House Science, Space, and Technology (Begich): Unleashing the Golden Age of Science

Yes, I did. Thank you.

Order on Science, Space, and Technology. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. I would like to now recognize myself for 5 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 2027 Research and Technology Enterprise. And Director Kratsios, 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 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— 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 the science 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. Be 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 2026 Index, private investment in American AI companies reached nearly $286 billion last year, more than 23 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.

China— 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 14409 hardens our systems against AI-enabled cyberattacks by partnering with American industry rather than regulating it into the ground.

Turn this page. National Security Presidential Memorandum 11 is helping ensure that our warfighters have access to reliable and trustworthy AI capabilities. And while the Genesis mission is leveraging our national laboratories and 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 10 bipartisan AI bills, including my AI-Ready Federal Data Guidelines Act, which implements a recommendation in the AI Action Plan to make scientific data AI-ready.

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 Kratsios, we look very much forward to hearing about how this budget advances the administration's priorities, strengthens OSTP, NSF, and NIST, and implements these gold standard science qualities and protects the federal research enterprise and ensures that the United States remains the world's 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 member's opening statement, the gentlewoman from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Kratzios.

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 U.S. 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 U.S. research enterprise. As reported earlier this month by the Association of American Universities, major research universities across the nation accepted 15% fewer applicants to PhD programs for fall 2026 compared to fall 2025. This is on top of decreases recorded in fall 2025 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 U.S. leadership in science and technology, so none of us should be celebrating their 17% reduction in PhD admissions at U.S. universities. However, even more shocking, given administration rhetoric, is the fact that PhD admissions for U.S. students also dropped by 13%. So much for America First. We are harming the seed corn for the future of U.S. 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. Mr. Kratzios, you are the face of the administration's science and technology agenda. You appear to have a direct role in some of these events, 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 the administration is— acts like a bunch of communists, actually. Communism means that the government owns the means of production. The administration is bullying American companies into handing over equity stakes in exchange for federal funding so that the federal government owns the means of production. It's unprecedented. There's zero transparency to the public or even to Congress on how— 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 18 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 discovery science across all fields of science and engineering. The president requested a $3 billion cut to NSF for both FY '25 and '26. Congress said heck no and funded the agency close to FY '24 levels. Yet the money's not getting out the door.

There are now multiple credible reports of the administration so-called taxing up to 30% 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— uh, contravention of the funding law that Congress passed in January and would be illegal. Now, Mr. Kretzias, you have a background in venture capital, and I come from Silicon Valley myself. I have a deep appreciation for the ways in which VC 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, and 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 and by the administration and under OSTP, specifically under your watch. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

If I can find my place.

All right. Now let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Michael Kratsios, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And in addition to his current position, Mr. Kratsios served as the Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and received the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal. The highest civilian award conferred by the Department of Defense.

Congratulations. And with that, I now recognize Mr. Kratzschels for 5 minutes to present his testimony. Thank you, Chairman Babin and 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 250th year of American innovation, we have been given the perfect opportunity to renew the material foundations of America's independence Science, security, and prosperity. Our economic leadership and technological dominance cannot be taken for granted in a rapidly changing world where 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. 81 Years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt's science advisor, Vannevar Bush, published a report entitled Science: 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 20th 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 to President Trump published just yesterday entitled Science: A New Golden Age, I articulate the obstacles American researchers face today and the ways our scientific enterprise has fundamentally, fundamentally transformed since 1945. The report and a 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 ecosystem— 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, —when 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, and new mechanisms that allow reviewers to champion radically unconventional proposals. Third, the federal government should set clear scientific goals and build 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 AI 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 are initiatives from NSF, DOW, HHS, NASA, USDA, NIST, DHS, and DOT, mobilizing more than $5 billion in total commitments to producing the premier AI for science ecosystem in the world. More than a whole-of-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 21st 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 Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. Director Kratsios, 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 much for that question. I'm very excited to look forward to 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 going to 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 NASM, and its work on attribution science. Despite repeated oversight requests, NASM 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 NASM's exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act so that its advisory committees are subject to the same transparency, balance, and conflict of interest standards as other federal advisory bodies? And will you commit to working with the committee in this process? I very much look forward to working with the committee generally on this topic. I think it's important that any of our institutions that conduct science or work on science policy, our transparent and honest with the American people, and I look forward to working with you on this particular issue.

Absolutely. 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 1969 to 2022. If you would observe this, 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 political ideology or an unelected bureaucracy, as you can see from this chart that has occurred from 1969 to the present? I think the most important thing that I think about of the, of the era before President Trump was reelected was I truly believe it was a black eye for the larger scientific ecosystem. The fact that so So many taxpayer dollars were diverted to projects which clearly did not meet the mark for where we as an ecosystem should be funding. I think it made a lot of people question whether or not the government was doing the right thing and whether it was funding projects that actually pushed science forward.

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. And we have continued to try to promulgate rules which will allow that that to continue into the future. Absolutely. You can see that from '69 to the present, we should have a middle-of-the-road, probably an average 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 implementations 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. 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 will say I think obviously these type of budgetary decisions are— appropriations decisions are made by Congress, but I will I would 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, and the more clarity we can have for those, the better. Absolutely. My time has expired, so I yield back, and I now recognize Ranking Member Lofgren for 5 minutes to ask her questions. Thank you, Mr. 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 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, if the staff can make that happen. Uh, on the screen is a slide that the Science Committee Democratic staff got 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 screenshot taken by someone who was at the meeting, but it's helpfully colored in bright red, and it's a step that reads, "Coordination with DOJ and White House taking place outside the workflow." So, we've been hearing rumors for months, and— this seems to confirm it— that the White House is directly interfering with the operations of the National Science Foundation. I'm wondering, does the White House have involvement similar to this in which NSF proposals receive funding?

The White House is not involved in which proposals get funding at National Science Foundation. I will say, and I think this committee knows very well, the role of OSTP 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. Thank you. And the way that these operate. There have been reports in the Science magazine and in Nature that I'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record that indicate that NSF has held up nearly $1 billion in money that Congress appropriated to the agency.

And we've had indications of very large discrepancies between the fiscal year 2026 spend plan for NSF and the actual allocations that have been made to directorates. The public reporting, and actually the rumors, indicate that this is a portion of the $1.5 billion total that will essentially be expropriated from NSF and allocated to, I think, kind of a secretive initiative led by OSTP. I, you know, the current system of granting is not perfect. I'm not going to say that changes aren't required, but you can make extreme changes that will do damage to our science enterprise. So I'd like to know kind of what is going on, Mr. Krasios.

Where is the nearly $1 billion that we know is being clawed back from NSF directorates? And what is the reported $1.5 billion project, to quote Nature's reporting, is a brainchild of the White House OSTB? And if you could be specific, is any of the $5 billion that you announced today for Project Genesis coming from the money appropriated to NSF? I'm not familiar with those details. I would refer you to NSF.

But I will say something that we have argued from the White House for a long time and has been manifested in the— or 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 what are the most important scientific and technological endeavors that our American people deserve the government to be funding. And in that report and in the budget guidance R&D memo that we produced as well yesterday, I think we list out some of those. And the Genesis mission is one of them. And so is creating a scientifically relevant quantum computer that was part of an 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 of the nation together to accomplish. I don't think the committee disagrees on some of the major initiatives that are important to the country. We just adopted the Quantum Initiative. We have bipartisan support for research into fusion. But the concern we have is the process by which scientific enterprise is taken.

Obviously, science does not happen without scientists, but scientists cannot operate in a vacuum if they don't have access to labs, if universities are no longer admitting doctoral students because they can't figure out a way to pay for their research. There has been tremendous 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 I know that other members of the committee will have an opportunity to follow up. With that, I yield back, Mr.

Chairman. Gentlewoman yields back. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casillas, the administration has emphasized American space leadership as part of the golden age of American innovation.

Included in that is Artemis leadership, commercial space, and secure cooperation with allies and partners. How is OSTP alongside with NASA aligning the commercial space sector and international space science technology partnerships so the United States leads in space um, and while providing sensitive technologies and strengthening norms for— that favor American leadership. Thank you so much, Congressman. Now, the president signed an executive order around space superiority in December of last year, and that actually set the national vision for our country in space. And I think it set out some bold goals that this committee is very, very familiar with: to have American boots on the ground on the moon in '28, to have the to build the first components of a moon base by 2030 and to launch in this administration a— essentially a nuclear reactor in space for nuclear propulsion.

So these are bold, ambitious goals that we at the White House are helping coordinate, some of which require multiple agencies to work together, particularly some of the nuclear initiatives. And we have an amazing administrator at NASA who's doing a great job in helping achieve the president's vision.

So Executive Order 14369, basically ensuring American space superiority, calls for new and upgraded facilities to support increased launch and reentry 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 infrastructure. Would this new financing approach help OSTP carry out the executive order which calls for new and upgraded facilities? I'd have to think a little, learn a little bit more about that particular model, but I think The overarching view is that we need to find the best possible solutions to be able to upgrade our launch infrastructure. I think, again, as this committee knows really well, the cadence of launches that, that is happening now is increasing dramatically, and our ability to have the facilities to allow our space economy to achieve its ultimate potential is going to require new facilities.

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 power U.S. lunar infrastructure. What steps will the administration take to prioritize U.S. companies building this technology, leveraging existing nuclear fuel across the DOE complex, and provide the procurement support needed to make U.S. industry competitive globally? I defer to my colleagues at DOE and NASA on that, but I promise you I can look into that and we can find ways 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 going to have SR-1 up by, by '28. In order to make that a reality, I think a lot of other pieces have to come together, and that very well may be one of them.

Well, my time is out. I 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 I cannot reiterate enough how excited I am about the future of the science and technology enterprise in the 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 in our ability to drive scientific discovery. What we're able to do through the Genesis mission and through extending 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 really, really accelerated the pace of discovery in a way that no one thought possible.

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

Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Kratzios— excuse me, Director Kratzios. Thank you for being here. The administration's 2027 research priorities memo promises a golden age of science built on strengthening the U.S. science ecosystem and standard science grounded in merit-based peer review. Yet in just the past 3 months, the president fired the entire National Science Board.

OMB proposed a rule to defer research funding to the whims of political 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 $5 billion. That is significant. American 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 to our U.S. research universities.

Today, that enterprise is blinded by firing experts, deafened by legal threats, and choked by political hostage-taking. So, Director Kratsios, 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 report he apparently didn't like. Executive Order 14303 requires federally funded science to undergo unbiased peer review. This National Academies 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 report's peer-reviewed findings? Yes or no? I haven't been involved in the National Academies report.

The National Science Board, which is required by law to advise the president and Congress on science policy, has been vacant for nearly 3 months because the president dismissed all 22 members. Did the board hold its statutorily required annual meeting in May of this year? So the National Science Board has statutory authority to establish the policies of the National Science Foundation and delegate award authority. Now, adding to this, and I think you are— this committee is very well— the challenges are recent Supreme Court cases have upheld that only principal officers of the executive branch can make certain— I'm going to reclaim my time because my question was, did the 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 It requires award reviews by political appointees. It allows agencies to subjectively terminate grants, and it bars funding that supposedly promotes 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 OIRA to ensure that all the federal research enterprise remains rule world class and is trustworthy and accountable. And did any agencies under OSTP's purview begin implementing provisions of the rule before the comment period closed? I can't speak to other agency actions. I don't know. You're not aware of any that have?

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 state winners and losers, and science agencies are bleeding staff, 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 apparently new process set up to bypass review panels to earn a so-called fast-track golden ticket. It's Willy Wonka-like to me, and this is a serious issue.

So who's going to get these fast-track golden tickets? Supporters of Donald Trump, people who pay for them? What's the process? So we, we're very excited about different methods of awarding grants. What we have seen over the past few decades is a real decline in 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 gravitate towards least common denominator awards.

And what's amazing about the Golden Ticket process or initiative is that it does two 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. We have higher quality—. So we have heard that.

My time is about to expire. 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 orders of the President, they 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. Now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Kratsios, thank you for being here today. It's good to see you again.

As the Chairman mentioned in his opening statement, several weeks ago this committee marked up 10 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 CAISI, and task CAISI with many roles, including improving and evaluating the security and reliability of advanced AI systems. Systems. And as we've seen with yesterday's disclosure of the loss of control at OpenAI and the subsequent hacking of Hugging Face, that just underscores the urgency of Casey's mission. One of the items of disagreement within the committee was the level of resource to give to Casey.

And part of the controversy was that there there are elements of Casey's job that fall in the jurisdiction of other policy committees here in the House. And so as we work through the process and, and 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, you know, to begin with, forget even this particular topic 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 do the testing evaluation of these models, these folks are— could work in the private sector and make orders of magnitude more in compensation. So I think what's important for us 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 and evaluation of these, of these models, and that does require resources. Right, well, we— that remains an item of discussion here. I think the legislation that we passed, which was my bill, resourced CASI at $25 million a year. I believe that the amount of resource truly needed when the dust settles here will be closer to $100 million a year, but we look forward to partnering sharing with you to figure out what the amount of resources to enable Casey to execute on its important mission.

One of the other things that we did 2 weeks ago when we marked up legislation is to codify NARR, the National AI Research Resource, 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 outside of the setting only in private companies behind closed doors and to allow it to remain to be done in settings like academia and by entrepreneurs. What steps is OSTP taking to ensure that access to resources for AI research and development are democratized and broadly available? Yes, we've encouraged NSF to continue to pursue and build out the pilot that they did for, for the NARE. One of the core tenets of Science: A New Golden Age is again reorganizing the scientific enterprise to support the individual scientist. And what we have seen as this AI revolution has taken over is that the resources that you need in order to do cutting-edge AI research are not trivial to acquire.

And having pooled resources, which the government can help with private sector 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. Happen. So you and I have had several discussions about the Genesis mission. I'm— I find that tremendously exciting, and I think I agree with you that it's going to catalyze a new era of discovery by partnering advanced research with artificial intelligence to push forward the boundary of human knowledge.

The Genesis mission executive order identified a few priorities for the Genesis mission. Among them were AI and quantum computing, but also among them were fusion energy, which I think you and I share a passion for as chairman of the Fusion Energy Caucus. That's something that we have been very focused on. However, the administration's fiscal year '27 budget included a request for $1 billion for AI and quantum, but no corresponding investment to accelerate commercial fusion deployment. So can you elaborate on what the administration's current federal strategy is on fusion?

Yes. So you may have seen recently the Department of Energy released their Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap. And in the fiscal year '28 research and development priorities memo that me and Director Vogt released yesterday, we talk about the importance of national science and technology missions, and we list out 4 of them, and one of them is fusion. And our hope is that through through the budget process, we can establish a way that we can demonstrate commercial fusion power in the U.S. by the mid-2030s, in line with the roadmap that DOE put out. Okay.

Well, I mean, it's going to require partnership between Congress and the administration to get that funded. And commercialization is an important part of that strategy. So I see my time's expired. I could ask a dozen questions, but I thank you for your presence here today. I'd like to recognize the General The woman from North Carolina, Ms. Rose.

Thank you so much, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for convening this very important hearing. I represent part of the Research Triangle, so there's nothing more important to my district than the scientific enterprise. I want to discuss the so-called gold standard science this administration is prioritizing. Prioritizing. Everything's gold in this administration.

There's just something odd about that. On May 23rd, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14303 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 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. 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 2 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 a 151-page report that was written by 5 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? I have not, and I, and I trust Secretary Wright in his judgment in putting together that panel and producing a report that was, 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 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. Thank you so much. I mean, I look forward to working closely with OMB to ensure that our enterprise continues to remain world-class and trustworthy and accountable.

Gentlewoman yields. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Krasios, for being here with us today. I want to touch on gold standard science as well.

Interesting segue. As we all know, the executive order will call for gold standard science that prioritizes transparency, rigorous scientific work, reproducibility of the science that's done, impartial federal science, clear communication of uncertainty, that we don't cherry-pick certain results and discard others, that there are appropriate 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 the needs for those things that are spelled out in the executive order.

But could you, could you comment a little for us? How is OSTP ensuring that scientific advisory processes and agency research products earn more public confidence and provide reliable evidence for policymakers? Thank you for that question. I think we were very excited and very proud when the president signed the Gold Star in Science executive order. I think it was an important moment to kind kind of turn the page on, on some of the errors and the, and the challenges that, that were faced in the previous administration.

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 tenets in that executive order are ones that any scientist anywhere in the world 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. You should communicate uncertainty clearly. And these that everyone agrees with. So 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 each produced a set of implementation memos on how they're going, going forward to make sure that that is actually executed when they do science. So I'm very excited about, about the path ahead, and I think this is what the scientific community demands and should demand of the, of the U.S. government.

Well, I appreciate that. And when we return from our August recess, 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, integrity in our science. Well, if you need anyone to cheerlead it, 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 America's AI Action Plan with more than 90 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 next-generation AI frontier models. It's something that I think we're proud of as a country. I think we had this, this mythos moment, if you can imagine, that we're all very familiar with 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, on the bleeding edge. Another big effort that I think we're very proud of is how we're continuing to accelerate the infrastructure buildout necessary for us to succeed in this AI world. The president was very forward-leaning in bringing together all of the AI companies and hyperscalers and getting them to agree to what is known as the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. And the president asked of them, and they signed on to this pledge where they are committing to build, bring, or buy all their own power for next generation and new data centers.

And why that'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 going to go up. And these are the types of actions the President takes, I think, which really instill the confidence necessary to keep leading ahead. Okay. So those being positive actions so far, where do you see implementation needing to move faster?

What areas do we still need to work on the hardest? Well, I will say, as the infrastructure buildout is one we could always go faster on. The demand for compute is pretty insatiable. And we as a country, the more chips that we get online, the more data centers that we build, I think the more power that we'll have to keep driving all the next-generation discoveries that we want to make using AI. And that is as much as— more even so a state and local issue than a federal issue.

So I think we can work with all of our states to make sure that we can find reasonable ways where where everyday citizens are very comfortable with, with this technology in their backyard. And I think it's possible. I do have concern that 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 communities are trying to implement. And as I try to explain to people, you know, we're not going to 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'd really be interested maybe later even on your thoughts on what we can in Congress can we be doing? And I know my colleague Chairman or Congressman Obernolte has been a leader in this area, but we've got to do a better job. Really not much time to elaborate. I think the one thing is I think we can 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 healthcare in America, that's something that everyone cares about and it matters for every American family. Family. Right. Thank you. And Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Now I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. 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 ratepayer data center protection pledge to protect Americans from the electricity price increases associated with the country's data center buildout.

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 center would cause energy prices to skyrocket even more in years to come. Well, that was March, and now it's July, and Americans are wondering whether the Ratepayer 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 18% %. And only after a public backlash did it lower the rate hike. But rates are still set to increase by more than 3% at a time when people can't afford to pay more. That's why 3 of 4 of the counties in my district have implemented moratoria on data centers development. That's why the town of Apex in my district rejected a proposed data center and imposed its own moratorium.

Them, a local grassroots decision that I proudly support. Director Kratzios, you may not want to admit that the ratepayer 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 costs for American consumers lower now than they were in March? I think The ratepayer protection pledge is one of the announcements by the president that is probably the most consequential of this term when it comes to AI.

The idea that the hyperscalers and the AI companies themselves made a commitment to the American people that in any community they go into, they commit to essentially build, bring, or buy all their own power, ultimately ensuring that 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 president could strong-arm some of these largest technology companies in the world to make such a commitment.

And I think 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, I think Americans can be much more confident that— Mr. Chair, I want to reply one more time. Time on that. That's not my question. The pledge promised that companies would, quote, agree to protect American consumers from price hikes due to data center energy and 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 Yes, it has stopped it because of that.

Okay. 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 their data centers 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 going to ask the question again. I don't know. I don't, 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. The gentleman yields back.

I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Katia, it's great to see you again. Thank you for your leadership as you continue to advance America's AI and emerging technology leadership.

This is a very consequential time. My first question, I've read the report that came out last night. With all the recommendations in this report, how will this accelerate our AI advancements to combat China? That is the consequential question that we have to answer right now at this very moment. Yeah, I think the biggest one is essentially making the consequential decision that no matter what scientific domain you are pursuing research in, whether you 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.

What the Genesis mission is able to do is actually to start incorporating AI into all those different scientific areas. Whether you're working at NASA or at Department of War or Department of Energy, you will find a way to be able to work through a whole-of-government approach to integrate that AI into your research. And that's what I'm most excited about. Excited about. In the report, you emphasize a number of workforce development proposals: innovation hubs, apprenticeship programs, technical education, community colleges, which is extremely important, manufacturing technician programs.

What role do you envision community colleges in a lot of these other— how do you see them play a role in producing a skilled workforce needed for AI, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, 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 the like. Oh, I certainly couldn't agree with you more. That is the reason why we worked with you on the NSF AI Education Act. Appreciate your guidance on that. The report also points to the Mojave Air and Space Port as an example of how regulatory flexibility and local leadership launched America's commercial space industry.

What specific elements of the Mojave model were most critical to its success and that you see, and how can Congress replicate replicate those principles in other emerging technology sectors? I think whether it's Mojave or— I think the key is you have to—. The realization or one of the core sort of realizations that led to the new report is that we're in a new era in the U.S. today where the interactions of the private sector, the federal government, academia, and industry all together 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 science ecosystem, the better. The easier it is for you to move from one ecosystem to another, to share ideas, to accelerate your scientific research progress.

That's what we focus on. And I think the example that you gave is one where you create an environment where the typical players that you would see in that domain actually had access to it. You know, having a dedicated location where companies can rapidly test, iterate, fail safely, do you see Congress developing policies or how would you encourage similar environments for AI, autonomous systems, advanced aviation, robotics? Yes, we need all the above. I think one of the first piece of paper that I was able, that I ever worked on that the president signed was the creation of the IPP or the Drone Pilot Program at the Department of Transportation in 2017.

And I think what has always been a core thesis 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, 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 the commercial environment. So to me, you know, having the best test ranges 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 in the time that I have, you outline in the report these new institutions, X Labs, ARPA-style organization, missions-driven institutes, curiosity-driven research centers. Can you expand on your vision of how you see all these integrating together?

Yeah, the truth is now that 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 at SFON 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 going to see at a university or you won't see it in the private sector. So 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 that. My time's expired. 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 him from Rhode Island, Representative Amo.

Thank you, Chair Babin, for holding today's hearing. Director Kratzios, despite the promises made in your report, you aren't launching us into the 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 10,000 STEM PhDs left the federal workforce last year, and thousands of grants were canceled because a doge Wobro found they contain phrases like disadvantaged communities, equity, or— brace yourself— sexual orientation. Your administration has taken a hacksaw to the scientific 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 You let the National Weather Service become a shell of its former self, critically understaffed during hurricane season because Doge drove away 15% of its workforce last year. You've risked reversing generations of science leadership, ceding the 21st century to China. 21 Countries, including China, have created recruitment programs to lure away our top scientific talent because you made it pretty easy. Director Kratsios, 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 knockoff 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. DOJ was supposed to close its doors at the start of this this month.

But much like a damaging parasite, DOJ 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 16th briefing noted DOJ's involvement in NSF operations. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this Washington Post article on DOJ. It's titled DOJ Was Supposed to Be Dead. Its Remnants Are Everywhere.

Director Kratzios, in what capacity has DOJ influenced NSF operations? Are they NSF employees, OSTP employees? Tell me where DOJ is right now. I'll speak for OSTP. There are no DOJ employees at OSTP.

Well, look, I get 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. This is not a mystery to anyone. It's actually plain as ink on paper.

Now, does DOJ have on its organizational chart individuals who were onboarded as, as members? Does OSTP still have remaining DOJ staff on its org chart? OSTP never had DOJ staff. Okay, look, I want to believe you, but it's pretty hard to believe what this administration has said about DOJ. So the challenge here is we— you've said one thing and done another, uh, repeatedly.

Now, does DOJ, uh, members in any part of the government currently liaise with OSTP in, in any way? I, I don't think DOJ exists anymore. That's pretty clear. There, there's a record that suggests otherwise. I'm not sure.

I'm not sure how to, how to help you. There is a record that suggests that DOJ remains remains a big part of operations across our government. I can speak to OSTP. We don't have any DOJ. Okay, well, I'm glad that you're on the record there, and I'll continue to follow up with you on that because ultimately this proves to be 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 deliver on the president's agenda of ushering in a golden age of American innovation. And beyond the president of the United States, do you commit to not leaving our scientific apparatus in shambles because of decisions made by doge that linger in our government? I don't think so.

I wouldn't be doing my job if I wanted to leave the scientific enterprise in shambles. I will commit to not do that. I'm glad we can agree on that. That's a good thing. Now, look, I want to cap off our discussion pretty quickly.

The NSF recently announced its intention to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative. This was designed to provide data on our oceans for scientists, fishermen, emergency managers, and weather forecasters for decades to come. But NSF was going to rip it all up from the ocean floor. Fortunately, after backlash, they reversed course. Times expired.

And I hope that you continue to support a legitimate process as NSF continues the future of OOOI. Thank you. I yield back. I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Biggs.

Thank you, Chairman Babin, and thank you, Director Krotios, 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 21st 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..

We have a skilled workforce 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.

Director Krotz asks, 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 Atoms for Peace in 1953 with his executive order last year. You know, prior to President Trump's actions, you know, we weren't testing new reactors, we were shutting down perfectly weren't particularly good reactors, and we were totally dependent on other countries for fuel. If you guys remember, the average NRC review time, I think, for licensing took more than 20,000 hours. And I think we've done a tremendous job in lowering that and in finding an opportunity to dramatically accelerate kind of advanced nuclear.

I think one of the things that I'm most excited about is the president set this ambitious goal for the Department of Energy reactor pilot program to have at least 3 reactors that would achieve reach criticality by the 4th of July of this year. And I think I'm excited and very thrilled to say that we surpassed that goal. We actually had 4 test reactors reach criticality in the last few months. And this is something that, you know, I personally went out to visit at Idaho National Lab a few months ago. And I think it just shows that if you set bold, ambitious goals for Americans and you set the regulatory structure in the right way, that there is confidence and understanding from our innovators on what they're responsible for, we can achieve truly, truly great 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. 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, I think this will be probably one of the most consequential scientific programs in, in American history, and I don't, I don't say that lightly.

What we do from OSTP is coordinate the efforts across multiple agencies. When the president launched the initiative, DOE was the first agency to get started with it. They're building the actual platform itself. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we're very thrilled that today at the Genesis Summit where I was before I came here to this hearing, we were able to announce a $5 billion in commitment, in new federal commitments with more than 15 different agencies involved, each with their own grand challenges relating to AI and discovery. And to me, I think that's something amazing amazing to see.

You had health-related ones from HHS and NIH. You had very interesting related ones to construction that were done out of Department of Transportation and so many others. And I think our function at OSTP is to help coordinate those efforts across the USG and make sure that the right programs are being tied into the right programs at DOE. That's exciting. I have a background in healthcare and also connection with the military, So, I'll look at that as a bright future and hopeful that we'll see those changes take place very soon.

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 send you a list of all the initiatives or great new ones from the VA and also from DOD. I think touched on some of of your interests.

I look forward to it. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you. Representative yields back.

I'd like to recognize Representative Super Mnyam from Virginia. 5 Minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kratzios, for being here and for coming back.

I want to thank you for releasing a report. I think I had to zoom through it this morning. It's pretty lengthy, but I appreciate you putting that work into do it. I know a lot of people have asked about different aspects of science and technology, and you have a pretty broad portfolio. I wanted to talk about AI specifically, though.

On May 21st, the president was going to put out an executive order on artificial intelligence, and a lot of it was going to be around regulating frontier models. And there was going to be some— looked like mandatory standards when it came to AI models. 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 went into that decision to withdraw, uh, that executive order and why, um, subsequently, uh, a less, um, uh, stringent policy was released? I, 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 related the importance of having voluntary commitments from the, the frontier labs to share their models in advance of, of release with the U.S. government and leverage the, the talents and skills at KC and at NSA to, to do evaluations relating to, to cyber capabilities and, and make sure that when the models are put out to, to the public, the appropriate guardrails and protections are in place.

So were you part of the decision-making to withdraw that initial executive executive order? 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 legal— these safety requirements should be mandatory, or do you think they should stay voluntary? The president's executive order called for voluntary commitments, and I think at this time that's the appropriate policy action. And so what, what's to prevent someone from coming up with an AI model that could be dangerous dangerous, and they decide not to comply, and they decide to just unleash it, and it creates a lot of havoc.

I think, as you and I think this committee knows very well, the number of players that have the resources to train a frontier model with the capabilities that would pose a risk are quite limited and quite few. And we've— we're able to get voluntary commitments from all of those that have that capability. The final executive order that went out, it cut the government's review time from 90 days to 30 days. Was there a reason for that? The final one did say 30 days, and we believe that that is sufficient time to be able to work voluntarily with the companies.

Again, none of these companies are required to share their models with the USG, but I think what we have seen is that the industry is interested in having the expertise of Casey and NSA weigh in and help them do an even better job. Doing a great job in building their guardrails. Great. And I'm going to switch subjects. On chips, we have heard about how, you know, auto manufacturers are increasingly relying on advanced chips.

But obviously, you know, so does a lot of other things, a lot of other components. And one concern I think people are starting to have is the sourcing of chips, because right now we want people to source them from the United States and the U.S. chip chips makers. We passed the CHIPS Act, but there's a lot of companies who are now clamoring to try to source them from suppliers from China, like CXMT, YMTC. And I'm just— I would love to know the administration's position on whether you think we should allow American companies to source from these entities. Well, our Trump administration policies are bringing back advanced chip manufacturing to the United States.

I think you may have seen that This month we were able to secure another $100 billion commitment from TSMC for further semiconductor manufacturing investments in, in the U.S., bringing their total to $265 billion. Micron themselves just broke ground on a $100 billion New York semiconductor manufacturing plant. I know that. I guess I'm trying to ask, do you think it's okay for American companies to buy from CXMT or YMTC? I want to know the administration's position on that.

I think the most important thing is we build domestic capacity to be able to, in the long term, provide the, you know, have the chips developed here in the United States that can meet the needs of our American companies. I didn't get a yes or no on that. Could you give us at least where the administration is right now on sourcing that? Because they've been listed as a significant threat to U.S. 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 obviously don't want to be in, you know, doing business with anyone that's on the entity list. And, uh, and, and that's something that, that is clear in law. I, I yield back.

Thank you. Gentleman yields. Uh, like to recognize the representative from Georgia, Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr.

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

What do you do to balance that? It's one of the toughest challenges in the science ecosystem. Ecosystem. I think for, for many, many years, the United States has, has been the home for, for scientists from all around the world to come and research. And what we have seen over, over the last decade or so is that not all scientists come here with the intent just to help, you know, pursue great new scientific endeavors.

They come here to try to commit espionage, to figure out what we're working on and share it back with, with adversarial power. So to us, I think what we need to do is be able to strike a balance and create actually kind of a risk-based approach to monitoring the efforts across our science ecosystem. It begins at the federal level with our national labs that we control and also DOW labs, but I think there's a lot of lessons learned that have to go out to our academic institutions to get them a little more aware that this problem exists. You know, universities were not set up to do, you know, large-scale background checks on everybody who is in their university, 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 resource for the federal government with them to 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 600,000 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 biotechnology leadership depends on having workforce with the skills to turn scientific discoveries into products and manufacturing here at home.

That's why I've introduced a Biotechnology Workforce Alignment Act to better align workforce training with industry needs. How have you worked to strengthen biotechnology workforce, and where can Congress be most helpful in developing that specific talent? Yeah, biotech has been an important priority for the administration. If you think about kind of what the waterfall effects are for this big AI push is these models can start being applied to a lot of the biological sciences and And I think it's something that we're encouraging NIH and other relevant agencies to focus their funding on. I think through those funding opportunities, I think we have a great chance to do the workforce programs that you're talking about and make sure that our grant and fellowship programs are aligned with sort of biotech as a priority.

Great. Two universities huge in technology and development, of course, University of Georgia and Georgia Tech, my alma mater, both of them doing amazing things right now. At University of Georgia, we're recognized for the fourth straight year is 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 AI, advanced manufacturing, and other critical technology. How are you working to strengthen partnerships between research universities and industries so we build regional talent pipelines for the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs? Yeah, you're, you're so right.

The The private industry now funds about $700 billion in R&D annually, and that's far more than the government and academia combined. So we as a government need to think very carefully around the exact problem that you mentioned. How can you build stronger bridges 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 research and 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/federal relationship that we kind of protect right now, and it's really the future of America when we talk about developing the future technologies. Likewise, Advanced Manufacturing Pilot Facility at Georgia Tech has helped companies commercialize new technologies and adopt AI-enabled manufacturing and train workforce needed to support them. I'm really short on time, so I'll respect that, Mr. Speaker, but, uh, or Mr. Chair, sorry, as I'm ahead of myself, aren't I?

Uh, is it basically— I'll just basically submit this, this question, but basically I'm looking for ways to reindustrialize America and how we can partnership, and I'll leave that to our question we submit. Thank you. Thank you. Gentlemen yields back. I'd like to recognize, uh, Representative McBride of Ms. Kozlowski, Delaware.

5 Minutes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Lofgren, for holding this hearing. Director Kozlowski, it's good to have you back before the committee. 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. Program as essential to this process. Meanwhile, the President's budget has proposed slashing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program for 2 years in a row. So I'm curious, is the administration reversing its position on MEPs? It's something that we talk about certainly in the Golden Age Report as philosophically something that very much aligns with the tenets of the report.

I look forward to going into the, the '28 budget cycle and working working with OMB and with NIST to try to find ways that those types of programs do find some funding, because I think it's critically important for, for the future of manufacturing. Well, 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 $18.79 per kilowatt hour today, up from $17.97 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 data center operators and semiconductor manufacturers would be incentivized by the free market to become more efficient. Since then, 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 Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary agreement for companies to build, bring, or buy energy for their data centers. Now, I know you answered some questions earlier on this 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 Ratepayer 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 efforts at the White House. And I, 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 pledge. Obviously, it's voluntary, but we want to see adoption of it. What will the administration do?

Is the president going to dictate and strong-arm companies into compliance like China does? I think what we're seeing is that most of these companies 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 build them, really sort of substantial commitments have to be made. I mean, we've seen in communities across the country where data center operators have agreed essentially to cover property tax for 5 or 6 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.

So to me, I think, you know, I almost see, you know, it's almost like what the Ratepayer Protection Pledge 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 tech policy coordination office at the White House, I'm not a sort an enforcement body. But 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 don't want them there. And I think what we're seeing is that in order for these data centers to be built, the 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 I mentioned, I mean, there's communities out there where literally people don't pay property tax. One quick follow-up question.

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

Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Utah, Dr. 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 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 are behind. We all need to remain vigilant and committed, and Utah is 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 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, unquote, on supporting fusion commercialization.

The Genesis mission integrates AI into our R&D infrastructure, and your Genesis mission 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 Yes, I couldn't agree more. And I think that's— we lay out of that in a lot of detail in the DOE's Fusion Science and Technology Roadmap that came out a few months ago. And I think it's something that we have prioritized specifically in the FY28 R&D priorities memo that I wrote with Director Vogt that 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 americium, currently held within the DOE complex. How will OSTP work with NASA and DOE to ensure this material is available by 2028 to secure the supply chain and meet our national space objectives? So we put out a, a, a National Science Technology Memorandum kind of laying out the, the space nuclear goals. And I think we as a White House have the opportunity to be able to, to do the policy coordination and bring both of those entities to the table together to make to make sure that happens.

It's a presidential priority. It was in the EO, and it's something that we're working towards achieving. Thank you. My final question is, the Genesis mission executive order directs the incorporation of datasets 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 progress. Today, as I think I mentioned before in the hearing, was a big announcement where we've essentially taken Genesis whole of government. We had 15 different agencies announce commitments to Genesis Mission to the tune of about $5 billion worth of R&D spending. But part of that was a commitment to do dataset sharing with the instrument that's being built at DOE. And I look forward to those agencies pursuing it.

And anything that we can do from the White House level to help with facilitation of the coordination between agencies, we're going to be all in. Thank you, Director, for your time. And we stand with you to help support those efforts. And Mr. Chair, would that And with that, I yield back.

Thank you. Representative yields back. Now I'd like to represent— recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At our last oversight hearing, I showed a chart of NSF grants awarded down more than half from 2 years ago. A colleague of mine on the other side wanted to make sure we were also looking at disbursements. So today I brought both charts. Here they are. You can also look behind you, it may be easier to see.

In the first chart, we see that NSF has awarded 55% less grants at this point this year than at the same point in 2024. You can see that a little line that says today, the red line way at the bottom is this year, and then the cluster of lines is under the previous administration. The yellow line is what happened last year. If you go to the next slide, this goes to disbursements. Uh, you can see at this point in 2024, $4.3 billion had been awarded, and this year at the same point in time, only $3 billion.

That's $1.3 billion less, a 30% cut, the lowest level in 6 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. And Mr. Director, you said in your opening remarks that you thought we must prioritize young American scientists. Yeah, I believe these are exactly the scientists who are hurt most by the drastic reduction in the number of research grants and the slow rolling of disbursements.

So can you explain to this committee and to the researchers watching why this is happening? Why is NSF slow rolling both grant money and radically cutting the total number of grants? Again, I would refer you to NSF. I'm at OSTP, but I'm happy to look into that and certainly come back with an answer. 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 we disperse grants is that we have to make sure that the process by which we do these selections and ultimately lay them out are aligned with the president's budget.

And I think from all of our agencies, whether it's NSF or NIST or DOE, what we attempt to do is run through a process where we put out NOFOs, we get solicitations come in and applications come in and the assessments happen. 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 nothing would make me happier 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 help move that line because I think it's important for us to get these appropriate dollars out to scientists. Okay, you are going in the wrong direction, as you can see, between '25 and '26.

So this is hurting American researchers. Now earlier you testified that NSF grant approvals have not been reviewed by political officials at OSTP, or officials. At least I think that's what you said. I want to give you the chance to make sure that that's what you wanted to testify, because we've been directly informed 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. 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. I have never asked for that, and I will I would never condone that, and I don't think any of us are. Okay, for the record, it's a felony to testify falsely before Congress.

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. Okay. Sounds a little squishy to me.

I want to just close with this comment. The administration says the dollar should not be the measure of success when it comes to science, 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 $1.5 trillion defense goal for the next fiscal year, roughly 50% more than last year. The administration has stated that that money is necessary to our national defense. To defense while it proposes cuts to American science of roughly 50%.

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. That— 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, Mr. Director, that it would be possible to maintain American leadership in national security while cutting the budget for the Department of Defense by 50%? Well, with the budget proposal, it's really yes or no.

The president proposing the largest R&D budget in the history of the country. Yeah. So I'm going to take that as a no. Thanks. And I yield back.

Representative yields back. I'd like to recognize the representative from Alaska, Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, the Department of Energy's Climate Working Group was disbanded after lawsuits alleged it violated the Federal Advisory 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 standard for policymaking when it is not subject to the same requirements that apply to most other federal advisory bodies while receiving significant funding from private donors with clear policy interests? 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 the Academies or anyone else that's involved in, in these scientific 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. 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. Taking no position and saying we should just fund everything kind of peanut butter is not, is not the way that you achieve and maintain leadership in the technologies that are most critical for our future.

And we've taken the position that there, there are some like AI for science, like quantum, like fusion, like space that we have to win on. And as you mentioned in your previous testimony, the private sector is doing a tremendous amount of R&D, right? And they do a far greater share of R&D than the federal government does. And so when the federal government is making prioritization decisions around research and development, it makes sense that we would be prioritizing areas where there may be less current incentive for R&D in the private sector. Is that true?

You're precisely correct. And I think a great example that we grapple with a lot is in artificial intelligence. Right now, tens and tens of billions of dollars are being invested in AI R&D in the private sector. The question is, for us administration and as a government, what are the areas of R&D in AI that remain underfunded and areas where we can make an impact? And a great example of that is sort of metrology or measurement science 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 an industry that itself is spending hundreds of billions.

I think alignment with R&D spending is so important. There are not unlimited dollars to be invested. Where we choose to invest needs to be in areas where really only 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 those portions of scientific R&D. One final question. The Genesis Mission now spans 9 federal agencies and over $5 billion in commitments.

What mechanisms are in place to make sure that this becomes a genuine force multiplier for American science rather than another layer of federal bureaucracy? Yeah, so under the— under the OSTP, there's something called the National Science and Technology Council, or NSTC, and there's a specific a specific NSC committee that works to coordinate Genesis activities across the government. What we want to be is a facilitator for the important conversations between DOE and all the counterpart agencies and do it in the most lightweight way that just allows connections to the instrument that DOE is building, while also not creating a lot of bureaucracy. And I think we're going to hit the mark there. And just because I see I've still got some additional time here, one more question.

How does, how does your team think about milestone-based research and, and prize competitions as a way to drive outcomes? Thank you for asking. I think in, in Science: A New Golden Age that, that I published yesterday, prize and challenges and milestone-based endeavors are very much highlighted as things we should be doing more of. 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 prize and challenges can to do. Milestone-based scientific pursuits allow us to have a much larger top of funnel where more participants can begin the journey on making that discovery.

And as progression happens, we can start concentrating capital on those that are making the best progress. So I think both of those are critically important to achieving accelerated discovery. I love the way that you're rethinking R&D and the R&D investment of the American taxpayer. I think it makes all kinds of sense, and it will drive outcomes for America moving forward. And with that, I yield back.

Thank you. Representative yields back. I'd like to recognize Representative Friedman from California. 5 Minutes. Thank you, Chair Babin, and to Director Kratzios for coming here today.

Director, the administration's national policy framework for AI recognizes the need for federal protections against AI-generated deepfakes 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, It's 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 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. The White House put out a set of legislative priorities around AI, and one of them was precisely on this topic. You know, we need to protect American creators and find, and find the right legislative pathway to make that a reality.

And I would love to work with you and your colleagues on this topic. That would be great, 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? So 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 want to see sort of Congress take action on.

To us, I mean, we want to find a way for our greatest creators, whether they're in film and music or anything else, to be able to, you know, not have their own, I guess, IP being used for AI purposes without their consent. And I think it's something that, you know, we can work through a legal solution that works well, and it's going require cooperation between Congress 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 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 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've seen over as this, as AI has, has become more prevalent is that ultimately it can serve as a tremendous tool to empower and actually turbocharge creators in, in what they're working on. And, you know, I've talked to people at studios that have talked about how AI 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's about striking that balance. And I think we're still in early days where the actual use cases are still being tested out and seeing which ones can make the biggest impact or the biggest help to some of these folks in the industry. So my biggest advocacy to every everything is adoption is key. Getting a sense of where these tools can actually help drive sort of the creative spirit that all of us are excited about in kind of the types of communities that you work with. 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?

I think there are multiple models that have been sort of proposed and analyzed, and I don't think administration has taken a specific position on that. The president, in his speech at the launch of the AI Action Plan a year ago, did talk about sort of publicly available materials should be allowed for the training of models, to plan the training of models. And that's generally the one area where we do have an —position. Well, I do think that those people have a right then, if they're using their materials to then reap the benefits, that they should have a way of being compensated for that, because otherwise the AAS would not be successful. 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 recognize Representative Issa of California for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, I'm going to stay on AI for a moment, but a little tangential part of it. Over the weekend, New York Governor Kathy Hochul decided that she was going to prohibit and shut down new data centers.

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 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 grid resilience and lowering prices.

And, um, you know, I think New York has a has a very vibrant research ecosystem in a wide variety of cities across the state. And I think it's a shame 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 access to compute and chips. Perhaps it's a follow-up on their banning fracking so they don't have enough natural gas to get clean, affordable centers. But staying in that vein, Maine. I was honored to be at the White House when I saw all of the major, you know, data center producers, the megas, pledge to have a net 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 grid resilience? Resiliency. Exactly. And the president, early as the campaign, was talking about how important it was to win the AI race, to have a lot of these AI companies become even energy producers themselves.

And ultimately, if we change the rules to allow for behind-the-meter energy to these data centers, and, you know, if it goes as planned, what you'll see is you'll have sort of excess capacity that can be put into the grid to ultimately lower, lower prices. I just have one humorous question, putting your science hat on. Latency. If the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ are in New York and they decide they don't want to have large computing and they're going to lower prices by shutting them all down, does that mean that in fact the time delta increases and the gaming of of real stock events would actually increase? You know, I'd have to do a little more digging into some of those latency numbers, but you know, you would hope that for such systemically relevant institutions, they have the compute capacity at the appropriate latencies.

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

I mean, the most sort of basic sense you think about it, even, even sort of cell phone speeds and the dramatic change in what we can do with these technologies once the latency went down. I do think from a technological standpoint, what's interesting to see is how much kind of edge computing is going to be happening 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. So we'll see where technology pans out.

But at the end, for, for at the end of the day, sort of larger sort of compute questions are always going to have to go back to data centers. Well, I look forward to Qualcomm Snapdragon having more and more AI AI in it. As a San Diegan, I'm rooting for them to win 6G and that localized AI. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields.

I'd like to recognize, uh, Representative Menefee from Texas, 5 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 exists 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? 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? I'm not familiar with—. I see the shock in your face.

It's because it's absurd, and so I would advise you to address that with the president. You've known for weeks that you were coming to testify before this committee, correct? I do believe it was scheduled weeks ago, yes, sir. Last night at 6:00 PM, you released a 100-page report entitled Science: A New Golden Age. Our first time becoming familiar as a committee with this report was last night.

Is there a reason that 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— given the 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 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 $52 billion 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 an negotiation, and Intel should consider the benefits of having a friend in the administration. That is extortion at best and corruption at worst. 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 while at the same time extorting them and telling them that they should be aware of having a friend in 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 30— 399 billion gallons of water by 2030. Lake Travis in Texas just reached its full capacity for the first time in 70 years. So that 399 billion gallons of water would be enough to fully deplete that lake. Um, meanwhile, Americans have paid nearly 10% more for electricity in 2025 compared to 2024.

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 from my constituents, what state law are they supposed to use to protect themselves if your administration is preempting those state laws? 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 the last year and a lot of discussion around how to make sure that we can generally preempt some AI-related state laws to provide clarity and ease of access to a lot of AI startups.

If there's a patchwork of AI regulations across 50 states, it becomes increasingly challenging for a lot of young entrepreneurs to successfully run AI businesses. And finding a legislative pathway that can allow tailored preemption that can benefit the American entrepreneur has, has been a priority of the White House for some time now. So we commit right here publicly to ensuring that we are 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 are opposed to any type of federal preemption that relates to water usage? I think I'm going to 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 data centers, folks at EPA. Expired. Go back.

The gentleman yields back. I'd like to recognize Representative Herodopoulos from Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to say it's been a great year for science. I mean, what a year with the incredible success with NASA, record funding for NASA, over $24 billion in last year's budget, an additional $10 billion.

Of course, the Artemis 10-day mission around the moon for the first time since 1972. 1972 And better things to come. 192 Launches last year. It's been a banner year for science, and we have a $500 billion investment in AI, another $92 billion investment in Pennsylvania, and it's— I think it's been a banner year, and I appreciate all the work you're doing. It's really gold science, the highest standard, and I could not be more excited about it.

And I'm almost amused by the historical amnesia that exists in times when I, when I come to committee. Uh, on January 14th, 2025, 6 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 9% inflation rate and it's come down dramatically.

We had— we saw interest rates go from less than 3% to 8%, and suddenly they point the finger at a new administration. And so it's disappointing to see some of those comments. Also, I heard today, which was interesting, was this idea about how the EPA or some of the science funding has been put out there. In the previous administration, the Greenhouse Reduction Fund was a $27 billion program. $27 Billion.

That's a lot of money. And they banked or put in the banks $20 billion to make sure that some of their political friends got it. 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 this oversight that is so necessary is there. And look, I want to win the AI race.

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 new technology to make sure we have the energy necessary to win the AI race. And so, I would just ask you this, if you don't mind, getting into these gold standards science that you talk about, there's 9 tenets that you have. Could you walk us through 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 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. 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. And to me, I found the response to it from the left actually quite amusing. To me, I thought this would be a giveaway that was a very bipartisan thing that everyone could agree with. And to me, I think it's very telling that the opposition is there because I think they don't actually believe in gold standard science.

I think they They want to find pathways to fund projects which don't meet that standard. So I think we're very excited to push this initiative forward and make sure that all of the dollars that go out to support our scientists around the country meet that very high bar. Yeah, and just to build on what you'd mentioned, I mean, for years, when I grew up, the left always believed in the idea of electric cars. Last week I was in Georgetown, they were protesting in front of Tesla. I just don't understand that disconnect sometimes.

But that said, I want to bring up the one issue issue that, that really causes a lot of concerns. How did a 6-month-old nonprofit linked to Stacey Abrams called Power— I'm sorry, Power Forward Communities, which is $100 in revenue, founded in late 2023, land a $2 billion EPA grant under the previous administration? Is this typical where you invest $2 billion and a company has $100 in revenue? Is this typical? It's very disappointing to see it.

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 like the idea that— I actually like the DOJ 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 dollars are being spent. I mean, when I talked about that $500 billion $1.5 billion.

That's not federal dollars, not taxpayer dollars, or that $92 billion. These are private sector investments that benefit everyone. So we have the electrical grid 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 and not politics.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentlemen's time has expired. Thank you very much. And I'd like to recognize Representative Mr. Foster from Illinois. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to our witnesses. Um, let's say, 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 opinion seems to be that sometime between maybe the end of this year and a few years from now, you're going to have AIs that will be able to make improved versions of themselves that are, you know, 15% smarter, 15% faster every single night, at which point you're going to just see this thing take off faster than exponentially. And so how big a team do you have planning? What— first off, what is your— for your internal planning, what is the dates, the range of dates you're assuming for recursive self-improvement?

What is your plan to deal with this?

I think that is one of the many topics that we think about as we plan for the types of policy or the types of systems we have in place to ingest pre-deployment models and do reviews of them. Currently, as stated in the executive order, two agencies have a role in that. So, Casey and NSA. How do we get to—. I mean, what I'm concerned about is that, you know, it's a very small group of people that seems to be steering the boat these days.

And it's small and frankly shrinking set of people that you're— and the administration 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 expert on all of fusion 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 just back to AI, you know, I was very concerned.

Do we read the information, the document, the Information? It's a, it's a sort of, it's a Silicon Valley trade rag. Oh, the Information. I'm familiar with it. Yeah, okay.

So you're probably on the news. This last, actually, if I could introduce for the record, there was last weekend they put out an article called Trump's AI Agenda Collides with Reality: How Staff Turnover, Turf Battles, and Clashing Views Have Upended the Administration's Anti-Russia regulation vision. And I urge my members, the other members, to actually take the time and understand this. Are you familiar with that particular article? I'm not, no, sir.

You're not. Okay. Well, if you have any reactions to it, I assume it's good reporting, but it had some concerning things. You know, it said, for example, that when you had to react to Mythos, which is the very capable AI that was capable of really scary cyber exploits and finding bugs in codes that everyone thought was safe, 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 was, you know, that was how it was organized?

I think we worked as a team to ensure that we took the appropriate actions after Atheromethos was disclosed to the U.S. government. Okay. But it was the— well, I urge everyone to read that. And if you find things that are not correct, please let us know, because it was very concerning. You know, I also look at things like, you know, you've attempted— you know, initially when the administration came in, they were not nice to NIST, which is 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 administration.

And that there were massive dogecuts to it that were not useful. And in particular, the Center for AI, we used to be safety, now it's security, and that was basically renamed and gutted and a lot of the people left. And there isn't a more important agency or subsection of an agency. And then you assigned a new leader for that, which is good. And then within, you know, 3 months he quit.

And this appears to be the pattern over and over again, that you bring into the administration someone with plausible credentials to do something. And then they either quit or leave. And this is a problem. You know, 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 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 White House, because as I said, there is not a more important issue to deal with. So I urge you to just, you know, do the best you can to recruit a broad spectrum of people, not put them through an ideological litmus test, because you throw away a lot of good talent, and you already have. So thank you, and be all back. Gentleman's time's expired. Thank you.

I recognize Representative Van Epps, Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director Kratzios, for being here today. In March 2025, President Trump charted out a clear vision for scientific progress and 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 economic growth. Director Kratsios and OSTP have delivered by supporting these goals. The National AI Legislative Framework provided clear direction on how Congress should act to spur on AI innovation that serves Americans.

And 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 3 advanced test reactors achieving criticality before the Fourth of July was not only met but exceeded by 4 reactors achieving criticality. Just yesterday, Director Kratsios published a report establishing a blueprint for renewing American scientific leadership for the 21st 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 AI. Microsoft's AI for Good Lab found that DeepSeek's free open open-source models have driven AI 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. U.S. companies are turning toward open-source and open-weight models as they are cheaper, customizable, and have, and have less guardrails. Just earlier this morning, Director, your team posted that Moonshot AI conducted large-scale covert distillation to develop their newest K3 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 large-scale industrial covert distillation of American models. And I think what was made public today was exactly that, the COVID industrial distillation of American technology.

The administration deeply believes that the future of American leadership in AI is is contingent upon having a vibrant open and closed source set of models for Americans and the world to use. I think on the first or second page of the AI Action Plan the president released last year, we emphasized very strongly that the US must lead in open source. So for us, we're doing everything we can to kind of push the open source community ahead in the US 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 2026, which would establish a single point of entry for researchers to access high-quality biological data for use in research 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 datasets impact the pace of innovation? Uh, the, the access to data 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 to national labs that if we could leverage that for AI, it could pay huge, huge dividends. So I'd love to learn more about, about your bill and kind of see if, how we can, how we can get something 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 to train the models. Great. Thanks, Director. Thanks for your leadership. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Representative yields back. I'd like to recognize Representative Riley from New York. Park for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman, and 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 1 on July 3rd. Congratulations. Thank you. Um, mine are 6 and 3.

Are you sleeping at all? Are you guys getting any sleep? I'm trying my best. I gotta get my rest for—. They say sleep when the baby's sleeping.

My, my 3-year-old, for last year, every single night gets in bed with my wife and me. So sleep when, sleep when the baby's sleeping. I raise, I raise that because 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 nature. We go hiking through the waterfalls and the gorges that are there.

Just last weekend, my wife and I took the kiddos out to do blueberry picking. The weekend before that, it was marigolds. Picking in Trumansburg, uh, or, and, um, and the kids are learning to swim at Taconic Park. 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. But what we have happening in our community, there's this big corporation called TerraWolf.

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 400-megawatt AI data center where my neighbors and I are raising our families. And, uh, they're threatening to clear dozens of acres of forest land on the hillside, blast into the bedrock, run power transmission lines through the wetlands, uh, threatening to increase the soil erosion, which is a big deal, uh, for our, for our farmland.

They've said that they're not going they use any water from the lake. Turns out they're probably going to need hundreds of thousands of gallons a day. And so, uh, over tens of thousands of folks in Tompkins County have 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 want to submit for the record a petition that's been signed by over 22,000 people.

I'm signing on to this petition as well to stop that project. Without objection. Um, the other concern, and this is what I wanted to raise with you, is that these data centers are going to have a huge impact on the NYSEG bills, the utility bills, which are already unaffordable. 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, 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 want to see is for new data center construction to increase the, um, electricity costs for Americans. The whole idea behind the Ratepayer 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 claiming they want to support, that they won't be raising prices.

Yeah. And so I came here to find common ground across the aisle, get stuff done. I think we both share this concern. I always, you know, try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. The issue I have with the, the protection pledge and the EO is that, first of all, I think fewer than a dozen corporations have signed on to it.

And second, 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 going to 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 ratepayer 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, uh, big tech corporations that are driving the costs and not by upstate New Yorkers and small businesses. Is this something you think we could work on together on a bipartisan basis? I can send it to you, you give me your thoughts, and we can try to get this done to protect upstate New Yorkers from increased utility bills. I think we would be very supportive of enshrining into law a ratepayer protection pledge. So to the extent we can work together on that, I would love to.

I think this is important and Americans deserve it. Terrific. I will follow up with you on that. And congratulations Congratulations again on being a new dad. Thank you.

And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Thank you. I'd like to recognize Representative Baird from Indiana. 5 Minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and Director Krebs. We appreciate you being here as well. My question deals with biotechnology. You know, in 2025, 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, H.R.

7936, The Bioindustrial Scale-Up for Supply Chains and Energy Resiliency Act of 2026, which would direct the development of a network of Department of Energy facilities that innovators can use to prove that their bioindustrial ideas and research can be commercialized and 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 bioindustrial manufacturing here in the U.S. And then what federal tools do you see that are most effective in reshoring some of this capacity? No, I think this is very important. I served in the, in the first Trump administration as well and was part of a lot of the efforts relating to the COVID-19 response. And I think one of the first things or the biggest things that we as a country learned was that our supply chains for a lot of the critical materials and products that Americans need were just not as resilient as we thought they were.

So to the extent to the extent that I can be helpful in the things that you're focused on there, I'll do everything I can in my office to help make that better.

I was interested to find out here a year or so ago about China having control of 80 to 90% of the API, the active pharmaceutical ingredients, which is the basis for our medicines. So I am glad to hear— and you know, then when you conduct basic research and talk about the expense of trying to scale some idea up, it's expensive. And so having access to making sure that process works and to scale it up is important. So I'm glad to hear your answer there. One other area that I'm interested in, you know, when people think about— and we had a lot of conversation here about artificial 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 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 we believe that is a priority. I think today there was actually an announcement of a $2 million commitment from USDA on Genesis, sort of AI for science related initiatives from ag.

So to us, I think that's kind of, is very important. I think if you think about kind of how a lot of these priorities manifest themselves, we want to make sure that individual regions of the country that had expertise in particular industries are the ones are pursuing these scientific endeavors. So it applies to agriculture, it applies to shipping, it applies to oil and gas, whatever it may be. And for us, it's sort of applying this AI for scientific discovery to 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.

Some of the things we learn agriculture are very relevant to what we're doing in science. So with that, I appreciate your answers very much and I yield back. Gentleman yields. I'd like to recognize Representative McClain Delaney from the great state of Maryland. Thank you to our chair and ranking member.

And I really think this is a very important hearing. And so thank you, Director Kratzios, for joining us today. I represent Maryland's 6th Congressional District, and we are home to many research agencies like NIST, NIH, National Cancer Institute, Fort Detrick, but across Maryland, including NASA Goddard, NOAA's headquarters, and USDA's Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. And kudos to my colleague here who is uplifting ag research, which is sadly being gutted there. This committee has traditionally been a forum for bipartisanship.

Just yesterday, we favorably reported out 4 bills, including my Scale Biology Act about biometrology.

And it would— I really think it's been amazing that we on this committee, on a historical basis, have worked together on difficult issues to advance U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and leadership on the global stage. However, I was very disappointed that your report was released less than 24 hours ahead of this hearing, because I think 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.

Our ecosystem of federally supported fundamental research has resulted in groundbreaking technologies, products, and a lot of companies along our I-270 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 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, institutions that have been the biggest advances in science and technology. We must ensure that grants 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 because I've served on several 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 NOFOs 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 science and technology ecosystem. I think the one thing that hasn't really been mentioned enough that I think bears mention is that our ability to make transformational breakthroughs here in the United States has slowed over the years. The breakthrough rates that our scientific enterprise is accomplishing are slower than they've ever been. I think there are very obvious examples. We're flying slower than we were—.

Depends on the country. Sectors, I think. It does, I agree. But I think, you know, even in areas where 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 20 or 30 years ago is dramatically higher. So we need far more inputs in order to get the same outputs.

These are all signs that maybe we should be trying other things. Maybe we should be testing other ways to make breakthroughs than what we've been doing for so many years. And that is what New Golden Age what Page tries to discuss. And I think—. But very rapidly, in a way in which is 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 is how we're going to 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.

I yield back. Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Kratsios.

Thank you for your service in Trump 45 and of course your great role right right now. 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 Energy and Water Subcommittee of Appropriations. That obviously is my heart. We've been in a full Appropriations Committee this morning.

We fund the Office of Science. And let me just say this to you, to the administration, to Secretary Wright Danley and his whole team. Thank you for your commitment to science. It has been really inspirational. I see America leading again in so many different ways.

So I'm going to start with what sounds like a softball question, but I want to 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 hubs for scientific innovation in the federal government that exists. To me, what makes me so excited about Department of Energy right now is from the Secretary to the Deputy to Undersecretary 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 Genesys' 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. Uh, I totally agree with you, and, and I thank you again for your commitment. Uh, to go a little further, Our national labs, in my view, are national treasures. There's 17. I have a strong bias in favor of the Oak Ridge National Lab.

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's huge.

I mean, just a few months ago I was at 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 can't even imagine. 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. And I think it's so special from the nuclear work that's being done at Idaho to all of the supercomputing at places like Oak Ridge and Livermore.

It's truly, truly special. Thank you. And I will close by saying this is I've always believed in being very honest and transparent. I'm a big fan of the president's and have been, 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 totally right. I think, I think I think that's what 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 want to 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 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.

Appreciate everything you're doing, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I'd like to recognize, uh, Mr. Gallagher, 5 minutes from California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, maybe following up on, uh, Congressman Baird's question on— and with regard to agriculture, I represent a, you know, very large agricultural district 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— to set up AI coordination hubs in every state, reaching farmers and ranchers through the land grant and the Cooperative Extension, uh, system. So a couple questions there, you know. One is you know, what's the role in the federal research 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 instance. And then how can we get these tools, you know, better into the hands of farmers and ranchers?

Yeah, I think one, setting out that R&D roadmap for some of these AI applications by the ag community is a big priority for USDA, and we look forward to working with them on that. I do think some of these programs that you mentioned where NSF is able to establish these relationships in every state, those are the types of places where you can actually connect directly with those farmers and get those tools out into the field. So yeah, just working directly with the UC cooperatives and others, is that kind of the best way? Yeah, 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 going to, and try to integrate some of these technologies into there.

Okay. And then on the issue of wildfire, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Fire Research Division, conducted the definitive investigation of the 2018 Camp Fire, which occurred in my district in Butte County, California. This is the fire that destroyed destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 85 people. NIST then turned it into their escape guidance that emergency managers and first responders now use for evacuation planning. NSF funds wildfire work on the other end of the problem, predicting where a fire will spread from camera, weather, and terrain data.

So my question to you is, how, how is the administration supporting technological improvements in detection and fire spread prediction modeling or real-time monitoring that would buy communities like mine more time in the event of a catastrophic wildfire? Yeah, I mean, I think I remember we started working on this problem 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 fire will go once it's started, to be able to make sure that firefighters and the relevant folks are dispatched to the right areas. This has kind of been a— we actually hosted kind of a whole-of-government meeting at the White House to discuss this, and it showed, kind of back to an answer I gave to the previous question, 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 I think we're gonna continue 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 emphasis and use of AI, we can make a big impact. Yeah, I definitely would like to work with you, and I may get your, your contact information after this, and, uh, and we'll definitely stay in touch.

I think on both of these areas, we're in agriculture and in wildfire, are areas where, you know, using the latest technology and the promise of AI and other technology you know, can be really helpful to rural communities like mine, you know, that, you know, one, are trying to, you know, maximize in a time of high cost, you know, and use that real-time data to lower their overall costs, right, input costs. And then also on the wildfire front, to really get on top of that and be in front of that issue. Biggest thing we need to do right now is reduce fuel loads in our forested lands, and that's another another area that we're working on, but certainly would love to work with the administration on utilizing this technology. And then maybe I will just, you know, add to, you know, some of the previous question. I think diversifying our energy portfolio, and nuclear I think is one of those, you know, geothermal I think is another one that will lead to more affordable energy.

Another, you know, big problem that you— I think you've heard a lot today is communities are having their electricity prices go up and up and up. And again, that's where technology technology and new, you know, new energy sources, I think, can play a big role in lowering those costs for our constituents. Thank you. Gentlemen, time's expired. And I think this is going to conclude our hearing.

And I want to thank you, Director Kratzios, for being here today and your valuable testimony. I wish you very, very good fortune and good luck with your 1-year-old. I have 17 grandkids. Raised 5 of our own, and so I can appreciate what you and some of the other folks here with young children have. I want to thank the witness for your valuable testimony.

The record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments with written questions from members if you have them. And I'm looking very much forward to a true gold standard and gold— golden age of science. Let's put it like that. Thank you for your service. Thank you, sir.

We adjourned.