Robots Made in America: Advancing U.S. Leadership in Manufacturing and Automation

The subcommittee on research and technology will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. I would like to start by recognizing myself for five minutes for an opening statement. I would like to thank everyone for being here. I am really excited about this hearing entitled Robots Made in America: Advancing U.S. Leadership in Manufacturing and Automation. Robotics have catalyzed the American economy for over a century. Articulated robots with joints like human arms have long served as essential components for handling, welding, and assembly in industrial manufacturing. Robotics is critical to industries ranging from automotive manufacturing to space exploration and healthcare. The potential for robots to assist and enhance human capabilities is vast, and a new phase of advancement is underway. For many years humanoid robots were seen as the stuff of science fiction, but with the rapid development of artificial intelligence, so-called physical AI, the integration of AI into robotics systems, may be the key to unlocking new ways to deploy robotics across the United States. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's AI Action Plan notes the importance of this intersection between AI and robotics. Physical AI could unleash a robotics renaissance, and America must remain at the forefront. The United States must act decisively. The Chinese Communist Party has invested billions in its robotics industry and has pursued an aggressive strategy to dominate the global market. As technologies like physical AI advance, it is more important than ever for the United States to adopt a national robotics strategy to support manufacturing, bolster our economy, and assist the American worker. That is why earlier this year I introduced the National Commission on Robotics Act. This bipartisan legislation would establish a national commission tasked with evaluating the United States' competitiveness in robotics. The commission, comprised of experts from academia, industry, and the public sector, would provide policy recommendations to strengthen American leadership in robotics, helping Congress develop forward-looking policies that keep America competitive in this new era of innovation. A new vision for robotics could help solve labor shortages, increase U.S. productivity in manufacturing, and support logistics. In the future, humanoid robots could serve as caretakers for the elderly or act as supplemental workers that assist humans in performing the most physically demanding tasks in factories, thereby protecting the health of American workers. Academic institutions across our country play a central role in advancing robotics research. The National Science Foundation invests in fundamental research in robotics through its Foundational Research in Robotics program, which supports robotics systems with both computational capability and physical complexity. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is also critical in developing standards for safety and innovation. Together these efforts support key areas of research and development including collaborative robots, dexterous manipulation, mobility, and industrial autonomous vehicles. Robotics research and innovation are essential to maintaining America's leadership in technological advancement. Understanding the current state of robotics in the United States will help inform this committee's work as we consider a national robotics strategy. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here and I appreciate their willingness to help the subcommittee assess U.S. robotics research and development. I would like to now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Stevens of Michigan, for five minutes for her opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, and thank you to all of our incredible witnesses for being here today. This is going to be the hearing. And I will just say for decades Michigan's auto industry has led the world in engineering, manufacturing, and safe adoption of robotics. Fun fact, industrial robots were deployed in General Motors plants as early as 1961. And so over the decades the United Auto Workers have negotiated thoughtful robotics adoption policies that have protected workers, improved safety, and raised wages. The robotics manufacturing we once pioneered in the United States is now being accelerated abroad, and our industry faces some unique threats and challenges. Just a few years ago Chinese robotics barely registered on the global stage. Today, according to the International Federation of Robotics, China is the global leader in the manufacturing, adoption, and export of industrial robotics. China now also through a concerted effort controls much of the world's robotics supply chain. As a result of decades of Chinese investment, many U.S. manufacturers and even our best-in-class robotics and academia are now dependent on China to research, develop, and deploy robotics and other supply chain supported technologies. As Michigan's kind of self-proclaimed manufacturing geek who's visited over 200 small and mid-sized manufacturers, I know we can fix this. But I also know that we do face some challenges that we need to be honest about. We no longer have the capacity we once did to manufacture robots at scale. America is home to the best and brightest AI scientists who are developing the brains, that is the software, behind these robots. Yet our country does not have a single advanced robotics foundry. When robots are made in the U.S., they're often assembled with Chinese parts. We also face an adoption challenge. Ninety-eight percent of U.S. manufacturers are small and medium-sized companies that often lack the finances and expertise to adopt advanced manufacturing technologies like robotics into their workflows. These challenges have been exacerbated by the choices of this administration. Reckless tariffs, which I hear about on every manufacturing floor I visit, are raising costs on U.S. businesses and diverting their limited resources. Further, for two years in a row the administration has sought to end the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a critical program that seeks to help small manufacturers address these problems. If our nation continues on this path, cheap robotics and components from abroad will continue to flood our markets and displace American manufacturers and jobs. This is not an outcome we should accept. We are at an inflection point. AI-powered robotics promise to revolutionize the manufacturing sector. Therefore, it is vital that workers have a seat at the table as these policies are negotiated, just like the UAW did when robots first came into our auto plants. Congress must also act and ensure that these technologies enhance rather than replace jobs. I am confident we can find common ground to keep America competitive, support American workers, and ensure that when the world buys the robots of tomorrow, they are designed, engineered, and built right here in America, preferably in Michigan. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And okay, I just want to recognize all of our guests because you're all so cool, but some of you are very special to me. Thank you, Mr. Burnstein, for being here and for your great organization. You're a Michigander and we're glad you traveled from the Great Lakes area to be here. Speaking of Great Lakes, Dr. Helper, it's wonderful to see you again. I so value and cherish the time that we spent together in the Obama administration on manufacturing issues. It's also great to see you, Michael Robbins, and thank you, Mr. Evan Beard, for your innovation and dedication to American manufacturing. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Stevens. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Representative Babin of Texas, for five minutes for his opening statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all of our witnesses here. Looking very much forward to hearing your testimony. Robotics is not a new field. American engineers have built industrial robots since the mid-20th century, and today those machines are the backbone of U.S. manufacturing. What is new is the convergence of artificial intelligence with robotics, opening the door to machines that can perceive, adapt, and operate in unstructured environments far beyond the factory floor. This convergence matters for two reasons. First, it represents an enormous economic opportunity. From warehouses and logistics to agriculture, construction, and healthcare, intelligent robots have the potential to boost American productivity, fill labor gaps, and to create entirely new industries. Second, robotics is a domain of intense strategic competition. The Chinese Communist Party made robotics a national priority, committing over $100 billion to technologies including robotics and supporting roughly 140 firms focused on humanoid robotics alone. American companies are already driving innovation in robotics. Firms across the country are developing robots for everything from last-mile delivery to elder care and disaster response. Standard Bots industrial robots, Tesla's Optimus humanoid, Boston Dynamics' Atlas platform, and a growing ecosystem of startups show that American industry recognizes the opportunity which is at hand. The question for Congress is whether our federal research and policy infrastructure is keeping pace with that private sector ambition. But we should also be clear-eyed about where our supply chain stand. Too many of the components that go into American robots, such as sensors and actuators and chips, are sourced from abroad, including from adversarial nations. If we want to build a strong domestic robotics industry, we need to understand where those vulnerabilities are and to take steps to address them. The Trump administration's convening of robotics companies last month was a very good start. I look forward to hearing what came out of those discussions. Furthermore, agencies within this committee's jurisdiction are already doing important work. The administration's AI Action Plan noted the link between AI and robotics and American manufacturing. The National Institute of Standards and Technology researches collaborative robots, autonomous vehicles, and robotics perception and manipulation. In fact, as robots move from controlled factory settings into less predictable environments, homes, hospitals, and public spaces, the need for safety standards will become even more critical. Getting the standards right early will help American companies lead globally rather than play catch-up in foreign regulatory frameworks, making NIST's work all that much more important. These are encouraging steps from this committee's agencies. But as these technologies advanced, advanced so must our workforce. Building, programming, and maintaining intelligent robots require skills spanning mechanical engineering, computer science, and AI. Our universities and technical colleges will be central in preparing the next generation of American workers for these jobs, and federal research partnerships with academia are a key part of that pipeline. I'm interested in hearing from our witnesses today about whether current training programs are keeping pace with what employers actually need on the factory floor. But Congress must also understand where these gaps are in research and workforce development, standards and policies that will determine whether the next generation of robotics is built in America or imported from abroad. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the most promising areas of U.S. robotics research, the challenges facing our innovators, and what role Congress should be playing in ensuring American leadership in this field. I want to thank Chairman Obernolte for his support and efforts in advancing American robotics, and I thank you all and appreciate and yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Chairman Babin. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Lofgren of California, for five minutes for her opening statement.

Well, I want to thank you, Chairman Obernolte, and Ranking Member Stevens for this hearing, and also thank our panel of expert witnesses. You know, a significant progress in artificial intelligence has led to major innovation in robotics. Computer vision, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning have accelerated robotics development and allowed robots to be deployed in new environments and use cases. AI techniques have also accelerated the intelligence of fixed robots, enabling people to safely and easily control and work alongside them. Now, my district is half Silicon Valley and half ag, and so I've seen robotics in both environments, and they're important and they're part of the future in both regions. But unfortunately, the significant policy interest in the software hasn't been matched by the policies needed to advance the full robotics systems. Recent administrations, and I'd say both Democratic and Republican, have prioritized AI development while underinvesting in hardware development. The National Robotics Initiative, which was started by the Obama administration in 2011 to coordinate federal investment in robotics R&D, was phased out in 2022, and the current administration's AI action plan included just one recommendation on robotics development as part of a longer list of next-gen manufacturing technologies. Now, while individual science agencies continue to make investments in robotics, there's no coherent strategy for U.S. leadership, and as the chairman of the committee has mentioned, China has raced ahead to claim that leadership position. The message is simple: to reclaim our leadership in robotics innovation and manufacturing, we need to invest in both the brains and the bodies of these systems. We must also invest in solving the tricky problems at the intersection of the two. Here's an example. We have a long history of developing and implementing occupational safety standards for the use of fixed robotic systems that work alongside humans in our factories. But most of these industrial safety protections don't account for advanced robotic systems that use AI and have variable decision-making. Further, many companies are starting to talk about putting robots in places where no safety standards exist, for example, in our homes or in eldercare facilities. We have to have a serious conversation about what safety means for robotics deployed in those settings before they cause physical harm. It's bad enough when a delivery robot shatters a bus stop shelter; imagine the consequences of having a 200-pound robot in your elderly parent's living space without strong safety standards. Another major challenge is data. One of the major reasons for AI's advancement in recent years is the broad availability of data to train AI systems. Computer vision was helped by access to images on the internet, and large language model development was improved by access to Wikipedia. However, until relatively recently, there were very few equivalents for training physical robotic systems. Some U.S. organizations are trying to address this problem. Some individual U.S. companies are developing datasets for their robotic systems. Over 21 academic institutions, including my alma mater, Stanford University, have partnered to build large datasets for specific robotic tasks. But this effort is being undertaken without any federal support. If we compare these relatively limited efforts to the national efforts going on in the People's Republic of China to generate robotics data, we lose. The country has launched data-sharing initiatives, data factories where humans train robots by performing tasks, and efforts to standardize training datasets and pipelines for robotics. We can and still must lead in the field of robotics, but to achieve that goal, we need a concerted national effort to support innovation across the full robotic system. I think this hearing is an important part of assessing the challenges and opportunities in robotics, and I thank once again the chairman and ranking member for organizing this, and I know it's part of our effort to regain and keep our lead. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren. That concludes our opening statements. We'll now move on to witness testimony. Our first witness is Mr. Evan Beard, co-founder, CEO, and chief engineer of Standard Bots, America's largest industrial robot manufacturer. Mr. Beard, you are recognized for five minutes. Well thank you Ranking Member Lofgren, that concludes our opening statements, we'll now move on to witness testimony, our first witness is Mr. Evan Beard, co-founder

Chairman Obernolte, Ranking Member Stevens, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me today. My name is Evan Beard, and I'm co-founder, CEO, and chief engineer of Standard Bots, America's largest industrial robot manufacturer. At Standard Bots, we make robots accessible and affordable so that every American manufacturer can put robots to good use. Our AI-native robots require no code to program and take on tasks that legacy robots can't handle, allowing every worker to be a builder and operator of robots. We believe AI-native robots are the essential power tool of the 21st century, the tool that will grow American manufacturing and help every worker to be a force at work. Manufacturing is a formidable part of the economy, yes, but when you also count affiliated suppliers and services, the real footprint is even bigger. Roughly a third of the U.S. economy and a third of American jobs. For every one manufacturing worker, another five are directly supported by manufacturing. But for four decades, America has shed manufacturing jobs and as a result hollowed out its middle class. We've gone from 20 million manufacturing workers in 1979 to only 13 million today. And that's why this isn't just a factory worker problem. When manufacturing weakens, wages fall and upward mobility narrows across whole regions, even among those who never set foot in a factory. A strong manufacturing base isn't just nostalgia; it's how millions and millions of people in this country build a good life. For our part, we've deployed industrial robots to hundreds of American companies in nearly every state, from generational small businesses in the heartland to some of the country's largest manufacturers in oil and gas, automotive, aerospace, and data centers. And what they all share is this, and the research supports this: manufacturing becomes more competitive when they put robots to work. And competitiveness is the key that unlocks company growth, job growth, and wage growth. But we find ourselves in a dire position today. The United States is no longer competitive in manufacturing, and we're falling further behind every day. Any company that builds hardware here can tell you that if you source from China instead of making things here, it can be five to 10 times cheaper. And it's not just because of their lower labor costs; it's because of China's national investment in robotics. Last year, China installed nearly nine times, nine times the number of robots that we did. And this isn't just about economics. It's also a matter of national security. Foreign-made robots could carry backdoors at the firmware level, capable of remotely shutting down American factories. Foreign adversary-powered AI cameras inside our facilities could see everything that we build. AI and robotics are changing everything right now. And it's possible at this moment for the United States to revitalize our manufacturing base if we become the worldwide leader in these transformative technologies. We need a national robotics strategy. Why government partnership? Because other governments have already distorted the free market. When your competitor is state-subsidized, laissez-faire isn't a level playing field. It's unilateral disarmament. So based on a decade building Standard Bots and discussions with hundreds of U.S. manufacturers, our written testimony outlines a practical four-part plan. One, build American robots and put them to work in American factories. Two, establish a center of robotics and manufacturing excellence in every state. Three, train America's next-generation manufacturing workforce. And four, defend American manufacturing from foreign market manipulation. I want to bring this to close on a personal note. I have five children, all eight and under. And when I talk about bringing manufacturing back, some people still picture the 1950s: dull and dirty and dangerous. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can build manufacturing that's skilled, that's safe, that's well-paid. Americans working with AI-native robots to make what this country cannot afford to let others dominate: semiconductors, medicines, defense systems, energy infrastructure, and so much more. Millions of new jobs. I want my kids to grow up in a country that still makes things. I want them to have that choice. And I want America once again to be the most competitive place on earth to build. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Beard. Our next witness is Mr. Jeff Burnstein, the president of the Association for Advancing Automation, a North American trade association representing over 1,400 companies involved in robotics, artificial intelligence, machine vision, motion control, and related automation technologies. A3 is the world's largest robotics and automation trade group and sponsors the annual Automate show, North America's largest robotics, I'm sorry, Automate show, North America's largest robotics and automation trade show and conference. Mr. Burnstein, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, and Ranking Member Stevens, and members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss the state of the robotics industry in the U.S. and how we can regain our leadership in this critical technology arena. I'm speaking today with the benefit of having spent 45 years in the robotics industry. The fact that each of you, your colleagues in Congress, and the administration are discussing the importance of robotics suggests that a new era of American leadership may be on the horizon. And thank you both, Chairman Obernolte and Ranking Member Stevens, for expanding the Congressional Robotics Caucus last year and for being its newest co-chairs. America created the robotics industry. The world's first robot company, Unimation, was founded in the U.S. in 1956. The first industrial robot was installed in a GM plant in 1961. Despite being billed as the next industrial revolution, the robotics industry struggled to find acceptance in the U.S. Robot companies faced challenges such as worker protest due to fear of job loss. I believe those fears also prevented the U.S. government from offering support to the industry, despite warnings that leadership would be lost if we didn't act. Instead, it was the Japanese Ministry of Trade and Industry that developed a national strategy to help support Japanese robot makers and researchers and users. In the 1980s, Japan surpassed the U.S. in both robot manufacturing and adoption. Due to its national strategy, China now leads the world, installing nearly 10 times more robots annually than the U.S. China's installed base of over two million robots is five times larger than the U.S., and their lead is growing. I'm often asked, is it too late for America to regain its leadership in robotics? My answer is no, but we need to act now. The powerful combination of robots with AI, physical AI, has the potential to transform every industry and assist in solving major societal challenges. No country can win the AI race without also leading in robotics. To make this vision a reality, we must prepare the American workforce for a manufacturing renaissance. While fears of job losses are often raised, if we succumb to those fears without understanding the realities of our labor force, we'll fall further behind our global competitors. Make no mistake, the U.S. labor market cannot meet current manufacturing demand. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 438,000 manufacturing job vacancies in America today. A recent study from the Manufacturing Institute in Deloitte says there could be 1.9 million unfilled manufacturing jobs by 2033. Our association is working to upskill the workforce through training and certification programs that prepare people to become robot operators, technicians, and supervisors, but we can't do this alone. Even with more skilled workers, we can't reshore manufacturing at scale without a massive increase in robot adoption. Robots do the dull, dirty, and dangerous work that people don't want to do and shouldn't have to do. Today, exciting U.S. robotics companies are gaining traction in every industry. Our robotics and AI programs at major universities are second to none. New robot startups pop up every day. Robot manufacturers are increasing their investments in the U.S., and American innovation in robotics is once again on full display. There is definitely reason for optimism about the future of the U.S. robotics industry. Our vision for a national robotics strategy includes six major actions the U.S. can take to reassert its leadership in robotics. Number one, establish a central government robotics office. A3 strongly supports the administration's attention to robotics and its consideration of an executive order that could appoint a central coordinator and spur agency action across government. In parallel, A3 urges congressional passage of H.R. 7334, the National Commission on Robotics Act. Number two, implement tax incentives to drive adoption. Robot adoption is the key to all we want to achieve to regain leadership. Conversely, tariffs on foreign robots and components from our key allies will slow down adoption. Number three, government agencies should become leading adopters of robotics to set an example. Number four, establish and expand government-funded workforce training programs. Number five, fund academic research and commercial innovation. And number six, encourage the development of new standards and voluntary best practices. America once led the world in robotics. With your leadership, I believe it can do so again. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burnstein. Our next witness is Michael Robbins, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest trade association for uncrewed systems, robotics, and autonomous technologies, representing companies in both the commercial and defense sectors. Mr. Robbins, you are recognized for five minutes for your testimony.

Chairman Obernolte, Ranking Member Stevens, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Michael Robbins, and I am the President and CEO of AUVSI, the world's largest trade association for robotics, drones, and autonomous technologies. And our members build and deploy advanced systems across the air, ground, and maritime domains in commercial and defense. And the central point I want to leave the subcommittee with today is this. Robotics is becoming a foundational layer of economic power, manufacturing strength, and national security. It is therefore imperative that Congress take action to ensure the United States robotics industry can compete and win on the global playing field. We are entering an era of embodied AI or physical AI, where AI is the brain and robotics is the body. And today, America may still be winning the race to build the brains, but we are losing the race to build and deploy the bodies. You may have seen in the news this past weekend, there was a literal robotics race in Beijing this past weekend, where a Chinese humanoid finished a half marathon faster than the human world record. And that metaphor, it writes itself. We are in a robotics race with China, and right now they are moving with speed, scale, and national purpose. Today, only 8 percent of U.S. manufacturing firms have incorporated robotics at all, and most of those robots were not made in America. Meanwhile, each year China is installing more industrial robots than the rest of the world combined and now controls over 80 percent of the global humanoid robot market. These statistics are a national wake-up call. If we lead in software, but hardware is designed, built, and deployed by our adversaries, we have not won. We have merely created a more intelligent dependence. And today, the PRC is executing the same strategy in robotics that it used to crush the American commercial drone industry. And China's new five-year plan is a whole-of-nation push to lead in robotics and embodied AI through scaled manufacturing, adoption, and state-subsidized dumping. Backed by a $137 billion state venture fund, subsidized below-cost Chinese robots are flooding into the United States to win market share, distorting the playing field to drive American robot manufacturers out of business. And we cannot let this happen. And to be clear, this is not just an economic concern. It is a matter of national security. When adversary-linked physical AI systems are deployed in sensitive sites, they create openings for surveillance, persistent access, remote disruption, and even physical harm. PRC laws compel these companies to serve as instruments of state intelligence, so that each Chinese robot in America is a potential Trojan horse. Further, these technologies are dual-use. The People's Liberation Army is already moving to militarize robotics, including arming robot dogs, benefiting from the PRC's military-civil fusion strategy. So when we talk about robots made in America, we must focus on ensuring a level playing field. And that means industrial capacity, resilient supply chains, domestic deployment, and control over technologies that will shape economic power and defense capability. The window of opportunity for the U.S. to lead in robotics is open, but it is closing fast. And to lead, we must give American companies a fair shot, not force them to compete against the full weight of the Chinese state. We must pair carrots with sticks in policy actions, which we lay out in detail in AUVSI's recently released Partnership for Robotics Competitiveness. First, strategy. You have Proverbs 29:18 on the wall behind you, where there is no vision, the people perish. And where there is no strategy, the jobs perish. So we need a strategy. The United States needs our own whole-of-nation approach, and that starts with a coordinated national robotics strategy that aligns research, manufacturing, deployment, workforce, and supply chain security. As part of this, we urge Congress to pass Chairman Obernolte's National Robotics Commission Act to align federal research with industrial policy and workforce development. Second, adoption. We must accelerate robotics adoption here at home through rapid deployment environments, robotics centers, and programs tied to NIST and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This requires a level playing field for U.S. robotics companies and implementation of production tax credits, low-cost finance, the use of advanced market commitments, and federal procurement incentives to catalyze robots made in America. Third, national security. Congress must pass clear, risk-based restrictions for adversary-linked systems and enabling technologies like the American Security Robotics Act, which is an obvious extension of actions already taken by Congress to address the national security threats from PRC drones. Fourth, industrial policy. We need a broader industrial policy for the full robotics and autonomy stack, especially for critical inputs like rare earth magnets, sensors, and advanced components. We must break the PRC's chokehold on critical inputs and de-risk private capital investment to stimulate domestic manufacturing and job creating. If we get this right, robotics, autonomy, and physical AI can strengthen American manufacturing, create new high-wage jobs, reinforce our industrial base, and improve our long-term security and competitiveness. If we get this wrong, we risk becoming dependent on the PRC for the very systems that will define the next generation of industrial and strategic power. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. and improve our long-term security and competitiveness. If we get this wrong, we risk becoming dependent on the PRC for the very systems that will define the next generation of industrial and strategic power. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Robbins. Our final witness is Dr. Susan Helper, the Carlton Professor of Economics at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. Her research focuses on the impacts of organization and supply chain structure on innovation, job quality, and sustainability, especially in the manufacturing sector. She has a B.A. from Oberlin College and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. Dr. Helper, you are recognized for five minutes for your testimony.

Thank you very much, Chairman Obernolte and Ranking Member Stevens and distinguished members. My written statement makes three arguments. First, robotics can solve two urgent problems facing American manufacturing, a workforce crisis and a competitiveness crisis. Second, whether robotics delivers on that promise depends importantly on how the technology is deployed. And third, building a domestic robotics industry and building a stronger manufacturing base are not separate goals, they are mutually reinforcing. In my remarks today, I will focus on the second point, that how we deploy robots is a key policy question. The choices we make will determine whether robots help deliver broadly shared prosperity or simply shifts costs onto workers and communities. The evidence is consistent that automation that is designed to augment workers outperforms automation that is designed to replace them, for both firms and workers. When robots handle the most dangerous tasks and workers are equipped with the skills, authority, and tools to solve problems and suggest improvements, firms get faster error detection, more flexible production, and higher quality output. Workers get better jobs. The alternative, a narrow substitution model where the worker's role is just handing a part to a robot in the correct orientation, sacrifices exactly the experiential shop floor knowledge that separates good manufacturing from great manufacturing. I think we have heard some examples of what worker-centered design can look like from Standard Bots, where workers can program themselves using low-code or no-code interfaces. The broader point is that technology design choices and implementation choices are under our control, and policy can help. What should Congress do? Let me highlight two policy areas. First is co-design. The most effective robotics implementations bring together engineers, managers, workers, and unions from the beginning and not as an afterthought. To implement robots, we need not just sticking a robot on a floor, but redesigning the production process. And Congress could fund small and targeted grants that convene these robot manufacturers, researchers, engineers, and labor representatives to design automation that achieves both firms' and workers' goals. Effective participatory design requires giving workers adequate training and compensation for their input, treating it as the skilled contribution it is. A key here is to really build a community of practice, to build a synergies between the robot designers and the robot users. If we have a big installed base, we can do better things like error detection, understanding new needs, so these things need to move together. And I guess I would, rather than tax breaks, I would rather see us spend money on doing things like developing testbeds or resource centers where these groups can come together, a physical place where they could come together and do this. The second priority is workforce policy. I think the problem is not primarily one of image, it is one of reality. Manufacturing wages have not kept pace with productivity for three decades. The manufacturing wage premium has essentially disappeared. So the solution is not just an image campaign, it's to improve the underlying reality. Better pay, better job design, and organizational structures that give workers real roles in process improvement. The Department of Energy's battery workforce initiative offers an instructive model. Employers, unions, researchers, and training providers jointly design new occupations and curricula from the ground up. That collaborative approach should be replicated for robotics. And Congress should support joint design of occupations such as a technologist, some work going on at MIT, and not training programs that ask workers to fit themselves into job definitions set unilaterally by employers. The United States has the research institutions, the innovative firms, and the workforce potential to lead in robotics. Worker-centered automation is not a constraint on competitiveness, it is a strategy for competitiveness. The policies that support co-design of technology, shared problem solving, and good jobs in manufacturing are the same policies that will make American firms and American workers the most productive and adaptive in the world. I welcome the subcommittee's questions, and my written statement has additional detail on potential ideas around financing, supply chains, and coordination policies. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Dr. Helper. That concludes our witness testimony. We will now move to questions from members of the subcommittee, and I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes for questions. Mr. Burnstein, I'd like to start with you. I know that A3 has called for the creation of a central government robotics office, you highlighted that in your testimony, as well as a robotics commission. Thank you for highlighting my bill on the commission, creating a commission on American leadership in robotics, which is certainly one way of solving that problem. Can you talk a little bit about what the value would be of a dedicated federal commission focused on robotics and what the scope of that commission you think should be? Well thank you, Dr. Helper. That concludes our witness testimony. We will now move to questions from members of the subcommittee, and I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes for questions. Mr. Burnstein, I'd like to start with you. I know that A3 has called for the creation of a central government robotics office, you highlighted that in your testimony, as well as a robotics commission. Thank you for highlighting my bill on the commission, creating a commission on American leadership and robotics, which is certainly one way of solving that problem. Could you talk a little bit about what the value would be of a dedicated federal commission focused on robotics and what the scope of that commission you think should be?

Appreciate the question and thanks again for sponsoring that bill. I think that if we could coordinate across all agencies of government, that that would have tremendous value to helping the robotics industry compete globally. The U.S. is fallen behind by not having that, and as has been pointed out, the Chinese saw the future when they developed their national strategy, they understood robotics was where this world was heading, and they put in place programs to become the leaders. We can do the same. We need this central organization and this commission to take a look at every part of government that can help and can benefit from a stronger robotics industry in the U.S. So I do think it's essential.

Well thank you. Obviously I agree with you and we're going to keep pushing to try and get that bill across the finish line. Mr. Beard, you in your testimony called for a national robotics strategy, that's something I highlighted in my opening statement as well, so we're in furious agreement on that. It's really frustrating for me that the United States does not currently have a national robotics strategy. China does, Japan does, South Korea does, Germany does, the United States does not. And it's there's such an obvious linkage between a robotics strategy and our national economy and national security. So if we're all agreeing that we need to put together a strategy, could you talk a little bit about what that strategy should include and what it should prioritize?

Absolutely, and thank you for the bill that you've sponsored, we're strong supporters of that bill and your leadership. We think one of the first things is demonstrating excellence in robotics and manufacturing. And we think the MEP program in particular can be reworked to do that. I think both sides of the aisle are correct, it doesn't serve in its current state, but I really think it has the potential to be the foundation of something that is in high service to all of our manufacturers. And this is what we actually polled a few hundred manufacturers for our testimony, and what we heard is that one of the core problems is learning how to be excellent at machining and powder coating and welding and bending metal and all these different forms of manufacturing, and then how to automate those forms, and what does excellence look like? And as a country when we're behind, we should all come together and share our knowledge, and I think what the MEP program could be are these amazing centers of excellence where we can learn from each other, we can see what is best in class, and we can get really efficient really quickly. And so that's one recommendation for your future commission to consider. We think that the government should provide incentives to build American robots and the supply chain of American robots, to automate and to put them to work in American factories. So we've laid out a number of recommendations along those lines. We think that these new centers of excellence and then there's other ideas that we've shared in the written testimony to really train this next generation manufacturing workforce. We hear from almost every manufacturer we talk to that it's hard to hire. And even ourselves, we try to hire a machinist and the only candidate we could find comes from an ITAR facility making parts for nuclear submarines. And we don't even want to hire the person because we know that they need that person.

So can I ask you to elaborate a little bit about that because there's been kind of an elephant in the room in this entire discussion about, you know, the optimistic case for robotics, which is that they augment American manufacturing, they don't displace workers, they actually create more employment in manufacturing for human workers, and the pessimistic case where and Dr. Helper, I hope you're an optimist, but I mean you laid it out, you said the alternative is the worker substitution, we don't want to go there. So Mr. Beard, are you an optimist or a pessimist in that way?

My favorite analogy in this regard, Milton Friedman visited a job site in the '70s and it was a canal digging project and they were digging with shovels. And he said, 'Why aren't you using earthmoving equipment?' which they had in the '70s. And the leaders of that country said, 'Well, it's a job site, so we don't want to give them earthmoving equipment or create fewer jobs.' And Milton Friedman said, 'Well, why don't you just give them spoons?' And his point was, we earn the right to create high-paying jobs by creating something of economic value, by automating, by using robots, which we view as the power tool of the 21st century. It's like the new drill for the American worker to be five times as productive, assisting the worker, not replacing the worker. And using these tools, we as a country can earn the right to have really high-paid, really safe manufacturing jobs where the worker's face isn't in the weld smoke, they're standing back and managing five robots that are in the weld smoke. And so that's our vision of the future, it's very optimistic.

Right. Well, it's a fascinating discussion. I see my time has expired, but thank you very much for your answers and your testimony. I'd like to now recognize Ranking Member Stevens for five minutes for her questions.

Well, thank you so much. You know, it has been a passion of mine to focus on Michigan manufacturing and over the last eight years, I have visited more than 200 manufacturers across the state of Michigan. And I consistently hear from workers and small businesses about both the innovation happening on the shop floor and the real challenges in scaling and commercializing those innovations. I also hear concerns about China's state-backed industrial strategy, subsidies, and unfair trade practices that have undercut U.S. industries in sectors like drones, batteries, and 5G, and we are beginning to see certainly similar trends in robotics. But we have also changed that trajectory before with the CHIPS and Science Act, which, you know, I helped author and pass into law, Congress came together to strengthen a critical industry and rebuild domestic capacity in semiconductors. We also have an opportunity to do the same thing in robotics. So Dr. Helper, thank you again for being here today, your testimony is certainly very thought-provoking, as usual. One of the many things you discussed was the capital challenges faced by manufacturers. I remember discussing that with you during the Great Recession period, but certainly right now for small and mid-sized manufacturers. How can the federal government in this modern time close financing gaps to spur investment in the integration of advanced technologies like robotics?

Yeah. One thing, I think there's two issues that manufacturers face. So one is financiers see growth strategies by small manufacturers as very risky. And so they want to charge like credit card level interest rates often. So I think we could fix that, you know, some of the plans for revitalizing the Export-Import Bank might help that. The other problem that manufacturers face is uncertain demand. So it's not just that they can't get the capital, it's that they don't even want to borrow because they're not sure they could pay it back. And so there are various plans to increase the certainty of demand, so the government can do it through its own procurement. They also can imagine bringing together groups of customers that would make such things, and I worked on such a thing in the Biden administration, AM Forward.

Yep, yep. Great. And robotics relies on many of the same components and widgets that power the U.S. auto industry, the foundations of Michigan's manufacturing base. And at the same time, China has begun to leverage their years of investment in this space to scale their domestic robotic production. So Mr. Burnstein, how can Congress better support domestic robotics production while strengthening the supplier ecosystem, particularly in manufacturing hubs like Michigan?

Thank you for the question. I believe that the key to strengthening the manufacturing of robots in America is to increase adoption in America. And that's why we're prioritizing incentives for small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes to adopt automation. How do we make it easier? How do we give them the skilled workforce they need too? So that's really critical too. We have to invest in the workers as well.

And maintenance and repair remains very important for that as well. And Mr. Robbins, what risks do we face if the U.S. does not coordinate with allies and partners in building

Appreciate the question and thanks again for sponsoring that bill. I think that if we could coordinate across all agencies of government, that that would have tremendous value to helping the robotics industry compete globally. The U.S. has fallen behind by not having that, and as has been pointed out, the Chinese saw the future when they developed their national strategy, they understood robotics was where this world was heading. And they put in place programs to become the leaders. We can do the same. We need this central organization and this commission to take a look at every part of government that can help and can benefit from a stronger robotics industry in the U.S. So I do think it's essential.

Well, thank you. Obviously, I agree with you and we're going to keep pushing to try and get that bill across the finish line. Mr. Beard, you in your testimony called for a national robotics strategy. That's something I highlighted in my opening statement as well, so we're in furious agreement on that. It's really frustrating for me that the United States does not currently have a national robotics strategy. China does, Japan does, South Korea does, Germany does, the United States does not. And it's there's such an obvious linkage between a robotics strategy and our national economy and national security. So if we're all agreeing that we need to put together a strategy, could you talk a little bit about what that strategy should include and what it should prioritize?

Absolutely, and thank you for the bill that you've sponsored, we're strong supporters of that bill and your leadership. We think one of the first things is demonstrating excellence in robotics and manufacturing. And we think the MEP program in particular can be reworked to do that. I think both sides of the aisle are correct, it doesn't serve in its current state, but I really think it has the potential to be the foundation of something that is in high service to all of our manufacturers. And this is we actually polled a few hundred manufacturers for our testimony. And what we heard is that one of the core problems is learning how to be excellent at machining and powder coating and welding and bending metal and all these different forms of manufacturing. And then how to automate those forms and what does excellence look like. And as a country when we're behind, we should all come together and share our knowledge. And I think what the MEP program could be are these amazing centers of excellence where we can learn from each other, we can see what is best in class, and we can get really efficient really quickly. And so that is one recommendation for your future commission to consider. We think that the government should provide incentives to build American robots and the supply chain of American robots to automate and to put them to work in American factories. So we've laid out a number of recommendations along those lines. We think that these new centers of excellence and then there's other ideas that we've shared in the written testimony to really train this next generation manufacturing workforce. We hear from almost every manufacturer we talk to that it's hard to hire. And even ourselves, we try to hire a machinist and the only candidate we could find comes from an ITAR facility making parts for nuclear submarines. And we don't even want to hire the person because we know that they need that person.

So can I ask you to elaborate a little bit about that? Because there's been kind of an elephant in the room in this entire discussion about the optimistic case for robotics, which is that they augment American manufacturing, they don't displace workers, they actually create more employment in manufacturing for human workers. And the pessimistic case where and Dr. Helper, I hope you're an optimist, but I mean you laid it out, you said the alternative is the worker substitution, we don't want to go there. So Mr. Beard, are you an optimist or a pessimist in that way?

My favorite analogy in this regard, Milton Friedman visited a job site in the 70s and they were it was a canal digging project and they were digging with shovels. And he said, why aren't you using earth moving equipment, which they had in the 70s. And the leaders of that country said, well it's a job site, so we don't want to give them earth moving equipment or create fewer jobs. And Milton Friedman said, well why don't you just give them spoons. And his point was, we earn the right to create high paying jobs by creating something of economic value, by automating, by using robots, which we view as the power tool of the 21st century. It's like the new drill for the American worker to be five times as productive, assisting the worker, not replacing the worker. And using these tools, we as a country can earn the right to have really high paid, really safe manufacturing jobs where the worker's face isn't in the weld smoke, they're standing back and managing five robots that are in the weld smoke. And so that's our vision of the future. It's very optimistic.

Right. Well, it's a fascinating discussion. I see my time has expired, but thank you very much for your answers and your testimony. I'd like to now recognize Ranking Member Stevens for five minutes for her questions.

Well, thank you so much. You know, it has been a passion of mine to focus on Michigan manufacturing and over the last eight years, I have visited more than 200 manufacturers across the state of Michigan. And I consistently hear from workers and small businesses about both the innovation happening on the shop floor and the real challenges in scaling and commercializing those innovations. I also hear concerns about China's state-backed industrial strategy, subsidies, and unfair trade practices that have undercut U.S. industries in sectors like drones, batteries, and 5G, and we are beginning to see certainly similar trends in robotics. But we have also changed that trajectory before with the CHIPS and Science Act, which I helped author and pass into law. Congress came together to strengthen a critical industry and rebuild domestic capacity in semiconductors. We also have an opportunity to do the same thing in robotics. So Dr. Helper, thank you again for being here today. Your testimony is certainly very thought-provoking as usual. One of the many things you discussed was the capital challenges faced by manufacturers. I remember discussing that with you during the Great Recession period, but certainly right now for small and mid-sized manufacturers. How can the federal government in this modern time close financing gaps to spur investment in the integration of advanced technologies like robotics?

Yeah. One thing I think there's two issues that manufacturers face. So one is financiers see growth strategies by small manufacturers as very risky. And so they want to charge like credit card level interest rates often. So I think we could fix that, some of the plans for revitalizing the Export-Import Bank might help that. The other problem that manufacturers face is uncertain demand. So it's not just that they can't get the capital, it's that they don't even want to borrow because they're not sure they could pay it back. And so there are various plans to increase the certainty of demand. So the government can do it through its own procurement. They also can imagine bringing together groups of customers that would make such things, and I worked on such a thing in the Biden administration, AM Forward.

Yeah, yeah. Great. And robotics relies on many of the same components and widgets that power the U.S. auto industry, the foundations of Michigan's manufacturing base. And at the same time, China has begun to leverage their years of investment in this space to scale their domestic robotics production. So Mr. Burnstein, how can Congress better support domestic robotics production while strengthening the supplier ecosystem, particularly in manufacturing hubs like Michigan?

Thank you for the question. I believe that the key to strengthening the manufacturing of robots in America is to increase adoption in America. And that's why we're prioritizing incentives for small and medium-sized companies and companies of all sizes to adopt automation. How do we make it easier? How do we give them the skilled workforce they need too? So that's really critical too. We have to invest in the workers as well.

Yeah, and maintenance and repair remains very important for that as well. And Mr. Robbins, what risks do we face if the U.S. does not coordinate with allies and partners in building out this competitive robotics manufacturing base?

Yeah, we see authoritarian rivals coordinating to undermine democracy, so we must work with other democratic allies to safeguard democracy. And working with countries that are aligned with our ethics and values is going to be important to winning. As many scholars have noted, U.S. competing against China alone is going to be far less effective than if we can compete with our democratic allies. As mentioned, China's far outpacing the U.S. It's currently outpacing the world, but we'll be much stronger together if we have partners like Taiwan and Japan, South Korea and others working with us in Europe to have a unified agenda and a global strategy to compete against an authoritarian rival.

Yeah, and as Mr. Beard was talking about where he sources parts components, you know, you think about partnerships like AUKUS, Australia, UK, U.S., I know you mentioned the nuclear submarine. You know, I really do want to see the United States aggressively pursuing manufacturing co-development of innovations and strategy partnerships with allied nations. We need to be doing that aggressively. It goes beyond just the MOUs, but AUKUS really does afford us a relationship and I think if we can put in some of the points that Dr. Helper touched on and Mr. Burnstein what you referenced, we could also have great partnership arrangements in that regard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. We'll hear next from the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Babin, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. My first question is for Mr. Burnstein and Mr. Robbins. How dependent is the U.S. robotics industry on foreign source components such as sensors, actuators, chips, and other critical parts? And are there specific supply chain vulnerabilities that Congress should be focusing on?

I think we're quite dependent on some of those parts, especially rare earth magnets. And we need to address that and I know that efforts are being made to address that by recent Department of Commerce investments in helping U.S. develop its rare earths. So I think that's going to remain an issue. Again, I think that the more adoption of robots we have in the U.S., the more likelihood there will be companies that can make some of those components and maybe we could support the ones that currently make them that even if they were here, they're too expensive as Mr. Beard pointed out earlier. And that's why there's so much reliance, but some of them don't even exist here, particularly in the rare earth space.

Okay. Mr. Robbins.

Yeah, I agree with what Mr. Burnstein said. We have a couple of member companies like Vulcan Elements and USA Rare Earths that are, you know, now going to scale over the next couple of years to build out supply chains for rare earth magnets. We also have a serious shortage in lithium and gallianite and others for batteries as well, and that's an area that needs to be addressed as a critical component. The way to do this is with both carrots and sticks. In some cases, we need to build sort of small yards and high fences to keep out technologies that flood the U.S. global market and keep U.S. competitors from being able to scale, as well as carrots to help U.S. companies with whether it's low-cost financing or incentives for adoption or other tools to help spur domestic manufacturing.

Thank you very much. And the CCP, Communist Chinese Party, has a well-documented pattern of subsidizing domestic industries, flooding global markets, and undercutting competitors on their prices. Are we seeing this playbook applied to robotics yet and how should the U.S. respond very briefly, start with Mr. Beard.

I believe that we are seeing that. I think we're seeing some companies even selling below their cost is what we've what we've seen. I think I think that we should take action to ban Chinese robots and probably give some notice, six to 12 months, but the supply chain in the robots, and I think we're still early enough in the adoption and very few manufacturers are using Chinese robots, so there's time for for folks to adopt to that with a little notice.

Thank you. Just very briefly, I'll just go right down the line there. Mr. Burnstein?

I think we may be seeing some of the issues that you mentioned. Whether or not banning Chinese robots is a good idea, I'm not sure. And one of the reasons I'm not sure is because of right now we do need those rare earth magnets here in the U.S. And I worry about if we start a war over robotics that we could lose some of those components that are vital to our goals. We want to reshore manufacturing at scale. If we are dependent on those parts and they withhold them, then I think there could be an issue.

Okay. Mr. Robbins?

Yeah, we're a cross-domain association, so we've seen this movie play out in the drone industry. So for us, it's a slam dunk. You absolutely have to move away from adversarial supply chains. Otherwise, the China market creates a strategic dependency and we ultimately lose that market here in the U.S., which is which is their goal. So yes, we have to ban Chinese robots.

Thank you. Dr. Helper?

otherwise you the China market creates a strategic dependency and we ultimately lose that market here in the US, which is which is their goal. So yes, we have to ban Chinese robots. Thank you.

Dr. Helper.

I would split the difference. I think one of the key things that this strategy could do is really understand where we have capabilities and where we in the supply chain and where we could develop them. And so then you could imagine setting some kind of a aggressive yet feasible targets of these are going to be tariffs, you know, gradually, you know, more and more into this supply chain, you know, that initially we would not ban rare earths from abroad or from China, but eventually we'd develop a capability and we would or or we would tariff them.

We we need all the information we can possibly get to see if we can rectify this situation. American manufacturers tell us robots are too expensive, too complex, too difficult to integrate, incentivizing them to buy robots and robot components from China. What is the federal government's role in bringing down those barriers? Is it research funding, tax incentives, or workforce training or something else? And Mr. Beard?

I think it's a mix of all those things are needed. And and I think most importantly, dramatic action and and quick action. I think we have to train the next workforce. We don't have enough folks that know how to deploy robots right now in the United States. I think we need to incentivize the adoption of robots like China has. I think we need to it's Chinese supply chains we've heard run at 4 percent margins for critical components like strain wave gearing, motors, motor controllers, encoders. These are the critical components in the robot supply chain that we need to have in the U.S. in additional rare earths. So I think that having capital available so that so that you can start a company that makes those components, because venture capital isn't there for a 4 percent margin business. We've already waited long enough where that's that's what it is in China. And so so I think it's a combination of what you mentioned.

Great. Thank you very much. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. We'll go next to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird. You are recognized for five minutes for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate witnesses being here. I'm going to I'm going to focus on the fact that robotics and automation or autonomous equipment is very applicable to agriculture. So I really want to focus in that area. And I I might say before I start, Mr. Beard, you misspelled your name. It's B-A-I-R-D. Did you get we have a lot of Beards in my history too, so they changed their name for some reason. But anyway, I think it's important that we're able to to use this technology in agriculture, particularly precision agriculture. And you know, I had the opportunity to visit a farm about a week ago, and they had an autonomous sprayer. And they were spraying and in the fact that they had capability of handling 250 gallons of material, but when they went across this acreage, and I forget what acreage it was, they only used seven gallon of material, which which I really want to commend everyone involved in industry and in agriculture for being able to make those kind of improvements and technology because I think it helps us be more efficient and it helps agriculture be able to produce for the coming coming generations. You know, when I was younger and on the farm, we used to talk about putting on putting on quarts per acre, quarts of atrazine, that sort of thing. And now we're talking about ounces per acre. And I just want for agriculture's sake, I want people to recognize how efficient that has become and how how well we utilize those things in agriculture. So when people accuse us of using a lot of excessive pesticides or insecticides or whatever, I think that's a false narrative. And so we have to eat that food too. So I just make that statement and so but my my first question really deals with deals with these autonomous sprayers. And I said I got to see one, and that that was made in the country of Brazil. And that unit covered covered the field, and then it came back and using a technology very similar to what we use for refueling these jet airplanes or fighter planes with the tankers, it came back and filled itself and then went back to the field and did its work. It marked out all of where that field the borders of that field and made that application. So it was very efficient, very effective, and you could control it they were even controlling it from it was made in Brazil, South America, and they could even control it from South America. So so I just it's amazing to me the kind of technology that we have and the capabilities that we have. And so it's significant that we can utilize that kind of technology in agriculture. So I guess I'm making a plea for agriculture and to keep up that kind of work and all the work that you're doing. So Mr. Robbins, let's let's start there. We're seeing agricultural robotics like precision sprayers that I just mentioned, and farmers rely on foreign-built autonomous equipment, but that was made in in the country of Brazil, the one I the one I saw. So how do we my question is, how do we how do we make sure we're staying ahead of the game and retaining some of these very intelligent young people in agriculture?

Yeah, thank you, sir, for that question. And throughout our members, we have many companies in both the drone and robotics space that are focused on precision agriculture, both to extend the operational reach and help fill workforce gaps and to be more efficient, as you note, both for spraying as well as providing more efficient mapping and surveying. And one way to sort of address this issue specific to ag, again goes back to strategy. That's where we should start. We should not do one-offs. We should have a national strategy. We should pass Chairman Obernolte's Act. And we should also have incentives for adoption. You know, right now for particularly when when there has been Chinese technology brought into the agriculture space, we should have a rip and replace program where they are farmers are incentivized to to get rid of their Chinese technology, which poses a national security and economic risk to the American people by having that in American farmland and have an incentive to purchase non-Chinese technology, preferably American technology where it's available. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. I agree with that answer. And you know, today you mentioned you mentioned something I think's important. You can pull in a field and go around the field and that unit will map itself and then you can you can turn that equipment loose, so to speak, and it'll take care of whatever operation you're doing. So I really I really appreciate you being here, and I thank you for that answer. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from my colleague from California, Congresswoman Rivas. You are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this hearing. I was a very young student when my teacher first showed me how to work an early version of an Apple II computer, and that interest as a child shaped my future and sparked my interest in STEM and it changed my entire life. You know, I went on to MIT and became an engineer and later started a nonprofit to encourage young girls' interest in STEM and even serving as a robotics coach for kids. You know, STEM and robotics programs, while they're fun and engaging, are not just hobbies. Robotics programs in schools are key to producing a stronger, more hands-on U.S. robotics workforce. Robotics programs teach skills, build confidence, and introduce underrepresented groups to robotics and other STEM topics. Investing in robotics programs ensures that our future workforce has the skills needed to adapt and succeed in an environment that is becoming more automated while still protecting important labor jobs. My very first bill in Congress, the STEM Pathways for the Future Act, fosters STEM education and apprenticeship opportunities for students who come from diverse and untraditional pathways, including many students in my district. I've seen the energy and passion that young students in my district bring to their STEM classrooms. With the proper tools and resources, these students will power the United States to continue being a leader in robotics and robotics technologies. However, the educational and professional STEM opportunities for the next generation of STEM leaders are in danger. For the second year in a row, the Trump administration has proposed major budget cuts that impact our future robotics workforce, research, and manufacturing infrastructure, including cutting nearly 993 million from NIST, the very entity whose mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness and helps to fund robotic manufacturing work. Cutting nearly 55 percent to the National Science Foundation and hurting its ability to support fundamental robotics research and cutting 8.5 billion in K through 12 programs, further demolishing of the Department of Education and its programs that help students succeed. These cuts undermine our country's ability to develop a strong future workforce that will lead the world in robotics. We must support the current and future workforce so that robotics can be integrated responsibly and efficiently. Dr. Helper, in your submitted statement, you emphasized the importance of collaboration between robotics and workers, but you also brought up the importance of apprenticeships. What role do you think Congress should play in ensuring that there is a balance between apprenticeship in the future of the manufacturing workforce and robotics? And additionally, how will these cuts from the Trump administration impact our robotics future?

Thank you. Take the second one first. I think it's a really severe problem for all the reasons you laid out. I think apprenticeship is really good in that what it does is gives both instruction in general principles and hands-on experience. And one without the other is not valuable. So if you have just the general just the hands-on experience, maybe you buy a different kind of robot and the person doesn't know really how to, they've pressed one button and maybe it's a different color in a different place, a different machine. So understanding those general principles is really important. So Congress can do this by I think increasing staffing actually in the Department of Labor. It's a very long process to get a new occupation certified. I guess my quick thing is a tax break. I generally think that that isn't the thing that is most a barrier, that the key that most firms have is an upfront large expenditure to get an apprenticeship program started. And so helping with technical assistance, with bringing together communities of practice, that would go a long way to I think removing the real barriers.

And you think that's something that the federal government can fund through grant programs or somehow connect the partners together in communities?

Yeah. And there's actually state programs. South Carolina does a really good job that we could learn from that bring people together and yes, so they could be grants. They could be I guess I would also just increase staffing in the Office of Apprenticeship at the Department of Labor, which was small and I imagine is even smaller now.

Thank you so much for that answer. And as we continue to try to overcome the administration's cuts to science, it's important to keep these in mind. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. We will hear next from the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Biggs, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Obernolte. I appreciate you convening this hearing on the state of American robotics and thank you to our witnesses that are here today to testify in front of Congress. American innovators are excellent at multiplying the output of the American worker. Our industrial sector was the best in the world throughout the 20th century, fueled in part by American automation. However, China emerged as a competitor to the United States at the turn of the century. The CCP identified areas they wanted to dominate and invested billions of dollars in government funds to grow their industries. Robotics is one of those sectors. This becomes more dangerous when one considers China's civil-military fusion. China is not only pursuing automation in the factory yard, they are also pursuing automation on the battlefield. And I certainly appreciate your work, sir, and your input earlier on your testimony. They are developing autonomous drones and robots integrating AI and attempting to change the way wars are fought. We cannot be caught flat-footed. If autonomous systems are going to change the battlefield, we need to be at the cutting edge of the transition. And to do that, we must ensure that our robotics industry is strong and its supply chains are secure. My question is to all the witnesses. How do you feel that and how are your firms positioned to develop the necessary capabilities, and that includes the sensors, software, electronic warfare tools, and other countermeasures to counter China's growing interest in integrating robotics into its military modernization campaign? Mr. Robbins, we can start with you if you don't mind. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?

Great. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. And appreciate your focus on national security and defense. I know that comes from your background as a warfighter. Thank you for your service there as well. There's no doubt that the military-civil fusion that is being undertaken by the CCP in China is directed at overwhelming US capability in the Indo-Pacific. Their initial strategy is to build mass to make the US reconsider whether we would engage, particularly in a Taiwan scenario. They are using their commercial industry to bolster their military side and they're doing it very effectively. Accordingly, we have to do the same here. We have to recognize that these are dual-use technologies, whether it's using robots for manufacturing or robots for warfighting. We have to recognize that these technologies are both. Accordingly, outside the jurisdiction of this committee, but tools like the Defense Production Act and the industrial base policy out of the Department of War, those are tools that also should be considered to help support this industry. We absolutely need to rely upon EXIM Bank and Department of Commerce and have a national strategy, but we also need to utilize tools that are available in the Department of War to support these technologies as well.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Uh, at Standard Bots, we we have designed almost all the parts that go in the robot and we've had to do that because At Tinnerman Bots, we have designed almost all the parts that go in the robot. And we've had to do that because the US supply chain just doesn't exist. And we want made in America robot arms. We're currently working on vertically integrating all the different parts of the manufacture of the robot from casting metal, where we buy bars of metal locally and melt them down into the shape to milling them and heat treating them and powder coating them. And so we've had because the US supply chain doesn't exist, we've had to we're having to take on even melting metal to make a made in America US robot. So that's the current state of things.

Just add increasing the user base to give Mr. Beard economies of scale.

Thank you. I'll just finish up with my last question. Would an investigation into the national security risk posed by foreign robotics manufacturers be warranted?

Yes, ma'am.

Any other input?

I would say that we should look at some of the dual-use threats from our non-allies. But I think when we're looking at our allies, it's a different story. These robots from Japan and Korea and countries that we work with, they've been working in the United States for decades. They have a long history of supporting our manufacturing industries and other industries. I don't think they present the same risk.

I agree with that, ma'am. And I do think that as I said earlier, we need to work with our allies. We also do need to also take a deeper look at the supply chain, the underlying supply chains as well, because some of our allies face some of the very same supply chain challenges and strategic dependencies on China that we face here in the United States.

Thank you. I certainly appreciate the conversation and look forward to talking to each of you further. And with that, sir, I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. We will go next to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative McClain Delaney, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you to our chair and ranking member and thanks to our witnesses today for this very important hearing. I so support our congressional members in really helping lead US innovation and furthering our country's automation. Now, I represent Maryland's 6th Congressional District, which stretches from the suburbs of Washington, DC to Western and Mountain Maryland. My district is the proud home of the Gaithersburg campus of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. I believe NIST to be one of our nation's jewels for multidisciplinary research and standards development, and it has a clear mission to promote US innovation and industrial competitiveness and to be really our industry's national lab. Now, NIST's engineering lab has estimated that only 10 percent of potential industrial users have robotics systems, in part due to the lack of really reliable standards. Their robotics systems for smart manufacturing program is advancing the measurement science that will enable manufacturers to meet and identify requirements for new technologies. Now, before I go on to my prepared remarks, I do want to lift up what I heard Mr. Michael Robbins say in response to our GOP colleagues. I served in the last administration as the deputy administrator of NTIA and as deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Commerce, and a lot of my international work dealt with rip and replace. And I think it is so incredibly important that we in 5G technologies and wireless technologies as we look at manufacturing and automation with AI, that we really work with our trusted allies and our supply chains to ensure we don't have surveillance, that we keep up our US innovation, and that we do all and I weigh in very, very strongly in this, we do all in our efforts to make sure that we do drive that innovation but also trusted supply chains. Coming back, broad adoption at NIST will also require technical assistance, particularly for our small and medium-sized manufacturers. NIST's manufacturing extension program, which I have a personal passion for, is a nationwide network that helps companies in every state enhance productivity, strengthen their global competitiveness, and adopt technologies like robotics. In the FY 26 and 27 budgets, the Trump administration had proposed to end MEP. Fortunately, Congress rejected this effort in a bipartisan fashion. That said, no program is perfect and MEP can be modernized to ensure it is helping our nation's small manufacturers. Dr. Helper, how can Congress elevate the MEP program to help small and medium-sized manufacturers adopt robotic technologies? And Mr. Beard, you said updating MEP is a coordination and resourcing problem, not a mission problem. Can you elaborate and what additional capacities or resources should MEP have to support companies like yours in reaching small and mid-sized manufacturers?

Thank you. I think the MEP program can be a central part of this community of practice that I mentioned that we need where we have users and makers of robots and also workers and their representatives coming together to really understand not just sort of plug and play a robot into an existing system, but really redesign the whole production process, system of automation. We see a little bit of that a forerunner of what could happen in a collaboration between the Pittsburgh MEP Catalyst Connection and the ARM Institute, which is a Manufacturing USA Institute, which has got a Build Back Better regional challenge grant to coordinate to collaborate. And they've helped dozens of small manufacturers in Pennsylvania to adopt robots. And that grant is ending. It would be great to continue that work and expand it to some of the other MEPs.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I'm born and raised in Maryland, so.

It's a great thing to be a Marylander.

That's right. I think that what we talked, polled hundreds of manufacturers about the MEP program and what we heard is a few things. One is it's too split up right now. Some of the MEPs are in a basement of a house. And I think the leaders of the MEP program, what we heard, they have to have a dual role. They have to be experts in manufacturing and they have to be fundraisers. And so right now I believe the network, there are too many locations, they're too underfunded. We're requiring people to be superhumans that run these things. It's just not possible to do both and often it's different humans that are good at both things. And I think if we had fewer, better funded centers that were more built up, had more equipment, had every different piece of equipment for milling and machining and metal forming, you could go in and you could see this and you could see it whether you want to start a manufacturer or whether you want to work in manufacturing. You could really get a feel for it and you could take training there. And I think that is the mission of the MEP program and it's and I think what we heard is the country needs this. But it's been lost.

Yeah, well, in the details, right? In terms of, you know, which of those are well financed enough and but I think, you know, more is better in terms of our nation's laboratories, right, in innovation.

I think yeah, the program can play a really important role and be a foundation of rebuilding manufacturing robotics.

And anyone else who wants to weigh in? Okay. Thank you. I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back. We'll hear next from the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A very interesting discussion here and a lot of my questions have already been asked. But I want to go back to the military application, which I think is so critically important. What stage are we in? Is there any coordination with our Department of Defense and others in the national security sector along with you all and the research community, commercialization as it relates to deployment of new robotics? Bottom line is, if you look at history, whoever has the best technology wins the war. So I think this is a really fundamental point here I wanted to explore a little more. Any comment?

Happy to go first. I think we're in early days, sir. The war in Ukraine has really been a wake-up call for the Pentagon on the dual-use nature of robotics, drones, autonomous technologies as a whole. The Pentagon doesn't always pivot super quickly, but we have seen, particularly over the last year, a significant uptick in coordination, a real effort to learn from from allies, particularly in Ukraine, about how they're doing it and they're doing it well, starting in the classroom and training young people to be, you know, help as soon as they graduate or even still while they're in school in this space, all the way down, you know, to the warfighters and everyone in between. So there's a lot of learning ongoing. We're seeing a significant increase in the budget for autonomous systems. We haven't seen the details yet of the FY27 budget, but it looks to be about 54 million for the Defense Autonomy Working Group, the DAWG, which is a significant like multi, you know, multi-hundred time plus up over over previous years, which is a good sign. And most importantly, we're seeing a alternative pathways to acquisition, which is key. Traditional programs of record do not work for modern warfighting technologies. Being locked into a program of record for a robot or a drone where the technology is iterating, you know, perhaps every week based on battlefield knowledge does not make any sense. So allowing the warfighters to choose from a portfolio of of options and using marketplaces and advanced market commitments, those are all really good strategies and in this year's NDAA, we have a number of asks for Congress to continue to lean in and pushing to authorize the Pentagon to lean even more into some of these alternative pathways and to increase funding for autonomous systems.

Any other comment?

We found the Department of Defense to be very receptive. We've had a number of conversations with leadership there and they they've shared their problems. And I think for a private company like ours, that's important so we know what we're building and we can build a platform that serves all users. So we have found them to be very collaborative.

I would just oh, go ahead.

Oh, I was going to say that one of our recommendations is that the government become big adopters of robotics and we're seeing more interest now because of shortages of munitions and ships and a lot of the robots can help do some of those tasks that would help make our military stronger.

I would just mention that the civilian in promoting the civilian side also helps the military side. And if you look at, you know, how do we get fast, agile production and get down learning curves, a big civilian user base and civilian research is also important.

So that brings me to my next question. What does a new center of excellence really look like? What is that? Is that one big institution in the heartland of America? Is that 214 research institutions around the country? Talk about that a little bit, put the meat on the bones here for me.

I can take this one. I think it depends on the amount of funding. I think the important thing is that we keep the quality really high. If that means we can only have one and it's in the heartland, I think that that works. But I think it should be where you can come and you can learn all these different methods of manufacturing. You can learn how to automate. You can get trained to be a metalworker or a machinist. You can and if we keep that quality high and we have the various equipment and we have experts there who can teach you about the various pieces of equipment and when do you use which piece of equipment and what are the best practices for running a machine shop or a metal forming shop or what have you. I think I think the quality is important. Even just having one that did this right now would be a huge benefit for our country. I think people would fly in for it. If we could have one in every state, that's better. I think it just comes down to the amount of funding that's available, but I think quality and and having that high bar for quality to really meet the mission of the MEP program is the most important thing.

So do you view that as a public-private partnership?

I think it could be, yeah. I think that's a good way to do it.

Any other comment?

You serve on the Transportation Infrastructure Committee and were a big part of the FAA Reauthorization Act, which authorized the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies. It's now been established in conjunction with Texas A&M. They just had their big launch event with industry just a couple weeks ago. They're off to a fantastic start. I think that could really serve as a model to replicate. I agree with Mr. Beard that one that's well resourced is better to many that are not well resourced and perhaps less effective. Ideally, many that are well resourced would be the the better outcome, but obviously there are, you know, diminishing resources.

Have to start somewhere. Indeed. Yes, sir. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and to our witnesses. So I have a couple of I think difficult questions here. The first one has to do with cybersecurity, trusted silicon. You know, there's this ancient science fiction plot of the robots that come out and they get hacked and strangle you in the middle of the night or the car that drives into the Fourth of July parade because it's been hacked. This is not science fiction. You know, this this is possible. I think it was a decade ago that Tesla was not even doing a secure boot on their car as and you know, it was pointed out by one of the Chinese companies that this is a really dangerous thing. The number of difficulties there. The first thing that you're going to have you're going to have to have someone you trust look in detail at the software of anything that's deployed at scale in the United States. And so I don't know if we're going to need an open source mandate or something like that so that you're just simply not going to be able to deploy on mobile software in life-critical situations unless someone we trust looks at that, which could be an AI. But I was just wondering what the best thought was on that. And a related thing, so there's the software security, there's also the trusted silicon problem. This is a huge problem, you know, we're now using cell phones to authenticate yourself. And we're if you're using that to for high-valued financial transactions, you better trust the silicon in your cell phone and there's a big difference between the security of Apple, which I think does a pretty good job with their their chip supply chain, and the Android world where it's scattered all over the world and who knows what chips are being put in there. And you know, we can't there's going to be at some point a disaster with the Internet of Things where every, you know, light bulb that's used as an internet repeater is going to be used for a denial of service attack or that sort of thing. We are not defended against that. And when the we're going to have to have hearings about that after we have the disaster, what should we be doing ahead of time to prevent that disaster from happening?

Thank you so much for that that question, Mr. Foster, it's very astute. And to your point, it's not science fiction. There's been a couple of of open source disclosures of late where a a hacker was able to easily access Unitree robots and use them to disrupt and spy. And that was, you know, not done maliciously, it was it was done sort of to prove the point. And then even more recently, a a DJI home vacuum was was accessed and the the individual who again unintentionally stumbled upon this had access to 7,000 different video feeds into people's homes. So these are very real concerns. At AUVSI, we we also work in the drone space, so we've actually been working on this for years. Working with the Department of Defense and the broader U.S. government, we actually established a a standard called Blue UAS, that's the federal standard and we have a

Okay. All right. So yeah, we have like NIST that sets all these cybersec defines the cybersecurity set. What we're missing is an agency that calls balls and strikes. That says if you're going to present your your digital identity on a cell phone, this version of iPhone is secure and this one, you there's key extraction exploits that make it not safe to do it. And that's going to become very contentious very rapidly when you tell a manufacturer that they have the product they're trying to roll out this Christmas is not safe to to inflict on the on the public. So it seems to me that we need a an agency to do not only cybersecurity and call balls and strikes on specific project products, but also trusted silicon. And do so is there anyone that disagrees that we're going to need that? Because it's going to have impact on robots being deployed.

Completely agree. Yes, sir.

I'll just add there is some precedent for this in the ISO standards for robots, like 10218-1. So what happens today is to be certified to those standards, you hire a national lab. The national lab will review the code of your safety-critical section of your firmware to make sure that it that it's safe. And so I think the national labs could play potentially a role in those types of reviews, but I think the

Yeah, but I don't know if they're binding. If they if they give you a thumbs down, you can still market it. We need a you know, a system with teeth on this. And and so the last thing I'll just briefly and Mr. Beard, I guess you're the. This question of whether the future of manufacturing is vertically integrated shops. You know, it's sort of what Elon Musk did to NASA. NASA spread out all of their manufacturing in every congressional district so they could come and say here's this little part of our rocket that's all right. And Elon Musk said that's ridiculously inefficient. He just did vertically integrated manufacturing and ate their lunch. And so I was just wondering what, you know, and the same thing will happen, you know, in I think general purpose manufacturing. And so I want what your thoughts on that are.

Well, for our part, to compete globally, we have to vertically integrate. And and that's why we've had to design a lot of the supply chain. It's because if we buy low volume parts from American suppliers, the costs are just too high. So we've designed our own motor, our own motor control, our own encoders. And

And in the future, it's going to be Claude that does all this stuff. The engineering are not going to be people we're training today. It's being going to be done by the the data centers full of geniuses that that Dario talks about all the time. And it's, you know, this is a very tough conversation, but I think we're not doing ourselves a service if we avoid it. And I am now past time and I will yield.

Gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. McCormick, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for all being here today. It's kind of hard because I'm for the first time looking past a robot to get to Mr. Beard, who has my first question. I wish I had my special glasses where I could just kind of move the arm, but that doesn't exist right now. Mr. Beard, I'll get right to the point because I got a bunch of questions, one for each of each of you. Can you specifically outline what steps it would take to establish regional robotics manufacturing clusters in high-growth regions like Georgia, knowing that we have special circumstances that we're developing rapidly?

Yeah, I think I think the first thing is the funding has to be there. And and then I think it's really bringing together our experts in this country because we do have many of them. But if they were to collaborate, we can I think we can create a center in Georgia and and hopefully every other state that serves as an example of what is amazing look like in manufacturing. And and our manufacturers want this. And that's what we've heard again and again. They want to be able to go and see what excellence looks like, kick the tires on all the equipment, learn about automation, get their workers trained. And so I think funding is the first long pole.

So kind of a public-private coercion basically trying to get something going like in so many other innovations. Obviously, the government can't do it by itself. We don't have the money we used to have. We obviously have a lot of things pulling at us, but what we've seen is when America applies itself, we can get to outer space, we can do things that nobody else can do, no other country can do, and I couldn't agree with you more. Mr. Robbins, you've you've actually raised some concern about adversary-linked robotics entering the U.S. ecosystem, which could create obviously a strategic dependence outside of our nation, which we've had in other areas that's really hurt us nationally internationally. What specific risk-based guardrails do you think we could do to block, for example, Chinese-origin technologies while ensuring American and allied firms can innovate without those same inhibitions?

Yeah, thank you so much for that question, sir. I would start with Congress passing the American Security Robotics Act. That is an extension of work that Congress has already done to address the threat from Chinese drones, just extending that into robots. That would be a logical first step. Any system that the U.S. has designated as a Chinese military company that's on the 1260H list should be banned from the U.S. Like that's if if it's, you know, they're working already with the PLA, which is a strategic adversary, that should be extended as well. Beyond that, I there absolutely needs to be a strategy to drive a resurgence in American manufacturing in those the broader industrial stack. So rare earth magnets, sensors, components, lidar, all of the things that that make up a robot so that we can break the strategic chokehold that China has on the critical components and the the pieces that make up the American robotic industry today that so many companies are reliant upon that don't have the resources of Mr. Beard's company and to be able to go and vertically integrate. A lot of companies are still sourcing from from China because it is so much cheaper and that's where in some cases that's their only option. In order to break that dependency, we have to reindustrialize and build here in America and work with our partners and allies around the world.

And do you think those critical components could be obtained mostly in the United States or do we have to truly go overseas and make those deals, make sure we secure that in international relations?

Yeah, it's it's both. And and, you know, we need a strategy for that. We we want to bring some of it at home, we have to think left of boom, you know, in a in a wartime scenario, the first place China is going to go is all of those, you know, those strategic dependencies. So we have to have some domestic capacity. There's no doubt about that. We learned that lesson, you know, in in World War II with the arsenal of democracy. However, in the meantime, it that it's going to take time to build that capacity. Shovels in the ground, workforce, permitting, all the things that go into that. And in the meantime, we have to be working, you know, there's really good efforts undertaken right now by the Commerce Department, State Department, Pacto Silicona, and others to build these relationships and build these supply lines with our allies. And that's that's definitely a piece of the puzzle.

Yeah, I couldn't be more more agreeing with you and especially on being proactive. Mr. Burnstein, in AI and robotics, federal regulation has often lagged innovation. What should Congress do to ensure that federal agencies stay agile and we don't slow down American companies trying to out-innovate China?

Excellent question. And regulations could slow it down. But one of the areas of regulation that whether it's a consensus standard or some other standard, when we're looking at humanoid robots, for instance, they're not safe to be around people. China may not care about that, but I think the U.S. should. They're getting a lot of data because they're getting the robots in the field more quickly than we are, but we need to prioritize safety. For our association, we developed the first American National Robot Safety Standard that became the basis of the global robotic safety standard. And I really think it's important that these robots be safe before they're around people, especially in our homes. So I would I would encourage us to look at that.

Good balance between regulation and innovation. With that, I'm out of time, so I yield, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The gentleman yields back. That concludes questions from our members. I would like to thank our witnesses for their valuable testimony and all of the members for their questions. I think this has been a really interesting and very useful hearing. The record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. With that, this hearing is adjourned.