Golden Age of Science: FY2027 Research and Technology Enterprise Priorities

let me give you little bit sure okay don't it's a bad song too many things to do right now order science face the technology Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses uh of the committee at any time. And I would like to now recognize myself uh for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on unleashing the golden age of science, examining the priorities of fiscal year twenty twenty seven research and technology enterprise. And Director Kratios, welcome back. Glad to have you here. Last time you sat before this committee, we discussed how Congress could build on President Trump's AI action plan, the role of American innovation, and the national security challenges posed by foreign competitors. Six months later, I'm glad to say that both the administration and this committee have taken meaningful action. Last year, President Trump asked you to usher in a golden age of American innovation. And this is the standard by which this budget should be judged. A golden age is not measured by how much government spends, but how or about what about but whether taxpayer dollars are being focused on the right priorities. And producing results that strengthen America's leadership in science and technology. And today's hearing is about just those priorities. After years in which Washington too often measured success by dollars obligated, rather than by results achieved, this administration has begun to refocus the federal research enterprise on excellence accountability and on outcomes. I expect today's discussion will include funding levels, indirect cost policies, uniform guidance, and the president's budget request. Those are important discussions, but finding uh but funding alone is not a measurement of success. The real question is whether taxpayer dollars are being invested wisely, and deliver results for the American people. This budget directs taxpayer dollars towards technologies that will decide the next century artificial intelligence, quantum, advanced manufacturing, nuclear and biotechnology, while ensuring that that the science that this government funds meets the highest scientific standards. The President's executive order on restoring gold Standard Science reinforces that commitment by requiring federally funded research to be reproducible, transparent, and honest about uncertainties. Agencies will submit their first annual reports under that executive order this September and this committee will be reading them. Scientific leadership also requires protecting the research that we fund. Congress has strengthened research security on a bipartisan basis. And American taxpayers should never subsidize the transfer of cutting-edge research to our foreign adversaries. America enters this competition from a position of strength. According to Stanford's AI twenty twenty-six index, private investment in American AI companies reached nearly two hundred and eighty-six billion dollars last year, more than twenty-three times China's. and more than the rest of the world combined. But we should be clear-eyed about this competition. The Chinese Communist Party has made artificial intelligence a national priority and is spending accordingly. Chine- Chinese frontier models now trail America's by only a few points on leading benchmarks and Beijing continues targeting our universities and our national laboratories to obtain the cutting edge research that we're doing. And that is exactly why this budget matters. The administration has laid out a strategy to preserve American leadership in critical technologies. Executive Order one four four zero nine hardens our systems against AI-enabled l- cyber-attacks by partnering with American industry, rather than regulating it into the ground. If I can turn this page. National Security Presidential Memorandum eleven is helping ensure that our war fighters have access to reliable and trustworthy AI capabilities. And while the Genesis mission is leveraging our national laboratories in supercomputing infrastructure to accelerate scientific discovery, this committee has done its part. Across several markups this Congress, we have reported out the National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act, the NOAA Weather Radio Modernization Act, the NASA Reauthorization Act, and Weather Act Reauthorization Act, and other bipartisan measures to strengthen American science and technology enterprise. Just last month, we also approved ten bipartisan AI bills, including my AI-ready Federal Data Guidelines Act, which implements a recommendation in the AI action plan to make scientific data We also approved the AI Security and Innovation Act, authorizing the Center for AI Standards and Innovation at NIST to bolster AI evaluation capabilities essential to both our national security and to American leadership. Director Kratziosk, we look very much forward to hearing about how this budget advances Yes, indeed. the administration's priorities strengthens OSTP, NSF, and NIST. and implements these gold standard science uh uh qualities and protects the federal research enterprise and ensures the na- that the United States remains the world's leaders leader in science and technology. I very much appreciate you being here today and I welcome your testimony. And with that I yield back the balance of my time and I would like to now recognize the ranking members' opening statement the gentlewoman from California.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mister uh, Kratios, uh, the topic of this hearing is " Unleashing the Golden Age of Science". I think that title is stunningly ironic, as this administration has been systematically destroying the US science enterprise, while our allies and adversaries alike look on astonished. So let me propose an alternative title. "Unleashing the Golden Age of Science in the People's Republic of China", because this administration's actions have only served to strengthen the hand of China, while decimating the US research enterprise. As reported earlier this month by the Association of American Universities, major research universities across the nation accepted fifteen percent fewer applicants to PHD programs for fall twenty twenty-six compared to fall twenty twenty-five. This is on top of decreases recorded in fall. twenty twenty-five admissions. These decreases were not just in fields disfavored by this administration, they were across the board in STEM fields. Now international students have long been a linchpin of US leadership in science and technology, so none of us should be celebrating their seventeen percent reduction in PHD admissions at US universities. However, even more shocking, given administration rhetoric, is the fact that PHD admissions for US students also dropped by thirteen percent. So much for America first. We are harming the seed corn for the future of US science and technology. Meanwhile, China is not only doubling down on their scientific investments, they're also actively recruiting researchers away from the United States. Big new initiatives and promises mean nothing when agencies act capriciously. canceling grants midway, delaying awards for months, even after they've been selected through the rigorous merit review process, and blacklisting educational and research institutions. And if anyone has any doubt as to intent, just look at the proposed OMB rule, effectively codifying all of these regrettable practices. Mister Crapsios, you are the face of the Administration Science and Technology agenda. You appear to have a direct role in some of these uh events. Uh, but you're accountable for the entirety of it, and I'll focus on just a couple of problematic actions. First, you may claim to be a free market conservative, but um the administration uh is uh acts like a bunch of communists. Actually, communism uh means that the government owns the means of production. The administration is bullying American companies into handing over equity sta- uh stakes in exchange for federal funding, so that the federal government owns the means of production. It's unprecedented. There's zero tr- zero transparency to the public or even to Congress on how, uh, it's intended to dispose of these shares or what the timeline is, where the profits will go. We're left to our own imagination. Given the widespread corruption of the last eighteen months, what I imagine is this administration once again disadvantaging American taxpayers for the benefit of the president's allies. Next, I want to focus on the National Science Foundation, the crown jewel of our government's support for sci- discovery science across all fields of science and engineering. The re- president requested a three billion dollar cut NSF for both FY twenty-five and twenty-six. Congress said heck no and funded the agency close to FY twenty-four levels, yet the money's not getting out the door. There are now multiple credible reports of the administration so-called taxing up to thirty percent of funds for each of NSF's research directorates to apparently create some kind of slush fund for administration priorities. I want to be clear, this would be in direct contra- uhvention of the funding law that Congress passed in January and would be illegal. Now, Mister Crescias, you have a background in venture capital and I come from Silicon Valley myself. I have a deep appreciation for the ways in which BC has accelerated innovation. But government is not venture capital. There is no Silicon Valley without fundamental research, the kind of government, the kind government funds, the kind that wins Nobel prizes. It's a dangerous game to play, a one that is already hollowing out our fundamental research base and our talent pipeline. From the targeting of major universities to the suppression of inconvenient federal science to the slandering of diversity in our research enterprise, all of it has helped throw American science into crisis. So, director, I hope you're prepared to give serious answers to serious questions about these actions uh and by uh the administration and under OSTP specifically under your watch and Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Little woman yields back. If I can find my place. Right. Now let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Michael Kratzios, Director of the Office of Science,

Thank you, Chairman Babin, and Rank Ranking Member Lofgren. for inviting me to speak to you today about the nation's science and technology enterprise, and this administration's priorities. In this two hundred fiftieth year of American innovation, we have been given the perfect opportunity to renew the material foundations of America's independence, security, and prosperity. Our economic leadership and technological dominance cannot be taken for granted in a rapidly changing world. The United States no longer stands alone as an industrial and scientific superpower. Unleashing a golden age of American science requires new focus and reforms. Eighty-one years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt's science advisor, Vandiver Bush, published a report entitled " The Endless Frontier", which organized America's national scientific enterprise for peacetime following the Second World War. Bush's vision established the federal government's role in supporting basic science and was foundational to the broad-based prosperity of the twentieth century. But times and technologies have changed. Our moment calls for renewal of Bush's original intentions, to use the best tools, organizational theories, and systems thinking at our disposal to ensure that taxpayer-supported science produces the largest returns possible for the benefit of all Americans. In a new report that President Trump published just yesterday, entitled " The New Golden Age", I articulate the obstacles American researchers face today and the ways our scientific enterprise has fundamentally fundamentally transformed since nineteen forty five. The report and the corresponding memorandum provide policy guidance for federal agencies to cement American scientific leadership for generations to come. I look forward to sharing these bipartisan and nonpartisan recommendations with the committee today and finding opportunities to codify them in Congress. First, the US research eco- this research system should prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions. Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it. By supporting a broader range of performers, including a new generation of mission-driven research organizations we can expand our scientific horizons. Second, the federal government should reform and refocus how research dollars are allocated, distributed, and assessed. Instead of one size fits all approach, the government can deploy more flexible types of grants, including fast-track grants, long horizon grants, a new mechanism that allow reviewers to champion radically unconventional proposals. Third, the federal government should set clear scientific goals and build the industrial muscle to translate scientific discovery into technological strength. Government must mobilize the full force of our enterprise around national challenges, clear the ground for American builders, and reunite the work of discovery and manufacturing across the country. Fourth, the federal government must lead the way in preparing America's research enterprise to fully harness the artificial intelligence revolution. A year ago tomorrow, President Trump published America's AI action plan, laying out a blueprint for America's dominance in technology that increasingly defines our era. A main motivation in promoting American AI development is a belief that these tools can rapidly accelerate the progress of our scientific enterprise, and so open new frontiers for American knowledge, industry, and quality of life. The Genesis mission is the crown jewel of American for science and already well underway. Just this morning in a convening of science teams across the federal branch the executive branch, my office affirmed that the Genesis mission will be the central hub for the entire federal government to revolutionize the conduct of American science with AI. Joining DOE's ongoing efforts or initiatives from NSF, DOW, HHS, NASA, USDA, NIST, DHS, and DOT, mobilizing more than five billion dollars in total commitments producing the premier AI for science ecosystem in the world. More than a whole government project, we hope the Genesis mission will grow into a whole of nation effort. Driving the partnership of government, academia and industry, the Genesis mission's grand challenges seek to directly address some of the hardest problems in research priority areas. Moreover, the pursuit of these grand challenges will inspire and test new AI methods and architectures and so advance the capabilities of American AI itself. Throughout our history, Americans have shown remarkable courage in our willingness to reinvent our institutions when the challenges we faced demanded it. Now it is our time to build a scientific enterprise that will carry America forward and create a new golden age of science for the twenty-first century and beyond. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for hosting today's hearing and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I'll move into the questions and the uh chair recognizes himself for five minutes. Director Kratzios, as I mentioned in my opening statement last year, the president charged you with ushering in a golden age of American innovation. And this budget outlines your plan for how NSF, NIST, and OSTP will help achieve that goal in plain terms. What does this budget deliver for the American people that the last administration's budget did not?

Thank you so that much for that question. I'm very excited and look forward to uh implementing the budget and also the new Golden Age report that was published just yesterday. We have a real unique and special opportunity today to be able to rethink and reimagine the way that our science ecosystem functions and be able to overcome some of the many challenges that we've had over the years. It is true I believe that there has been actual scientific and technological stagnation over the past few decades. And that's because our scientific ecosystem has calcified. We've essentially been trying to do the same thing and fund science initiatives in the same way for so many years. And right now, because of AI and so many other opportunities, we have a chance and an opportunity to rethink the way that the government does science, to be able to first and most importantly back young American scientists. Everything that we should, we do as a science ecosystem driven by the government should focus on scientists themselves. And we have lots of different programs and initiatives that are gonna be doing that, but we somehow have lost our way, and those are the most important people in the ecosystem we should support.

Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, the committee continues to have serious concerns about the integrity and objectivity of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, or NASEM, and its work on attribution science despite repeated oversight requests, NASEM has failed to fully comply with the committee's request for information. prompting a follow-up oversight letter. And as we work toward a golden age of science, maintaining public trust in the nation's scientific institutions is as important as ever. Given the transparency concerns, do you believe Congress should reconsider NASEM's exemption, uh from the Federal Advisory Committee Act, uh uh so as that its advisory committees are subject to the same transparency, balance and conflict of interest standards as other federal uh advisory bodies? And will you commit to working with the committee in this process.

I very much look forward to working with the committee, uh, generally on this topic. Um, I think it's important that any of our institutions that, um, conduct science or work on science policy, our, um, are transparent and honest with American people, and I look forward to working with you on this particular issue.

Absolutely. Uh, the administration recently proposed accountability measures for federally funded grants and the National Science Foundation's merit review process relies on external reviewers, many of whom are from academia. This chart shows the faculty ideology from nineteen sixty-nine to twenty twenty-two. If you would observe this, um, uh, under the previous administration we saw a significant increase in the politicization of science, big time. Federal grants were used to advance DEI initiatives that violated direct violations of the Civil Rights Act, promote the so-called quote " environmental justice agenda", and direct taxpayer dollars towards politically aligned organizations. How would the proposed revisions to the uniform guidance help restore accountability to the American people and elected officials, instead of deferring to a political ideology or an unelected bureaucracy, as you can see from this chart that has occurred from nineteen sixty nine to the present.

I think the, the most important thing that I think about of the, of the era before President Trump was re-elected was, um, I truly believe it was a black eye for the larger scientific ecosystem. Um, the fact that so many taxpayer dollars were diverted to, to, to projects, we clearly did not meet, uh, the mark for where we as an ecosystem should be funding. Um, I think it made a lot of people question whether or not, um, the government was doing the right thing. and whether it was funding projects that actually push science forward. Um, so I commend President Trump for taking a strong stand on this when we first came into office to make sure that this type of funding stopped. And we returned to gold standard science, ones where we can actually fund the most important scientific endeavors of the nation today. Um, and we have continued to try to promulgate rules which will allow that to to to continue into the future.

Absolutely. You can see that from sixty-nine to the to the present, we should have a middle of the road probably an average of these of these personnel, and it's way, way down middle of the road. So let me ask you one final question. For decades, the Congress has routinely authorized science programs at funding levels that far exceed what will ever be appropriated. And although these bills often pursue worthwhile goals, they also create unfunded expectations that can dilute agency focus, complicate long-term planning, and strain limited resources. From the America Competes Act to the Chips and Science Act, we've seen this pattern repeated over and over. Uh, how does this gap between authorized and appropriated funding affect the long-term health of our science enterprise, and what can Congress do to better align our policy ambitions with fiscal reality?

Yeah, I I I will say I think, um, obviously these type of budget decisions are appropriation decisions that are made by made by Congress but I will say in the executive branch having more definitive clarity around what will be funded and at what time periods I think will allow for much better planning. As this committee knows very well, there are many initiatives that are multi-year in the making, uh, and the more clarity we can have for those, the better.

Absolutely. My time's expired. So, I yield back and I now recognize Ranking Member Lofgren for five minutes to ask her questions.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I think we need to get a few things on the record here today. The National Science Foundation has been without a Senate confirmed director for over a year. But I think we do have evidence uh that political appointees may be finding a way to interfere despite that fact. Now, I have a something I want to put up on the screen. Um, the staff can make that happen. Uh, on the screen is a slide that the science committee uh democratic staff got um just last week. on the agency's program information management system. Now it may be a little bit hard to read because this was a screen shot taken by uh someone who was at the meeting but it's helpfully colored in uh bright red and it's a step that reads coordination with Doge and Whitehouse taking place outside the workflow. So we've been hearing rumors for months uh and it this seems to confirm it that the Whitehouse

Uh, Uh, the the White House is not involved in which - which proposals the - the White House is not involved in which - which proposals get - get funding at National Science Foundation. get - get funding at National Science Foundation. I will say, I will, say, and I think this committee knows very well, and I think this committee knows very well, uh, the role of OSTP, the role of OSTP, um, um, in the way it's created in statute, and the way it's created in statute, is to have an opportunity to work with all of our science agencies to ensure that the president's priorities for science and technology are manifested in the budgets themselves in the way that these c- these operator- operate.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, there've been reports in, uh, the Science Magazine and in Nature that I'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record. They indicate that, uh, NSF has held up nearly a billion dollars in money that Congress appropriated to the agency. Um, and we've had indications of, uh, very large discrepancies between the fiscal year twenty twenty-six spend plan for NSF and the actual allocations that have been made to directorates. The public rep- reporting and actually the rumors indicate that this, uh, is a portion of the one point five billion dollar total that will essentially be expropriated from NSF and allocated to, uh, I think kind of a secretive initiative led by OSTP. I'd, you know, the current system of granting is not perfect. I'm not gonna say that the changes aren't required, but you can make extreme changes that will do damage, uh, to our science enterprise. So I'd like to know kind of what is going on, mister Cracias, where is the nearly one billion dollars that we know is being clawed back from NSF directors? uh, directorates and uh, what is the reported one point five billion dollar project, to quote Nature's reporting, uh, is a brainchild of the White House OSTB. And if you could be specific, is any of the five billion that you announced today for Project Genesis coming from the money appropriated uh to NSF?

Uh, I'm not familiar with those details that were for NSF, but uh, but I will say something that that we we we have argued from from the White House for a long time and has been been manifested in the, uh, written up in the Golden Age report that was released yesterday, was that as a nation we should be more deliberative and specific about trying to tackle grand challenges. We as a country have shied away for many years from actually being opinionated about one of the most important scientific and technological endeavors that, um, our American people deserve the government to be funding. Um, and in that report and in the in the budget guidance, uh R and D memo that we we produced as well yesterday, I think we list out some of those. Um and the Genesis mission is is one of them um and and so is creating a scientifically relevant uh quantum computer that was part of executive order, the president signed, and I think we as a nation should strive to have these large scale scientific endeavors that only the government can help marshal the full resources resources of the nation together to accomplish.

I don't think the committee disagrees on some of the major um initiatives that are important to the country we uh just um uh adopted the quantum initiative, we have bipartisan support for uh research into uh fusion, um but the concern we have is the process by which uh scientific enterprise is taken. Obviously science does not happen without scientists, but scientists cannot operate uh in a vacuum if they don't have access to labs, if universities are no longer admitting uh uh doctoral students because they can't figure out a way to pay for their research. There has been tremendous dra- damage that has already been done to the science enterprises of the country. We know personally of Nobel-level scientists who are leaving the United States and going to China because their research can be funded. So I have grave concerns and uh I know that other members of the committee will have an opportunity to follow up. Um with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mister Webster, five minutes.

Uh, thank you Mister Chairman, uh, Mister Carcias. Uh, the administration has emphasized American space leadership as part of the golden age of American innovation. Uh, inclu- included in that is Artemis leadership, commercial space, uh, and secure cooperation with allies and partners. How is uh O OSTP alongside with NASA aligning the commercial space sector and international space science technology partnerships so the United States leads in space um Yeah, while providing sensitive technologies and strengthening norms for that favor American leadership.

Thank you so much, Congressman. Now, the President signed, uh, an executive order around space superiority in, in December of last year. And that actually set the, the national vision for, for our country in space. And I think it set out some, some bold goals that this committee is very, very familiar with. To have American boots on the ground on the moon in twenty eight. To have the, the, the, the first, um, components of a moon base by twenty thirty. Um, and to launch in this administration, uh, a, uh, n- a, uh, essentially a nuclear reactor in the space for nuclear propulsion. So, these are bold, ambitious goals that, um, we at the White House are helping coordinate, some of which, um, require multiple agencies to work together, particularly some of the nuclear initiatives. Um, and we have an amazing, uh, administrator at NASA, uh, who's doing a great job in, in helping achieve the president's vision.

So, executive order, uh, fourteen three six nine, uh, basically ensuring American space ser- superiority, calls for new and upgraded facilities, um, to support increased launch and re-entrance cadence. If the administration could use a privately funded federal infrastructure finance corporation at no cost to federal, state, or local taxpayers to supplement existing tools for spaceport cons- infrastructure. Would this new financing approach help OSTP uh carry out the executive order which calls for new and upgraded facilities?

I'd have to um think a little or learn a little bit more about that particular model, but I think um the the overarching view is that we need to find the best possible solutions to be able to upgrade our launch infrastructure. I think uh again as this committee knows really well the the the cadence of of launches that um that is happening now um is increasing dramatically and our ability to have the facilities to allow um our space economy to achieve its ultimate potential is is gonna require new new facilities.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy of my bipartisan Federal Infrastructure Finance Corporation legislation and a one-pager describing it.

Without objection.

So radioisotope power systems will be vital to uh power US lunar infrastructure. What steps will the administration take to prioritize US companies building this technology, leveraging existing nuclear fuel across the DOE complex and provide the procurement support needed to make US industry competitive globally.

Um, I I defer to my colleagues at D at DOE and NASA on that, but I I promise you I can I can look into that and we can find ways to to to progress it forward. I think the key thing is that the president, at least from the White House level, has set the goal that we're gonna have SR one up by by twenty eight. Um, in order to make that a reality, I think a lot of other pieces have to come together and and that very well may be one of them.

Well, my time is out. uh would like to yield any time you'd like to, about a minute to explain any other thing you'd like to explain.

Thank you so much. I talked about this a little bit in my opening statement, but uh I cannot reiterate enough how excited I am about the future of the science and technology enterprise in United States. We have one of the greatest opportunities in human history to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery today. artificial intelligence is probably the biggest unlock in human history and our ability to drive scientific discovery. Um, what we're able to do through the Genesis mission and through extending, um, AI for science powered initiatives across all of our federal agencies, I think we'll be able to look back on that in years ahead and think that this was a moment where we actually you know really really accelerated the pace of discovery in a way that that never one that no one thought possible.

You're back.

Absolutely. Gentleman yields back. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Miss Bonamici.

Thank you, Doctor Kratzio- or excuse me, Director Kratzio, thank you for being here. The administration's twenty twenty seven research priorities memo promises a golden age of science built on strengthening the US science ecosystem and gold standard science grounded in merit-based peer review. Yet in just the past three months, the president fired the entire National Science Board. OMB proposed a rule to defer research funding to the whims of appointees instead of experts. And now the administration is moving funds Congress appropriated to NSF and other science agencies without congressional authorization to Genesis which was created without congressional authorization and I think you mentioned about five billion dollars that is significant uh America's science enterprise has led the world for decades because of our commitment to open research to investing in discovery when the outcomes are unknown to rigorous merit-based innovation and are U S research universities. Today that enterprise is blinded by firing experts, deafened by legal threats, and choked by political hostage taking. So Director Cransios, this past Sunday the president, who is not a scientist, ordered federal suspension and debarment officials to investigate the National Academies because of a peer-reviewed report he apparently didn't like. Executive Order one four three zero three requires federally funded science to undergo unbiased peer review. This National Academy's attribution science report did go through years of peer review. So did OSTP review that report or advise the president before he issued that order? That's just a yes or no question.

No.

Has OSTP identified a specific factual error in the r- uh, report's peer reviewed findings, yes or no?

I haven't been involved in the National Academy's report.

Uh, the National Science Board, which is required by law to advise the president in Congress,

So the the National Science Board has statutory authority to establish the policies of the National Science Foundation and and delegate award authority. Now, adding to this, and I think you are, this committee is very well the challenges, uh recent Supreme Court cases have upheld only principal officers of the executive branch can make certain significant

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna reclaim my time,

and unreviewable decision,

cuz my question was did the p-

defer you to the National Science Foundation.

Has the president nominated a single replacement member since April, yes or no?

Not my not that I'm aware of, no.

So in May, OMB proposed a seismic overhaul of the federal grant system. It requires that award reviews by p- it requires award reviews by political appointees, It allows agencies to subjectively terminate grants and it bars funding that supposedly promotes topic the pres- topics the president doesn't like in favor of those that advance his policy priorities. Did OSTP consult with OMB in developing this proposed rule?

As this rulemaking is progressing, the, you know, our office is working closely with OMB and OIR to ensure that all the federal research enterprise remains world-class and is trustworthy and accountable.

And did any agencies under OSTP's purview purview begin implementing provisions of the rule before the comment period closed?

I can't speak to other agency actions. I don't know.

So you're not aware of any that have. Uh, you, you know, you're you're talking about unleashing American science, but you're standing idly by as researchers stop publishing their results out of fear, political agendas dictate winners and losers, and science agencies are bleeding stuff. many of whom, as ranking member Lofgren noted, are being recruited by other countries who are aggressively courting our scientists. That's not scientific leadership. I also wanted to ask you about this, um, apparently new, uh, process set up, uh, to bypass review panels to earn a so-called fast-track golden ticket.

Hmm.

It's Willy Wonka-like to me, and this is a serious issue. Uh, so who's gonna get these fast-track golden tickets? Um, supporters of Donald Trump? People who pay for them? What's the process?

So we we're very excited about um different methods of awarding grants. What we have seen over the past few decades is um a real decline in uh the types of grants that want to achieve sort of groundbreaking or out of the box type of ideas, because these merit review panels tend to um gravitate towards least common denominator awards. And what's amazing about the Golden Ticket process or initiative is that it does two things one it encourages scientists to be able to actually propose more interesting, more groundbreaking, more envelope pushing ideas because they have an opportunity actually for them to be awarded and second I think most importantly it actually encourages better and more qualified people to want to be part of these merit review panels,

So will you have it, my time's about to expire.

who have higher quality pe-

So will you commit that those reviews will be done based on merit, not based on the supporters, there's a lot of corruption in this administration, not based on who is giving money to the president and who are the friends and supporters of the president. There will be merit-based grants to get a golden ticket? Will you commit to that?

That is how NSF does grant making. It's a merit-based process.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. Uh, now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from, uh, California, Mister Obernolte.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Kratios, thank you for being here today. It's, uh, good to see you again. As the chairman mentioned in his opening statement, several weeks ago this committee marked up ten different bills on the topic of AI regulation. And I'm very proud that this committee is leading on that issue. Amongst those bills was a bill of mine to codify the Center for AI Security and Innovation or NAR or uh, I'm sorry, Casey. And task Casey with many roles, including improving and evaluating the security and reliability of a advanced AI systems. And uh, as we've seen with yesterday's disclosure of the loss of control at OpenAI and the subsequent hacking of Hugging Face, uh, that just underscores the urgency of Casey's mission. One of the items of disagreement in, within the committee was the level of resource to give to Casey. And, uh, part of the, uh, controversy was that, uh, there are elements of Casey's job that fall in the juris- jurisdiction of other policy committees here in the house. And so, uh, as we work through the process and, and, uh, with all of the different policy committees and crafting a federal regulatory framework for AI it's really not clear until we get done with that what the overall responsibilities of Casey will be so let me ask you, based on the responsibilities that we've given Casey so far, is Casey adequately resourced to execute on its mission?

I think Casey could certainly benefit from more resources. It is, um, you know, to begin with, forget even this particular topic of of of AI, it's very hard to recruit people to work in government, layering on the fact that for the particular type of experts that you need to to do the testing evaluation of these models, these folks are could could work in the private sector and and make orders of magnitude more more in compensation. So, I think what's important for us is to is to be able to create an organization that can recruit high talented people to come for tours of duty and to be able to do the important work of the testing evaluation of these of these models and and that does require resources.

Right, well we, uh, that remains an, an item of discussion here, I think the legislation that we passed, which was my bill, uh, resourced Casey at twenty five million dollars a year. Uh, I believe that the, the amount of resource truly needed when the dust settles here will be closer to a hundred million dollars a year, but uh, we look forward to partnering with you to figure out what the amount right, uh, the amount of resource is to enable Casey to execute on its important mission. One of the other things that we did two weeks ago when we marked up legislation is to codify NAR, the National AI Research Resource, uh, which is going to be a critical piece of making sure that we democratize access to advanced AI research and allow it to be done uh, outside of the setting, only in private companies, behind closed doors, and uh, to allow it to remain to be done in settings like academia and by entrepreneurs. Um, what steps is OSTP taking to ensure that access to resources for AI research and development are democratized and broadly available.

Yeah, so we we've encouraged NSF to continue to pursue and build out the pilot that they did for for the Nair. Um, one of the core tenants of science new golden age is, again, reorganizing the scientific enterprise to support the individual scientist. And what we have seen as this air revolutionist has taken over is that, um, the resources that you need in order to do cutting edge AI resource, um, research, um, are, um, are not trivial to acquire. And, and having pooled resources which the government can help with, private sector to, to create opportunities for scientists to tap into is really, really important and increasingly even more important. So, we continue to encourage that and try to find programs both at NSF and at DOE to make that happen.

Right. So, uh, you and I have had several discussions about, uh, the Genesis mission. I'm,

Mm-hmm.

I find that tremendously exciting, uh, and I think I agr- I agree with you that it's going to catalyze, uh, a, a new era of discovery by partnering uh, advanced research with artificial intelligence to push forward the boundary of human knowledge.

Hmm.

Uh, the Genesis Mission executive order identified a few priorities for the Genesis mission. Among them were AI and, uh, quantum computing, uh, but also among them were, uh, fusion energy, uh, which, uh, I think you and I share a passion for. As, uh, Chairman of the Fusion Energy Caucus, that's something that we have been very focused on. Uh, however, the administration's fiscal year twenty seven budget, included a request for a billion dollars for AI and quantum, but no corresponding investment to accelerate commercial fusion deployment.

Mm-hmm.

So can you elaborate on what the administration's current federal strategy is on fusion?

Yeah, so you may have seen recently the Department of Energy released their fusion science and technology road map. Um, and in the the fiscal year twenty eight research and development priorities memo that, um, me and and and, uh, an end director Vogt released. yesterday. Um, we talk about, uh, the importance of national science and technology missions. Um, and we list out, um, four of them. And one of them is fusion. And, uh, our hope is that through the budget process we can establish a way that we can, uh, demonstrate commercial fusion power in the US by, by the mid-twenty thirties in line with the road map that DOE put out.

OK. Well, I mean, it's gonna require partnership between Congress and the administration to get that funded. And commercialization is an important part uh, of that, uh, of that strategy. So, I see my time's expired.

Gentleman's strategy.

I,

Yes.

uh, I could, I could ask a dozen questions, but, uh, thank you for your presence here today,

I'd like to recognize the,

Patrick.

uh, gentlewoman from, uh, North Carolina, Miss Ross.

Thank you so much, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for convening this very important hearing. Um, I represent part of the research triangle, so there's nothing more important to my district than the scientific en- enterprise. Um, I wanna discuss the so-called gold standard science this administration is priorit prioritizing. Everything's gold in this administration. There's just something odd about that. On May twenty third, twenty twenty five, President Trump issued executive order fourteen three O three entitled restoring gold standard science not silver not bronze not red blue. The executive order directed your office to issue guidance for federal agencies on the implementation of, and I quote, "gold standard science". It also directed agencies to submit their implementation plans to your office. And now, a year later, OMB has proposed a broad policy that would completely upend federal grant funding, which will further devastate the scientific community and be subject to the whims of political leadership. And we have seen this in North Carolina, in devastating ways to both the scientific enterprise and to our economy. So as I said, I am proud to represent the research triangle, it's a major center for science and technology, home to some of the world's top research universities and institutions. And the Trump administration has severely disrupted our research and technology sector by restructuring critical agencies firing experienced scientists, and cutting research funding, all in the haphazard pursuit of gold standard science. And all to the benefit of our competitors, specifically China and specifically in the area of biotechnology. Sadly, what we've been hearing this morning has been confirming what we know. Gold standard is frequently gold-plated. And the victories that you're touting are merely cheap, shiny distractions concealing the nation's crumbling scientific infrastructure and the loss of the intellectual capability that we have to China, to Europe, to anybody who can fund their research. And scientific integrity is being violated every day. across government. So I have a few questions for you, um, in my two minutes left. Um. The gold standard science guidelines say, quote, unbiased peer review is critical for generating trustworthy new knowledge that minimizes bias. Yet a month after OSTP released its guidance, the so-called climate working group at the Department of Energy published a one hundred and fifty-one page report that was written by five hand-picked climate deniers. This report underwent no independent peer review and was immediately debunked by the scientific community. But DOE has refused to retract the report and continues to stand by it. Have you evaluated the publication process that the climate working group followed and would - will you instruct DOE to retract the report as a violation of the gold standard science peer review requirements.

Um, I have not, and I and I trust Secretary Wright in in his judgment in putting together that panel and and producing a a a report that was uh, that that was quite important.

Well, Secretary Wright was here, and let me tell you, didn't do a good job. The OSTP's gold standard science guide guidance is also supposed to uphold scientific integrity. throughout the federal government. At the same time, OMB is working to finalize a policy that will explicitly empower political appointees to overrule merit-based scientific decisions. It's a travesty. And it's simply incompatible with any kind of commitment to robust scientific research. Director, how on earth can you claim to support gold standard science? while the White House enacts a policy that will make a mockery of it. I believe that you actually are a serious scientist. I you have great credentials. You have integrity. But this isn't being implemented in the way that you are saying it should be.

Uh, thank you so much, I mean I I I look forward to working closely with with OMB to ensure that uh, that our enterprise continues to remain world class and trustworthy and accountable.

Gentlewoman Yields, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from, uh, Florida, Mister Franklin.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you, uh, Mister Krasios for being here with us today. I wan- I wanted to touch on gold standard science as well. It's an interesting segue. Um, uh, as, as we all know, the, the executive order will call for gold standard science that prioritizes transparency, rigorous scientific work, it's reproducibility of the science that's done, uh impartial federal science, clear communication of uncertainty, uh that we don't cherry pick certain results and and discard dis uh disregard others, that there are appropriate uh disclosure conflicts of interest. We could spend an entire hearing on examples over the last the previous couple of administrations where that has not been taking place, and we can argue that on both sides of the aisle. I would hope that in this what's typically a bipartisan, very bipartisan committee, we would all agree uh the needs for those things that are spelled out in the executive order. But could you, could you comment a little for us? Uh, how is OSTP ensuring that scientific advisory processes and agency research products earn more public confidence and provide reliable evidence for policymakers?

Th- thank you for that question. I think we were very excited and very proud um when the president signed the Goldstein science executive order. Um, I think it was an important moment um to kind of turn the page on on some of the errors and the and the and the challenges that that were faced in the previous administration. Um, what the American people deserve and what the scientific community deserves is to have trust in the science that is produced and funded by the federal government the core tenants in that executive order are ones that any scientist anywhere in the world um cannot disagree with. That is just the way that you should be pursuing science. Things should be reproducible. Things should be transparent. They should be impartial. Um, you should communicate uncertainty clearly. Um, and these are things that everyone agrees with. So, um, uh, to, to us, I think we're excited to get that out and I think it's something their agencies have taken to heart and they've um each produced a set of, uh, implementation memos on how they're going, going forward to make sure that that is actually executed in, when they do science. So, I'm very excited about, about the path ahead and I think this is what the scientific demands and should demand of the uh, of the US government.

Well, I appreciate that. And when we return from our August recess, I'll, I'll be introducing legislation to codify that. I would hope that that would receive bipartisan support because we all, both sides of the aisle, should be seriously about pursuing uh uh integrity in our science.

Well if you need anyone to cheerlead it,

Uh switch

I'm happy to uh make the rounds.

Roger that. Now switching gears to AI, this week marks a year since the White House released uh America's AI action plan with more than ninety policy actions across innovation, infrastructure, and international leadership. One year into this, how do you, what do you see are the clearest signs that the plan is producing results?

I think the clear signs are we continue to lead the world in in next generation AI frontier models. Um, it's something that, um, that that I think we're proud of as a country. I think we had this this, uh, mythos moment, if you could imagine, that we're all very familiar with a few, um, a few months ago. And I think there's lots of ways to think about it, but one view on it or easy way to think about it is that, you know, that was an American model, made by an American company in America. And that shows that we continue to be sort of the, you know, on on on the bleeding edge. Um, another big effort that I think we're very proud of is how we're continuing to accelerate the infrastructure build-out um necessary for us to succeed in, in, in this AI world. Um, the president was very forward-leaning in um, in bringing together all of the AI companies and hyperscalers and getting them to agree to what is known as the rate payer protection pledge. And the president asked to them and they signed on to this pledge where they, uh, are committing to build, bring, or buy all their own power for next generation and, and, and, and new data centers. Why it's so important is we have to have the confidence of the American people when we build out all this infrastructure. And I think this pledge makes it clear to everyone that when a new data center is built, rates are not gonna go up. Um, and these are the types of actions the president takes, I think, which um, which really instill the confidence necessary to keep to keep leading ahead.

OK. So those those being positive uh actions so far, where do you see implementation needing to move faster? What areas do we still need to work on the h h hardest?

Well, I will I will say as um the infrastructure build-out is one we could always go faster on. Um, the uh the demand for uh compute is is pretty insatiable. And um, we as a country uh, the the more chips that we get online, the more data centers that we build, I think the more power that we'll have to to keep driving all the next generation discoveries that that we wanna make using AI. Um, and that is as much a as more even so a state and local issue than a federal issue. Um, so I think we can we can work with all of our all of our states to make sure that we can find reasonable ways where everyday citizens are very comfortable with, um, with this technology in their backyard, uh, uh, and I think it's possible.

I do have concern that it, it feels in the court of public opinion out there, we're losing the messaging battle on AI. And really, you see it in the form of moratoriums that the communities are trying to to to implement. And I, as I try to explain to people, you know, we're not gonna put AI back in the bottle. It's a matter of whether we produce the AI and have control over those standards, or China does. Do you, and we don't have much time, but I, I'd really be interested maybe later even on your thoughts on What what we can in Congress can we be doing? And I know, um, my colleague, uh, Chairman, or Congressman Obernolte has has been a leader in this area, but we've gotta do a better job.

Mm-hmm.

Really not much time to elaborate on that.

I think the one thing is I think we continue to emphasize areas where the American people care and are interested, and that is particularly in AI for health. If we can show that artificial intelligence can dramatically change and improve the conditions of health care in America that's something that everyone cares about, and it matters for every American family.

Right, thank you. And Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields, now I'd like to recognize the uh gentlelady from North Carolina, Miss Foushee.

Thank you to the chair and the ranking member for holding this bipartisan hearing today, and thank you, Director Kratzios, for your testimony and for appearing before us this morning. In March of this year, the Trump administration, and you just noted, announced the creation of the rate payer protection pledge to protect Americans from the electricity price increases associated with the country's data center build-out. The announcement came with great fanfare, lofty promises, even a fancy signing ceremony at the White House with you sitting right next to President Trump. This was supposed to be your answer to the worry and the fear felt by so many Americans that data centers would cause energy prices skyrocket even more in years to come. Well, that was March, and now it's July. And Americans are wondering whether the rate payer protection pledge has made a real difference or whether it was just another empty promise from this administration. We already know the answer in North Carolina. Nothing has changed. Duke Energy tried to raise electricity rates on residential customers by eighteen percent. And only after a public backlash did it lower the rate hike. But rates are still set to increase by more than three percent at a time when people can't afford to pay more. That's why three of four of the counties in my district have implemented moratorium on data centers development. That's why the town of Apex in my district rejected a proposed data center and imposed its own moratorium, a local grassroots decision that I proudly support. Director you may not want to admit that the rape payer protection pledge has been a complete failure, but my constituents know the truth. The pledge promised to, and I quote, lower electricity costs for consumers in the long term. So, my question is, are electricity for American consumers lower now than they were in March?

I think the rape air protection pledge is, um, one of the announcements from the president that is probably, um, the most consequential of of this term when it comes to AI. Um, the idea that, um, the hyper-scalers and the AI companies themselves made a commitment to the American people that, um, in any community they go into, um, they commit to, um, essentially build, bring, or buy all their own power, um, ultimately ensuring that, um, rates do not go up because of what they're building. And the president was very clear with them. The American people should not be paying more for electricity because of these data centers. He was very firm and he was very clear, and he got them to agree to do this. This was a big accomplishment and I don't think any other, any other president could could strong-arm some of these, the largest technology companies in the world, to make such a commitment. Um, and I think as, as as these companies try to go out into the world and convince Americans that they need to build these data centers, I think because of the pledge, um, I think Americans can be can be much more confident that the rates won't go up.

Mr. Chair, I wanna reclaim my time on that. That's not my question. The pledge promised that companies would, quote, agree to protect American consumers from price heights due to data center energy and f- infrastructure requirements. So has this voluntary pledge stopped energy price hikes on local communities in this country.

Energy price hikes caused from the addition of new data center capacity to the grid, um, yes, it has stopped it because of that.

OK. The pledge made a whole series of promises, not binding agreements about what data center companies would do to hold down electricity costs for Americans it was Build, bring or buy, as you said earlier, new electricity generation, pay for all new power delivery infrastructure upgrades required for uh the data centers. Um, also voluntarily negotiate new separate rate structures with utilities. Are all new data centers in America complying with the promises of this voluntary pledge? I'm gonna ask the question again.

Hi. I don't know. I don't I I don't keep track of that.

Well, let me just say this. Energy prices are still soaring. Data centers are still a major driver of it. And this administration has done nothing to stop it. And with that, I yield back.

You know, when one yields back, I'd like to recognize the uh gentleman from uh California, Mister Fong.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh Uh, uh, Dr. Katzias, it's great to see you again. Thank you for your, uh, leadership as you continue to advance America's AI and emerging technology uh leadership. Uh, uh, this is a very, uh, consequential time. Um, my first question, uh, I've, you know, I've read the report, uh, that came out, uh, last night. Uh, with all the recommendations in this report, um, how will this accelerate our AI advancements to combat China? That is the, the, the, the, the, the consequential question that we have.

Yeah, I I think the biggest one is essentially making the consequential decision that no matter what scientific domain you are pursuing research in, whether you are in material science or in chemistry or in biotechnology, artificial intelligence is an accelerant which everyone should be using as they pursue their next scientific endeavor. Um, what the Genesis mission is able to do is actually to start incorporating AI into all those different scientific a- areas, whether you're working at NASA or at Department of War or Department of Energy, um, you will find a way to be able to work through a - a whole of government approach to integrate that AI into your research. Um, and that's what I'm most excited about.

Um, in the report you emphasize, um, a number of workforce development proposals, innovation hubs, um, apprenticeship programs, technical education on community colleges, which is extremely important, manufacturing, uh, uh, uh, technician programs. Um, now what role do you envision uh, Kimmy Colleges and a lot of these other uh um, how do you uh see them play uh a a role in producing a skilled workforce needed for AI, cyber security, advanced manufacturing?

Totally. I mean, we we really have to rebuild the link between discovery and domestic manufacturing. We have to be able to integrate sort of hands-on training, apprenticeships, and practitioner pathways broadly into STEM. And I think by doing so, we can sort of build these dense regional innovation clusters so that these as these breakthroughs happen, we create this broad-based prosperity across across the US. And in order for that to happen, we have to leverage the types of institutions you were talking about, community colleges and and the like.

Oh, I I I certainly could agree with you more. Uh, that is the reason why we worked with you on the NSF, uh, AI Education Act. Um, appreciate, uh, your guidance on that. Uh, the report also points to the Mojave Air and Space Port as an example of how regulatory flexibility and local leadership uh launched America's commercial space industry. Uh, what specific elements of - of the Mojave model, uh, are - were most critical to its success and - and - that you see? And how can Congress replicate, um, uh, those principles in - in other emerging technology sectors?

I think with this Mojave, you know, I - I think the key is you have to f- the - the realization or one of the - one of the core sort of realizations that led to the - t- to the new report is that we're in a new era in the US today where the interactions of the private sector, the federal government, academia and industry altogether are what drive next generation scientific discovery and the better pathways you can make and links that you can make between the four parts of the of the science ecosystem the better the easier it is for you to move from one ecosystem to another to share ideas to accelerate your your your scientific research progress that's what we that's what we focus on. And I and I think the example that you gave is the one where you you create an environment where um the typical players that you would see in a in that domain actually had access to it.

Um, you know, having a dedicated uh location where companies can rapidly test, uh iterate, fail safely, um, you know, do you see Congress um uh uh developing um policies or how would you uh encourage similar environments for AI, autonomous systems, advanced aviation, robotics?

Yes, we we need all all of the above. I think one of the the The first piece of paper, um, that I was able, that I ever worked on that, that the president signed was the creation of the, um, the IPP or the, the, the, the drone pilot program at the Department of Transportation in, in twenty seventeen. And I think what has always been a, a, a core thesis of the, uh, of our administration is that we have to have the opportunity to test new emerging technologies in different environments, see where they work, where they don't, where, um, you know, the American people are comfortable with them, where they're not. And based on this testing, then you can make the right decisions about how to promulgate them into into the commercial environment. Um, so to me, you know, having the best test range as possible and creating environments where Americans can go test their technologies, we have to do as much of that as possible.

And my last question, and in the time that I have, uh, you you outline in the report, uh, these new institutions, Xlabs, Arpa Style Organizations, uh, mission driven institutes, um, um, you know, curiosity driven research centers. Can you expand on on, uh, your vision of how you see all of these integrating together?

Yeah, the truth is now that um all of America's great scientists are not in one place. They're spread out all over the place. And what I think one of the great things we worked on SF on was this X labs initiative. It showed that you can bring together a multidisciplinary set of scientists to work on a specific scientific endeavor in a set finite period of time, to pursue something that you're not necessarily gonna see at a university or you won't see it in the private sector. So we're what we need the government funding open to are different places where research can be done. And that's reality of today. It all doesn't happen just at a university or just in industry. It can happen other places and we need to be able to fund it.

Youngest Times, thanks for having me.

Youngest Times, thank you for your leadership, look forward to working with you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to recognize um from uh Rhode Island, uh Representative Amo.

Thank you, Chair Babin, uh for holding today's hearing. Uh, Director Kratios, uh despite the promises made in your report, you are launch launching us into a golden age of innovation. You're sending us. back to the Stone Age. Earlier, you said we should focus on scientists, but under your watch, over ten thousand STEM PHDs left the federal workforce last year, and thousands of grants were canceled because a Doge bro found they contain phrases like disadvantaged communities equity or brace yourself, sexual orientation. Your administration has taken a hacksaw to the scientific em enterprise. That's ensured America has developed almost every new technology for a century. You've allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to close its research arm, the Office of Research and Development, which identifies which chemicals shouldn't be in our air and water because they're toxic. You've let the National Weather Service become a shell of its former self, critically understaffed during hurricane season because Doge drove away fifteen percent of its workforce last year. You've risked reversing generations of science, leadership, seeding, the twenty-first century to China. Twenty-one countries, including China, have created recruitment programs to lure away our top scientific talent, because you made it pretty easy. Director Kratios, you promised to usher in the golden age of American innovation. I don't think any of those results sound golden. Do they to you? Do they seem innovative? All I see is tarnish and deterioration. I think you're trying to pass off a cheap knock-off as solid gold, so I'd like to break down how we got here. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency corroded our nation's scientific leadership. Doge was supposed to close its doors at the start of this month. But, much like a damaging parasite, Doge has lived on, continuing to wreak havoc throughout the government. We saw evidence of this earlier this hearing, when ranking member Lofgren showed that a July sixteenth briefing noted Doge's involve involvement in NSF operations. I asked unanimous consent to enter into the record this Washington Post article on Doge, It's titled, " Doge was supposed to be dead. Its remnants are everywhere." Director Cratsios, in what capacity has Doge influenced NSF operations? Are they NSF employees? OSTP employees? Tell me where Doge is right now.

I'll speak for OSTP. There are no, uh, uh, Doge employees at OSTP.

Well, look, uh, I get that - that you're trying to pass off the responsibility because they don't exist anymore but you can't hide from its influence. It's there. It remains. Uh, this is not a mystery to anyone and it's it's actually plain as ink on paper. Now, does Doge have uh on its uh organizational chart individuals who are on boarded? Uh, uh, as as members, does OSTP still have remaining Doge staff on its org chart?

OSTP never had Doge staff.

OK. Look, I wanna believe you, uh, but it's pretty hard to believe what this administration has said about uh Doge, so. The challenge here is, we - we - you've said one thing and done another uh repeatedly. Now, does Doge uh members in any part of the government currently liaise with OSTP in - in any way?

Tim is - I - I don't think Doge exists anymore. I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't.

What - uh there - there - there's a record that suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure I - I'm not sure how to - how to help you sort of -

There - there - there is a record that suggests that Doge remains a big part of operations across our government.

I can speak to OSTP. We don't have any doge.

OK. Well, I'm glad that you're on the record there and I'll - I'll continue to follow up with you on that because ultimately this proves to be a - a losing approach, uh, that hollowing out our nation's scientific leadership leaves us weaker, leaves us less prepared to make discoveries in the future and - and, uh, the commitment, uh, that I hope you're able to make today is that the principles that they left behind of destruction, of elimination of our capacity wholesale, isn't something that you'll carry on. Is that something that you'd commit to?

I commit to doing everything I can to, um, deliver on the President's agenda of ushering a golden age of American innovation.

And beyond the present in the United States, do you commit to not leaving our scientific a- apparatus in, in shambles because of decisions made by, by doge that linger in our government?

I, I don't think so. I would be doing my job if I wanted to to leave the scientific enterprise in shambles. So I - I will commit to not do that.

I'm glad we can agree on that. That's a good thing. Now, look. Uh, I wanna cap off our discussion pretty quickly. Um, the NSF recently announced its intention to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative. This was designed to provide data on our oceans to our scientists, fishermen, emergency managers, and weather forecasters for decades to come. But NSF was gonna rip it all up from the ocean floor. Fortunately, after backlash they

Gentleman's Times expired.

And and I hope that you continue to support a legitimate process as NSF continues

Gentleman's Times expired.

the future of O O O I. Thank you. I yield back.

Uh, I'd like to recognize the uh gentleman from South Carolina, Ms. Biggs.

Thank you, Chairman Babin, and thank you, Director Croatsios, for appearing here today before our committee and for the OSTP's work over the past year. President Trump has set an ambitious goal The United States must lead the technologies that will define the twenty-first century. Maintaining that position is essential to our economic strength and our national security, especially as we compete with the Chinese Communist Party. Meeting that challenge will depend on abundant, reliable and affordable energy. South Carolina is well-positioned to help lead America's nuclear renaissance. force with decades of experience like those at the Oconee nuclear station in my district. Savannah River National Laboratory conducts critical work in nuclear materials, waste processing, and the fusion fuel cycle, which we've already mentioned earlier today. South Carolina is taking steps toward the nuclear generation, while leaders such as the Palmetto Nuclear Coalition are working to keep our state at the forefront of the nuclear industry. Direc- Director Kratzius, how is OSTP helping to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, and what can Congress do to help?

So, President Trump, I think, made one of the most transformational decisions for civil nuclear power since President Eisenhower announced Adams for Peace in nineteen fifty-three, with his executive order last year. Um, you know, prior to President Trump's actions, you know, we weren't testing new reactors, we were shutting down good reactors and we were totally dependent on on other countries for fuel. Um, if you guys remember, the the average NRC review time, I think, for licensing took more than twenty thousand hours. Um, and and I think we've done a a tremendous job in in lowering that and in finding an opportunity to dramatically accelerate kind of advanced advanced nuclear. I think one of the things that I'm most excited about is, um, the presence of this ambitious goal for the Department of Energy reactor pilot program to have at least three reactors that would achieve criticality by the fourth of July of this year. Um, and I think I'm excited and very thrilled to say that we surpassed that goal. We actually had four test reactors reach criticality in the last three mu- a few months. Um, and this is something that, you know, I personally went out to visit at, at Idaho National Lab a few, a few months ago. And I think it just shows that if, if you set bold ambitious goals for Americans and you set the regulatory structure in the right way, that um, that there is confidence and understanding from our innovators on what they're responsible for we can achieve truly, truly great things.

And I'm very grateful for those efforts. So the Genesis mission is another important part of maintaining America's technological edge. By bringing together our national laboratories, leading researchers, and advanced AI capabilities, the mission has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery across a wide range of fields, and ensure that the technologies of the future are developed here in the United States, not in China. So, Director, how is OSTP helping advance the Genesis mission, and what could this initiative mean for America's long-term technological leadership in our competition with China?

Yeah, but I think this will be probably one of the most consequential um scientific programs, uh in in American history, and I don't I don't say that lightly. Um What we do from OCP is coordinate the efforts across multiple agencies. Um, when the president launched the initiative, DOE was the, um, was the first agency to get started with it. They're building the actual platform itself. Um, and as I mentioned in my opening, opening remarks, um, we're very thrilled that today at the, at the Genesis, uh, summit where I, where I was before I came here to this, to, to this hearing, we're able to announce a five billion dollars in commitment in new federal commitments with more than different agencies involved, each with their own grand challenges relating to to AI and discovery. Um, and and and to me I think that's something amazing to see. You had health-related ones from from HHS and NIH. You had very interesting related ones to to to construction that were done out of Department of Trans- Transportation and so many others. And I think our function at OSTP is to help coordinate those efforts across the across the across the USG um uh and make sure that the the right programs are being tied in to the right programs at at DOE.

That's exciting. I have a background in health care and also connection with the military,

Mm.

so um I'll I'll look at that as a a bright future and hopeful that we'll see those changes take place very soon. Um I have more questions about the research security around the Genesis mission but my time is expiring so hopefully I can submit that to you, to get your feedback.

Absolutely, and we'll we'll send you a list of all the initiatives there are great new

Representative yields back. I'd like to rec- uh, recognize the, uh, uh, Representative, uh, Super from Virginia. Five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Kratios, for, for being here and for coming back. Uh, I, um, I wanna thank you for, um, releasing your report. Uh, I think I, uh, had to zoom through it this morning. It's pretty lengthy, but I appreciate you putting in that work into it. Uh, I I know a lot of people have uh um asked about different aspects of science and technology and you have a pretty broad portfolio uh I I wanted to talk about AI, uh specifically though. Um, on May twenty first, uh the president was gonna put out an executive order on artificial intelligence and a lot of it was gonna be around um regulating frontier models. And there was gonna be some uh look like mandatory standards when it came to AI models, but then that executive order was withdrawn. Uh, and then something else came out a while later that talked about voluntary standards. Um, could you talk about what m- went into that decision to withdraw, uh, that executive order and why, um, um, uh, subsequently, uh, a less, um, uh, stringent policy was released?

Uh, I can't speak to those details, but I am familiar with the, the, the executive order that, that was released. And I think it was something that, um, very clearly articulated the importance of having voluntary commitments from the, the Frontier Labs. to share their models um in advance of of release with the US government, um and leverage the the talents and the skills at KC and at NSA to to do evaluations relating to to cyber capabilities um and and make sure that when the models are put out to to to the public the appropriate guardrails and protections are in place.

So were you part of the decision making to um withdraw that initial executive order?

Um in my role at the White House, I'm part of the broader decision making process on on AI policy.

And do you think these uh legal, these safety requirements should be mandatory, or do you think they should stay voluntary?

The president's executive order um uh called for voluntary commitments, um and I think at this time that's the appropriate policy action.

And so, what what's to prevent uh someone from coming up with an AI model that could be dangerous, and they decide not to comply, uh and they decide to just unleash it and it creates a lot of havoc.

I think as as you and I think this committee

And the the final executive order that went out, it cut the government's review time from ninety days to thirty days.

Mm.

Was there a reason for that?

Um, the final one did say thirty days, and we we believe that that is um sufficient time to be able to um, work voluntarily with the companies. Uh, again, none of these companies are required to to share their model with the USG, but I think what we have seen is that the that the industry is interested in in uh, in having the expertise of Casey and NSA weigh in and help them do a do an even better job in building their guardrails.

Great. And I'm gonna switch subjects, uh, on chips. Um, we have heard about how, you know, auto manufacturers are increasingly relying on, uh, advanced chips. Uh, but obviously, uh, you know, so does, um, a lot of other things, a lot of other components. And, uh, one concerning thing people are starting to have is, is the sourcing of chips, because right now we want people to source them from United States and the US chip makers. We passed the chips act. Um, but there's a lot of companies who are now try clamoring to try to source them from suppliers from China, like, uh, CXMT, YMTC. And, uh, I'm just, um, I - I would love to know the administration's position on whether you think, uh, uh, we should allow American companies to - to source from these entities.

Well, the - our Trump administration policies are - are bringing back, um, advanced chip manufacturing in the United States. I think, um, you - you may have seen that, um, it's this month, uh, we're able to secure another hundred billion dollar commitment uh, TSMC for further semiconductor manufacturing investments in in the US, bringing their total to to two hundred and sixty five billion. Um, Micron themselves just broke ground on a on a hundred billion dollar, um, New York semiconductor manufacturing market.

Right. I I know that.

So.

I just I'm I'm trying to ask, um, do you think it's OK for American companies to buy from CXMT or YMTC? I wanna know the administration's position on that.

I think the most important thing is we build domestic capacity to be able to to in the long term provide the and have the chips um developed here in United States that um can meet um meet the needs of of our American companies.

Uh I didn't get a yes or no on that. Uh could could you give us at least where the p- the administration is right now on sourcing that? Cuz uh they've been listed as a significant threat to US national security. And so I would assume the answer would be no right now, right? But do you think that might change in the future?

I think the most important thing is we have to build capacity here. We obviously don't want to be uh in you know, doing business with anyone that's on the entity list. Um, and, uh, and - and that's something that - that is clear and in law.

I - I yield back. Thank you.

Gentlemen yields. I'd like to recognize the representative from Georgia, Doctor McCormick.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good morning. Glad to have you here today. I - I was curious, you know, when we talk about research and actually, uh, keeping people from investing in waste, fraud, abuse, espionage, having foreign actors come to United States, learn and then apply uh what they learned here against us when they go back to their own countries. Uh how do we find that balance between investing in a workforce and development uh that's that's truly homegrown and protected versus collaborating with countries that actually can benefit us? Uh what do you do to balance that?

Uh it's one of the the toughest challenges in the in the science ecosystem. Um I think for for many many years the United States has has been um uh the the home for for scientists from all around the world to come and and research and what we have seen over over the last decade or so is that um not all scientists come here with the intent just to help you know pursue great new scientific endeavors they come here to try to um commit espionage to figure out what we're working on and share back with um uh with adversarial power so to us i think what we need to do is be able to strike a balance and and create actually kind of a

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

You know, universities were not set up to do, you know, large-scale background checks on everybody who was in their university, um, yet so much so much of the of the stuff that we're concerned about happens there. So what's important is that we can share the research with the federal government with them to to kind of minimize the risk profile.

So I'm super concerned just considering that we have about a million students in our advanced educational system, uh, over a quarter million of those are from China, a direct competitor of ours. And they've been trying to push, and the president's actually talked about getting it up to six hundred thousand students per year just from China alone, which very much concerns me. So I'll be uh looking more into that and what we're doing to protect ourselves from that.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, America's biotechnological leadership

Yeah, biotech has been um an important uh priority for for the administration. If you think about kind of what the waterfall

Mm. Great. Two universities huge in in

Mm.

Technology and Development, of course, University of Georgia and Georgia Tech, my alma mater, uh, both of them doing amazing things right now. At University of Georgia, was recognized for the fourth straight year as the nation's leader in bringing university research market through industry partnerships which is exactly the kind of innovation ecosystem we need if we're going to lead in E AI advanced manufacturing and other critical technology how are you working to strengthen partnerships between research universities and industry so we build regional talent pipelines for the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs.

Yeah, you're you're so right. The um, eh, the indus- the private industry now funds about seven hundred billion dollars in R and D annually, and that's far more than the government and academia combined. So we as a, as a government need to think very carefully around the exact problem that you mentioned, " How can you build stronger bridges between the, between industry and academia?" And what's interesting about it is every time I talk to any university presidents, that is one of the top things on their list. They recognize that the amount of money being spent on region development outside of academia and in industry is something that they need to be part of. And I think those are the types of relationships that ultimately build those ecosystems that you talk about.

I love that, that private slash federal, uh, relationship that we kind of protect right now. And it's really the future of America when we talk about developing the future technologies. Uh, likewise, advanced manufacturing piloting facility at Georgia Tech has helped companies commercialize new technologies and adopt AI-enabled manufacturing and train workforce needed to support them. Uh, I'm really qui- uh, short on time, so I'll - I'll - I'll respect that, Mr. Speaker, but uh - or, Mr. Chair, sorry. I thought I'm ahead of myself, aren't I? Uh,

Oh, yeah.

is it - basically, I'll - I'll just basically submit this - this question, but basically, I'm looking for ways to re-industrialize America and how we can partnership, and I'll leave that to our our question we submit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gentleman yields back, I'd like to recognize uh Representative McBride of Delaware. Five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and uh ranking member Lofgren for holding this hearing, Director Kratzios. It's good to have you back before the committee. Um, it is critical that small and medium sized manufacturers are able to adopt technologies into their processes. This keeps American manufacturing competitive and at the cutting edge. Yesterday you released a report in which you highlighted bipartisan manufacturing programs and you specifically mentioned the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program as essential to this process. Meanwhile, the President's budget has proposed slashing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program for two years in a row. So I'm curious, is the administration reversing its position on MEPs?

Um, it's something that we talk about certainly in the Golden Age Report as philosophically something that um very much uh aligns with the tenets of the report. I look forward to going into the the twenty-eight budget cycle and working with OMB and with NIST to try to find ways that um those types of programs um do do find some funding because I think it's it's critically important for for the future of of manufacturing.

Well, I'm I'm glad to hear your commitment and interest in that and certainly I hope we can continue to all work in a bipartisan fashion. in support of programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that have brought economic activity and jobs to Delaware and to states across the country. Um, last time you sat in that chair we discussed the impact that rapidly expanding data centers have on our communities, including increased energy and water demand. This fear is not theoretical, and Delaware families are paying eighteen dollars and seventy-nine cents per kilowatt hour today up from seventeen dollars and ninety-seven cents last year. squeezing budgets and forcing Americans to make hard decisions. That day, you said President Trump supports the idea that technology companies should pay the costs that come with data centers they bring online. You also said you hope data center operators and semiconductor manufacturers would be incentivized by the free market to become more efficient. Since then, uh, you have said that quote " American AI leadership should never come at the cost of Americans' ability to pay their electricity bills." I agree, and President Trump also touted the rate payer protection pledge a voluntary agreement. for companies to build, bring, or buy energy for their data centers. Now, I know you, uh, answered some questions earlier on this particular topic, but you mentioned before in one of my colleagues' questions, uh, in one of your answers to one of my colleagues' questions, that you don't keep track of compliance when it comes to the rate payer protection pledge. Who does?

Um, I'll have to get back to you on that. I think the National Energy Dominance Council of the White House is a primary sort of hub for our our energy

And I I'd like a little bit more clarity on how the administration's going to or is already holding companies accountable if they violate the the pledge. Obviously it's voluntary, but we wanna see adoption of it. What will the administration do? Is the president going to dictate and strong-armed companies into compliance like like China does?

I think what we're seeing is that most of these companies, um, are extremely incentivized to not only you know, follow the letter of the pledge, but do even more. I think for them to be able to get the support of the local communities in order to actually build them, really sort of substantial commitments have to be made. I mean, we we've seen in in communities across the country where data center operators have uh agreed essentially to to cover property tax for five or six years, in order for the data center to be built. We've seen sort of dramatic commitments on sort of education spending and teacher salary increases. Um, so to me I I I think, you know, I almost see, you know, it it's almost like what the rape pair protection pledge is is table stakes, because I think a lot of these communities require even more and uh and that's what they're looking for from from these these data center providers.

But what happens if they aren't abiding by what the community wants or what frankly local jurisdictions or state governments require, what the pledge seeks to facilitate and and and push for? What happens if they don't?

You know, as you know, as a as a tech policy coordination office at the White House. I'm not a sort of a an enforcement body. But um I I kind of do go back to what I said said before. I think I think those business models are not sustainable if the communities themselves um don't want them there. And I think what we're seeing is that um in order for these data centers to be built, the um pretty significant and material concessions have to be made to the citizens of that area. And I think many times it's to the great benefit of them. I think as as I mentioned, I mean there's communities out there where where literally people don't pay property tax.

Yeah, uh just one quick quick follow-up question. Um one thing we talked about last time was the opportunities with technologies to diminish the energy and water needs liquid cooling technologies. Do you have an update on the administration's approach to investing in those types of technologies?

I'll I'll have to get back to you on that, but I I agree with you yet a second time that that we should be doing that.

Great.

Gentleman's time's expired. Thank you. Um, I'd like to recognize the uh gentleman from uh Utah, Doctor Kennedy.

Chair Babin, thank you for the time. And Director Krasios, thanks again for coming back to our committee. Appreciate that opportunity and to see you advancing the Trump administration's efforts to put the United States at the forefront of scientific do- discovery as well as achievement from AI and nuclear fusion to exploring further and farther into space, America is leading, but we all know China is not far behind. We all need to remain vigilant and committed, and U- Utah's happy to play an important part as we seek to advance the mission by investing in artificial intelligence, critical minerals, as well as energy development. So as I am the sponsor of the Genesis Act, I'm working to codify the great work the administration is doing to harness the power of new technology to supercharge innovation. Utah has a major role in fusion energy commercialization, since beryllium, a critical mineral mined in my district, is essential to that process. At his recent hearing I asked Energy Secretary Wright about fusion commercialization and he responded that quote " we're all in" on quote, on supporting fusion commercialization. The Genesis mission integrates AI into our R and D infrastructure and your Genesis mission EO specifically highlights the importance of fusion and quantum computing do you agree that AI will help accelerate fusion development, and that fusion will help power AI?

Yes, I couldn't agree more, and I think that's uh, we lay out of that in a lot of detail in the um, DOE's fusion science and technology road map that came out a few months ago and um and I think it's something that um we have prioritized specifically in the FY twenty-eight R and D priorities memo that I wrote with uh director Vogt that got got published yesterday.

Grateful for that work, excellent. And I recently introduced the Powering the Future of American Space Dominance Act which would codify NASA's space nuclear priorities and deployment timelines, recently established by NASA and OSTP. Meeting those timelines will require access to domestic nuclear material, particularly MREACM currently held within the DOE complex. How will OSTP work with NASA and DOE to ensure this material is available by twenty twenty eight to secure the supply chain and meet our national space objectives?

So we put out a a an a a national science technology memorandum kind of laying out the the space nuclear goals and I think um we as the White House uh have the opportunity to be able to to do the policy coordination and and bring both of those entities to the table together to make sure that it happens um It's a presidential priority, it was in the EO, and it's something that we're we're uh working towards achieving.

Thank you. My final question is uh the Genesis Mission executive order directs the incorporation of data sets from federally funded research beyond the national labs what progress has been made on that directive and what are the main obstacles to getting that data into the American science cloud platform?

Yeah, good good progress, today as I think I mentioned before in the hearing was a a big announcement where we've essentially taken Genesis a whole of government. Um, we had fifteen different agencies announce commitments to Jen's admission to the tune of of about five billion dollars worth of R and D spending but part of that was a commitment to do data set data set sharing with the with the instrument that's being built at at DOE um and I look forward to those agencies pursuing it and and anything that we can do from the White House level to help um to help with facilitation of the coordination between agencies we're gonna be all in.

Thank you, Director, for your time and we stand with you to help support those efforts. And, Mr. Chair, with that I yield back.

Thank you.

Representative Yields back. Uh, now I'd like to represent, uh, uh, recognize the gentleman from, uh, California, Mister Whitesides.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, at our last oversight hearing I showed a chart of NSF grants awarded down more than half from two years ago. A colleague, colleague of mine on the other side wanted to make sure we were also looking at disbursement. So today I bro- brought both charts. Here they are. You can also look behind you. It may be easier to see.

Yeah.

Uh, in the first chart we see that NSF has awarded fifty-five percent less grants at this point this year than at the same point in twenty, twenty-four. You can see that, the little line that says today. The red line way at the bottom is this year. And then the cluster of lines is, uh, under the previous administration, the yellow line is what happened last year. If you go to the next slide, this goes to disbursements. Uh, point in twenty twenty four, four point three billion dollars had been awarded, and this year at the same point in time, only three billion. That's one point three billion dollars less, a thirty percent cut, the lowest level in six years. And as my first chart showed, that smaller pot is going to half as many researchers. When awards concentrate into fewer, bigger grants, the researchers who lose out are the first, are the early career applicants in the smaller labs in our research community. Now, Mister Director, you said in your opening remarks that you thought we

Again, I would refer you to NSF. I I'm at OSTP, but I'm happy to look into that and and certainly come come back with an answer. I think

I think that's an unacceptable answer. You're the President's science advisor. Why is this happening? You know why this is happening. Explain to the American people why this is happening.

I think the most important thing to consider as, as we disperse grants is that we have to make sure that, um, the, the, the process by which we do these selections and ultimately lay them out are aligned with the, the present's budget and I think from all of our agencies, whether it's NSF or NIST or DOE, what we attempt to do is is run through a process where um we put out NOFOs, we get solicitations come in and and applications come in and and the assessments happen. Um and to me I think the pace and the speed at which we do that has to be responsible, and I do see these charts and and nothing would would make me happier to to to make sure that we are we are getting closer to where we were in previous years. So I'll do everything that I possibly can to to to help move that line, because I think it's important for us to get these appropriate dollars out to scientists.

OK, you are n-

going in the wrong direction, as you can see, between twenty-five and twenty-six. Um, so this is hurting American researchers. Now, earlier you testified that, um, NSF grant approvals have, uh, not been reviewed by political officials at OSTP, or officials. At least I think that's what you said. I wanna give you the chance to make sure that that's what you wanted to testify, because we've been directly informed that this is not true. Is it still your testimony today That no one at OSTP is playing any role in individual NSF grant approvals?

I am not personally involved in any individual grant approval.

That is a different answer to what I asked.

I'm not aware of anyone at NS at OSTP that is working on individual grant approvals.

You

I have never asked for that and I would never condone that, and I don't think any of us are.

OK, for the records of felony to testify falsely before Congress.

Uh, I'm well aware of that and I'm also well aware that no one at OSTP is involved in individual grant level decisions.

Is anyone at OSTP involved at some kind of grouping of - of grant decisions?

I'm not familiar with what a grouping of a grant decision is, but when an individual grant for - for a particular research project is made, we're certainly not involved in that.

OK. Sounds a little squishy to me. Um, I wanna just close with this comment. The administration says the dollars should not be the measure of success when it But it says exactly the opposite when it comes to our defense department. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I'm deeply familiar with the administration's one point five trillion dollar defense goal for the next fiscal year, roughly fifty percent more than last year. The administration has stated that that money is necessary to our national defense, while it proposes cuts to American s- science of roughly fifty percent. No one, I think, Democrat or Republican, would say that cutting the department of defense would enable the continuation of American leadership in national security. Yet that is exactly what the administration is proposing when it comes to science. It's as ridiculous in science as it would be for our defense department. Do you think, Mister Director, that it would be possible to maintain American leadership in national security while cutting the budget for the Department of Defense by fifty percent?

Well, with the budget proposal, um,

It's really yes or no.

the president proposing the largest R and D budget in the history of the country.

Yeah. So, I'm gonna take that as a no. Thanks, and I yield back.

Representative Yields-Back, I'd like to recognize the uh representative from Alaska, Mister Begich.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, Director, the Department of Energy's Climate Working Group was disbanded after lawsuits alleged it violated the Federal Advisory's Committee Act or FACA. Congress exempted the National Academies from FACA decades ago. In your view, should the federal government treat the National Academies study as a gold

I think it's something that we should certainly look into, and I applaud the committee for for asking those those important questions. I think whether it's uh the academies or anyone else that's involved in in the scientific um analyses for for that lead to policy decisions I think it's important that that they follow the same transparency that everyone else does.

I completely agree with you. Um, shifting gears, the the budget shifts resources away from legacy institutional funding models toward direct support for AI quantum and biotechnology research. Can you speak to how this restructuring strengthens America's position against Chinese Communist Party investment in these same technologies?

I think what's important as as administration is to be opinionated about what the most important priorities are for America and the American people. Um,

Mm.

taking no position and saying we should just fund everything, kind of peanut butter, is not, is not the way that you, uh, achieve and maintain leadership in the technologies that are most critical for our future. Um, and we've taken the position that there, there are some, like AI for science, like quantum, like fusion, like space, that, that we have to win on.

And as you mentioned, uh, in your previous testimony, the private sector is doing a tremendous amount of R and D, right? And they do a,

Mm-hmm.

It makes sense that we would be prioritizing areas where, uh, there may be less current incentive for R and D in the private sector. Is that true?

You're you're precisely correct. And I think a great example that, um, that we grapple with a lot is in in artificial intelligence. Right now, tens and tens of billions of dollars are being invested in, in AI R and D in the private sector. Um, the question is, for us administration and as a government, what are the areas of R and D and AI that remain underfunded, in areas where we can make an impact? And a great example of that is sort of metrology or measurement science at at NIST, that, you know, only we as a government are kind of best equipped to work on that, and that will pay dividends across uh across an industry that in itself is is spending hundreds of billions.

I think alignment with R and D spending is is important. There's, there are not unlimited dollars, uh, to be invested. Where we choose to invest, uh, needs to be in areas where really only, uh, uh, uh, an entity the size of the US federal government can provide a step function change in what we would expect from the private sector with respect to those, uh, those portions of scientific R and D. One final question. The Genesis mission now spans nine federal agencies and over five billion dollars in commitments. what mechanisms are in place to make sure that this becomes a genuine force multiplier for American science, uh, rather than another layer of federal bureaucracy?

Yeah, so under the, under the OSTP there's something called the National Science and uh and Technology Counselor, or NSTC. And there's a specific NSTC committee that, that works to coordinate genesis activities across, across the government. What we wanna be is a facilitator for the important conversations between DOE and all the counterpart agencies. uh, and do it in the most lightweight way that just allows, um, connections to, to the instrument that DOE is building, uh, while also not creating a lot of, a lot of bureaucracy. Um, and I think we're, we're gonna hit the mark there.

And, and just because I see I've still got some additional time here, um, one more question. Uh, how does, how does your team, uh, think about milestone-based research and, uh, and prize competitions as a way to drive, uh, outcomes?

Thank you for asking that. I think in in uh Science, a New Golden Age that that that I published yesterday, prize and challenges and milestone-based um uh endeavors are are very much highlighted as things we should be doing more of. Um being able to set ambitious goals and reward people for performance, I think is something that we should do more of, and that's what what prize and challenges can do. Um milestone-based scientific pursuits allow us to have a a much larger top of funnel, where more um

I love the way that you're rethinking uh R and D and the R and D investment of the American taxpayer I think it makes all kinds of sense and it will drive better outcomes uh for America moving forward and with that I yield back.

Representative yields back, I'd like to recognize uh the Representative Friedman from California. Five minutes.

Thank you, Chair Babin, and to Director uh Kratios for coming here today. Uh, Director, the administration's national policy framework for AI recognizes the need for federal protections against AI-generated deep fakes of Americans' voices and likely likelihoods. That's a very important step, but it's not everything when it comes to AI. As the representative of nearly every Hollywood film and television studio in Congress, I can tell you that AI is of critical concern to my constituents, absolutely critical, and I hear from creators every day, from photographers, actors, directors, writers, journalists, about how they are worried that AI won't just illegally replicate their voice in likelihood. It'll also eliminate the need for their jobs. It's musicians, it's singers, it's so many more Americans. And that's why I'm supporting legislation like the No Fakes Act. Director, as the person who oversees the development and execution of the nation's science and technology policy agenda, will you commit to working with me and with all sides of the aisle on this bill, and about the issue of AI replicating an individual's voice and likeliness without their permission?

I certainly commit to working with you on this particular topic. Um, the White House put out a a set of legislative priorities around AI. And one of them was precisely on this topic. Um, you know, we need to protect American, uh, creators and find and find the right legislative pathway to make that a reality. And and, uh, I would love to work with you and and and your colleagues on this topic.

That would be great, um, because this is something that we need to get ahead of. We can't wait until we see tens of thousands of American workers displaced out of the industry that that I am concerned about here, and also about losing our creative edge, right?

Mm-hmm.

Uh, So, d- how do you believe that federal AI policy should balance innovation with protecting artists and other workers whose livelihoods depend on their intellectual property and their identity?

I think again, back to what we were talking about, if we can, it was something we had in our legislative proposal that we wanna see sort of Congress take take action on. Um, to us, I mean, we wanna find a way for, um, our greatest creators, whether they're in in film and music or anything else, to, um, to be able to, um, you know, not not have their uh uh their their own, I guess, I IP being used in uh for for AI purposes without um without their consent. And I think it's something that um, you know, we can work through a a legal solution that works well and and it's gonna require cooperation between between Congress and and the administration.

Right. So it seems a little bit easier clear-cut if someone's using your image, right? Or someone's using your voice, although we have seen that happen still with a lack of of oversight. But what safeguards do you think is necessary for we can ensure AI complements rather than displaces other kinds of creators, like directors, like writers. How do we ensure that we just don't have machines now replacing all of those fields? How how can you think about that in terms of having the AI work for us and not just replace those who are creating?

Yeah, I I I I think what we have seen over uh as this as AI has has become more prevalent is that ultimately can serve as a tremendous tool to um empower and actually turbocharge creators in in what they're working on. And um, you know, I've talked to um uh people at at at studios that have talked about how how AI is is is helping them you know do their job do their job better and faster and easier and I think again it's sort of it it it's about striking that balance. And and I think we're still in early days where the actual use cases are still being tested out and seen.

Well, do you think that if AIs are training themselves using people's copyrighted materials, that, and then they're now able to make works, like that because of that training that those copyright owners should have some way of sharing in that value?

Um, I think there are there are there are multiple models that have been sort of proposed and analyzed, and I I don't think administration has taken taken a a a a a specific position on that. The the president in his um speech at the um launch of the AI action plan uh uh a year ago did talk about sort of publicly available uh materials um should be allowed for um, the the training of models, uh, to blend the training of models and and that's that's generally, um, the one area where where we do have an admin position.

Well, I do think that those people have a right then if they're using their materials to then uh reap the benefits that they should have a way of of being compensated for that, because otherwise the AAS would not be successful. Uh,

Yes.

so I thank you so much for the dialogue and I do look forward to working with you on this.

Thank you.

Representative Yields back. I'd like to, as uh representative of iso of california for five minutes.

thank you mr. chairman. director uh i'm gonna stay on ai for a moment uh but a little tangential part of it uh over the weekend uh new york governor kathy hoagle uh decided that she was going to prohibit and shut down new data centers um now in a spirit of of talking about ai it's easy to say, well, these are large, huge ones that serve the purpose of crunching for answering your Siri questions or your other, uh, AI questions. But isn't it true that large data centers are the backbone of the research that you look at that is being done around? And that in fact the internet was created to support research? And that if New York shuts that down, Are they either A, going to be the Luddites of the past and not do research and shut down their great institutions? Or are they simply going to poach from other states and expect them to provide that? How do you see that panning out?

Yeah, I, I mean the, the, the president said last week after that announcement that New York's ban on data centers was, was terrible. Um, and instead of, of banning them, states should be leveraging them to improve their their good resilience in lowering prices. And Um, you know, I think New York has a has a very vibrant uh research ecosystem, uh in in in a wide variety of cities across the state. And I think it's a it's a shame that um that the compute capacity that a lot of the scientists and technologists that want to do great science over the next few years will be limited in in access to to compute and chips.

Yeah. Perhaps it's a follow-up on their banning fracking so they don't have enough natural gas to get uh clean affordable centers. But staying in that uh that vein, uh, I was honored to be at the White House when I saw all of the major uh, you know, data center producers, the - the - the megas pledge to have a net uh production of electricity or greater. In other words, add to the grid, not take away from the grid. Isn't that essentially what the president was reminding us of when he said that data centers can add to - to uh grid re- resiliency?

Exactly. The president earlier in the campaign was um was talking about how important it was for um to win the AI race to have a lot of these AI companies become even energy producers themselves and ultimately if you um we changed the rules to allow for behind the meter energy to these data centers and and you know if it goes as planned, what you'll see is you could you'll have sort of excess capacity that can be put into the grid to ultimately lower lower prices.

Um, I just have one humorous uh question. Uh, putting your science hat on, uh, latency.

Mm-hmm.

If the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ are in New York and they decide they don't wanna have large computing and they're going to lower prices by shutting them all down, does that mean that, uh, in fact, the time delta increases and the gaming of, uh, of real stock events would actually increase?

Uh, you know, I I'd have to do a little more digging into into some of those latency numbers, But uh, but you know, you you you would hope that um for such um um systemically relevant institutions, they have the the compute capacity at the appropriate latencies.

Uh, s- so following up on one final close on it, and and not trying to be humorous, but

Mm-hmm.

isn't driving down latency one of the keys to all the modern advancements? And we'll just take for example the autonomous uh vehicle, the autonomous aircraft, enhanced ability to control things in the air. Every bit of that depends on the accuracy of - of space location, the speed with which you up- refresh. So anyone who wants to not promote the power necessary to enhance uh localized ability, aren't they inherently giving themselves less safety rather than more?

Yeah, I - I think latency is key. I mean, the most sort of basic sense you think about it even even sort of sort of cell phone speeds and the and the dramatic change in in what we can do with these technologies, once the latency went down. Um I do think from a a technological standpoint what's interesting to see is how much kind of edge computing is gonna be happening um in the future. I mean now a lot of the the AI workloads have to be sent back to a data center in order to get the result in and I think there's great work being done by a lot of our chip developers to see how it's possible to house some of these models locally. Um, so we'll see where the technology pans out, but at at the end for for at the end of the day, sort of larger, um, sort of c- c- compute questions are always gonna have to go back to to to data centers.

Well, I look forward to QualComm's Snapdragon having more and more AI in it as a San Diagon. I'm rooting for them to win six G and that localized AI and with that a yield back.

Gentlemen yields, I'd like to recognize uh the representative Menifee from Texas, five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Director, President Trump publicly said that companies wouldn't qualify for CHIPS funding unless they were run by transgender people. My staff has reviewed the law, we've reviewed the relevant contracts, and that requirement does not exist anywhere in the law or in those contracts. Did you advise President Trump that he was wrong before he said that publicly, yes or no?

Uh, I'm not familiar with that, unfortunately.

You're not familiar with the president publicly stating a requirement that before companies can qualify for CHIPS funding that they had to be run by trans people?

See, I'm I'm not familiar with the

I s- I see the shock in your face.

question, sir.

It's because it's absurd. And so I would advise you to address that with the president. Um, you've known for weeks that you were coming to testify before this committee, correct?

Uh, I do believe it was scheduled weeks ago. Yes, sir.

Last night at six PM, you released a one hundred page report entitled " Science, a New Golden Age". Um, our first time becoming familiar as a committee with this report was last night. Is there a reason that you chose to release this the night before you came to testify, before the body that authorizes and funds all the agencies that do the work with you all?

Um, no, I think that that report has been, uh, given a length, as you can imagine, that's been, uh, a labor of love for our office. for quite some time and in the moment that we were able to get full clearance and sign off, we were very excited to get it out.

Will you commit right now before Congress and before the public that you will come back after we've had time to review and digest this report and testify again before this committee?

I certainly look forward to answering any questions you may have on the report.

Will you commit right now to coming back after we've had time to review and digest this report to testify before Congress?

I come to testify all the time, so when I come again I will certainly answer any questions you have on the report.

Let's go back to the President's comments on a trans requirement that didn't exist. The President was spreading misinformation to the public about a fifty-two billion dollar program that Texas businesses and I'm from Texas are eligible for. And while the President was inventing those fake DEI requirements, administration officials were behind closed doors renegotiating chips agreements for companies that are connected to the administration. A lawsuit from Intel shareholders alleged that a Commerce Department official told Intel that that was not a negotiation, and Intel should consider the benefits of having a friend in the administration. That is extortion at best and corruption at worse. So my question to you is, are you familiar with the Department of Commerce holding a negotiation with a company to get a stake into that company, uh, while at the same time, extorting them and telling them that they should be aware of having a friend in the administration.

No, I'm not familiar with that.

Last June, you told CSIS that startups need to be able to innovate in AI without being scared of state laws. A study by the Houston Advanced Research Center found that Texas data centers will use thirty three hundred and ninety nine billion gallons of water by twenty thirty. Lake Travis in Texas just reached its full capacity for the first time in seven years. So that three hundred and ninety-nine billion gallons of water would be enough to fully deplete that lake. Um, meanwhile, Americans have paid nearly ten percent more for electricity in twenty twenty-five compared to twenty-twenty-four. So my question to you is when a data center near Harris County, which encompasses the Houston area, drains local water supplies and drives up electricity bills for my constituents, what state law are they supposed to use to protect themselves if your administration is preempting Those state laws.

Um, as I don't think our administration is preempting any state laws relating to water usage of data centers.

What state laws is the administration preempting related to data centers?

Well, we can't really preempt any of those. I think that's I think there was a big legislative push over last year and, and a lot of discussion around how to make sure that we can generally preempt some AI related state laws to provide um, clarity and an ease of access to a lot of AI

So we commit right here publicly to ensuring that we are uh doing the best we can to strengthen and uphold state laws that relate to data centers and water usage, and driving up electricity rates?

I I would certainly oppose any any rules that drove up electricity prices. Yeah.

And and water usage as well. You you are opposed to any type of federal preemption that relates to water usage.

I think I'm gonna stick with my domain, which is science and technology, and and I refer you to all of my colleagues who work on on sort of zoning related rules of of data centers folks at at EPA and

Yelmin's time's expired.

Yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back, I'd like to recognize uh Representative Herodopoulos from Florida.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, first of all, I wanna say it's been a great year for science.

Yeah.

I mean, what a year with with the incredible success with NASA, record funding for NASA, over twenty-four billion dollars in last year's budget, an additional ten billion dollars. Of course, the Artemis ten y- ten day mission around the moon for the first time since nineteen seventy-two and better things to come a hundred and ninety-two launches uh last year. Uh, it's been a banner year for science and We have a five hundred billion dollar investment uh in AI, another ninety-two billion dollar investment in

I think it's

uh in in Pennsylvania. And and it's, I think it's been a banner year, and I appreciate all the work you're doing. We're, it's really gold science, the h- the highest standard, and I could not be more excited about it. And I'm I'm I'm an, I'm almost amused by the historical amnesia that exists sometimes when I when I come to committee. Uh, I, on January fourteenth, twenty twenty five, six days before President Trump took office, the Biden administration pushed the idea that we should have the development of data centers. Suddenly, we don't want more energy in America to make sure we win the AI race, let alone the space race. And so this, uh, historical amnesia is always interesting to hear in in committee. And it's much like their historical amnesia on affordability, when you have a nine percent inflation rate and it's come down dramatically. Uh, we had we saw interest rates go from less than three percent to eight percent, and suddenly, uh, they point the finger at a a new administration. And so, uh, uh, it's it's disappointing to see some of those comments. Also I heard today, which was interesting, was this idea about, um, how the EPA or or some of the science funding has been put out there. In the previous administration, the greenhouse reduction fund was a twenty-seven billion dollar program. Twenty-seven billion dollars. That's a lot of money. And they, and they banked, or put in the banks, twenty billion to, to make sure that some of their political friends got. And that's been well documented now. And so, I wish we'd focus on science like you all are doing right now at the White House, and make sure that the, this oversight that is so necessary, uh, is there. And, and, and look, I wanna win the, the AI race, and, and reality is you need to do it with data centers. And I love the investment we're making. For example, Pennsylvania, they're maximizing that natural gas that's found. in Pennsylvania to maximize it. And so, and we're bringing on this, this new technology to make sure we have the energy necessary to win the AI race. And so, uh, I would just, uh, ask you if, this, if you don't mind. Uh, getting into the, these gold standards, uh, science that you talk about, you, there's nine tenets that you have. Can you walk us through, um, what, why, why we need to return to this gold standard as opposed to the political games, sometimes people play in committee?

Yeah, I think this is a an obligation I think we have um as stewards of taxpayer dollars to ensure that the money that is going out to science is done so in a way that respects the scientific method and scientific progress. Um, there is no scientist in the ecosystem that doesn't believe that their own scientific project should hold up to the standards of gold standard science, laid out in that executive order. Um, and to me I found I I found you know, the the response to it from uh from the left actually quite quite amusing. To me I thought this would be a giveaway that was a very bipartisan uh thing that that everyone could agree with um and to me I think it's very it's very telling that um the opposition is there because I think I think they don't actually believe in gold standard science I think they only they they wanna find pathways to to fund projects which don't meet that standard so I think we're very excited to to to push this initiative forward and make sure that all of the dollars that go out to to support our scientists around the country, uh, meet that very behind bar.

Yeah, and just to build on what you'd mentioned, I mean, uh, for years is when I grew up, the left always believed in the idea of electric cars. Last week I was in Georgetown there protesting in front of Tesla. I, I just don't understand that disconnect sometimes. But, but that said, I, I wanna bring up the one, one issue that, that really, uh, caused us a lot of concerns. How did a six month old non-profit link to Stacey Abrams called Power I'm sorry, Power Forward Communities, with just a hundred dollars in revenue, founded in late twenty twenty three, land a two billion dollar EPA grant under the previous administration. Is this typical? Where you invest two billion dollars in a company has a hundred dollars in revenue? Is this typical?

It's very disappointing to see it. Uh, I guess it's not surprising, but it's very sad as as someone that works on these types of projects to to see that someone would do something like that.

Well, I appreciate it. And again, I I like the idea that I actually like the Doge idea because it's how we found so much wasteful spending. It's why we put the the microscope in some of the fraud that we've seen in states like Minnesota and California. And we make sure that the the the dollars are being spent. I mean, uh, when I talked about that five hundred billion dollars, that's not federal dollars, it's not taxpayer dollars. Or that ninety-two billion dollars, these are private sector investments that benefit everyone.

Mm.

So we have the electrical grid uh, and the grid resilience necessary to win the AI race. And that's why I'm excited about the chairman's leadership here. We're focusing on science, not politics. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Yeah, but his time's expired. Thank you very much, and I'd like to recognize uh Representative Foster from Illinois.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses. Um, let's uh maybe I'll start talking about maybe the most important issue you're dealing with which is recursive self-improvement. You know, the, sort of the balance of opinions seems to be that some time between maybe the end of this year and a few years from now you're gonna have AIs that will be able to make improved versions of themselves that are you know fifteen percent smarter, fifteen percent faster, every single night. At which point, um, you're gonna just see this thing take off faster than exponentially. And so how big a team do you have, uh, planning, what, first off, what is your, for your internal planning? What is the date, the range of dates you're assuming for recursive self-improvement? What is your plan to deal with this?

Um, I think that is uh one of the many topics that we think about as we plan for um the types of policy or or the types of um systems we have in place to ingest pre-deployment models, and do reviews of them. Um, currently as stated in the executive order um two agencies have a role in that, Casey and

Well, how how big a team?

NSF.

I mean, what I'm concerned about is that, you know, you it's a very small group of people that seems to be steering the boat these days, a small and frankly shrinking uh set of people that that you're and and the administration is is looking to. And the problem is enormous. You know, in the case of the scientific advisory committees, you know, in the Office of Science, they've just thrown out all of the detailed advisory committees with the real experts and have this one uber committee on which maybe you'll have one on all infusion and this sort of stuff, you're going in the opposite direction of actually trying to use the accumulated wisdom of the scientific community. But you know, just back to AI, um, you know, I I was very concerned. Uh, do uh we read the information? The document, the information? It's a it's a um, sort of it's a silicon valley trade rag?

Oh, the information, I'm familiar with this.

Yeah, yeah, okay. D and so I'd be a problem on there.

Yep.

So this last actually, if I could introduce for the record, Um, there was last weekend, um, uh, they put out an article called, uh, Trump's AI agenda collides with reality, how staff turnover, turf battles and clashing views have upended the administration's anti-regulation, uh, vision. And I urge my members, the other members to, um, actually take a time and and understand this. Um, are you familiar with that particular article?

I'm not, no, sir.

You're not, OK. Well, if you, if you have any reactions to it, I assume it's, it's good reporting. But it had some concerning things. You know, it it said, for example, that um when you had to react to mythos, which is the the very capable AI that was uh capable of really scary cyber exploits, and and finding bugs in codes that ev- everyone thought was safe, uh that the lead inside the White House on responding to that was someone whose main credential was that they were the lawyer for the RNC. Is that actually correct? That that that was, you know, that was how it was organized?

Uh, I think we worked as a team to, uh, ensure that we, uh, took the appropriate actions after Arthur Methos was disclosed to to the US government.

OK, but it was the well, I'd I urge everyone to read that, and if you find things that are not correct, please let us know, because it was it was very concerning. You know, I've I also look at, um, things like, um, uh, you know, you've you've attempted you know, initially when the administration came in, they were not nice to NIST, which is, you know, one of the few agencies, one of the only agencies, I guess, NIST and the Federal Reserve that actually retains any international credibility in this in this administration. And that they were, you know, massive doge cuts to it and that were not useful. And in particular, the the center for, um, AI. We used to be, um, safety, now it's security. And, you know, that was um you know basically renamed and and gutted and lot of lot of the people left. And that's there isn't a more important um agency or subsection of an agency. Um and then you um you assigned a new leader for that which is good, and then within you know three months he quit. And this you know and this uh appears to be the pattern over and over again, that you you bring into the administration uh someone with plausible credentials to do something and then they either quit or or or leave. And and and this is a problem. You know, when I when I look at other members of Congress, you know, we're all very friendly with each other, but you get a very interesting measurement of their of their uh quality when you look at staff turnover. That's something I look at very carefully, and it's concerning when I see the amount of staff turnover in your AI enterprise in the, in the White House. Because, as I said, there is not a more important issue uh to deal with. So um I urge you to just you know do the best you can to recruit a broad spectrum of people, not a not put them through an ideological litmus test cuz you throw away a lot of good talent and you already have. So uh thank you and you're back.

Gentlemen's time's expired. Thank you. I'll recognize uh Representative Van Ips, Tennessee.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank thank you, Director Cratsios, for being here today. In March twenty twenty five, President Trump charted out a clear vision for scientific progress in technological innovation, to position America to maintain leadership in emerging technologies like AI, quantum, and nuclear, to revitalize American scientific research, and ensure that the growth of science and technology stimulate i- economic growth. Director Kratzios and OSTP have delivered by supporting these goals. The national AI legislative framework provide a clear direction on how Congress should act to spur a on AI innovation that serves Americans. In an executive order signed by the President last month to accelerate U. S. innovation in quantum technologies to strengthen our national security. One year after executive orders on nuclear energy, we are seeing real, real-world results. The President's bold goal of three advanced test reactors achieving criticality before the fourth of July was not only met but exceeded, by four reactors achieving criticality. Just yesterday, Director Cratsios published a report establishing a blueprint for renewing American scientific leadership for the twenty-first century. After the Biden administration floundered to position America for technology leadership and energy dominance, we are seeing tangible results from the Trump administration with OSTP providing critical support. We must maintain the lead across the board when it comes to A I. Microsoft's A I for good lab found that deep-seeks free open-source models have driven A I adoption across the developing world. Recently, the Chinese company Moonshot released a new a new open weight model that performs competitively with American frontier models. US companies are turning toward open source and open weight models as they are cheaper, customizable, and have and have less guardrails. Uh, just earlier this morning, director, your team posted, uh, that Moonshot AI conducted large scale covert distillation to develop their newest K three model. And so a few questions here. How do we balance an open innovation ecosystem while protecting American technology from IP threat? And how is OSTP responding to the threat to American AI leadership posed by Chinese open-source and open-weight models?

I think there's, for starters, an important distinction to be made between, um, open-source models and, um, large-scale, uh, industrial covert distillation of American models. Um, and I think, uh, what was, uh, uh made public today was uh exactly that, the convert industrial um distillation of of of American technology. Um the administration deeply believes that um the future of American leadership in AI is contingent upon having a a vibrant open and close source um set of models for Americans and the world to use um I think on the first or second page of the AI action plan the president released last year we emphasized very strongly that um the US must lead in in open source. Um, so for us we're doing everything we can to to kind of push the open source community ahead in the US and um and provide lots of alternatives for all of our entrepreneurs.

Great. Thanks, Director. Modern research and AI model training runs on data, such as biological databases and materials data. American leadership in these fields depends on the quality and accessibility of that underlying data infrastructure. That's why I introduced the Web of Biological Data Act of twenty twenty six, which would establish a single point of entry for researchers to access high quality biological data for use in research and development. Director, what what role does access to high quality data play in America's science and AI ecosystem and how would a single point of entry for standardized data sets impact the pace of innovation?

Oh, the, the access to data is, is critically important and I think one of, um, one of the reasons why the Genesis mission was launched to begin with was an understanding that there was a great deal of scientific data available at the national labs, that if we could leverage that for AI, it could pay huge, huge dividends. So, um, I'd love to learn more about about your bill and and kind of see if, um, how we can, how we can get something, um, in, in that neighborhood of work, work through because I think, I think none of this stuff works unless you have, unless you have the data underlying it, uh, to train the models.

Great. Thank thanks, director, thanks for your leadership, and Mr. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Representative yields back. I'd like to recognize uh representative Riley from uh New York for five minutes.

Thank you, chairman, and uh thanks, director, for for being here. I think I saw did I see an interview that you did a year ago that you're a new dad or a relatively new dad is that right or am I uh you're exactly right my uh my son Odysseus turned one on July third thank you um mine are six and three are you

I I'm trying my best. I gotta get my rest for for today.

Yeah. They say sleep when the baby's sleeping. My my three year old for the last year, uh, every single night gets in bed with my wife and me, so, uh, sleep when sleep when the baby's sleeping. Um, I raise, I I raise that, cuz, um, I'm I represent a very rural district in upstate New York, and one of the best things about living in the Finger Lakes is you're always out in, uh, nature. We go hiking through the the waterfalls and the gorges that are there. Uh, just last weekend, and I took the kiddos out to do blueberry picking, the weekend before that it was marigold uh picking in Truman's Burg uh or and um and the kids are learning to swim uh at Saigonic Park um so those of us who are raising our families in in Tompkins County we really care a lot about the environment and about protecting it um but what we have happening in our community there's this big corporation called TerraWolf, uh you might be familiar with them, big tech corporation uh they used to do bitcoin mining uh now they're trying to build a data center on the lake. And, uh, it's a four hundred megawatt AI data center where my neighbors and I are are raising our families. And, uh, they're threatening to clear dozens of acres of, uh, forest land on the hillside, blast into the bedrock, run prou- power transmission lines through the wetlands, uh, threatening to increase the soil erosion, which is a big deal, uh, for our - for our farmland. Um, they've said that they're not gonna use any uh water from the lake turns out they're probably gonna need hundreds of thousands of gallons a day. And so uh over tens of thousands of folks in Tompkins County have uh come together to oppose this project at least until appropriate protections are in place. And I'm I support them in that effort. I just wanna submit for the record uh a petition that's been signed by over twenty-two thousand people I'm signing on to this petition as well um to stop that project.

Uh projection.

Um The other concern, and this is what I wanted to raise with you, is that these data centers are gonna have a huge impact on the NYSEG bills, the utility bills, uh, which are already unaffordable. Um, what's happening is, NYSEG, our utility monopoly, they keep coming back and asking for rate hikes. They say they need it to improve the grid. Uh, but what they're actually doing is sending that money to their corporate overlords in Spain. And I spent a lot of last week on the phone with constituents whose power was out because the wind blew. And the last thing we need are these big tech corporations coming in, building these data centers, uh, either overwhelming the grid even more or sticking my neighbors, uh, with the bills. Um, do you agree that's a valid concern?

Yeah, I think the administration's been very clear that, um, the last thing we would ever wanna see is for new data center construction to increase the um electricity costs for Americans. Um, the whole idea behind the rape pair protection pledge was to really force these companies to make a very public commitment to the nation, to the world and the communities that they're, that they're claiming they wanna support,

Yeah.

that they would be raising concerns about.

And so I Yeah, and so I I came here uh to find common ground across the aisle, get stuff done. Um, I think we both share this concern. I always, you know, try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. Um, the issue I have with the the uh protection pledge and the EO is that, first of all, I think fewer than a dozen corporations have signed on to it. And second, um, it doesn't have teeth to it, at least as I understand it. And I am not willing to accept a pinky swear from these big corporations that they're gonna do the right thing. I think we need enforceable rules, real accountability, uh, on this, uh, so that my neighbors who are already really struggling with these utility bills, uh, don't have to pick up the tab for these massively profitable, uh, corporations. So building in some ways on the framework that you and the administration have done with the that rate payer protection pledge. Uh, I introduced a bipartisan bill across the aisle. It's called the Fair Data Act. And what it says is any costs associated with these data center projects have to be paid entirely by these big cor- uh, big tech corporations that are driving the costs, and not by upstate New Yorkers and small businesses. Um, is this something you think we could work on together on a bipartisan basis? I can send it to you. Give me your thoughts and we can try to get this done.

I think we would be very supportive of enshrining into law the rape payer protection pledge. So to the extent we can work together on that, I wou- I would love to. I think this is important and Americans deserve it.

Terrific. I will follow up, uh, with you on that and, um, congratulations again on, on being a new dad.

Thank you.

And I'll yield back, Mr. Jim.

Gentleman yields back. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Representative Bayer from Indiana. Five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member and uh Director Cratchit, we appreciate you being here as well. My question deals with biotechnology. Uh, you know in twenty twenty five in the action plan, the National Security Commission on emerging biotechnology warned us that China is deeply embedded in our biotechnology supply chains and to that point where we are dangerously reliant on Chinese-based suppliers for chemicals for medicines and pharmaceuticals. So that's why I introduced the bill HR seventy nine thirty six, the bio-industrial scale-up for supply chains and energy resiliency act of twenty twenty six which would direct the development of a network of department of energy facilities that innovators can use to prove that their bio uh industrial ideas and research uh can be commercialized and can be can be scaled up. So I guess I'm not asking for support for the bill, I'm really just trying to lay the groundwork so that I'd like to have your opinion and what you're thinking about incentivizing onshore chemical and bio-industrial manufacturing here in the US and then what federal tools do you see that are most effective in reshoring some of this capacity?

No, I I think this is um it v- very important. I I served in the in the first Trump administration as well and um was part of of a lot of the efforts relating to the, to the COVID-nineteen um, response. And I think one of the first things or the biggest things that we as a country learned was that um our supply chains for a lot of the, the, the, the critical um materials and, and products that, that Americans need were just not as resilient as, as we thought they were. So um to, to the extent that um I can be helpful uh in, in, in the, in the things that you're focused on there um I'll do everything I can in my office to, to, to help make that, make that better.

I was interested to find out here a year or so ago about China having control of eighty to nine or ninety percent of the uh API, the active pharmaceutical ingredients, which is basis for our medicine,

Yes.

so I I am glad to hear and you know then when you conduct basic research uh and talk about the expense of trying to scale some some idea up, it's uh it's expensive and so having access to to making sure that process works and to scale it up uh is important. So I'm glad to hear your answer there. One other area that I'm interested in um uh you know when people think about and we had a lot of conversation here about artificial intelligence, but they don't often think about agriculture, but one of the most informative and transformative applications is happening right out on the farm. And the AI-powered precision agriculture is helping farmers apply fertilizer, pesticides and water more efficiently while increasing yields at the same time. So as we compete with countries like China, how should the federal government prioritize AI research and development in agriculture to ensure American farmers remain the most productive and competitive in the world?

No, it's such a great example and uh and and we believe it is it is a priority. I think um today there was actually announcement of a of a two million dollar commitment from from USDA on Genesis' sort of AI for science related initiatives. um from from ag so to us i think that's kinda is very important i think if you if you think about kinda how a lot of these priorities manifest themselves we wanna make sure that individual regions of the country that had expertise in particular industries are the ones that are pursuing these scientific endeavors um so that applies to agriculture it applies to shipping it applies to oil and gas whatever it may be um and and for us it's sort of applying this this ai for scientific discovery to particular particular industrial areas.

You know, you make a comment there I think is very good because I'm on the Ag Committee as well, but the science in the science committee is also applicable to agriculture and vice versa.

Mm-hmm.

Some of the things we learn in agriculture are

Mm-hmm.

very relevant to uh what we're doing in science. So uh with that uh I appreciate your answers very much and I yield back.

Gentlemen yields, uh I'd like to recognize uh Representative McClain Delaney from the great state of Maryland.

Uh, thank you to our chair and ranking member. And, um, I really think this is a very important hearing, and so thank you, Director, uh, Kratios, for joining us today. Um, I represent Maryland's sixth congressional district, and we are home to many research agencies like NIST, NIH, National Cancer Institute, Fort Detrick, um, but across Maryland, including, um, NASA Goddard, NOAA's headquarters, and USDA's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. And kudos to my colleague here who is uplifting ag research.

Mm-hmm.

which has unsadly been gutted there. Um, this committee has traditionally been a forum for bipartisanship. Just yesterday we um favorably reported out four bills, including my scale biology act about bio uh bio uh metrology, and it would uh I really think it's been amazing that we on this committee, on a historical basis, have worked together on difficult issues to advance US innovation, um competitiveness and leadership on the global stage. However, I was very disappointed that your report was released less than twenty-four hours ahead of this hearing, because I think that threatens our bipartisan progress that we make here. Our agencies, civil servants, researchers and companies cannot thrive in an environment where it's ever-changing and the rules and administration policies are unclear. We need a steady hand at the wheel. American scientific leadership has been built on the backs of our university researchers and our expert research agencies. And our ecosystem of federally supported fundamental research has resulted in groundbreaking technologies, products and a lot of companies along our I-two-seventy corridor. Federally supported research has driven economic development and improved the lives of people globally. You know this, that's why you're here. Your report calls on agencies to refocus on the individual scientist, putting the working researcher at the back and center of American scientific enterprise. However, when coupled with the administration's massive proposed cuts to our research agencies and OMB's proposed changes to the uniform guidance, your report represents a massive threat to the ecosystem that has built our modern age. And this administration calls for a golden age of science, but it's been gutting the programs, regulations, and institutions that have been the biggest advances in science and technology. We must ensure that grants are are awarded in a nonpartisan expert peer review without any influence from political appointees or third parties seeking to influence the process for gain. Individual researchers cannot carry the burden of facilities and equipment costs, and the federal government doesn't carry all those expenses. Universities, and I know this, cuz I've served on several boards, step in to fill gaps with shared resources that support multiple projects simultaneously. We cannot operate in silos and innovate in silos. And our universities are brain trusts where researchers cross-collaborate, discuss challenges, and make new decisions together. And often they need it with private philanthropy. So, director, I am really curious. How will deprioritizing funding for our research institutions, agencies, and universities unlock a golden age? Because this is a little chaotic. And when it comes to funding, to the oversight of the NSF, is OSTP reviewing and editing novos for programs that support individual researchers and projects? And if so, what is the criteria?

I think on your, your main question about how, how we think about revitalizing the, the science and technology ecosystem, I think, I think the one thing that, you know, hasn't really been mentioned enough, um, that I think bears, you know, bears mention is that You know, our ability to make transformational breakthroughs, um, here in the United States has slowed over the years. Um, the - the - the breakthrough rates that our scientific enterprise is accomplishing um are slower than they've ever been. I think they're very obvious examples. We're flying slower than we were before.

Depends on the sector. It depends on some of the sectors, I think.

It - it - it does, I agree. But I think, you know, even in areas where we've - we've spent a tremendous amount of money, particularly in sort of the life sciences, the amount of money that it takes now to produce a new drug that can impact an American versus how it was twenty or thirty years ago, um, is dramatically higher. So we need far more inputs in order to get the same outputs. These are all signs that, um, maybe we should be trying other things. Maybe we should be testing other ways to make breakthroughs in what we've been doing for so many years. And that is what New Golden Age tries to discuss. And I think if you're

But very rapidly, in a way in which it's very difficult to do. um, and gutting in a very rapid way as opposed to a transitional way.

I think what, what we're trying to do here is start laying the groundwork for new methods of doing science and figuring out which ones can produce the greatest output for the American scientific community and to me I'm excited about to test some of these ideas, see what works, see what doesn't. But broadly speaking, just doing the status quo the same and having arguments over how much money you put into a system that's just doing the same thing, I don't think it's how we're gonna achieve the breakthroughs that we would like.

So, I have several more questions, I'll submit them for the record, but I still would like to know about the OSTP's role

You had a long time to talk.

in the no votes. I yield back.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Uh, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleischman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Director Kratzios, thank you for your service in Trump forty five and of course your great role right now. Um, I was not here earlier, so I didn't get to hear all of your comments. My day job is I'm chairman of the Intergen Water Subcommittee of Appropriations. Uh, that obviously is my heart. We've been on a full appropriations committee this morning. Uh, we fund the Office of Science. And, and let me just say this, to you, to the administration, to Secretary Wright, Dan Lee and his whole team, thank you for your commitment to science. It has been really inspirational. Uh, I see America leading again. in so many different ways. So I wanna start with what sounds like a softball question, but uh I wanna get your thoughts about our great Office of Science under the Department of Energy, what we're doing, how we're doing it, and how critically important those funds, as we as appropriators or as authorizers, vote on these measures.

I I think the Office of Science is one of the most important um uh hubs for scientific innovation in the federal government that exists. Uh, to me what what makes me so excited about the Department of Energy right now is, from the secretary to the deputy to Under Secretary Gill, you have a team that is committed in a way that I don't think has existed at DOE in decades, in pushing the envelope in the way that that office can be used to drive scientific discovery. And Janus's mission is front and center in that. And the president laid out a bold vision in creating a whole of government effort to accelerate scientific discovery using AI when he signed the Genesis mission executive order. And I think we have a tremendous opportunity to fund the Genesis mission in the next budget cycle and to start actually growing that program into what it deserves.

Um, I totally agree with you and, and I thank you again for your commitment. Uh, to go a little further. Uh, our national labs, in my view, are national treasure. There are seventeen. I have a strong bias in favor of the Oak Ridge National Lab. Uh, it is truly phenomenal, everything a national lab does, ORNL does, and they partner with the others. So, but they're all excellent. Having said that, could you talk a little bit about how important that is, or they are as an institution, in terms of our competitiveness, especially globally?

Oh, it, it's huge. I mean, just a few months ago I was at, um, Idaho National Lab to see the work that they were doing on, on SMRs. And, um, There's a reason why we dominate the world and lead in some of these domains, because we have the facilities, the intellectual capital and the institutions that can partner with industry and entrepreneurs to make these breakthroughs happen at a pace which no one could even imagine. Um, you know, every country in the world that attempts to even come close to what we're doing in our science enterprise uses the labs as a model. The first thing they do is try to build a national lab and they model it after one of ours. Um, and I think it's so special from the, the nuclear work that's being done at Idaho to all of the supercomputing at places like Oak Ridge and Livermore, um, it's truly, truly special.

Thank you. And I will close by saying this, as I've always believed in being very honest and transparent. I'm a big fan of the presidents and have been. Uh, but please convey this back. The executive orders that President Trump has signed, in my view, and I'd like your thoughts, have really given us a great structure, whether it's with the, nuclear regulatory commission in scientific endeavors in nuclear, it's given us a framework from which to work so that the administration can work, hand in hand with Congress and the American people. Your thoughts.

You're you're totally right. I thi- I think what, um, we grapple with with an office, and to be honest, I think that's why this office was even created or put in statute, was because a lot of the science and technology priorities or policy actions are multi-agency by definition. if you wanna create a new American civil nuclear renaissance, it's just not one agency that needs to work on it. You have to get NRC doing the right thing. You have to get, you know, Department of Energy doing the right thing. You have to get EPA aligned with their uh permits and whatnot. So I think what these executive boards are able to do is to essentially corral multiple agencies to work together to drive an important national mission. And I think we're executing quite impressively.

Thank you. I appreciate everything you're doing, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. I'd like to recognize uh, Mr. Gallagher five minutes from California.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, maybe following up on uh Congressman Baird's questioning on and it was regard to agriculture, I represent a, you know, very large agricultural district and and uh, you know, the the technology that we now have uh and that is being brought to bear uh with AI um we think is very promising. Uh, and as I understand it, you know, NSF is partnering with the USDA, I think you mentioned that, um, to set up AI coordination hubs in every state, uh, reaching farmers and ranchers through the land grant and the cooperative extension uh system. So, couple questions there, uh, you know, one is, you know, what's the role in the federal research, uh, in making these tools even more accurate, you know, so that we can, you know, irrigate better, we can make sure that we're not wasting water for,

Mm-hmm.

for instance? Um. And then, um, how can we get these tools, you know, better into the hands of of farmers and ranchers?

Yeah. I think I think one, setting up those those that R and D road map for um for some of these these AI applications uh by by the AI communities is a is is a big priority for USDA, and we look forward to working with them with them on that. I do think some of these some of these programs that you mentioned where NSF is is able to establish these relationships in every state, those are the types of places where you can actually, you know, connect with those with um with those farmers and get and get those tools out out into the field.

So, yeah, just working directly with the with the UC cooperatives and and others, is that is that kind of the best way to do it right now?

Yeah, I I I think so. I think you have to try to find and you probably know the community far better than I do. You have to find places on the ground where the community you're trying to target already is is going to and and try to integrate some of these some of these technologies into there.

Okay. Uh, and then on the issue of wildfire, um, Uh, NIST, NIST, uh, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire Research Division conducted the definitive investigation of the twenty eighteen Camp Fire, which occurred in my district in in Butte County, California.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, this is the fire that destroyed the the town of Paradise, uh, and killed eighty-five people. Uh, NIST then turned it into their escape guidance, uh, that emergency managers and first responders now use for evacuation planning.

Hmm.

Uh, NSF funds uh wildfire work on the other end of the problem, predicting where a fire will spread from camera, weather, and terrain data. Uh, so my question to you is how how is the administration supporting technological improvements in detection and fire spread prediction uh modeling or uh real-time monitoring that would buy communities like mine more time you know in the event of a catastrophic wildfire?

Yeah, I mean, I think, I remember we started working on this problem in the in the first Trump administration of trying to think about the ways that AI could be used for better fire prediction, one determining where it's most likely a fire could potentially happen, and I think the second is as quickly and as real time as possible be able to predict using weather data and other data where a fire will go once it's started, um to be able to make sure that that firefighters and the relevant folks are dispatched to the right areas. Um this has kind of been a we actually hosted kind of a a a whole of government meeting at the White House to discuss this and it showed Kind of back to an answer I gave you the previous question of of how multi-agency it is. You know, there's a ton of data that the Department of Interior has to kind of help with this stuff. There's research funds that come out of NSF and other relevant agencies, and and I think we're gonna continue to to work on it. And any thoughts that you have or places that we could be doing better, I would love your advice, because I do think this is a this is an area where I think with with the appropriate um emphasis and and use of AI we can we can make a big impact.

Yeah, I definitely would uh like to work with you and I've and get your your contact information after this and uh and and we'll definitely stay in touch. Absolutely. I think on both of these areas where in agriculture and in wildfire are areas where you know, using the latest technology and the promise of AI and other technologies, um, you know, can be really helpful, uh, to rural communities like mine, um, you know, that, you know, want to trying to, you know, maximize, uh, in a time of high cost, um, you know, uh, and and use that real-time data to lower their overall costs, right,

Mm.

uh, input costs, and then also on the wildfire front to really, uh, get on top of that and be in front of that issue. Biggest thing we need to do right now is reduce fuel loads, uh, in our forested lands, and that's another area that that we're working on, but certainly would love to work with the um administration on utilizing uh this technology. And then maybe I will just, you know, add to, uh, uh, you know, some of the previous question, I think, diversify in our energy portfolio. And nuclear I think is one of those, uh, you know, geothermal I think is another one, uh, that will lead to more affordable energy. And another, you know, big problem that you I think you've heard a lot today is communities are having their their electricity prices go up and up and up. And again, that's where technology and new, uh, you know, new energy sources I think can play a big role in lowering those costs uh for our constituents. Thank you.

Thank you.

The gentleman's time's expired. And uh I think this is going to conclude uh our hearing and I wanna thank you, Director Kratzels, for being here today and your valuable testimony. I wish you a very, very good fortune and good luck with your one year old. Uh I have seventeen grand kids, we raised five of our own, and so I can appreciate uh what you and uh some of the other folks here with the young children have. I wanna thank the witness for your valuable testimony. The record will remain open.

Thank you, sir.

We are adjourned.