, technology, and innovation to improve the lives of the American people and strengthen the nation. That mission is not new to us. FAS was founded by scientists who understood through World War Two and the dawn of the atomic age that scientific discovery could be- become world-shaping technology faster than our ability at at of our democratic institutions to govern. That founding insight remains true today. The bills before this committee cover a wide set of technologies, from robotics, immersive technology, semiconductors, open source and open weight artificial intelligence, quantum engineering, biotechnology, memory chips, and connected and autonomous vehicles. These technologies and the bills under consideration differ in design, scope, and market maturity. But they share a simple premise. American leadership is critical t- in critical technologies, is valuable, vulnerable, and worth protecting. I agree with that premise, but my core message today is that Technology leadership is not self-executing. It's not a subsubscription service that renews automatically. It's more like a garden that must be cultivated over time. The technologies we want to see, the chips, the AI models, the bio-foundries, are the harvest and not the seed. But the harvest depends on the soil. That soil is technically trained people who animate our basic end-user inspired research. It is standards, test beds, commercialization pathways, and manufacturing capacity. And it is the federal government capable of moving at the speed of technology. At FAS we approach technology competitiveness from this science-first perspective because science underlies technology. Technology is what science becomes when knowledge is translated into tools, products, systems, and capabilities. The United States cannot lead in the technology of the future while neglecting the enterprise and most critically the people that produce them. That's why a hearing on American technology competitiveness must also be a hearing about American science talent and government capacity. America's scientific leadership has always been a people's story. The United States became the world's science and technology superpower precisely because it built institutions capable of training, attracting and empowering extraordinary talent, including Robert Robert Oppenheimer, Carl Sagan, and Katherine Johnson, just to name three. Generations of students, technologists, engineers, researchers, program managers, entrepreneurs, and skilled workers turned public investment into discovery and discovery into public benefit. Some of these people were trained in American public schools, community colleges, universities, and national laboratories. Many came from around the world because the United States offered something rare. an opportunity for open inquiry, world-class institutions, and freedom to pursue ambitious ideas. Training more Americans in STEM and attracting the world's best scientists and engineers are not competing strategies. They are mutually reinforcing requirements as for American technology leadership. As Representative Caster mentioned, you can't decide one year and then and deploy technology and technologists the next. It takes on average eight years after a bachelor's degree, to arrive at technical expertise in many fields. Uh, those folks design, build, and operate systems, uh, from quantum labs to Robert robotics companies. Uh, when we lose that talent, we lose capacity that cannot be replaced on short notice. In a world of technology leadership, it's more than who sells the final product. It's about who trains the workforce, who owns the equipment, who sets the standards, who controls the supply chain, and who can translate discovery into deployment effectively. That brings me to the legislation on the com- before the committee, which I'm happy to engage with individually during the Q and A. Uh, Congress should evaluate whether each of these bills, not only by the technology domain it names, but whether it strengthens the underlying system that allows the United States to lead in that domain. A commission, a study, procurement guidelines can be useful if they're producing actual recommendations and follow through. All could be bo- bolstered by adequately resourcing the full R and D development life cycle. Congress sh- has shown it can act deeply and impactfully in bipartisan ways, with ships in science, RPH, and a variety of other bipartisan legislations. Our next step is to make those pieces durable, fully implementable, and connected through research and workforce base. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you so very much. Now, uh, Mister, uh, Durbin, you're recognized for five minutes.

Excellent. But Chairman Bilirakis, I'm ranking member Schakowsky and members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding today's hearing. on American leadership in emerging technologies and global competitiveness. Technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum are not future concepts. They're already changing how businesses operate, how workers do their jobs, how consumers receive services, and how our nation competes. They're helping manufacturers improve productivity. Small businesses compete and reach new customers. And they support better health care, stronger financial services. more resilient supply chains, and more efficient energy systems. But other nations, as we've heard, are moving aggressively to dominate these fields. America needs a serious bipartisan strategy that promotes domestic innovation, protects critical infrastructure, and strengthens supply chains. We need sustained federal R and D, strong public-private collaboration, cybersecurity preparedness, and a workforce to meet the moment. As a model, the Energy Act of twenty twenty was a bipartisan uh act that provided a comprehensive update to US energy policy that promotes innovation across federal agencies and the private sector. And proposals being considered by this committee today can help keep us on that path. Our capital markets are the envy of the world. And we have the talent, companies, research institutions, and entrepreneurial culture to lead. But leadership's not guaranteed, we must make the right policy choices now. We must also push back against foreign regulatory overreach. The European Union's corporate sustainability due diligence directive, or CS three D, is a good example of the broader challenge that we face. Uh, the chamber supports responsible business conduct, strong transatlantic cooperation, and practical efforts to address environmental and human rights risks. As written, however, CS three D would impose extraterritorial EU requirements on US parented companies, their affiliates, and business relationships around the world, including activities with no meaningful connection to the European Union. It would require covered American firms to conduct extensive due diligence across global supply chains, creating legal obligations that directly conflict with federal and state law. It exposes companies to enforcement actions, penalties, and litigation for conduct that occurs in the United States and is entirely lawful, here in the United States. It further exposes US companies to liability risk in the EU. Some nations may restrict the audits, data collection or supply chain investigations needed to demonstrate compliance with CS three D. This creates an EU compliance trap, as companies will be required to gather information that other foreign jurisdictions restrict. Ironically, this is even at odds with the EU's own blocking statute, an anti-coercion instrument, which aimed to protect EU companies from foreign legal overreach. But the directive also raises serious governance concerns. US corporate law has long relied on principles of board discretion, materiality, and accountability under domestic law. CS three D imposes prescriptive obligations, tied to sustainability objectives, and gives broadly defined stakeholders a voice in challenging company decisions. This this shifts business judgments away from boards, shareholders and US regulators toward a European focused enforcement model. Now, in addition to CS three D, the EU methane emissions regulation follows a similar pattern, affecting US energy exporters based on their commercial relationships with the European market. This rule creates overlapping compliance obligations, uncertainty for long-term contracts, and new risks for trans-Atlantic energy security. We believe this regulation needs to be delayed and reopened. Taken together, CS three D and the and the methane regulation reflect a broader trend. Brussels' extraterritorial approach risks placing American companies at a competitive disadvantage. And if left underdressed, this trend can weaken US competitiveness. It's also a warning for emerging technology policy. The US should not import overly prescriptive foreign regulatory models for AI, robotics, quantum, data governance, digital markets, or sustainability. Nor should we allow foreign governments to become the default rule setters for American innovators. America can lead the next era of technology, but we must choose to lead with policies that encourage innovation, protect consumers, strengthen security, and power workers and allow businesses of every size to compete. We stand ready to help accomplish these goals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, excellent uh testimony from all of you. And now, I'll recognize myself for five minutes to begin questioning. No, no, no, business.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah, we're good. You should get it?

Yes.

OK. Sorry. That's OK. Uh, Mister uh, Chilson, uh, Biotechnology is advancing rapidly, as you know. creating tremendous opportunities but also new risks. In your view, what approach does the Biosecurity Modernization Innovation Act take to promote innovation in the field and address the security risks of synthetic gene synthesis?

Thank you for the question, uh, Chairman. Um, so the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act, uh, tries to create a national security floor for synthetic gene analysis. um while preserving space for responsible bio

Yes.

um bio uh technology innovation. So it addresses a real market failure here, you know a a person seeking to build a a dangerous biological sequence can impose risks on millions of people. There's also the concern that bad actors could try to structure the the orders that they have in a way that splits them up among uh many different providers, and the bill tries to address that through a split order risk. Um and it replaces a a a pretty fragmented voluntary framework right now with something that's clearer. So it has these pro innovation uh elements that I think are important and uh and deal with a a real challenge. I will say, you know, the the implementation here matters enormously. Um, you know, I've I've studied regulatory frameworks for uh twenty years at this point, and um industry can use these types of frameworks uh to privilege themselves in some cases or to push out competitors in small areas. Uh and my my biggest concern would be that this become a sort of extra uh extra uh like an an add-on intellectual property enforcement mechanism of some kind, or that it deals with issues in that space. And so I think implementation really matters here, um uh although the the challenges uh and the risks that it tries to address are real.

Okay, thank you very much. Uh. Next question is for Mister Fiorillo. Uh, for the US economy and consumers, what are the potential ramifications of China's dominance in robotics?

Thank you, Mister Chair, for that question. Um, the impacts on the US consumer and the US economy related to China's dominance could be vast. Robotics is a critical technology for the US to build infrastructure. for the us government to function uh in public private manufacturing sectors um and in in governmental operations uh if we do not have trusted robotics that we can allow to use in our facilities in our commercial enterprises uh in our government institutions then china will essentially have a backdoor to robots that can autonomously walk throughout facilities collect data uh and possibly uh, literally throw a monkey wrench, uh, into manufacturing operations. It is really important for the US economy that we actually provide this critical technology in a trusted way with freedom from backdoors and freedom from foreign uh involvement in this infrastructure.

Thank you very much. Uh, next question is for Mister Durbin, how does having a national framework in policy areas like data privacy and AI help maintain US compet- competitiveness.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, the the the challenge that we see is that if we if we do not have a a national framework, we have already seen in data privacy that uh, you know, more than twenty states have uh have enacted their own laws. Now, there is some good news in that is that many of those states are following the same same uh consensus uh uh program, but but not all of them. And I think that what we've seen is that i- wi- without a clear national framework, the added cost that will uh s- frankly hit small businesses far harder. They have a harder that are you know uh of course uh uh engaged in commerce, uh you know interstate commerce, um having a much harder time and in fact we we've been working with them, polling them to show that sixty-five percent of them show that they're very concerned about the the regulatory uncertainty that comes about from state by state so the national framework will really help to to address that issue.

And we're working on it, so I appreciate that very much. I'm gonna yield back now and recognize the ranking by Mr. Shikalsky for five minutes of questioning.

Oops.

Doctor Eisler, I wanted to um to talk to you and if you could talk about the ways in which our the uh the work that is being done right now is really not sufficient to make sure that we are going to how how can i say it that innovation will happen successfully hmm that innovation will happen yeah we we wanna see what kind of innovation is being done and enough is being done and i know that you've been working on on that um and i i want you to talk about that i want you to know that you have how many minutes thirteen total thirteen minutes or something like Four four minutes. four minutes, OK. I'm gonna be quiet, but talk about what you know is happening and how we have to do have to do more.

Thank you, M- ranking member Schakowsky, for your question. Um, if I could distill my testimony into one thought, it'd be that America cannot legislate technology leadership at the end of a pipeline without weakening while weakening the people and institutions at the beginning of it. So we've seen some of that happening already. A recent survey found that twenty-two percent of labs had rescinded offers to students, staff and researchers, uh post-doctoral researchers. Uh fifty-three percent of researchers had already advised their students to seek future education outside of the United States. Uh and the European Research Council saw a four-fold increase in applications from Americans for advanced grants. Uh international graduate student enrollments have gone down in twenty- twenty twenty five um that's the largest single year decline since the pandemic um and we're seeing uh that our competitors aren't waiting uh china is the most dramatic example but india south korea and the eu are all accelerating investments in this academic market so if we're interested in figuring out how to um ensure that we have a technology base that that that supports scientific leadership then it depends on a chain of capabilities um long before that product reaches to mar- market. So when our federal research funding becomes unstable, or graduate students and post-docs lose opportunities, um when international students no longer see the US as a viable place to do the train and build and when federal agencies lose technical staff the damage done doesn't stay confined just to the university setting. It shows up in fewer start-ups. slower commercialization, weaker supply chains, and thinner technical uh agencies in the government. That's less ability to compete with other countries, not more, particularly those that are already um organizing their entire systems around these technologies and the ensuing strategies. So, while I think that the committee's work here is incredibly important, we can't treat any of these as stand-alone answers to questions. Uh, we ensure enormous benefits, some of which talked about here uh world class universities national laboratories um extraordinary companies and deep capital markets that people want to stay and build with so my recommendation broadly across these bills is um that we should ask the practical questions based on what we know about where we stand on investments does the bill strengthen research does it build and retain talent does it give an agency the capacity to actually act uh and does it help american discoveries become american products companies jobs and strategic advantage if the answer is yes then the proposal is helping we're helping to build the next generation of american leadership uh if the answer is no then we've got some work to do and we need to name um that any important technology without the underlying strength strengthening the underlying conditions will not allow us to lead so we wanna ensure that technology translates the science and innovation um into tools products and capabilities um and that we are um translating the underlying ecosystem the basic and use inspired research the the technical talent um resilient supply chains and uh strong federal agencies to keep up. So uh my message isn't simply to fund science although I will not turn that down, um it's that if you want congress to uh lead um on american technology leadership we have to both protect and cultivate the ecosystem below it. So thank you for the opportunity.

Are we on the right track?

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry.

Are we now on the right track?

Um, I'd say no, we have sustained significant recession in terms of our talent capabilities, uh in terms of our federal science and technology researchers. We lost over ten thousand in the last few years. Um, that's that's PHD trained science and technology experts in our own federal government who are no longer Um in those roles that represents fourteen percent of the total um technical talent, um in the in the government's we are we are sort of going the wrong way in terms of talent.

Yeah, our time is is up, but thank you so much, I really

Thank you.

I got the gist of it, that's for sure. Thank you.

Great.

The channel A yields back, now I'll recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, uh, I appreciate it. The first question, Mister Durbin, is for you and I'll tell your sunfish Kentucky cousin say hello. Um. European Union's corporate sustainability due diligence directive imposes significant burdens on American businesses, even if they lack a meaningful territory connection to the EU. Uh, can you discuss the impact of this requirement, what this requirement is requiring, and the impact on American consumers and workers?

Of course. Well, thank you for the que- uh, for the question, Mister Chairman. Yes, what we're we're finding is that that not only is this a uh uh in- increase in compliance costs, that is is adding uh uh legal li uh liabilities. Um, and and what's happening, even though the the initial company that is affected by the, you know, by the rule might be a large company, unfortunately it applies to their their subsidiaries, their and their supply chains throughout the world. In many cases that means that the the trickle-down effect means that you've got

Yeah.

smaller companies, imagine vendors or suppliers to a large company, or even start-up companies that are trying to get into relationships with larger companies. that simply don't have the wherewithal to either, you know, uh uh uh to comply with and and to and to uh uh monitor all of the the the the, you know, the different parts of their supply chain, uh it it it has a real impact um on on especially on those smaller companies. Again, it's not it it does affect the larger companies as well, and we do think that by by by having the extraterritorial uh impact here, it's just some- simply the wrong way to go. We've been working closely with uh uh, with the EU to try to - to - to - to make, uh, appropriate changes.

Thank you. And one of the - the - of us hosting the world this summer is all the Europeans who are, most of them visit our great cities and - and they're obviously great, so they - they see that, but now they're out in the towns and suburbs and are just amazed what you hear at the standard of living of America. And so, uh, that we need to make sure we understand what we do different than they do and not follow their path. So, uh, uh, so, Mister Chilson, um, the United States leads the world in developing the most cutting edge propriety AI models. At the same time, we lag behind when it comes to open source AI. Almost every measure Chinese open source AI models developed by companies such as DeepSeek and Alibaba are being widely adopted around the world and even by American companies. So, Mister Chilson, why is it critical that the US lead in open source AI models, and how can the Open Source AI Leadership Act address this gap?

So, i- thank you for the question, uh, Chairman. Open source is critical for a bunch of different reasons to American competitiveness. Um, the first is as a, uh, internally as a competition, you know, the US economy and innovation is spurred by competition among providers of services, and open AI open models and open weight models provide a key check, uh, on the centralization of model building within the largest companies and a great entryway for smaller developers scientists and researchers um to build new products and and develop their own uh open models using open source and open way ai and so the competitive uh issue is really important um the the market as you pointed out is moving towards open source in many ways in o open weights we see this uh open router which is Uh, one of uh the sites that monitors how people are using AI has said that, you know, the use of open source tokens processed on there has has risen from thirty-four percent in January to sixty-five percent in June. Essentially, as AI has become more popular, more people are looking to open source models. And on there, the four most popular models are Chinese, with deep-seek in the top spot. And so that is a market that we cannot not just because of the competitive effect, but also because of the the cultural and the and the security.

So what do we need to do to to make sure we don't see see this?

So so uh the the the act that

And how would the act help?

yeah the act that we're talking about today does a great job

I just

by giving commerce an affirmative mission to look at this challenge um to support qualified open models and to look at Chinese models and see where the security risks are. Um because those models do raise risks when you use them um and i think that having commerce dig into these and do a report that talks about that is a good first step towards uh you know regaining open source uh leadership in ai

no

ok alright about that so mister uh briefly what is the number one action in your opinion that congress can take to maintain us global leadership in emerging technologies what's the one big thing you want us to do

well the number one yeah the number one thing that we can do is establish a us national robotics strategy Uh, the bill before us today, the National Commission on Robotics Act, uh, is a thoughtful, uh, appropriate, and very useful step in doing that, in that it brings leaders of government, leaders of industry, and leaders of technology together to establish this national framework for a very important technology that is used not only in manufacturing, in commerce, but also in government as key dual-use technology.

Great, thank you. Uh, my time's expired and I will yield back.

Thank you, thank you.

Well, now we'll recognize uh the gentlelady from Florida, our partner in getting COSA across the finish line in the on the House floor. Uh, let's keep it going. So I'll recognize you for five minutes. Appreciate it.

Well, thank you, Mister Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses again for being here today. This is a very important topic. Uh, in Congress I've spent a little bit of time on the select committee on the strategic competition with China, and then uh energy on this committee and on the select committee on the climate crisis. And ta- all of that taken together at this point in time, I truly fear that America is falling behind, uh, China, the EU, other economies when it comes to clean energy technology. Uh, and that means that that is putting our workers, our communities, our businesses at risk if we allow this to continue. I liked your metaphor, Dr. Eisler, about cultivation, um, and right now if you think about uh clean energy technologies, um, our own government is stamping out the cultivation, uh, all of that innovation that we want to own in the market, in the marketplace. The Trump administration has canceled fully permitted clean energy projects, and research, uh, on, on batteries, on solar, on wind, And then I know this week, uh, my Republican friends are gonna celebrate the passage of the one year, one year ago, of the big ugly bill. Well, that big ugly bill ripped away all of the investments in clean energy, technologies and projects that was going to help counter the Chinese Communist Party and others across the globe invest in our own business, invest in our own energy communities, uh, manufacturing strategies for batteries, electric vehicles, geothermal power, and industrial decarbonization, solar, wind, hydrogen, and all of the important supply chains that go along with it. Um, this makes no sense at all to me. Um, especially at a time when everyone is focused on our competitiveness, and we know that dangerous climate pollution is fueling higher costs, in whether it's droughts or fires, heat waves, more extreme events and health impacts. Why would we cede our leadership role in the world on innovation and science and research in this area and allow other nations to dominate when the rest of the world is turning to the these kind of clean energy technologies? So, Doctor Eisler, what impact does that have when we say through the inflation reduction act, we're investing here, we believe we have to confront the climate crisis and we wanna do it, But with the American worker and American innovation, and instead the rug is then ripped out from under our businesses and scientists, um, that that doesn't seem like a recipe for cultivation and dominating uh a competitive ecosystem, does it?

Well, thank you so much for those remarks. I uh appreciate your attention to detail and for your service on these on these efforts. Uh, it is true that we are seating significant uh leads uh in this competition. uh with China just to give some real clear stats particularly on the issues that you talked about. Um according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, between twenty two thousand three and two thousand seven, the US led in sixty of sixty-four technologies and China led in three. Uh between twenty nineteen and twenty twenty three, the US led in seven of sixty-four technologies and China led in fifty-seven of the sixty-four. So we've seen an incredible shift in tide on topics across the domains that you spoke to. Um, in terms of how how this impacts researchers and how it impacts the innovation that comes from researchers uh it's a disruption in in the process if experiments are going on, if projects are permitted, if uh uh programs, pilot programs or prototypes are in the user facilities are disrupted, uh that in some cases can disrupt the results we want to see. It means that good products that um are past prototype or even all the way out to commercialization, um they're not able to serve the country in the ways that we've invested in them through this garden cultivation and um full stack of r and d innovation so we certainly recognize and want to continue to raise to the surface that um the shift in our priorities as a nation have deep impacts on the results we can produce um and because science and technology and the um transition of an idea from literally an idea in a researcher's head to something that someone can commercialize uh requires um nearly in uninterrupted investment and commitment uh from the nation all the way through.

And I meet so many young people who are inspired to to do things like solve the climate crisis and and develop some of these new clean tech um answers. What signal does it sell send to them when when the federal government here at the two hundred and fiftieth um celebration of our independence says oh you know what, we're gonna we're gonna cut that research and you don't have the same opportunity to to find those answers.

It sends a poor signal. I know I have only a few seconds but it sends a poor signal and we c- we could do better.

Thank you very much.

Channel eighty yields back and I'll recognize now Mister Obonalti for his uh five minutes of questioning.

Uh thank you Mister Chairman and this is a hearing I wish I had uh multiples of five minutes but uh we'll try and go fast Mister Fiorio We'll start with you. Obviously you and I share a belief that robotics and physical AI are going to p- play a key role in ensuring uh future American competitiveness and uh our economic and industrial future uh in your testimony you mentioned my bill HR seven thirty thirty four seventy three thirty four the National Commission on Robotics Act which would direct the Department of Commerce to establish an independent and temporary commission to examine domestic and international developments in robotics, uh, supply chain risks, manufacturing competitiveness, and the role of robotics in economic growth in our national security. And uh, I just, I know uh, Chairman Guthrie asked you about this a few minutes ago, uh, briefly. I wanted to give you a little bit more time to explain why you think such a national commission is so important.

Thank you, uh, Congressman. Ol- Ol Burnelty. Um, it's a real pleasure to be here, uh, and I appreciate the question. Um, I think that it's absolutely critical for the US to lead in this technology which we refer to as advanced mobile robotics or physical manifestation of artificial intelligence because it is going to be in every sector of our economy. Beyond that, it's going to be essential that we have a trusted supply chain of physical AI enabled robotics in order to assist with our manufacturing, to assist with our logistics warehousing perimeter security public safety defense transportation uh and infrastructure the robots that boston dynamics provides are used in a variety of ways to keep people safe and to keep public safe a commission like this will actually help us create a national us robotics strategy which will direct those that are not in government to work with people that are in government in order to create safety standards, technology standards, uh and a single point of connection um to harmonize the technology leadership that we have in industry with the policy government we have here in, uh in the government.

Uh thank you, I completely agree and this is the first step in hopefully establishing a strategy for uh for making sure that we maintain the lead it in uh advanced robotics. Uh Mister Chilson, appreciated your testimony. Um you highlighted the fact that Just in the last six months we've had over seventeen hundred bills introduced in state legislatures on the topic of AI regulation, and I believe uh the direct quote was that we can't have uh one capital setting the standards for all fifty states, that's not really what our system of federalism is designed to do. And in fact article one of the US constitution says that only one regulator, this body, US Congress should have authority over the regulation of interstate commerce. Uh, as you're aware, several weeks ago, Congresswoman Trahan and I introduced what we call GAIA, the Great American AI Act, that would establish some federal standards for transparency and managing catastrophic risks in advanced AI models. And pairing that with a limited form of preemption that makes it clear where the lanes for federal regulation are and where the lanes for state regulation are, and what's preempted and what's not, because it's gonna require a partnership in our uh opinion between the federal government and the states to regulate this fast-moving technology. Do you uh agree with the approach that we're taking in Gaia?

Uh yes. Um uh the approach that you're taking in Gaia uh addresses uh acknowledges obviously that with the general purpose technology there will be a um a role both for the states and for the federal government um but AI models in particular are inherently interstate. They are the types of investments you're not gonna be able to develop a model, a frontier model that is customized for California and one that's customized for Oklahoma. And so the approach that you take, uh, with a narrow preemption that focuses on AI models, um, is I think makes a ton of sense, both from policy but also constitutionally. I think this is it is the the clearest example of a technology that should be governed at the federal level uh and and and that where state will state regulation will be counter-productive. That there are lots of other applications of AI that are also probably interstate and where there should be guidance at the federal level, um but and and there are some that are clearly intrastate, things like the the state's own use of the AI technology, um where federal overreach would be a real problem. Um but I think the approach that you take in Gaia towards preemption targeted towards AI models makes a ton of sense.

Well, thank you. Uh, this is just the start of this conversation. Let me point out that that preemption uh uh has uh i- i- is going to have a policy oversight here in Energy and Commerce Committee that title, so this is just the beginning of that discussion. But thank you for your testimony. I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Uh, he yields back and now I will recognize Representative Soto for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Chairman. Science is foundational to America's success and Our innovation is the envy of the world. Investing in research, strong peer review, uh, all critical, then supporting advanced manufacturing to capitalize on these ideas. Uh, but that's not enough nowadays. Artificial intelligence, advanced chips, quantum computing, all are essential to boosting production and efficiency. And why folks should care about it at home? One, this means jobs. Second, it's how we help lower costs and, of course, maintain our world leadership. We saw what the Chips in Science Act did, created a pathway of investment that was greatly helpful to Central Florida and places like Neo City where we saw a half a billion dollars in investment over the uh next ten years both through NSF, through the Army and through uh also the American Rescue Plan. And we've seen new players come into the the our our tech facility including Elspis, uh which is a four hundred seventy million dollar new microchip manufacturing center. But to compete with China and Russia, we need to continue to be investing, and so NIH and NSF cuts that we've seen lately are are causing us to potentially fall behind. And then we see politicization in some of the grants, with seventy-eight hundred of them um be cut lately, which um could result in uh one trillion less in GDP. Uh, but there have been some positives, like we see with the aerospace microchips we're making at NeoCity. We I also remain concerned about uh advanced chips. Um being green-lighted by the administration to be sold to China, including the NVIDIA H two hundred chips. Um, Mister Chilson, I know you're advocating for broad efforts on AI. Does the approval of these sales, is that something we should be concerned about, or is that something that that you think is important to the evolution of AI?

Uh, the approval of chip sales uh to China?

Yes.

So uh it's a complicated topic obviously uh

You got a few seconds to talk about.

so so um Co- competition with China is not only about chips um it is about the complete stack uh of components and in additionally we have to be wary of creating a stronger incentive seeding the entire market to Chinese uh purely industrial their their own capacity where they will build uh without competition from us and then subsidize that those products as they sell them around the world and so when we look at a company like Huawei who is building uh very capable chips right now they're not nearly as efficient as our leading chips in the US but they are capable um and they will be subsidized by that government we don't want to seed that market uh not just in China but internationally and so I I barriers to selling chips into China is uh there's a balance to be struck there about both of those concerns, cutting them off but also over-incentivizing them to supply their own chips.

Thank you so much, Mister Fiorio, I I appreciate the great work that uh you all are doing in Massachusetts and other areas on US robotics. Uh, you know, a lot of us saw this viral robotics video a while ago from China where they were doing martial arts you've mentioned in your testimony, about military Um, all that's very fancy, but I'm most worried about manufacturing. How do we measure up right now to China with regard to robotics manufacturing?

So thank you, thank you for the question. Um, I'd say that the answer is complicated. When we talk about advanced mobile robotics, what we have is great technology, amazing AI, fantastic sensors, but the US lacks scale. Uh, so what we need right now, uh, we're sort of in an chicken and egg scenario. where we need demand in order to start cranking the flywheel so that we can actually start manufacturing at scale. And we need domestic and friend-shored supply chains so that we can actually produce uh in volumes that allow costs per unit to go down. If we do those two things, then I think we can beat China any day that week.

Now would the demand be incentivizing major companies to utilize this advanced robotics for manufacturing? So you think that's not moving along as quickly as it could?

Absolutely. I think it needs to move more quickly, um, in order to bring more robots into more facilities to do more things.

And then you said advanced mobile robots are the physical embodiment of AI. What a fascinating proposition. Can you give us one or two examples you think you will see of the embodiment of AI in robots over the next five to ten years?

Oh, absolutely. Um, so we make a a quadruped robot and we make a humanoid robot and we make a box-moving robot. Those are three different types of robots that all have three different types of AI models that allow them to touch, see and interact with the world. Beyond that, you can actually use the AI that's onboard those uh robots in order to pull them and ask them questions about what they have seen and then take action when they see something else that's interesting, unique, startling or important. So the AI models that we are developing are based upon the robots' experience in the world, experience in the manufacturing sector and perhaps even videos of other robots doing the same things in order to sort of leverage these learning algorithms and make the robots themselves much more valuable.

Incredible. I yield back.

Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Now I'll recognize Mister Benz for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the panel for being here. So, you all all of us saw the outcome of the elections in the last a couple of weeks, and um, you may have noticed an absolute illustration, clearest possible illustration of fear of artificial intelligence, as different candidates ran against data centers. And I was looking through your materials and I was looking fruitlessly uh for remarks regarding what we should be doing about this fear. So I'm gonna ask each of you, I'll start with you on the end, that you would just Congress should be doing something to breathe confidence back into um the American people that somehow we know how to control AI, cuz they don't believe it. I think they have a mental image of each of these black boxes containing some Frankenstein-like doctors uh putting together some fearsome monster they can't possibly control. The analogy I heard of we here in Congress was people on donkeys trying to install a seatbelt on a Tesla going by it. hundred miles an hour. That's not illustrative, is it, of confidence. So what I would like you to do is share with us how we would convince the American people we know what we're doing when it comes to the very devices that the materials and the bills today suggest that we facilitate the creation of starting with you.

Um, so thank you Congressman for the question. Um, so I admit that actually any new technology can be frightening for

Well, how would you do this? How would you do this? How would you do this? What's the, What's the, what tools would you use to convince the American people of what you just said? what tools would you use to convince the American people of what you just said?

So I think that they need to see the robots. Um, and so we do a lot with Boston Dynamics. We try to

Don't you don't you think that robots are going to be looked at as job stealing devices? That the the more robots we have, the fewer jobs? I'm what I'm getting at here is this is a huge problem, and I haven't seen the proper focus either by perhaps we here in Congress, for sure we here in Congress, and and those of you in technology. Mister Chilson, your turn.

Sure. Uh, so the Abundance Institute, uh, we uh we not only care about policy, but we care about culture as well. And the culture uh of America right now is one that fears our cutting edge technologies, um in a way that is actually an outlier compared to the rest of the world. So the Chinese believe, eigh eighty percent of Chinese believe AI will make their lives better. Uh right now in America, only one in five Americans have actually used a chatbot uh uh to do a l a significant task. Lots of people have tried them out but not uh really use them in their day-to-day practice. So I think getting familiar with the technology is key,

How how?

Um, I think also the tone by which Congress talks about it is also really important.

How? But but your solution, it's nice to say that w- but tell me how would you make that happen?

So, uh, so there's lots of ways we could do that. Um, I think the way that Congress talks about this, uh, as a opportunity is is one thing that that can that can happen. Um, we are engaged at the state level, um, interacting with companies,

I have to have to have to kick you off there.

uh, to to try to demonstrate

I wanna hear Dr. Isler's thoughts.

Yes. Uh, thank you for that question. I think, uh, zooming in on what we could do. Uh, first I think we could build out and and reinforce community benefit agreements where we're talking directly to constituents about what their concerns are, to be able to address them.

You mean perhaps having these data centers do something locally that would promote some local thing and thus breathe confidence, create confidence in local people.

That's right. It it it appears that the data center conversation is an intensely local one a jurist local jurisdiction one um that's how people engage with the market

i think i think it's i think it's broader yeah and i think it's broader than that mr. Durbin

uh just to build on that i think i think it you do have to address this at the local level there are legitimate local concerns that have been raised but there are good answers to them as well and and how the industry is coming in to be able to say here's how we're going to address the challenges you see whether that's on you know on on jobs on on uh energy on water on how you know what

So if I may, I've I've been going through the materials here looking fruitlessly for, that were prepared for today's hearing, some indication, some recognition of the concern and fear that people have. I haven't found it yet. It may be in here somewhere hidden. But I think it's one of the biggest problems we're facing today. Back in Oregon, uh we have people saying, no, we do not want data centers. And yet at the same time they're busy using some of them, chatbots on their phones. There seems to be a total disconnect between the everyday application. and and the need for these facilities. Uh, Mr. Chair, I think it's a huge problem, but I l- welcome this opportunity to discuss it yield back.

Thank you. Gentlemen, yields back, now I'll recognize uh the ranking member, Mr. Pilon, for his five minutes of questioning.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions of Dr. uh Isler, so I'm gonna try to issue to answer them so we can get to all three, alright. The last two hundred and fifty years of American innovation has seen incredible growth in price. doctor is doctor is what is the impact of funding cuts already imposed on america's research institutions and what are the consequences for ability to compete with countries like china that are aggressively expanding their research investments maybe a minute or so

ok

mike

i'm gonna turn on my mike first um the short answer is we've already seen a reduction in number of international students that are coming to the united states we're seeing increase in number of American uh grant applications to our allied nations, uh and we're seeing a reduction in the federal S&T uh workforce inside the government so all of it we're seeing all of it means we will not be prepared to continue to drive innovation.

Thank you. And let me s- get to the second one. On May twenty ninth the Trump administration proposed the most significant overhaul of federal grant rules since two thousand thirteen with direct implications for NIH funded research. And that was tying federal grants to political criteria, which I think threatens the merit-based independence that made America a global science leader. When I was growing up, everything was merit, now you think it's, you know, all politics. So, Doctor Isler, NIH funding priorities and review criteria are typically transparent. What happens to American innovation if funding decisions are made by nonscientific political appointees based on unclear criteria and shifting political priorities?

It's a good question. Uh, so first, you're right, the data bears out the the exact thing that you remember, that the American public has for a long time trusted the credibility of scientists, technicians, technologists, um above basically any other field for a very long time. It's only in recent uh years that we've seen that trust decline. Uh, so if our federal agencies, particularly those um at NIH, as you point out, uh begin to make uh less transparent, very consequential decisions, it will erode um our ability to provide American people the information they need. Um, we still see people trust in what science and technology produces. Seven in ten people across the country say that science and new technology benefits them. Um, and so if they don't see, uh, their investments and they don't see the decision tree for what they're doing, then, uh, that confidence erodes and then the expertise is is less useful. Um, I did wanna take the opportunity to your point about changes to the pose OMB rule two CFR two hundred uh to talk about the the broad scope of it.

I do have a third question.

You ask your third question, I'll please sneak my other one in.

And then you can get to that. So the this hearing features bills that address important sectors and technologies for American economic leadership. Democrats have fought for the future of American innovation and technologies like those with historic investments, including the chips and science act, uh to essentially reinvigorate and modernize critical domestic sectors. But that progress is not self-sustaining. So my question, Doctor Eisler, what additional steps must Congress take to ensure America does not cede its leadership in the technologies that will define coming decades, if you will?

I'd say the easiest way to think about that in the context of the bills under discussion today, is to ensure that the studies, the commissions, all of those proc- procurement uh r- restrictions are all tied to implementation pathways. So once we do the study, how does that support the workforce? Um, how does that ensure, um, innovative procurement rules? Um, how do we make up the ground that we're trying to protect, uh, when we are slowing or, um, in other ways blocking, uh, our engagement with other nations? So, I'd say the thing we have to do is tie the idea, uh, to some implementation pathway that supports the full ecosystem, the researchers, the, um, federal scientists, the user facilities, the prototyping, early, um, um, capital investment, and then the actual implementation.

Well, thank you. And you know, I just wanted to comment on Mr. Chilson, this isn't a, and a criticism, but you know, you talk about China and people like innovation, people, you know, like AI, whatever. The the difference here is that we are a capitalist society, right? You don't you don't get a job, you don't get a check, right? Uh, if you lose your job, you lose your house, you lose your health insurance, you lose everything, right? You have kids, right? I mean The problem is that if you're in a society, and I'm not saying I wanna be in in a of a communist society, but if let's use a socialist society, Japan, France, United Kingdom, right? Most of those things are guaranteed. And so it's a little different. You know, when somebody thinks they might lose their job here, they lose everything and they don't have a livelihood. If you lose your job in some of these other places that are more socialist or even communist i- i- i- you know, you might say, well, okay, I'll find another job. The, you know, the state will assign me something. They'll give me a housing alliance. They'll give me food. So, Americans naturally are suspicious of change because they don't have any, they don't have the stability that exists in these other places. So it's a little different in my opinion. And I don't think you can ever convince Americans that these changes are good, given that their livelihood depends on their job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Alright. Gentleman yields back. Now I'll recognize Mister Evans for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you so much, Chairman, and of course to the ranking member for this important hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for coming and uh testifying as we talk about everything that we need to do to make sure that America continues holding the leading edge in critical sectors from semiconductors to AI to quantum. Uh, Mister Chilson, first question will be to you, in your testimony you say that the um open source AI gap is one of the most important issues in AI policy. A discussion draft of my bill, the open source AI leadership act would direct the department of commerce to identify and address barriers to the adoption of american open source ai models while also reporting on the risks of uh open source ai models from places like china and unfortunately china is dominating in this open source ai race and we know that as they do in everything they will leverage their position to rob american intellectual property replicate that technology at a lower cost and replace america's share in the global market through heavily subsidized products Uh, and they also have laws on the books to require mandatory backdoors for the PRC and the PLA to be able to manipulate this technology. And so, two-part question to you. Uh, how did the Chinese get ahead? And can you give me a specific example of what happens if they stay ahead in the open source AI space?

Sure. So, uh, the Chinese got ahead in the open source space in part because, uh, they had no alternative. Um, they cannot keep up. with the frontier models that we build. They uh are have not been able to figure out how to do that yet. Uh and and we we make the most amazing closed models, uh but they're within uh the services of the companies who are building them. Um and so they focused on open source. Um in m in some cases they leveraged, you know, the access to some of our models to be able to build some of those models. And so uh i don't wanna diminish their uh innovative uh incremental innovation in some of these spaces um but a lot of it was building on american innovation in the first place and so that is how the it's their focus on this technology that has gotten there and uh a product that can be distributed for free uh is quite popular uh uh uh it will it will turn out so uh so that's the other way that they've they've uh they've gotten ahead there so um Uh, and I forgot the second part of your question.

What ha- give me a specific example of what happens if they stay ahead.

So, one of the biggest challenges is that uh every start-up um across the world, including uh American start-ups will, when they are working at the garage level stage, when they're still trying to prototype, they will reach out there for the best free model that they can get, low-cost model that they would get. And if that is always the Chinese model, they will start to uh they'll they will start to gain market share upstream as China does build the capability to develop these models, um they will continue to uh creep into the market share I think uh further up the stack, and so that would be my biggest concern.

And that's a great transition to the next question. Mister Gerben, can you talk a little bit about that? What is gonna happen if China is leading in this open uh source AI race? Uh what's gonna happen just to our economy uh if they are getting in early for some of our growing and starting companies? Um, and can you just talk a little bit more about the impact that's gonna happen, uh, to American companies, uh, if they're having to utilize open source Chinese AI?

Uh, well thank you, Mister Evans, for the for the question, and and I'll I'll delve into this a bit. I've and I'm happy to follow up with you in writing afterwards as well with the but, it did say that one of the things we need to focus on is the fact that we know that technology leadership is what will end up attracting investment here and and and so every all of the bills that we're talking about today, we know that that has that as a as a kind of a through line. That's where we're where we're focused, I think, so that we attracting the investment, maintaining the leadership, ma- making sure we have the workforce driving toward the economic growth that this country needs. But happy to follow up with you separately on your question.

Thank you. And then in my final fifty seconds here, last question is to you. Um, today we're also talking about the Memory Chip Competitive uh, Competitiveness Act, uh, excuse me, Assessment Act, um, by my colleague, uh, Rep. Miller-Meggs. And I've heard from companies uh companies uh across the economy about the rising prices of memory chips. Uh, DDR four memory prices have reportedly increased by seven to eight hundred percent year over year. What are the downstream impacts of these price increases on other industries and ultimately to the American consumer?

Well, there's no question that it when we see a a an imbalance here, supply demands have been a greatly increasing demand uh for these chips across the economy. from yes data centers but uh cars every other connected device that we have here so the challenge now is to make sure that we we can we can keep get get supply back you know back in uh uh in balance here so whether or not there may there may be opportunities to look at

yes

you know being able to uh insure the the availability of uh of chips i think what we really need to do is is to is to make sure that we've got policies in place that will allow for the increased supply everything from permitting reform to to regulatory policy to uh

um, you know, just ensuring that we've got the workforce needed. And that brings down the price of anything with a chip in it. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Aye. The gentleman yields back now. I recognize Mr. Malin for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being here today. My district in California is a shining example of US scientific leadership. Known as the birthplace of biotechnology, the region and specifically by hometown of South San Francisco, is home to a concentration of world-class research institutions, small and large biotech companies and investor groups. Every day these companies are developing the next lifesaving cure. Without US investment of research funding through agencies like NSF and the NIH, the US biotech industry would not be what it is today. I am deeply concerned to see the Trump administration's continued attacks on research funding from attempting to block NIH funding and more recently by removing all members of the NSF's Board of Advisors, this administration is anti-science. At the same time, the White House is not doing enough to address the ongoing memory chip shortage that could lead to significant price increases for consumers and negatively impact critical industries from broadband providers to medical device manufacturers. I am, however, encouraged to see ongoing bipartisan work to ensure we have effective regulatory oversight and ensure greater industry collaboration in the biotech space. Specifically, we must ensure that bad actors cannot get their hands on dangerous viruses that have the capacity to cause widespread harm. Gene synthesis companies like Twist Bioscience in my district are leading the way in industry-led guidelines to screen orders and customers. However, studies have highlighted the concerning limitations of companies' screening processes as robust as they may be individually. government participation is needed to ensure we are best protecting the health and safety of Americans while still allowing this industry to grow. So, uh, my question, Doctor Eisler, uh, you mentioned in your testimony about the importance of ensuring that competitiveness and safety are designed together when considering bio-manufacturing and bio-security. Can you elaborate on why government regulation, in collaboration with the scientific community, is not only necessary to protect public health and safety, but also helps preserve American leadership in that space.

Thank you so much for the question. It's a very good point. Um, we see the technology is moving quickly, and in order to make sure we can translate these uh innovations into a competitiveness company need companies need clarity uh the public needs trust uh and the government needs um enough technical understanding to distinguish risk from speculative true risk from speculative risks. In that sense, you need scientists to understand what your core problems are, where the areas of concern are, um and how to move forward well. Uh the analogy we like to think of is that if you have a fast car, you need good brakes. Uh you don't build the car for the brakes, but the brakes help you have confidence to move fast. We think that smart regulation on some of these emerging technologies in biosecurity in combination with the researchers that are actively pursuing, um some of these uh frontier techniques are the way that we can tie uh protection and promotion at the same time.

Thank you for that. And I just wanted to touch on uh proposals like the Biosecurity Modernization and Innovation Act are important uh steps in developing gene synthesis regulations that work for companies that protect everyday Americans. I wanna uh p- shout out Mister Pflueger uh for his leadership on the other side of the aisle uh on this bill. And while I have a few concerns about the text, including ensuring agencies like HHS are working in tandem to develop screening requirements I look forward to working uh with uh everyone on the committee there uh after this hearing to strengthen the draft of that bill. So uh through bipartisan commitment to protecting research funding and developing common sense regulations that balance innovation and safety, the US can continue to be a global scientific leader. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the Vice-Chairman of the subcommittee, Mister Fulcher, for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, Mister Chilson, I'm gonna deviate a little bit because the questions I was gonna ask have kind of been addressed but it they brought up other ones in my mind. You know, historically in the in the tech sector, we've been able to at least rely to some extent on patents, on copyrights, Arguably not as much as we'd like because have they have a tendency to get stolen. Intellectual property has a tendency to get it stolen mostly by our adversaries. But that leads me to the the question regarding AI. To what extent is is that even applicable in this new world? I mean, can you can you patent, can you copyright, and or is that just defeating the purpose of the technology in the first place with AI? Can you address innovations with with AI and if and how that applies to be patentable, copyrightable, et cetera, and protected that way.

Well, uh, there are many intellectual property issues surrounding AI. Um, uh, if I take your uh, your question properly, you're talking about how that could provide incentives to produce uh and maybe add to American competitive needs.

Correct, and and potentially protect it,

Yeah.

if if if that's possible.

Yeah. So there I I am not a patent attorney um and there is a whole bunch of complicated issues around software patents um uh, but the ultimate goal of our copyright and patent systems is to promote um the useful arts and sciences, that's the the phrase in the constitution, and so that has to be the metric by which we measure. Um right now we do not have an innovation problem in AI, um the the US is driving ahead on that innovation side uh that I talked about, the the three capabilities. That innovation component, we are the leading uh country in the world on building the best AI. And so um the incentives that we might add there might be around applications, it might be around other types of issues, um but I'm not sure that that is the the lever that we necessarily need to pull. We might need to look at how intellectual property is affecting the ability of companies to build AI, Um, uh, but it's not necessarily the lever that needs to be pulled, I think, to drive innovation in this space where the US is doing quite well.

Got a chief legal officer from a robotics company. What's your take on that?

So thank you for the question. I agree, it's a complicated issue. Um, I do see the patents as a sort of living uh protection, uh, and it changes over time. Uh, anything under the sun that is made by man used to be the standard for something that could be protected with a patent. beyond that it must be new useful non-obvious uh and so patents that could cover ai techniques ai applications ai uses or combination of ai and robotics for example ought to fall within statutory subject matter for the patent office um with respect to copyright uh again we have the human requirement there needs to be a human involved to create a creative expression uh or something that can be reduced to

yeah

to a picture or a song or uh a speech like i'm making today um both of those

and enforcement will continue to be at the struggle i i assume

enforcement will continue to be a struggle but actually the rapid rate of change of ai is also complicating and confounding this issue uh so the technology moves so quickly

ok

that the patents often can't keep up

got it ok thank you i'm gonna shift gears little bit mr. Durbin uh i'm gonna share this to you just because i you might be the most um, appropriate person to send this to. But you know, we have a a dependence on supply chain with a lot of our adversaries. I'm I'm thinking the semiconductor industry because I've got a little bit of personal experience there, but we're very dependent on on uh Netherlands, Germany, Japan for a lot of that infrastructure equipment for semiconductors. To what extent, if any, do you think we should be involved with preventing those allies from supplying our adversaries. Uh, it's it's one thing it's one thing for for uh us to have our domestic suppliers only only purchase or sell to friendly nations. What about on the other side of that? Should we be trying to influence our friends from supplying our enemies?

Uh, thank you for the question. The good question, I'd I'd actually like to follow up with you uh uh separately on that to dig in a little deeper. I do think

Yep.

those those uh trade relationships we have with those allies are are critically important for you know the the technologies that we're they're developing, we don't have all all of the inputs here, we need to have those you know those those strong strong supply chain uh relationships um you know with again certainly with our allies. Um I get your question though and I'm

I'm I I was unfair in asking that because I didn't have enough time, so I will follow up with you later.

Yes, I'd be I'd be happy to do that.

That was too too good a question for a few seconds. Sorry, thank you.

Gentleman yields back now to recognize Miss Kelly for her five minutes of questioning.

Thank you to the chair ranking member for holding this hearing today, and thank you to all the witnesses for taking the time to be here. Under the Biden administration, Democrats made historic investments in scientific research and high-tech manufacturing. The Chips and Science Act made strides in advancing the United States' leadership in technology and uh am very proud that my district has been a beneficiary. Because of investments and incentives of the Chips and Science Act, Psi Quantum is building a quantum computer center on the all US steel site on Chicago's South Side which has been vacant and unused for years and years and years. Now my district and Illinois are poised to lead in quantum computing and bring world-class innovation and jobs to Chicago's South Side. This is just one benefit of the investments made by Democrats. Unfortunately, this administration has shifted course. Now the US is lagging behind others, President Trump has gutted programs that exist to keep America competitive, and a leader on the global stage. In twenty twenty five alone, this administration cut or withheld over three billion in NIH and NSF grants that would have funded important scientific research. The administration has also proposed shutting down the manufacturing extension partnership which supports small and mid-sized manufacturers, by issuing notices of non-renewal to nearly a dozen state programs before congressional opposition lead to the notices being rescinded. We've heard a lot from all of you about the importance of leading, innovating, and remaining globally competitive. However, the United States cannot realistically expect to out-compete China if we keep cutting programs that support investments in scientific research, workforce development, or manufacturing. uh, Doctor Eisler, what message does the administration's repeated attempts to roll back this funding send to researchers and to companies who are deciding whether to invest in the United States?

Thank you so much, Representative Kelly, for your question and your comments, um, and kudos to the work happening in your district. Um, you are correct, right? We've already seen the brain drain. We're seeing reversals in projects, in people, and and in resources to continue to turn these innovative ideas into um actionable um business and capital uh investment. Um we're also seeing the significant reductions in uh federal science agencies are cutting off our ability to do that middle stage prototyping to allow things to move from that prototype to the market so at basically every part of the R and D infrastructural stack uh we're seeing uh challenges these challenges increase the cost uh, of of doing business, they increase the risk of uh, in investing in these early stage technologies, um, and and they decrease the likelihood of success. So, if we're um, unable to provide a strong baseline of support across the ecosystem,

Mm-hmm.

then all that we invested all along that stack then sort of ends up in a place where there's no one that is able or interested in investing when we need it most.

And what lessons from the CHIPS and Science Act should Congress apply as we take future steps to support additional investments in advanced manufacturing, research, and workforce development?

One of the things we found so impressive about the CHIPS and Science Act was the hand-in-hand approach to the near-term problem which was, how are we gonna bolster our manufacturing infrastructure? And we've already seen gains on that from that legislation to now even with some of the challenges we face. But on the other hand, the and science part talked about reinforcing the R and D infrastructure, to your point, workforce incentives, uh capital incentives, uh and the like. And so in that bill, having both reinforced at the same time, uh made it so that you could have this virtual cycle, you could cultivate your garden to continue that analogy in a way that uh really supported innovation, so that when you got to the end, there was a ripe and robust uh commercialization avenue. Uh so I'd say that's one of the things we we learned. Um, I think one of the harder lessons uh in retrospect is that if we don't sustain that investment, even the gains we made just a few years ago can evaporate almost immediately. And as I mentioned earlier, that getting back on track takes much more time than the retrenchment. So, um, there are many things to learn, but I think as long as we're p- we're combining the near-term solution

Mm-hmm.

with uh the e- ecosystem and a pathway for implementation,

we're setting ourselves up for success.

Thank you so much and thank you to all the witnesses, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time, and the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. Um, the number one issue that I'm hearing about in my district from my constituents uh from all over the district is affordability. And working families are seeing their costs go up across the board, from gas to groceries, you all know this, wages aren't keeping up. Um, one of these factors that's raising prices i- indirectly is actually the rapid growth of AI. You might think the opposite, that's where all of w- we would all be inclined to think, everything gets more efficient, it gets less expensive, but it turns out that the ever-growing demand for memory chips capacity for AI data centers is far outstripping supply. And this is directly increasing the cost of memory tri chips in other industries, particularly for consumer tech like phones and laptops and game consoles. And at the same time, all of those devices are gonna need more and more RAM in order to allow their users uh to optimize the use of AI on those devices and so there's this escalating demand and then a supply problem. L just last week Apple announced a significant increase in prices for its most popular products, due to the high cost of memory chips. And this is from a company that has generally prided itself for price stability and its own supply chains. Um, the cost of memory short storage is going up um whether there's a data center in your backyard or not, and this shortage is gonna impact consumers all over the country and and the world. Um, so that's why I'm glad to see this committee consider legislation on memory chip competitiveness and alleviating this shortage is critical to provide affordability for Americans and to protect our co- competitive and innovative edge. Uh, Doctor Eisler, thank you for all of your comments today. Uh, in your testimony you referenced the Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act and the need for an assessment of US exposure. in the memory chip market place. I've seen some experts say that the uh high uh cost of uh memory uh storage may not start to come down until twenty twenty eight. What should the Department of Commerce be exploring to provide some short-term relief in the market?

Thank you so much for the question. Um, there are benefits to a study, uh, and benefits to looking into the question. We think some uh common sense ways that we can produce specific legislation vehicles that support um keeping that price down, could include some trusted procurement requirements uh for sensitive federal applications to insure that there's a market for products um a demand backstop uh that allows us to put a floor on the down downside impacts on the market, um so that d- domestic memory investment is incentivized instead of discouraged. Um we think scaling up uh loan guarantees um or patient capital a way to sort of acknowledge that it's going to take the years that you talked about. And and the third uh fourth is um making sure that we are um investing R and D next generation uh chips excuse me uh investing next generation chips um investment in memory as well.

I appreciate that. And all of those things are so similar to what we talk about in other areas uh of need, that if you just make sure that you provide the marketplace and some assurances for production, um the the manufacturing will come i'm wondering while we're on this topic i have about a minute left um are there other critical components um as you're looking into the future where we may also need to quickly uh focus on shoring up our supply chain or domestic manufacturing to avoid a similar problem

yeah one of the things that keeps us up at night uh as an organization are is an independent supply chain particularly as it relates critical minerals. Um, so there are a number of critical minerals that, um, we don't have the geologic benefit of having. Um, but there are researchers that are looking into what the next generation of a semiconductor materials and, um, minerals could be. So I think looking around the corner, um, investing in science, the basic science of like what other minerals could produce similar result to be a good one.

That that keeps all of us up at night too, and thank goodness for our national labs who are doing exactly research and i will say that is yet another reason our country needs to quintuple down on scientific research um last just really quick quick question um mister jerry i'm curious to know what you're hearing from your uh member companies on the on the memory chip demand and are you um what are you hearing from from companies about like struggling to source these uh these chips

well again as noted earlier they i think there's no question we've got a we've we've the demand has is just continuing to to you know increase and the and the challenge we have is is how do we now meet that demand and and in increase supply. Um, I think you know by doing that we can get everything from you know encouraging uh get this uh uh uh permitting reform to specific investments to incentivizing innovation I think this is another area where we were likely to see in in you know improvements and innovation of the chips themselves that will help to bring bring down costs.

Thank you. You're back.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, ladies, time has expired and you're back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas's twelfth district with five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, very much, thank you to the entire panel for being here today. Mister Chilson, your testimony notes the importance of distinguishing structural shortages from normal market cycles. Do you believe today's memory shortage represents a structural shift driven by AI demand rather than a temporary supply disruption?

So in short, yes. Uh, but the memory market is complicated. It's not just one market. We have uh, we have to distinguish between high bandwidth memory, uh, DRAM that's uh tied to AIs, uh s you know, solid state drives, um, the cons- the consumer side uh issues that Rep Schreier was talking about um, are not necessarily the same types of memory, uh, but they are affected by the uh the investment that companies are putting into or the opportunity that the memory producers are seeing. And so, uh, AI is has changed, uh, and I think because the AI demand is is great and growing, um, I think we will continue to see, uh, a change in what the memory market looks like. In order to meet that, it's not gonna be enough to sit back and wait. Um, the companies are investing, the manufacturers who are who build these products are investing. Um, but it's a long process, especially with permitting and in particular, I would say energy is the probably the longer term constraint. Short term, we're looking at, you know, the packaging facilities, uh, building those out and those run into all the the challenges of building a new physical plant. But longer term on the ten year scale, it's energy that's going to be a constraint here.

Thank you. And um um, Mister Eisenhower, the Bedrock Act and Biosecurity Modernization Act both direct the Commerce

Thank you for the question.

Sorry.

Uh, it's a good one, I think picking up on some of the threads uh that I mentioned earlier, it is our responsibility in a rapidly changing um biosecurity and um biotechnology landscape uh to both promote uh innovation and protect uh American citizens as we do so. Um the the BMIA and bedrock are really good examples of the balance between the two. They're two sides of the same coin. Um often when we think about um biosecurity we think about health related or public health effects. Uh issues like the Ebola outbreak uh in Africa or the screw worm uh virus reeking. uh havoc in texas cattle right now they're two good examples um but that's one portion of the biosecurity landscape that we need to address um there are consequentials examples of biosecurity concerns in energy uh it fuels biology now excuse me biology now fuels now fuels i'm can't produces new fuels there it is um and we also even store data with so biosecurity extends outside of public health concerns and into um other domains for sure. Having essential and critical responsible regulation allows us to actually answer the the problem faster. So now if we have a problem on our cell phone for example, we get a uh upgrade overnight, it's because of cyber security protocols. That's what allows us to do that. Right now in biosecurity, particularly if you're talking about outside of um health and human services, you do n- uh outside of medical constraints, we don't have that same infrastructure to support that. So I'd say that, um, on the, on the health, the medical, and the, um, public safety, um, perspective, we need HHS. We need NIH to continue their leadership. But we also need, um, agencies like Commerce, um, and NIST included, USDA, DOE, DHS, and OSCP as security, uh, agencies to be weighing in on these other domains of biosecurity. So, having an integrated approach where we're, uh, bringing the best of all these agencies, into conversation to ensure that we can both innovate, uh, we can identify threats, and then we can address them quickly without, uh, getting into, uh, territorial, uh, debates, um, is the way to move forward. So that's why we're trying to consolidate and streamline biosecurity.

Thank you, doctor. Mister Chisholm, in considering legislation to secure US technology leadership, what is your opinion the greatest federal bottleneck that most threatens US AI leadership right now? Power generation, permitting grid, and interconnection or regulatory fragmentation and what should congress do to change or remove it.

So, uh, thank you for the question, I I think the biggest concern right now is I I talked about the three capabilities that we need, um, in in technology leadership. Uh, deployment is the number one challenge that we face. Getting technology out there to the uh to the many victory gardens, I I love the garden metaphor as well, get getting it out to the many victory gardens of the entrepreneurs um who are going to use these technologies and tools to produce real value that's our biggest challenge um and uh i think there's a lot congress can do to remove the barriers that are stopping tech from getting out to the big world thank you

thank you sir thank you panel very much i yield back the well i don't have the time to yield back

hey this gentleman yields back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas thirty third just for five minutes for questions

uh mr. chairman thank you very much i think that all of you on the panel know that Uh, AI holds a lot of tremendous opportunities, but it's also create creating a lot of anxiety, particularly amongst college graduates. I know that I have a son that's in college that's very worried about AI right now. Um, I met a woman that works here in the DC area whose daughter graduated from SMU recently with a com psi degree. And now when the kid went into uh, uh, graduated high school four years ago, it was like, com psi, the world is going to be yours. And now it's like they can't find a job. and and people are concerned about that and i wanted to um ask mister Chilson and mister Durbin and you and and just a very brief uh you know answer, if you could um do ai companies have more of an obligation to their shareholders or to the general welfare of the us public

So as a computer scientist myself um uh i i i see the power of these tools and think uh there's still a lot of excitement i would encourage people to still go into computer science i still think it's a very valuable field um companies uh have an obligation to create products that solve their consumers problems and that's their that's their primary goal uh and i think that america has

yeah

been very good at that

but as powerful as this tool is and as disruptive as it can be uh to the job market and the us economy when you have a tool that's that powerful and and can do other things right outside of the economy we're already hearing all these things about what cloud can do do these companies have a greater obligation to US safety and just general welfare than some other you know typical American good or product does do you think that they have a greater

so the i i do think that the general purpose nature of the technology

yeah

does mean that it will have a giant effect It means the companies need to be very conscious of what that effect is and get

Yeah. You think, but with that effect, do you think they have a greater obligation to their shareholders or to the general public?

I think it means that their market is enormous and their customers are uh enormous, and they have a obligation to their customers.

Yeah.

I'd agree with that. I think it's a shared obligation between the between those two. But I also think that the the companies that are involved in this are not only acknowledging, leaning into the fact that they understand there there is some disruptive parts of uh of of of the technology and what this is going to mean for for the workforce uh with our chamber foundation just uh uh month and a half ago and and you know day long day long session on on on workforce implications you know of AI and essentially the the the the baseline question was as as as you posed it what's gonna happen to my children so i think

yeah

they're you know leaning into how and by the way i think there are other there studies come i just heard a story this morning out of princeton where they're starting to find that you know, the the implications aren't as dire as as some are fearing. I'm not saying that everything's fine. I'm just saying I think that we're we're starting to see that we may find ways that the that the technology will not just destroy jobs it will actually create new opportunities uh for other jobs.

Yeah, yeah, just like with these data centers, I mean, the way that people think about mergers and the way people think about antitrust could certainly change uh greatly if they feel that there are prospects for uh their kids and themselves being able to have some upward mobility changes greatly. uh, Dr. Eisler, as uh memory chip supply tightens, the concern is not just whether these companies can build the next generation of AI products, but whether families can afford the everyday technology they rely on. How can Congress make sure that continued access to affordable consumer devices, such as computers and routers and connected home devices and medical uh equipment uh as demand for AI chips increases will love would love to know that for Dr. Eisler.

Thank you so much for the question. Um, it's gonna be important that we identify uh these critical uh chip shortages because we know that they will drive prices up uh and out of the uh, the reach of most of our society. Um, we think production requirements tied to federal funding are is a good place to start. Um, we think trusted procurement uh that sets the demand floor on uh technology usage so that there is a market for it. um slow and patient capital as well as loan guarantees will help to provide a more um palatable uh marketplace uh for chip uh development and supply um but we've gotta find some way to backstop the risk uh and to provide uh safety for society i think there are specific consumer protection aspects that we should be dealing with as well so if these products rise above uh what folks can afford how are we providing a a safety net around them uh and some protections uh for their uh loss.

Yeah, no, absolutely, thank you very much for your answer, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, yield is back. Chair, now I'll recognize the General Lady from Massachusetts third just for five minutes of questions.

Thank you, Mister Chair. American leadership in AI is critical both in commercial frontier models and in open weight models. Most people are familiar with proprietary AI systems, models that you access to a company's products, uh, on their terms at their price. Open weight models are different. When a company releases an open weight model, anyone can take it, adapt it, and build on it, the same way open source software has served as the bedrock of modern software development, unlocking rapid innovation. Open weight models have a potential to do the same for AI. Just as open source software can be modified by anyone to best fit their needs, open weight models can be fine-tuned by anyone to be fit for the task at hand. Doctor Eisler, how do open weight models enable innovation for companies using AI, particularly smaller players?

Uh, thank you so much for your quest question, Representative Trahan, and for your leadership and collaboration uh with FAS on AI, privacy, and more. We really appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your um your efforts. So open weight models, particularly those where not necessarily the data that that it's trained on,

Right.

or the model itself are available, um represent a reasonable opportunity for expanding the playing field in the ways that you talk about. I think it's important though to remember that the um open source or open weight models are no more safe or less safe than proprietary models, so we still have the same considerations in terms of like their use in in malicious intent so wanna just like acknowledge that that's true um however um by allowing um pathways for reduced cost uh engagement to um these technologies it does level the playing field and allow for an opportunity for small businesses for universities for non-profits those who may not be able to keep up in the the marketplace uh with with uh the our our proprietary

yeah

colleagues

Thank you. Um, it is clear that open weight models are critical for businesses back home and across the country to compete in this economy, so we need a robust ecosystem of American-made open models. But we are losing ground. Um, Meta's llama model was previously a leader in the open weight space, but it's now been overtaken by models from Chinese companies like DeepSeek. These Chin- Chinese models can be over ten times cheaper than com comparable commercial models, yet deliver comparable performance. There are proposals to bring America back to the forefront of the open weight space. Mister Evans' draft bill um the open weight AI leadership act would task the secretary of commerce with increasing adoption of American open models. Similarly, my discussion draft with Mister Obernolte uh provides smaller developers with the resources that they actually need to compete, such as compute, training data, and evaluation systems through the national AI resource. um research resource. Uh, Mister Chilson, what further steps should Congress take to ensure that American open model developers are sufficiently resourced with compute training data and other, necessary resources to compete with China?

Well, thank you for your question, and thank you, Rep. Trihan, for your leadership on the great American AI act, uh uh and uh all the work that you're doing in the tech policy space. Um. So there's uh you already mentioned some of the proposals that are out there. I I like to think of this on the sort of supply and on the demand side. And so on the supply side, you know, the the key inputs to uh model training are still expensive. Uh, data and energy and anything that we can do to get those down will help uh, will help us develop more open models. One thing that the government could do would be as As a holder of massive amounts of useful data, including much that has nothing to do with personally identifiable information, uh the government should open that up to training and make it more available. And so uh I think that might be one uh one input side thing to do. On the energy side there's obviously lots of work to be done uh on permitting

Yeah.

and expanding uh and then on the demand side uh we could think of things uh supplying that demand um reserving federal compute for open market uh or open development, open model development. Um on the regulatory side, you know, a lot of the concerns that focus on licensing are gonna be very challenging for open model providers to meet. Uh focusing more on narrow incident reporting is probably a better approach in that space and would incentivize people to develop open models instead of um uh instead of closed ones uh when they're when they might be trying to make a decision.

Great. Thank you for that. Um, I do have an a question for Mister Durbin about the uh governance and the ad-hoc approach uh from this White House but I will submit it for the record. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much. The general lady yields back and the chair now recognizes the general lady from New York's ninth district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman, and thank you, ranking members Schakowsky, uh and good afternoon to our panelists. Thank you uh for joining us today. I'd be remiss if I did not acknowledge that yesterday the conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that Donald Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies including the FTC ending ninety years of court precedent to justify a firing based on ideologies that conflicted with the president. The firing of the democratic commissioners of the FTC hinders the very agency set out to protect Americans from online harm and ensure a fair and competitive market for all consumers. These these this baseless firing continues the the concerning pattern of systemic dismantling of any agency grant program or research institution that the president fears he can't control. America loses when Trump does this. The slashing of billions of dollars in critical research funding has hindered our nation's ability to lead. globally in research and development, it has forced research talent to opt out of working in the United States, has directly undermined public trust in government and is already hurting our GDP. American global economic competitiveness requires investments in research in our workforce, not the chronic attack on top talent and research funding that we've seen in the last year and a half. The bipartisan chips in science act is yet another example of the Trump's of Trump's attempt to sabotage American's competitiveness. The chips and science act invested almost fifty three billion dollars in the domestic semiconductor supply chain including eleven billion for research and development since it became law, private entities have invested six hundred and forty billion in semiconductor manufacturing. The investments in this law are estimated to create and support about five hundred thousand jobs. So why? In the first three months in office, did Trump lay off forty employees at the chip's program office? When we invest in ourselves, we undoubtedly see success. We will not become global leaders if we divert our priorities from research and investment and towards unilateral and unregulated industry power. Innovation without safety is reckless. And when it comes to the people's health and safety, we cannot take the mindset. of failing fast and often. It is Congress's responsibility to have more forethought and intention in protecting consumers while promoting American interests. I can guarantee you that cutting red tape and circumventing protections for the sake of protecting business interests simply lines the pockets of industry and does not help protect consumers, and drive American success. Being in a global technolog- technology leader means nothing if you're not protecting the health and well-being of Americans. Doctor Eisler, what supply chain and environmental risk exists without substantive regulation of innovative technologies?

Thank you so much for the question. It is true that the designation as a global tech leader does bring hollow of the cost for that leadership um is the health and well-being of the American people um we view the reason to aspire to a leading position in science and technology leadership, uh, to be that it benefits all of society. It raises our economic mobility. It raises our GDP. So when we are, um, technology leaders, we also are, uh, s- uh, providing a resource for our, uh, constituencies. Um, this means that, like, if you want your community to thrive, you have to have an S and T strategy that accounts for the concerns you have, around environmental concerns, concerns and also pathways for uh folks to reap the benefits i so want to acknowledge that um we've also seen some of that progress reversed in last few years as you recall um we think that the best way to do this is responsible regulation um that you need to have guardrails that provide reasonable common sense uh um safeguarding around um industry and and excuse me innovation uh and also that allow room to have the sandbox to figure out what the next and best thing is. So we think you can have both, we think you have to consider both, and that uh when you do you actually get a better product that allows us to be more globally competitive.

Very well. I can appreciate the intention behind today's hearing, and many of the bills do address important technologies for American leadership. Though we cannot overlook the historic disinvestment in research and government programs or lose sight of the important regulations that keep Americans safe in this technological revolution and beyond. And with that, mr. chairman i yield back

well thank you very much general i yield back the balance of our time the chair now recognizes himself for five minutes for questions and again to our witnesses thanks very much for appearing today the future of auto manufacturing should be built at home that's why i'm uh proud to support the connected vehicle security act which would ban connected chinese vehicles from flooding our markets but a ban is only the first step congress must must must block unfair imports but it must also ensure that America is the best place to build the vehicles of tomorrow. This is why I've been working on the self drive act. It would establish a one federal frame a establish a one federal framework for autonomous vehicles, giving auto manufacturers the regulatory certain to build and deploy AVs that are as safe or as safer than any vehicles on the road today. Mister German, uh, I think uh the chamber of commerce has strong for the self-drive act and uh mr. urban uh why is it important to have a federal av framework to compete with china

i'm sorry sir a federal

a federal framework for avs

well as as with almost any of the technologies we have discussed here having that federal framework is what provides the the consistency and the uh and the clarity on on on the investments that need to be made you know from the private sector in partnership with uh you know with their government partners so i think it it that is going to allow us to compete much much more clearly against other nations.

Well, let me let me follow up. Um, if we do have, and good Lord willing, that the the uh Self-Drive Act is gonna pass this Congress, uh how would the Self-Drive Act impact American workers?

Uh, Chairman, if I could, but I'm just I'm I don't have enough of the details myself. Please let me get back to you in writing.

Well, I'd appreciate that. uh you know as we look at the save self drive act especially that you know we've unfortunately we've had about forty two to forty three thousand people being killed on our highways every year that ninety four percent of all accidents that are caused out there are from a uh driver self uh that they're not being attentive at the wheel so it's really important that we get this piece of legislation across the board but uh if you could follow up uh with me and the committee i'd greatly appreciate it Uh, Doctor Eisler, in addition to robotics, China has made bio-manufacturing a national priority across successive five-year plans. That's why I'm leading the Bio-manufacturing Excellence, Domestic Resilience, Output and Competitive Know-how or Bedrock Act. This legislation promote the commercialization of bio-manufacturing, identify best practices and shed light on federal approval processes. Doctor Eisler, is the United States treating bio-manufacturing with the same seriousness as our Chinese adversaries?

Thank you for the question. I think there are remain significant opportunity across the US to really realize the potential that bio-manufacturing can have for us.

Uh-huh.

It is uh, FAS has worked on this topic for quite some time, uh, and we see extensive excitement in various jurisdictions across the country to um reinvigorate their economies through bio-manufacturing and bio-economy. Um so I think there's lots of room for us here, uh that bedrock is a really good start in acknowledging the other side of the bio sec- uh bio domain, um that there is promise and there is something to promote. So I think there's a lot of opportunity for us there.

Well, let me just to make sure, are w- i- is the United States leading, are we equal, are we behind? uh the communist chinese

yeah according to some of the studies we've seen in a number of these critical technologies and domains we are actually behind um on our investments, and on our production

so and again just real briefly um how do we catch up and do we you know do we have the the technology out there or we not using it or what's happening is it is it regulations is it laws

i think it's investment uh in some of these early stage uh technologies uh there's lots of um in um research on things like biofuels and the like uh that could benefit from additional attention and investment um we find the landscape for regulation to be one that depends on the the context and uh what each region is interested in doing and what we've really seen a need for is support for coordination across uh the nation so if the federal government could help set a strategy on what we want to do in terms of biomanufacturing i think we'd find many people across the country uh at the ready to get into um uh into step with it so that we can make up some ground

well thank you very much my time is about to expire and i will yield back the balance of my time and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from george's first district five minutes for questions

well thank you very much for being here thank you mister chairman for this meeting I I wanna kinda shift gears a little bit. I have the honor and privilege of representing the first congressional district of Georgia, which includes the entire coast of Georgia and includes two major seaports, the Port of Savannah, the number three container port in the country, and the fastest growing container port in the country, and the Port of Brunswick, the number one roll-on roll-off port of um in the country. And logistics is in and supply chain hubs are extremely important, obviously in our district and and in our country. but especially in my district. So when we talk about AI and we talk about robotics and we talk about cyber security and American competitiveness, it's not theoretical, it's real. It's real for us. It's real for us and and the first district. Mister Ferrello, I wanna ask you um your testimony stated that advanced mobile robots are becoming common in industrial logistics manufacturing public safety and all kind of defense and security applications. For a major logistics hub like the Port of Savannah, where do you see the most immediate value from trusted American robotics like cargo movement, warehouse operations, infrastructure inspection, perimeter security, worker safety, or something else?

So thank you for the question. Um, I would say all of the above. Uh, I'd say that robotics has tremendous potential to address many pressing needs in logistics hubs and logistics ports such as yours uh we have a robot for example boston dynamics actually that moves case goods um eight hours a day well actually two shifts sixteen hours a day fifty pound containers one at a time case goods and we can unload eighteen wheelers all day long um our humanoid robotics actually will be enabled to do all sorts of

what is humanoid robotics

oh uh resembling a human in shape or appearance Uh, so ATLAS is our premier humanoid robot, uh, and so it can, uh, pick things up, move things, operate things in environments that were built around the human form. And so our humanoid robot ATLAS can do all sorts of different behaviors, and we are working on it to do such things, especially in logistics hubs.

Should should Congress be concerned about foreign-made robotics like this, and and our sensors being embedded in sensitive infrastructure like this?

That's a really great question and thank you for asking it. Um, certainly as a domestic robotics company, that's something that we're concerned about with as well. Um, and so I think it's vital that trusted robots have trusted components and we have a trusted supply chain that is either domestic or a friend-shored um Boston Dynamics wants to be part of the solution. But with respect to the other part of your question, there's a huge volume of robots that are being manufactured uh out of China. And we've seen many security vulnerabilities, cyber and security vulnerabilities, where someone who is remotely situated either at the company that created it, or possibly at the government, can not only see what the robot is seeing, but can engage with or instruct the robot to take actions that perhaps are inconsistent with what the purchaser had hoped the robot would do.

You know, I'm trying to keep myself from asking this question, but I can't. Um, I just have to ask because, you know, we've done well in in on the east coast with the relationship with the longshoremen and with the workers. The west coast not so much. In fact, we've gained a lot of business from them because of the problems they've had out there with the labor. I can I can imagine this causing a lot of problems with labor too.

Well, I think that any time you introduce a new technology, um, there are uh changes that have to be made. What we've seen is when we introduce our technology into facility, it's actually highly welcomed. Uh, we've seen unions that actually bake cupcakes because they're so excited they no longer have to unload these eighteen wheelers full of boxes and instead get upskilled and get better uh jobs within uh a logistics facility um so we think that in addition to that it's vitally important for all of these workers that the manufacturing uh sectors that we have in the united states remain competitive by using advanced technology so that the centers

right

themselves continue to

right Mister Durbin, real quick, um, should a national robotics strategy specifically examine critical infrastructure like like cases with ports and freight movement warehouses, et cetera?

Well, I I think any uh uh uh you know commission here should spot check those types of things to make sure that we can you know have some good re recommendations back to uh to policymakers on where to go from there.

You know, the the Georgia ports are the economic engine not only of of Southeast Georgia, but of the Southeast United States. Um, the impact of the ports reaches all the way up into the Ohio Valley. So this is gonna have a big, big impact on our ports and, uh and and I I think in a positive way and I hope in a positive way. So thank you all very much. This is very important.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The chair uh the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's thirteenth district for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, for holding this important hearing. The topic of this hearing comes at a unique moment, the semi-quincentennial of the United States. This is a time to reflect on how far we've come as a nation over the past two hundred and fifty years, and to look ahead at where we're still going. The United States leads on the world stage when it comes to technology. We have cemented our status among top nations in technological advancement and have achieved a level of global competitiveness that will allow us to secure our leadership in this critical space for decades to come. As we approach this two hundred fifty landmark, we must continue to evaluate ways to foster innovation and enhance that opportunities that we have been able to explore. We cannot grow complacent. We must keep innovating, we must keep building, and we must keep competing. Mister Durbin, this Congress, I introduced the Secure Data Act, this comprehensive federal privacy legislation that will protect consumers, that will enable beneficial uses of data, and give businesses a certainty that they need. Finding a path forward on federal privacy reform will end the state patchwork that currently stifles innovation and creates uncertain pathways for emerging technologies when it comes to data. Personal data plays a part in how technology is commercialized, including the technology discussed during the hearing today, such as alternative reality, robotics, and open-source AI. Mr. Durbin, how does a comprehensive federal privacy framework, like the Secure Data Act, support the commercialization of new technology?

Well, Mr. Joyce, thank you for the question and thank you for your leadership on the Secure Data Act as well. We appreciate the, that it does provide that that national framework. Uh, and as uh as noted uh in uh in in my testimony, well we've got more than more than twenty states that have that have gone in separate directions, you know, on on privacy rules and AI rules that doesn't help any of the companies involved in here.

So that is a patchwork of twenty states.

Correct.

How does that patchwork inhibit innovation?

The some of the the the start-up companies, the small businesses that are that are in engaged in in in the marketplace here, have a very difficult time having to uh you know comply with different sets of rules in different states.

So without a federal framework, we are truly stifling the innovation of the small companies,

Stifling

of the entrepreneurs.

yes, stifling stifling the innovation and and and loading enormous costs on top of them as well. I mean, even right now the California law itself, it uh it uh estimates that each small business ends up paying sixteen thousand dollars additional each year.

As a doctor who represents rural Pennsylvania in Congress, I know the importance of medical providers having access to cutting-edge technology that improves health and well-being for all of my patients and all of my constituents modern technology has truly revolutionized health care from MRI imaging with PET and CT scans to ultrasound diagnostics, wearable cardiac monitors, these medical tools all rely on chips. Common devices such as pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, and portable diagnostic tools, such as glucose monitors and insulin pumps, are powered by semiconductors. Mister Chilson, these advanced medical devices rely on semiconductor memory chips, and recent short shortages have exposed the vulnerabilities in supply chains. What can we do to address the memory chip shortage to ensure that our healthcare sector has the access to these critical technologies?

So, uh, thank you so much for the the question. I I also share your optimism about the the role of technology in healthcare sector. It's one of the best uh applications, one of the most promising applications of artificial intelligence.

Is an incredible tool in the doctor's tool belt.

And and the uh chip issue that you're raising Um I think it it it is key for Congress uh and the the the bill that's a issue here could dig into this. Um as I mentioned earlier, the memory space is complicated and not every not all the chips that you're talking about that are in medical devices are the ones that are being that have huge demand because of data centers they might be affected by that demand but it's not a one-to-one um substitution and so I think there has to be uh as part of this inquiry that congress uh and that the the draft discussion bill talks about, uh we should examine how does this affect specific sectors, like the medical sector, like the medical device sector, which is so promising um and which we certainly would not want a constrained supply of chips to slow down

Could you imagine two hundred fifty years ago in Philadelphia,

whatever.

with the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, We're meeting in the hot summer, which included farmers and businessmen, and yes, four doctors were part of that equation. These two hundred fifty years have shown that America is always looking to improve and to maintain that competitive edge. Securing US technology leadership right now will ensure that we can continue to invest, to innovate, and invent for another two hundred fifty years. Thank you, Mister Chairman, for allowing me to participate today, and I yield the remainder of my time.

The gentleman's time has expired and yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa's first district for five minutes for questions.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, given my colleague's comments, uh, also as a doctor I couldn't agree more about the potential for technology and healthcare, both in affordability, prevention, uh, and management. Um, advanced memory chips, uh, as we've already heard are essential to America's economic competitive competitiveness and technological leadership. And at one time, the United States was certainly at the forefront of all of that innovation. As demand continues to grow, supply constraints and geopolitical risks threaten not only the development of emerging technologies like augmented intelligence but also many industries that depend on reliable access to advanced semiconductors. In many cases, supply shortages have driven up costs for manufacturers and businesses, forcing some companies to raise prices on the products and services consumers rely on every day. and we also saw those supply chain constraints during the pandemic. My bill, the Memory Chip Competitiveness Assessment Act, would direct the Department of Commerce to study the advanced memory marketplace, including supply constraints, affordability, the role of countries of concern, and barriers to expanding domestic production. The goal is to provide Congress with the data needed to develop targeted policies that strengthen our supply chains, reduce reliance on foreign adversaries, and ensure the United States remains a global leader in advanced memory technology. I look forward to hearing from you and the answers to my questions. Uh with that, Mister Durbin, you mentioned permitting reform and energy infrastructure in your testimony. How much do those issues affect the ability to expand advanced memory manufacturing in the United States?

Well first of all, thank you for the question, uh uh Congresswoman, and and thank you for your leadership on in putting this legislation to uh together as well. Um well permitting r- permitting reform as we've seen has had a, having a serious impact across the entire economy. So, you know, whether not just in energy, but in in roads and bridges and water and and and and airports, and in in in the build-out of manufacturing facilities. So, the when we're looking at the supply, demand and balance we have with memory chips, part of the answer here is how do we increase supply? And that, you know, so how do we help facilitate the build-out of those uh of those manufacturing facilities? So that's that's clearly h h has has an impact across the board here.

I couldn't agree more as one of those members working in a bipartisan, bicameral way to advance permitting reform. We can't build an America if we don't uh have permitting reform on the table. Uh, Congress is instructed to consult manufacturers, equipment suppliers, and downstream consumers in the study proposed in this bill. Are there additional stakeholders you believe should be included to ensure Congress receives a complete picture of of the landscape?

Um I I haven't seen the specifics of the but I think of those you named, I think those are the people that need to be at the table and can help us to identify, you know, where where particular choke points are and the right policy uh uh solutions, because we also wanna be clear that, you know, this is a this is a market issue as well. And, you know, there are other other other industries that say, you know, the the cure to high prices is high prices. I know there's a lot more complication complications in this particular case, but I think those are the voices we need at the table to help identify. where where we can find solutions.

Thank you. Mister Chilson, one purpose of this bill is to distinguish temporary market shortages from longer-term structural supply challenges. What indicators should commerce use to determine whether today's shortages reflect a cyclical market ad- market adjustment or a more permanent imbalance driven by augmented intelligence demand?

So, I I think there's a a whole host of factors, um, uh, but we could start with just how durable is the demand. is this, a and in what sectors, as I already pointed out, uh, memory is a very broad set of technologies, um, and in some of those areas we may just h be part of the cycle that's that's often in the in the memory space where there's a, a glut and then there's a shortage.

Thank you.

Um, yeah, sorry.

Um, Mister Fiorillo, looking ahead to f uh given robotics, looking ahead to five to ten years, do you expect augmented intelligence driven robotics to significantly increase demand for advanced memory chips, and should that projected demand influence US industrial policy today.

Alright, thank you for the question. Um, for advanced mobile robotics, there are two different types of computes that we need to consider. First is the type of compute that is uh used to create the AI model, and so that would be in a typical data center, and so anytime you scale those of course you use more. The second would be within the robot itself, and so as the adoption and use of these robots um uh hopefully grows in the united states then certainly we would use more chips it's our hope of course that these chips continue to scale with the demand

certainly makes sense uh thank you mister chair i yield

thank you very much the general yields back the balance of her time and the and the chair seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask questions this will uh end the questions from our members of the committee the chair asks unanimous consent to the documents on the staff be submitted for the record without objection so ordered share thanks to our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today members may have additional written questions for you members are reminded that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record and i the chair also asked the witnesses to respond quickly to those questions members should submit their questions by the close of business on july the fourteenth and without objection the subcommittee is adjourned