    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       ADVANCING AMERICA'S AI ACTION PLAN
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 14, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-24

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                   __________

                            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    62-455                        WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana                       Member
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
    CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    DARRELL ISSA, California             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
    CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
    SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
    MAX MILLER, Ohio                     GABE AMO, Rhode Island
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
    MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                LUZ RIVAS, California
    VINCE FONG, California               SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         LAURA GILLEN, New York
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
    PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina              Vice-Ranking Member
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
    JEFF HURD, Colorado                  APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
    MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida            JOSH RILEY, New York
    MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    NICK BEGICH, Alaska                  DON BEYER, Virginia
    MATT VAN EPPS, Tennessee
                                     ------

                    Subcommittee on Research and Technology

                    HON. JAY OBERNOLTE, California, Chairman
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,
    DARRELL ISSA, California                 Ranking Member
    VINCE FONG, California               SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
    DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         LUZ RIVAS, California
    SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina          SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
    MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                January 14, 2026

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Jay Obernolte, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

    Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    11
        Written Statement............................................    12

    Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..    13
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    15
        Written Statement............................................    16

                                   Witnesses:

    Hon. Michael Kratsios, Director, White House Office of Science
      and Technology Policy
        Oral Statement...............................................    18
        Written Statement............................................    20

    Discussion.......................................................    24

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Hon. Michael Kratsios, Director, White House Office of Science
      and Technology Policy..........................................    64

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Documents submitted by Representative Jay Obernolte, Chairman,
      Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
        Letter dated Dec. 26, 2025, from Phyllis A. Arthur, EVP &
          Head, Healthcare Policies and Programs, Biotechnology
          Innovation Organization, to Stacy Murphy, Deputy Chief
          Operations Officer/Security Officer, Office of Science and
          Technology Policy..........................................    74
        Statement dated Jan. 14, 2026, from Kinsey Fabrizio,
          President, and Gary Shapiro, Executive Chair and CEO,
          Consumer Technology Association............................    88
        Letter dated Jan. 14, 2026, from Paul Lekas, Executive Vice
          President, Global Public Policy & Government Affairs,
          Software & Information Industry Association, to the
          Honorable Brian Babin (R-TX), Chairman, House Committee on
          Science, Space, and Technology, et al......................    90
    Letter dated Nov. 25, 2025, submitted by Representative Zoe
      Lofgren, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, from the National
      Association of Attorneys General to the Honorable Mike Johnson,
      Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, et al..................    93

                       ADVANCING AMERICA'S AI ACTION PLAN

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026

                      House of Representatives,
               Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jay Obernolte
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Obernolte. The Subcommittee on Research and
    Technology will come to order. Without objection, The Chair is
    authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
        I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Research and
    Technology Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Advancing America's
    AI (Artificial Intelligence) Action Plan.'' Today, we'll hear
    testimony from the Director of the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael Kratsios, on the
    Administration's artificial intelligence strategy.
        As I think we all know, AI is poised to become a
    foundational driver of innovation worldwide. From serving as a
    personal assistant to generating computer code to advancing the
    frontiers of human science, the scope and impact of AI
    continues to expand at a truly extraordinary pace.
        It is critical that Congress does its job in enacting an
    appropriate Federal framework for this burgeoning new
    technology. It is also imperative that the framework maintain
    the position of the United States as the leading force in the
    development and deployment of worldwide AI. American leadership
    in AI is essential to sustained economic growth, technological
    advancement across a wide range of applications, and the
    protection of our national security, particularly as
    competitors such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seek to
    undermine U.S. leadership in this space.
        Through my experience as Co-Chair of the Bipartisan House
    AI Task Force last Congress, I've seen firsthand the importance
    of maintaining U.S. leadership in this area. AI-enabled
    cyberattacks are a growing threat that demands our constant
    vigilance. At the same time, as AI becomes more embedded in
    everyday life, Americans are entrusting vast amounts of
    personal data to these systems, heightening the risk that
    sensitive information could fall into the hands of malicious
    actors.
        Against this backdrop, last July, the White House unveiled
    ``Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan.'' This
    strategy is built around three pillars: innovation,
    infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. It is
    critical that Congress works with the executive branch to craft
    a unified and effective national AI strategy.
        In December of 2024, the Bipartisan House AI Task Force,
    which was co-led by Congressman Lieu and myself, released a
    report outlining guiding principles for AI policy. This
    bipartisan effort resulted in 66 findings and 89
    recommendations, many of which align with the AI Action Plan,
    including expanding access to computing power for researchers,
    investing in K-12 AI education, and advancing AI evaluations.
    Among its recommendations, the Task Force called for codifying
    the National AI Research Resource, what we call NAIRR, and
    strengthening the science of AI evaluation and standards.
        My legislation, the Create AI Act, would codify NAIRR,
    while the forthcoming Great American AI Act will formalize the
    Center for AI Standards and Innovation, or CAISI, at the
    Department of Commerce to advance AI evaluation and standard
    setting.
        I am very glad to see that the Administration's AI Action
    Plan including--includes many of the same tenets as the AI Task
    Force report, including support for the continuation of NAIRR
    and for tasking the CAISI with the critical work of developing
    standards and evaluating frontier AI models. I commend the
    center for its strong report last fall assessing the national
    security implications posed by DeepSeek. The center serves as a
    critical hub for technical AI expertise within our government,
    and I look forward to its continued work.
        OSTP under Director Kratsios's leadership is steering the
    development of the AI Action Plan and will oversee its
    implementation as part of the Nation's broader science and
    technology agenda. I hope that we can all agree it is critical
    that Congress now step up to the plate and work with the
    executive branch in developing a competitive vision for
    American leadership in artificial intelligence.
        I'd like to thank Director Kratsios for being here today,
    and I appreciate his willingness to appear before the
    Subcommittee. We welcome his testimony on this critically
    important topic.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Obernolte follows:]

        Good morning. Welcome to today's Research and Technology
    Subcommittee hearing titled, ``Advancing America's AI Action
    Plan.'' Today, we will hear testimony from the Director of the
    White Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael
    Kratsios, on the Administration's artificial intelligence (AI)
    strategy.
        AI is poised to become a foundational driver of innovation
    worldwide. From serving as a personal assistant to generating
    computer code to advancing the frontiers of human science, the
    scope and impact of AI continues to expand at an extraordinary
    pace.
        It is critical that Congress does its job in enacting an
    appropriate federal framework for this burgeoning new
    technology. It is also imperative that this framework maintains
    the position of the United States as the leading force in the
    development and deployment of worldwide AI. American leadership
    in AI is essential to sustained economic growth, technological
    advancement across a wide range of applications, and the
    protection of our national security, particularly as
    competitors such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seek to
    undermine U.S. leadership in this space.
        Through my experience as co-chair of the bipartisan House
    AI Task Force last Congress, I have seen firsthand the
    importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in this area. AI-
    enabled cyberattacks are a growing threat that demands constant
    vigilance. At the same time, as AI becomes more embedded in
    everyday life, Americans are entrusting vast amounts of
    personal data to these systems, heightening the risk that
    sensitive information could fall into the hands of malicious
    actors.
        Against this backdrop, on July 23, 2025, the White House
    unveiled ``Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan.'' The
    strategy is built around three pillars: innovation,
    infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. It is
    critical that Congress works with the executive branch to craft
    a unified and effective national AI strategy.
        In December 2024, the Bipartisan House AI Task Force, co-
    led by Mr. Lieu and myself, released a report outlining guiding
    principles for AI policy. The bipartisan effort resulted in 66
    findings and 89 recommendations, many of which align with the
    AI Action Plan, including expanding access to computing power
    for researchers, investing in K-12 AI education, and advancing
    AI evaluations.
        Among its recommendations, the Task Force called for
    codifying the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) and
    strengthening the science of AI evaluation and standards. My
    legislation, the CREATE AI Act, would codify the NAIRR, while
    the forthcoming Great American AI Act would formalize the
    Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) at the
    Department of Commerce to advance AI evaluation and standard-
    setting.
        I am glad to see that the Administration's AI Action Plan
    includes many of the same tenets as the AI Task Force Report,
    including support for the continuation of NAIRR and for tasking
    the Center for AI Standards and Innovation with the critical
    work of developing standards and evaluating frontier AI models.
    I commend the Center for its strong report last fall assessing
    the national security implications posed by DeepSeek. The
    Center serves as a crucial hub for technical AI expertise
    within the government, and I look forward to its continued
    work. OSTP, under Director Kratsios' leadership, is steering
    the development of the AI Action Plan and will oversee its
    implementation as part of the nation's broader science and
    technology agenda.
        It is clear that Congress must step up to the plate and
    work with the executive branch in developing a competitive
    vision for American leadership in artificial intelligence.
        I thank Director Kratsios for being here today and
    appreciate his willingness to appear before the Subcommittee.
    We welcome his testimony on this critically important topic.

        Chairman Obernolte. Thank you very much. I will now yield
    back the balance of my time, and I will recognize the Ranking
    Member of the Subcommittee, Representative Stevens of Michigan,
    for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for holding
    today's hearing.
        And of course, thank you to Director Kratsios for joining
    us today as well. OSTP has always held a very special place in
    my heart and is an agency or a division of the White House that
    we are grateful to have a connection to on this Committee. And
    it is also very important that our thoughtful discussion today
    will be around implementing the Administration's AI plan while
    protecting American workers.
        We all know that you can't talk about AI innovation and
    American competitiveness without talking about Michigan
    manufacturing. And you can't talk about the future of
    manufacturing without talking about the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST is the little agency
    that could, and it is at the forefront of our efforts in
    artificial intelligence, quantum, robotics, and advanced
    manufacturing.
        Thanks to the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 that many of us
    in this room helped write and pass, NIST is bringing
    semiconductor manufacturing back to America to develop the next
    generation of AI chips right here at home. NIST's semiconductor
    work is also critical to the Administration's AI plan, and we
    don't want to see the agency being undermined, something that
    has long been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.
        Just to shine a light here--and this is the work of our
    Committee, and this is what we do. We have authorizing ability.
    And it is important to just shine a light. The budget for the
    Fiscal Year 2026, it slashed NIST funding by $325 million, $325
    million dollars. And we're eliminating 500 jobs from the
    agency's lab program. You know, we know, so many of us, how
    sacred this work is and how important it is, even when you just
    have just a handful of researchers working on these matters.
    And the cuts hinder NIST's AI-related efforts. They're going to
    weaken cybersecurity and privacy standards, something I have
    legislation on, and limit advanced manufacturing, physical
    infrastructure, and resilience innovation.
        And given the shared goal of supporting the growth of
    advanced manufacturing, our next generation, you know, this is
    something we see alive and well in Michigan, continuing to grow
    through our supply chain, the design of not only products but
    also our factory floors using AI applications. I'm really
    alarmed that the Administration is trying to eliminate NIST's
    Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP). They repeatedly tried to
    do that last year. And the MEP program is designed to support,
    well, not just Michigan, but all of the Nation's small and
    midsized manufacturers to see them adopt advanced technology
    and compete on the global stage.
        And so in 2024 alone, just the MEP Center in Michigan
    created or saved 5,000 jobs. Yet, like every other MEP center,
    it was on the chopping block. And what makes even less sense is
    that the Administration's constant attacks on domestic chip
    manufacturing and the CHIPS and Science Act, which we should be
    all singing loud and proudly, the uncertainty that the
    manufacturers are facing, despite clear congressional desire to
    bring chip manufacturing back to America, has been really
    frustrating.
        And I was surprised to learn that we're kind of seeing the
    arbitrarily canceled semiconductor-focused Manufacturing USA
    Institute in December, that that happened. And that's stalling
    a lot of progress.
        So I could go on, but we're losing talent and institutional
    knowledge. We're shrinking. And, frankly, we're destroying our
    research capacity and undermining global competitiveness, all
    while we're supposed to be touting how we can lead on AI.
        And so I'm going to do everything I can in this
    Subcommittee, Mr. Chair, for accountability, to stand up for
    science, the science that Michiganders and our manufacturers
    rely on every day, so we can continue to innovate and build.
    And I just want to thank every NIST public servant, the people
    in this room, and the people in the department.
        And with that, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens follows:]

        Thank you for holding today's hearing, Mr. Chairman. I
    would also like to thank Mr. Kratsios for joining us today. I
    look forward to a thoughtful discussion on implementing the
    Administration's AI Action Plan while protecting American
    workers.
        You can't talk about AI innovation and American
    competitiveness without talking about Michigan manufacturing,
    and you can't talk about the future of manufacturing without
    talking about The National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, or NIST.
        NIST is the ``little agency that could'' and is at the
    forefront of our efforts in artificial intelligence, quantum,
    robotics, and advanced manufacturing. Thanks to the CHIPS and
    Science Act that many of us in this room helped write and pass,
    NIST is bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to America to
    develop the next generation of AI chips right here at home.
        NIST's semiconductor work is critical to the
    Administration's AI plan and yet for some reason, Mr. Kratsios,
    the administration is actively undermining this agency that's
    long been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.
        Notably, the President's Fiscal Year 2026 budget slashes
    NIST's funding by $325 million and eliminates over 500 jobs
    from the agency's lab program. These cuts hinder NIST's AI-
    related efforts, weaken cybersecurity and privacy standards,
    and limit advanced manufacturing, physical infrastructure, and
    resilience innovation.
        Given our shared goal of supporting next generation
    manufacturing in the U.S., I was particularly alarmed to see
    the Administration try to eliminate NIST's Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership program repeatedly last year. The MEP
    program is designed to support Michigan's small and medium
    sized manufacturers adopt advanced technology and compete on
    the global stage. In 2024 alone, Michigan's MEP Center created
    or saved 5,000 Michigan jobs. Yet, like every other MEP center,
    it was on the chopping block.
        What makes even less sense is this Administration's
    constant attacks on domestic chip manufacturing and the CHIPS
    and Science Act. The uncertainty that these manufacturers face
    at the whims of this Administration, despite clear
    Congressional desire to bring chip manufacturing back to
    America, has been appalling.
        Additionally, I was surprised to learn this Administration
    arbitrarily cancelled the semiconductor-focused manufacturing
    USA institute in December-stalling years of progress.
        Unfortunately, I could go on - and all of this is at just
    one agency. In Michigan and across the U.S., the
    Administration's actions are losing us our best talent and
    institutional knowledge, shrinking and in some cases destroying
    our research capacity, and undermining our
    globalcompetitiveness in science and technology. It's going to
    cost us decades.
        I will continue to do everything I can on this subcommittee
    to hold this Administration accountable, to stand up for the
    science that Michiganders rely on every single day, and to
    ensure Michigan and our country are innovating, building, and
    driving the future.
        As a former NIST employee, I thank the public servants at
    NIST and across the scientific enterprise for their steadfast
    work to advance our common good. Director Kratsios, they need
    you in their corner. Thank you for coming before us today to
    discuss these important topics, and I look forward to hearing
    your testimony.
        I yield back.

        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. I now
    recognize The Chairman of the Full Committee, Representative
    Babin of Texas, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
        Chairman Babin. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte.
        I appreciate the--Mr. Kratsios being here today, and we're
    looking forward to his testimony. I appreciate this entire
    hearing.
        Supporting the Trump Administration's strategy to advance
    AI innovation, strengthen infrastructure, and reinforce
    international security is absolutely essential to maintaining
    U.S. leadership in the global AI marketplace and promoting
    peace through strength. The threat posed by the Chinese
    Communist Party, or CCP, continues to expand in the AI domain.
    Foreign AI efforts, particularly those pushed by the CCP,
    present serious national security risks, from research
    espionage and AI-enabled cyberattacks to the collection of
    American sensitive data. The AI Action Plan is designed to
    confront these threats by empowering the Center for AI
    Standards and Innovation and the Department of Homeland
    Security to bolster cybersecurity protection for critical
    infrastructure.
        As the--as Chairman of the House Science, Space, and
    Technology Committee, it's very clear to me that the Trump
    Administration's vision for American dominance in AI closely
    aligns with the bipartisan work of this Committee. In January
    2021, the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 became law as part
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
    Led by the House SST Committee, this law charges key agencies
    within our jurisdiction to support AI research and development
    (R&D), many of which received additional policy direction
    through the AI Action Plan.
        As Chairman Obernolte noted, the findings and
    recommendations of the Bipartisan House AI Task Force are also
    well aligned with this Administration's strategy. One such
    recommendation calls for expanding access to advanced computing
    resources for researchers. The Committee's jurisdiction over
    the Department of Energy (DOE) places us at the center of this
    initiative as DOE's National Laboratories host three of the
    world's fastest supercomputers, Frontier at Oak Ridge National
    Lab, Aurora at Argonne National Lab, and El Capitan at Lawrence
    Livermore National Laboratory. Thus, this objective to expand
    access to computing power builds directly on these existing
    national capabilities.
        Moreover, these National Laboratories, along with DOE's
    Office of Science, house some of the Nation's leading AI
    expertise. Other agencies within our jurisdiction, including
    the National Science Foundation (NSF), also support cutting-
    edge AI technical research and talent development. The
    Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology have a long history of developing non-regulatory
    standards for emerging technologies and providing independent
    model evaluations that the private sector can trust.
        Tackling complex policy issues surrounding emerging
    technologies like AI is nothing new for the Science, Space, and
    Technology Committee. From civil nuclear energy, space
    exploration, cryptography, information technology,
    biotechnology and genetics, blockchain and nanotechnology, we
    have put forward sound policy that ensured U.S. leadership. And
    while debates over specific AI policies will continue, our
    Committee has an opportunity to advance common sense
    legislation that provides access to Federal computing
    resources, supports research and development, trains the next-
    generation workforce, offers independent model evaluations, and
    promotes consensus-based standards. Many of our Members have
    put forward legislation that addresses the very policies
    recommended by the Administration and the AI Task Force.
        I look forward to advancing AI legislation in the coming
    weeks and hope very much that this hearing will provide an
    ample opportunity to inform this process. Congress must ensure
    that America leads in AI. And doing so will bolster our
    economic competitiveness, protect our national security, and
    promote our values of liberties and freedom.
        I appreciate your presence today, Mr. Kratsios, and welcome
    your testimony. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]

        Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte, for convening
    today's hearing. I also thank the Director of the White House
    Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael
    Kratsios, for joining us to discuss President Trump's plan for
    America to win the artificial intelligence (AI) race.
        Supporting the Trump Administration's strategy to advance
    AI innovation, strengthen infrastructure, and reinforce
    international security is essential to maintaining U.S.
    leadership in the global AI marketplace and promoting peace
    through strength.
        The threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
    continues to expand into the AI domain. Foreign AI efforts,
    particularly those pushed by the CCP, present serious national
    security risks--from research espionage and AI-enabled
    cyberattacks to the collection of Americans' sensitive data.
    The AI Action Plan is designed to confront these threats by
    empowering the Center for AI Standards and Innovation and the
    Department of Homeland Security to bolster cybersecurity
    protections for critical infrastructure.
        As Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology
    Committee, it is clear to me that the Trump Administration's
    vision for American dominance in AI closely aligns with the
    bipartisan work of this Committee.
        In January 2021, the National AI Initiative Act of 2020
    became law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2021. Led by the House SST Committee, this law
    charges key agencies within our jurisdiction to support AI
    research and development--many of which received additional
    policy direction through the AI Action Plan.
        As Chairman Obernolte noted, the findings and
    recommendations of the Bipartisan House AI Task Force are also
    well aligned with the Administration's strategy.
        One such recommendation calls for expanding access to
    advanced computing resources for researchers. The Committee's
    jurisdiction over the Department of Energy places us at the
    center of this initiative, as DOE's National Laboratories host
    three of the world's fastest supercomputers--Frontier at Oak
    Ridge National Laboratory, Aurora at Argonne National
    Laboratory, and El Capitan at Lawrence Livermore National
    Laboratory. Thus, this objective to expand access to computing
    power builds directly on these existing national capabilities.
        Moreover, these National Laboratories, along with DOE's
    Office of Science, house some of the nation's leading AI
    expertise. Other agencies within our jurisdiction, including
    the National Science Foundation, also support cutting-edge AI
    technical research and talent development.
        The Department of Commerce and the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology have a long history of developing non-
    regulatory standards for emerging technologies and providing
    independent model evaluations that the private sector can
    trust.
        Tackling complex policy issues surrounding emerging
    technologies like AI is nothing new for the Science, Space, and
    Technology Committee. From civil nuclear energy, space
    exploration, cryptography, information technology,
    biotechnology and genetics, blockchain, and nanotechnology, we
    have put forward sound policy that ensured U.S. leadership.
    While debates over specific AI policies will continue, our
    Committee has an opportunity to advance commonsense legislation
    that provides access to federal computing resources, supports
    research and development, trains the next-generation workforce,
    offers independent model evaluations, and promotes consensus-
    based standards.
        Many of our members have put forward legislation that
    addresses the very policies recommended by the Administration
    and the AI Task Force. I look forward to advancing AI
    legislation in the coming weeks and hope that this hearing will
    provide an opportunity to inform that process.
        Congress must ensure that America leads in AI. Doing so
    will bolster our economic competitiveness, protect national
    security, and promote our values of liberty and freedom. I
    appreciate your presence today, Director Kratsios, and welcome
    your testimony.
        Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

        Chairman Obernolte. Thank you, Chairman Babin.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
    Representative Lofgren of California, for 5 minutes for her
    opening statement.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, too, thank you,
    Mr. Kratsios, for joining us today.
        AI has the potential to reshape the American economy and
    innovation ecosystem. I'm really excited about its promise and
    the potential opportunity it brings to improve productivity and
    to accelerate innovation. However, AI has also sometimes
    accelerated harmful and even criminal activities. Just a little
    over a week ago, xAI's chatbot Grok made headlines by
    generating thousands of instances of nonconsensual sexual
    imagery, including child pornography, at the request of users
    on X's main platform. We've also seen major instances of
    chatbots encouraging users with mental health issues to murder
    and commit suicide. These are just two of many troubling
    examples.
        Nearly half a year has passed since the Administration
    unveiled its AI Action Plan with a focus on innovation,
    infrastructure, international diplomacy, and security goals
    that I certainly appreciate and support. Unfortunately, the
    plan only minimally addresses the risks of AI. And, even where
    it does, including with respect to deepfakes, the
    Administration has failed to take meaningful action to address
    these risks. To the contrary, this Administration's actions
    raise major questions about the disconnect between the Action
    Plan's goals and reality. And I'd like to address just two
    specific areas where the Administration's actions have raised
    concern.
        First, this Administration has taken steps to prevent
    States like California from regulating against harms that have
    been created or exacerbated by AI systems. In December,
    President Trump signed an Executive order (EO) that directs the
    Department of Justice to sue States over their AI laws and
    threatens to withhold billions in Federal broadband funding
    from these states. This order asserts that the Administration,
    not Congress, not State legislatures, but the Administration
    itself, should have the power to decide what kind of State laws
    are too burdensome and to reallocate where billions of dollars
    should go as a result. I think this order is unconstitutional,
    but I'm not here to defend every State AI law that's been
    proposed or passed.
        Some of what California has adopted to protect its people
    is appropriate. And other legislation that was beyond the scope
    of what a State should do was vetoed by the Governor with the
    support of the California congressional delegation, vetoed
    because it went too far.
        But there was a reason Justice Brandeis suggested that
    States are the laboratories of democracy. What we should not do
    is preempt the States from taking necessary actions to protect
    their citizens while here in Congress, we do nothing to pass
    legislation ourselves.
        It's not just Democrats saying this. Florida Governor Ron
    DeSantis has said that President Trump's Executive order,
    quote, ``can't preempt State legislative action.'' And in
    November, a bipartisan group of 36 State Attorney Generals
    wrote to leaders of Congress opposing slapdash Federal
    preemption efforts. And I'd like unanimous consent to put this
    letter into the record.
        Chairman Obernolte. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. Secondly, I'm very concerned by the
    Administration taking cuts of revenue or equity in companies.
    The AI Action Plan emphasizes free markets, deregulation,
    getting government out of the way of the private sector. But
    over the past year, the Administration has spent billions of
    taxpayer dollars to take direct ownership stakes in private
    companies. The government now owns nearly 10 percent of Intel,
    making it the largest shareholder. It holds equity positions in
    rare earth mining companies and is negotiating similar deals
    with quantum computing companies. This trend is unusual and
    concerning. In our Nation's history, the U.S. Government has
    taken equity shares in private companies only in times of war
    or economic crisis. Actually, this is socialism on the part of
    the Trump Administration. That's a charge that's sometimes made
    against Democrats, even though Democrats favor free markets,
    but it's what the Trump Administration is actually doing:
    engaging in socialism. Now, how are the Administration's
    actions different from Chinese state capitalism, I ask.
        Mr. Kratsios, America can and must lead in the field of
    artificial intelligence, but it's going to take a whole lot
    more than empty promises and emulating the PRC (People's
    Republic of China) to make that happen. I look forward to
    hearing from you about these challenges and others during
    today's hearing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Mr. Kratsios for
    joining us today. AI has the potential to reshape the American
    economy and innovation ecosystem. I am truly excited about its
    promise and the potential opportunity it brings to improve
    productivity and accelerate innovation.
        However, AI has also accelerated harmful and even criminal
    activities. Just a little over a week ago, xAI's chatbot Grok
    made headlines by generating thousands of instances of
    nonconsensual sexual imagery--including child pornography--at
    the request of users on X's main platform. We have also seen
    major instances of chatbots encouraging users with mental
    health issues to murder and commit suicide. These are just two
    of many troubling examples.
        Nearly half a year has passed since the Administration
    unveiled its AI Action Plan, with a focus on innovation,
    infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security--goals
    that I certainly appreciate and support. Unfortunately, the
    plan only minimally addressed the risks of AI, and even where
    it did--including with respect to deepfakes--the Administration
    has failed to take meaningful action to address these risks. To
    the contrary, this Administration's actions raise major
    questions about the disconnect between the Action Plan's goals
    and reality. I'd like to address two specific areas where the
    Administration's actions raise concerns.
        First, this Administration has taken steps to prevent
    states, like California, from regulating against harms that
    have been created or exacerbated by AI systems.
        In December, President Trump signed an executive order that
    directs the Department of Justice to sue States over their AI
    laws and threatens to withhold billions in federal broadband
    funding from these States. This order asserts that the
    Administration--not Congress, not State legislatures, but the
    Administration itself--should have the power to decide what
    kinds of State laws are too burdensome, and to reallocate where
    billions of dollars should go as a result. I believe this order
    is unconstitutional.
        I'm not here to defend every state AI law that's been
    proposed or passed. Some of what California has adopted to
    protect its people is appropriate and other legislation the
    Governor, with the support of the delegation, vetoed because
    they were not appropriate.
        But there was a reason Justice Brandeis suggested that
    states are the laboratories of democracy. In the absence of a
    Federal framework, we should be encouraging states to
    experiment with how best to manage the risks to their citizens.
    What we should not do is preempt the states from taking
    necessary actions to protect their citizens while we twiddle
    our thumbs here in Congress.
        It's not just Democrats saying this. Florida Governor Ron
    DeSantis has said that President Trump's executive order
    ``can't preempt state legislative action.'' And in November, a
    bipartisan group of 36 State Attorneys General wrote a letter
    to leaders of Congress opposing slapdash federal preemption
    efforts. I'd like unanimous consent to enter this letter into
    the record, Mr. Chairman.
        Second, I am deeply concerned by the Administration taking
    cuts of revenue or equity in companies.
        The AI Action Plan emphasizes free markets, deregulation,
    and getting government out of the way of the private sector.
        But over the past year, the Administration has spent
    billions of taxpayer dollars to take direct ownership stakes in
    private companies. The government now owns nearly 10 percent of
    Intel, making it the largest shareholder. It holds equity
    positions in rare earth mining companies and is negotiating
    similar deals with quantum computing companies. This trend is
    unusual and concerning. In our nation's history, the U.S.
    government has taken equity shares in private companies only in
    times of war or economic crisis.
        This is socialism on the part of the Trump Administration.
    That's a charge that is sometimes made against Democrats, even
    though it is something we oppose, but it's what the Trump
    Administration is actually doing.
        How are the Administration's actions different from Chinese
    state capitalism?
        Mr. Kratsios, America can and must lead in the field of
    artificial intelligence. But it's going to take a whole lot
    more than empty promises and emulating the PRC to make it
    happen. I look forward to hearing from you about these
    challenges and others during today's hearing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

        Chairman Obernolte. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren.
        It's now an honor to introduce our witness. Our witness
    today is Hon. Michael Kratsios, who is the Director of the
    White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is
    President Trump's chief science and technology policy adviser.
    And as the 13th Director of the White House Office of Standards
    and Technology Policy, Director Kratsios oversees the
    development and execution of the Nation's science and
    technology policy agenda. He leads the Administration's efforts
    to ensure American leadership in scientific discovery and
    technological innovation, including in critical and emerging
    technologies, such as artificial intelligence, quantum
    computing, and biotechnology.
        In the first Administration, he served as the fourth Chief
    Technology Officer of the United States at the White House and
    as Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering at the
    Pentagon. Prior to his service in the White House, Director
    Kratsios invested in, advised, and built technology companies
    in Silicon Valley.
        A South Carolina native, Director Kratsios graduated from
    Princeton University, but we will not hold that against you,
    and served as a visiting scholar at Beijing's Tsinghua
    University.
        Without--I now recognize Director Kratsios for 5 minutes to
    present his testimony.

                  TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL KRATSIOS,

                DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE

                         AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte and Ranking
    Member Stevens, as well as Full Committee Chairman Babin and
    Ranking Member Lofgren, for inviting me to speak to you today
    about the President's AI policies.
        Last July, the Trump Administration released ``Winning the
    AI Race: America's AI Action Plan,'' outlining a strategy to
    maintain global leadership in AI based on three pillars:
    innovation, infrastructure, and international partnerships.
    Over the last 6 months, the Administration has moved from
    strategy to execution as I and my team at the White House
    coordinate implementation across the Federal Government. I'm
    excited to highlight where we stand now in executing this
    playbook, but first let me thank the Members of this Committee
    for all that you have done for American AI.
        As my office coordinates the Administration's
    implementation of the Action Plan, I see many opportunities for
    collaboration with this Committee and with Congress. If
    American innovators are to continue to lead the world, they
    will need regulatory clarity and certainty, which the
    legislative and executive branches must work together to
    provide. The Action Plan focuses on three main priorities for
    the U.S. Government: removing barriers to innovation, securing
    energy dominance, and exporting our technology to partners
    around the world. In the past 6 months, we have seen tremendous
    progress in all of these areas.
        In innovation, with the release of our request for
    information concerning regulatory reform on AI last September,
    we're working with industry and the American people to relieve
    innovators of undue regulatory burdens and to formulate policy
    frameworks that safeguard the public interest while enabling
    further revolutionary developments. I'm particularly excited
    about the innovative potential of the Genesis Mission and AI
    for science. With the signing of that Executive order,
    President Trump has mobilized the largest Federal scientific
    effort since the Apollo program. By fusing massive Federal
    datasets with advanced supercomputing capabilities, Genesis
    will help America's scientists automate experiment design,
    accelerate simulations, and generate predictive models for
    everything from medicine and energy to materials and
    agriculture.
        In infrastructure, of course, the Administration's effort
    to clear away red tape and facilitate AI construction have been
    enormously successful. But I am especially excited about the
    energy capacity American industry is building, both to power
    the AI revolution and all of the other incredible technologies
    this new age of discovery will unlock. President Trump and the
    Department of Energy are committed to accelerating and
    enhancing the growth of American nuclear power, creating space
    to experiment, facilitating small modular reactor (SMR)
    buildout, and continuing the pursuit of fusion energy.
        In international partnerships and AI diplomacy, we continue
    to push back against global AI governance at the United
    Nations, G7, APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation), and
    other forums, and to defend great American companies from
    foreign nations' stifling regulatory regimes. I am particularly
    excited about the American AI export program. As the Commerce
    and State Departments roll that out, there will soon be a
    request for proposals shared with industry, and a formal launch
    of the program in the coming months. Our goal is for U.S.
    companies to provide modular AI stack packages that empower
    countries to develop sovereign AI capabilities with American
    technology.
        The Action Plan is a giant leap forward, furthering first
    steps President Trump took for American AI dominance in his
    first term. With the call for this plan, his first week back in
    office, the President recommitted himself and the country to
    American AI leadership. The need for renewed effort was clear.
    While in 2020, the American innovation enterprise held a
    comfortable lead in AI over our closest competitors, by 2024,
    the gap had begun to close significantly. But with his Golden
    Age vision of scientific rigor and technological progress,
    President Trump has restored a spirit of confidence to our
    innovation enterprise. We are approaching AI not with fear but
    with responsible boldness.
        Looking ahead, there is still so much to be done working
    together. As our innovators continue to find novel applications
    of AI technology to everyday life, we can ensure they benefit
    all Americans through small business training, workforce
    development, and AI education. I'm proud to say that more than
    250 companies have signed the First Lady's Pledge to America's
    Youth, committing hundreds of millions of dollars to investing
    in AI education. And I just returned from consumer electronics
    show, where there is obvious excitement about American AI but
    also about what's ahead in quantum information science.
        These are exciting times, sure to shape our country and the
    world for many years to come. Thank you all for your
    leadership.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kratsios follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Obernolte. Well, thank you very much for your
    testimony. We will now move on to question and answers from the
    panel, and we'll start with questions from myself. So I'll
    recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Director Kratsios, I want to start with the points that
    Ranking Member Lofgren raised, which I thought were excellent
    and really pertinent, as usual, and, in particular, the point
    about preemption. So, to be clear, I don't think anyone
    believes that the States shouldn't have a lane in regulating
    AI, but I think what everyone believes is that there should be
    a Federal lane and that there should be a State lane and that
    the Federal Government needs to go first in defining what is
    under article I of the Constitution, interstate commerce, and
    where those preemptive guardrails are that that--where
    regulation is reserved only for regulation at the Federal level
    and then outside those guardrails, where the States are free to
    go be the laboratories of democracy that they are.
        So the President recognized this in his Executive order
    last month. He's calling for Congress to work with the
    executive branch in defining what those guardrails are. I think
    there was an explicit acknowledgement in that Executive order
    that congressional action is needed. It's not something that
    could be done unilaterally.
        So can you talk a little bit about what the
    Administration's vision for that is and where you think those
    guardrails ought to be?
        Mr. Kratsios. Absolutely. The President first spoke about
    the need for a sensible national policy framework, actually in
    July, when we released the AI Action Plan. And in that speech,
    here in Washington, he made it clear that, you know, having a
    set of 50 different laws all across the country is actually not
    the best thing for American innovation. And as someone who's
    worked in Silicon Valley and worked with lots of startups and
    been at startups, I understand the challenge.
        And I think what is sometimes missed in this conversation
    is if you have this tremendous patchwork of laws all across the
    country, the folks who actually are able to work within that
    system most successfully are the deep-pocketed, large big tech
    companies. The small innovators, the entrepreneurs, the people
    who want to start new businesses, forcing them to try to find a
    way to comply with 50 different sets of AI rules is actually
    anti-innovation and is something that I don't think anyone on
    this Committee actually supports.
        The President then took another step forward in December of
    last year, where he laid out an Executive order charging me and
    David Sacks to work to create legislation to help find a path
    forward for sensible--for a sensible national policy framework.
    And that's something that I very much look forward to working
    with everyone on this Committee for. I think what was clear in
    the Executive order specifically was that any proposed
    legislation should not preempt otherwise lawful State actions
    relating to child safety protections, AI compute and data
    infrastructure, and also State government procurement in use of
    AI. Those were ones that were called out in the Executive
    order, but we look forward over the next weeks and months to be
    working with Congress on a viable solution.
        Chairman Obernolte. Well, thank you very much.
        And, you know, this is something that we have been
    grappling with now for several years. We had a whole chapter on
    preemption in the AI Task Force report. I think it was very
    helpful that the Administration is also thinking about this
    issue and thinking about where those State lanes should be and
    how that they--how they intersect with the Federal lanes. So
    let's keep working on that.
        I also wanted to, in addition to commending you for the
    good work of CAISI, talk about the need for us in Congress to
    formally codify it. And, you know, the work it does in doing AI
    model evaluation is essential in creating what's a--what's a
    toolbox, a regulatory toolbox, for our sectoral regulators so
    everyone doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. But, you know,
    we've had this in successive Administrations now. Under the
    Biden Administration, we had the AI Safety Institute. The Trump
    Administration, we have CAISI. There are many of the same
    functions that are performed by those organizations. But I
    think everyone would agree it's unhealthy for us to have every
    successive Administration spin up a brand new agency that
    essentially is doing something with a long-term mission that
    needs continuity.
        So can you talk about whether or not you think we in
    Congress need to go ahead and codify this as part of
    implementing our national strategy on AI?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think CAISI, as was kind of discussed
    previously, I think is a very important part of the larger AI
    agenda. I think one of the important and big steps that the
    Administration took at the beginning of--of middle of last year
    was to reframe what was previously a safety institute into one
    that is focused on standards innovation. And I think from my
    perspective, the most important thing that can be done around
    CAISI at NIST is to focus on what NIST is really good at and
    what Ms. Stevens was talking about.
        It's absolutely important that the--that the legacy work
    around standards relating to AI are undertaken by CAISI. And
    that's what they're challenged to do. And that's the focus that
    they should have because the great standards that are put out
    by CAISI and by NIST are the ones that ultimately will empower
    the proliferation of this technology across many industries.
        Chairman Obernolte. Right. Well, thank you very much for
    your testimony. I'm looking forward to hearing the questions
    from our other Subcommittee Members.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Stevens for her questions.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you.
        And so, Mr. Kratsios, I missed it in your bio that the
    Chairman read. Could you just remind me what you were up to in
    the period of the Great Recession, particularly the years 2009
    and 2010? What were you doing professionally?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes. I was actually an investment banker for
    a year.
        Ms. Stevens. Oh. Yes. OK. So you--you know that period of
    time pretty well. Yes. I was----
        Mr. Kratsios. Quite personally.
        Ms. Stevens. I was in the Department of the Treasury
    working at--on the auto rescue. And it was this humble
    initiative. It was responsible for making sure the auto
    industry didn't go belly up. And we then created the White
    House Office of Manufacturing Policy coming out of that. And
    one of the steady and delightful partners that we had during
    that period of time was the Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership. As you know from your investment banking career,
    access to capital across our supply chain was just being
    squeezed. And it was a terrifying time, particularly in
    Michigan. We were the nadir of that Great Recession.
        And so throughout my career, I have seen firsthand outside
    of just what the proof in the pudding is for NIST MEP, for
    every dollar spent, $18 of output into the economy. I have--we
    have seen directly how NIST MEP has helped the small to
    midsized manufacturer, who is really the elixir of our--our
    communities and our--our economic drivers, the small
    businesses. And we know that the cumbersome reality of
    technology development, as we--as the Chairman was just talking
    about, CAISI, and you so nicely answered about its importance
    and did recognize NIST and the critical role that NIST has
    played, that--we have to have technology adoption throughout
    our supply chain and a recognition that NIST MEP plays a role
    in that.
        And so I just I just wanted to hone in that, you know, as
    we had put forth over a decade ago--and Congress directed the
    National Science and Technology Council, housed within OSTP, to
    develop a national advanced manufacturing strategy. And OSTP
    and NIST are in the process of updating that strategy.
        Are you in a position to commit to ensuring that MEP and
    other NIST programs, including Manufacturing USA, which is this
    robust network of R&D labs, that that will be central to its
    implementation?
        Mr. Kratsios. So that's a program run out of Commerce, and
    it's a conversation I would love to continue to have with
    Secretary Lutnick and his team there. I think there's obviously
    important work across all of these NIST programs and would love
    to learn more about this one specifically with the team at
    NIST.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. A couple of years ago, they--they
    celebrated their--their anniversary, you know, and it's the
    Manufacturing USA, which works very closely with NIST; in some
    instances is funded through NIST and, of course, the--the MEP
    program. And this is something that has carried through
    throughout a multitude of Administrations and was really
    designed to help us compete as--as a nation vis-a-vis other
    countries that have this collocation of R&D, tech transfer, and
    workforce development. So I do appreciate you reaching out to
    the Commerce Secretary about it.
        We'd love to show you the one that we have in Detroit
    called LIFT (Lightweight Innovations For Tomorrow), the
    workforce development but--it is incredible that happens there
    but also the collocation of large, small, and midsized
    manufacturers that are all developing their--their research and
    development.
        And then when you come and visit LIFT, you can come and see
    our MEP Center. And I want them to show you directly how they
    are leading the--these manufacturers. They are really one of
    the first enterprises that had down industry 4.0 and had a
    directive on that. And when we're looking at cutting costs,
    which we all know is so important for the taxpayer, it's--and
    when we're going to look at all this great stuff in AI and how
    it gets applied and how it gets used and, you know, nice that
    you have this framework cooking here. We're not going to leave
    people behind. And we want to do it along our small and
    midsized manufacturers.
        So thank you so much. And with that, I'll yield back, Mr.
    Chair.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. I now
    recognize The Chairman of the Full Committee, the gentleman
    from Texas, Mr. Babin, for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Chairman Babin. Thank you very much. And, again, welcome,
    Mr. Kratsios. We appreciate you being here.
        The AI Action Plan recommends that NIST revise its AI risk
    management framework to remove bias and discrimination. First
    off, how do you--how do these recommended changes help ensure
    that government guidance remains neutral and consistent with
    American values of freedom and liberty?
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you so much for that question.
        I think one of the recommendations out of the Action Plan
    was to do just that. I think, as we've spoken a lot about NIST,
    it's an agency that is very near and dear to my heart and to
    the--to the entire OSTP team. We want NIST to be focused on
    advanced scientific metrology. Inserting political rhetoric
    into their work is something that devalues and corrupts the
    broader efforts that NIST is trying to do across so many
    important scientific domains. So our hope through this effort
    is to depoliticize NIST as much as possible and to put it in a
    place where it's promulgating standards which can benefit all
    scientific innovators across the country.
        Chairman Babin. Great. Thank you.
        The Genesis Mission proposes to modernize our power grid
    through the use of AI-driven technologies. First, how will this
    contribute to America's energy dominance?
        Mr. Kratsios. Well, broadly speaking, energy dominance and
    energy leadership has been a top priority for the President,
    broadly this theme of energy abundance. For us, we believe that
    there's great technologies that are ultimately going to drive
    broader energy abundance. It can be everything from fusion
    technology that we have--hope to have in the decades to come
    and even the use of AI to optimize grids and so many other ways
    to do it. So for us and especially for this President, our
    National Energy Dominance Council, energy abundance is key. And
    Genesis will be a big part of that.
        Chairman Babin. Exactly. And, then, second, what specific
    short-term outcomes can we expect from the Genesis Mission over
    the next two to 3 years?
        Mr. Kratsios. So on the--on the short-term front, I think
    what we hope to do over the next year is to broaden the
    participation of Genesis across the government and across the
    international community. As you may have seen, the first big
    announcement around Genesis was the addition of partners across
    the private sector here in the United States. The tasking of
    the Executive order to me and to OSTP as--as a Director has
    been to try to bring in and incorporate other agencies. And why
    that's so important to Genesis is the underlying thesis of
    Genesis is that the government has extraordinarily valuable
    scientific data that when pooled together and collaborated with
    AI can drive tremendous scientific discovery and acceleration.
        So our next step is, how do we bring important potentially
    healthcare data or health--or data from the National Science
    Foundation or from even NIST or other scientific agencies?
        And then the next short-term goal is to figure out who are
    our international partners in the scientific community that
    have things that they can offer the Genesis Mission which would
    accelerates it--its ultimate goal?
        Chairman Babin. And, then, looking further ahead, what is
    the long-term vision for the Genesis Mission beyond its first
    decade? And how do you impact or how do you anticipate its
    impact evolving over time?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think the overarching goal that we have
    said consistency--consistently is that the Genesis Mission's
    goal is to double the output of United States R&D in a decade.
    And we want to be able to do that by focusing on some very
    large, grand challenges, everything from across energy to
    biotech to drug discovery, nuclear fusion, critical minerals.
    And that's kind of our North star.
        Chairman Babin. Absolutely. And, then, to maintain a
    competitive advantage over our bad actors, like the Chinese
    Communist Party, President Trump has emphasized the need to
    build, baby, build across the U.S. economy and our critical
    infrastructure. And from your perspective, Director Kratsios,
    what elements of the AI Action Plan most effectively strengthen
    the U.S. economy and position the United States as the global
    leader in AI?
        Mr. Kratsios. Well, I don't know. I'm very biased because I
    love the whole report. So I think each of the three pillars
    is--plays a big part in what you're arguing for. I think on
    the--on the building front, obviously, pillar two around
    infrastructure and data center buildout is--is extraordinarily
    critical. We want to develop a regulatory environment that
    allows these, the product--the sort of standing up of this AI
    infrastructure, to happen and also in a way that doesn't
    necessarily adversely affect American ratepayers.
        The second piece is--is around the regulatory structure. We
    want to create a regulatory environment where our greatest
    innovators can develop and promulgate their AI technologies
    here in the United States in a safe way. And we think we're
    charging toward--toward that.
        And the last piece, which has been a sort of a big sort of
    priority for me, even from my time in Trump 45, we have to
    continue to invest in critical AI recent development funding as
    a Federal Government. And there's been a lot of talk about
    Federal budgets and the President's proposal last year, but the
    key thing that I always try to remind people is, even in our
    attempt to try to rightsize the budget, the one area where we
    have kept a consistent amount of proposed budget funding has
    been in AI. We believe that this is a critical research
    priority for the Administration, and it's something that we're
    going to continue to fund.
        Chairman Babin. Absolutely. Thank you so very much.
        And my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. I now
    recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
    Representative Lofgren of California, for 5 minutes for her
    questions.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to return to a point that I raised in my opening
    statement. The nonconsensual manipulation of people's photos
    and the rampant uncontrolled dissemination of sexualized images
    of children is evil, disgusting stuff. And, instead of acting
    quickly to stop it, Elon Musk seemed to revel in it until
    public pressure became too intense. And then what did he do? He
    has now said only paid subscribers can have access to Grok's
    image generation feature. So pedophiles could previously
    conjure up these images for free, but he's now monetized the
    feature and will be collecting $3 monthly from depraved
    individuals who choose to subscribe. He's created a revenue
    stream for child pornography.
        It sure looks like laws against the creation and
    dissemination of child sexual abuse material are being broken.
    However, President Trump is sending American taxpayer dollars
    to xAI through a deal made in September. Essentially, we're
    paying Elon Musk to give perverts access to a child pornography
    machine.
        Now, you're the President's chief science and technology
    policy adviser and the Administration's point person on AI. So
    we want you to give us answers on this.
        I'm going to be sending a letter shortly to initiate our
    investigation into this issue, but anyone with a stake in this
    should be working to determine what went wrong and to ensure it
    never happens again.
        I welcome all of my colleagues, both Democrats and
    Republicans, to join with me in sending this oversight letter,
    which I shared with Chairman Babin yesterday. Stamping out
    child sexual exploitation should not be a partisan issue.
        Now, I have several questions for you, Director. Were you
    involved in the decision to enter into the partnership with
    xAI, allowing Federal agencies to utilize Grok for government
    work? Is the General Service--Services Administration (GSA)
    partnership with xAI still active and being used to integrate
    Grok into Federal agency work streams, even with the disgusting
    news of the past few weeks? When the news broke regarding the
    child sexual abuse images being created by Grok, did you take
    any steps to ensure that Federal agencies were no longer able
    to use Grok, at least until we are sure that the issue had been
    addressed? Have you personally briefed President Trump on the
    recent events involving Grok?
        You're the highest ranking science adviser in the White
    House. You should be heavily involved in Federal action on this
    matter. Have you engaged with the Department of Justice on
    this--this issue with the FCC (Federal Communications
    Commission), the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the GSA?
        Mr. Kratsios. So I am not involved in procurement decisions
    at--at the GSA. I think, broadly speaking, the Trump
    Administration is committed to protecting the dignity and the
    privacy and the safety of children in the digital age. The
    misuse of AI tools requires accountability for harmful or
    inappropriate use, not necessarily blanket restrictions on the
    use and development of--of that technology.
        On the issue of Grok, which I'm not personally involved in
    in any way, if the Federal employees are misusing a government
    AI platform in a harmful or inappropriate way, they--that
    should be addressed and those people should be removed from
    their positions.
        I don't have any specific insight into the Federal
    procurement process, but I would refer you to an April 2025 OMB
    (Office of Management and Budget) memo titled ``Accelerating
    Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public
    Trust.'' That memo provides guidance on how agencies can
    promote the responsible adoption, use, and continued
    development of AI while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in
    place to protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties and
    to mitigate any unlawful discrimination.
        Now, as many people on this Committee know, the Trump
    Administration has clearly demonstrated our willingness to
    implement guardrails against inappropriate use of AI, as
    evidenced by the signing of the TAKE IT DOWN (Tools to Address
    Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes On
    Websites and Networks) Act by the President that was signed
    last May.
        Ms. Lofgren. If--if I may, Mr.--Mr. Kratsios, yes, the GSA
    is doing this, but we are essentially paying Musk. And we're
    going to have a problem here. I mean, inevitably, there's going
    to be a misuse. But even if we fire Federal employees who
    create pornography using Grok, that we would be paying Mr. Musk
    until he creates a barrier to this misuse is very troubling to
    me.
        You know, I'm for technology. I'm from Silicon Valley. I
    grew up there, and I still live there. But if we do not resolve
    misuse, we are going to have a serious impediment to the
    development of AI, in addition to the impact on employment.
        I'm--I'm just noting--the Ranking Member of the
    Subcommittee mentioned employment. Manufacturing employment is
    down 68,000. We lost 161,000 blue-collar jobs last year.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And I will make
    available this letter to you, as--which I've already shared
    with Chairman Babin.
        Chairman Obernolte. Thank you, Representative Lofgren.
        We'll hear next from the representative from North
    Carolina. Mr. Rouzer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr.--Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kratsios, thank you so much for being here.
        First question is, what would you consider the main hurdle
    to innovation? Is--would that be the lack of Federal
    preemption? I would assume that would probably be in the top
    three, just wanting to see what your answer is.
        Mr. Kratsios. That--that is certainly up there. I think for
    us, providing regulatory clarity to America's innovators is
    extraordinarily important.
        I think the--the other piece of the puzzle, which I always
    talk about, is we want to create a regulatory environment that
    provides a level of clarity and a level of understanding for
    all of our innovators. And the most important part of that is
    promulgating and working toward a use-case sector-specific
    approach to AI regulation. Creating a ``one size fits all''
    regulation around AI is not the way that we can best deal with
    all of these new AI technologies. Folks that are developing AI-
    powered medical diagnostics should continue to be regulated by
    the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), for example. Anyone who
    is developing a drone should continue to be regulated by the
    FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). And I think some of the
    impediments, especially there's been great examples globally
    about the things that we should definitely not do. Things like
    the EU AI Act is a terrific example of a mistake that can be
    made where you try to create a ``one size fits all'' regulatory
    regime, and ultimately, you end up with less innovation.
        Mr. Rouzer. A core pillar of the AI Action Plan is
    infrastructure, including our Nation's ability to develop a
    skilled workforce to use cutting-edge AI systems. North
    Carolina, as you know, has a growing ecosystem of higher
    education preparing the next generation of AI professionals.
    UNC (University of North Carolina)-Wilmington and Fayetteville
    State University in my district offer AI-focused education with
    hands-on experience. And community colleges, such as the Cape
    Fear Community College in my district, is advancing AI literacy
    and technical skills. Employer access, obviously, to these
    next-generation workers with these needed skills is critical
    for economic development and competitiveness.
        Can you comment? How is the Federal Government working with
    these colleges and universities across the country, including
    in North Carolina, to strengthen AI-focused workforce
    development programs?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes. This is so important. And for us, we
    believe that AI education is something that begins in K through
    12 and extends well past when you even graduate from--from
    college. And at each of those levels, we have different
    programs and initiatives to drive that AI reskilling and
    upskilling to happen.
        In K through 12, the Administration through Executive order
    launched the AI Education Task Force, which I chair with the
    First Lady. And there's been a tremendous amount of effort
    around how we can teach America's youth to understand and
    essentially demystify this technology. It's not just about
    teaching students how to use the technology but understanding
    what the technology is. What is AI good for? What is it not
    good for? When should you be using it, when you shouldn't? When
    should you not be using it? When does it go--go awry? And I
    think that's the type of programs that we're trying to do for K
    through 12.
        And we've partnered with so many companies, nonprofits, and
    civil societies that have donated hundreds of millions of
    dollars of free resources to K through 12 students to benefit
    from it.
        If you move up the chain, the great community college work
    and stuff that you're talking about is very important to be
    able to train students who want to enter into these 21st
    Century economy jobs that require AI skills.
        And a lot of work is being done by the Department of Labor.
    They've awarded nearly $100 million in AI skills training
    programs. And these are the things that are equipping our next
    generation of--of Americans to take full advantage of this
    technology.
        Mr. Rouzer. In my last minute and 20 seconds here, you
    know, AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, all
    industries, really, but particularly of interest to me is
    agriculture and transportation, everything from precision
    farming and crop yield optimization to traffic management and
    autonomous vehicles. And across the country, these sectors are
    showing growing interest in leveraging AI, obviously, to
    improve efficiency and drive innovation.
        Can you talk about Federal agency coordination in that
    space?
        Mr. Kratsios. Absolutely. I think what's so unique about
    this technology and--and why I particularly like the role
    that--that I have in my office is that, as you say very
    correctly, this is a technology that is touching so many
    different industries, the teams at Department of Agriculture
    that are working on--on things related to--to the way that it
    impacts ag, to the folks at FAA that are working on drones and
    DOT (Department of Transportation) that are working on
    autonomous vehicles. We try to be the hub to kind of bring all
    of that together. And through the National Science Technology
    Council, we bring agencies together to talk about those issues.
        And what we tend to see and where we try to deconflict is
    where there's agency overlap. If you're trying to use drones in
    a--to--in your sort of farm, for example, there's FAA equities.
    There's DHS equities. There's ag equities. And we're the agency
    that can kind of help bring all of those people together to the
    table. But we see a huge potential impact for the country.
        Mr. Rouzer. Well, thank you for your great work.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We will hear
    next from the gentleman from Virginia, Representative
    Subramanyam. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Subramanyam. I thank you, Mr. Kratsios, for being here.
    Good to see you again. I'm a former OSTP staffer. And I think
    we transitioned our office to you when you first started in the
    Trump Administration. So I thank you for stepping up to serve
    again. And I know OSTP certainly is a very important place for
    this Committee. And I appreciate all the work you've done for
    OSTP.
        One of the things that both of us have worked on is
    attracting really good tech talent to government and whether it
    was the U.S. Digital Service or the Presidential Innovation
    Fellowship. And now I think--I don't know if you're involved in
    the U.S. Tech Force, but that's the kind of the newest branding
    of essentially trying to get the people who are--who can build
    an app to get your pizza in 5 minutes to get you your Social
    Security benefits in 5 minutes or--or help with some of these
    big issues in technology, both create standards as well as
    maybe help develop the basic research that a private industry
    can use.
        But we're really concerned. You know, some of my
    constituents, for instance, worked at NIST. And they fired over
    400 employees. NSF has lost over a third of its staff. And so
    how do we figure out this project? Because we know we all agree
    here that, you know, technology and innovation is critical, and
    government plays a role in that. How do you reconcile trying to
    recruit for this U.S. Tech Force with the firings of
    technologists who I think are right now very nervous about
    working in government now?
        Mr. Kratsios. Uh-huh. I tend to kind of view those as--as
    separate issues. I think on the--on the first one, relating to
    bringing technical talent into government, I couldn't agree
    with you more. I mean, we worked together on some of those
    issues, and--and I did throughout the first--the first Trump
    term.
        I think what's unique about the Tech Force initiative and
    what OPM (Office of Personnel Management) is driving with that
    is the buy-in from the private sector I think is unique to that
    program, something we haven't seen in--in previous programs. I
    think that's special. There was essentially calls out to the--
    to the tech community and saying like, ``Look, like, it is a
    national imperative to have the very best technologists in
    government working on the problems that will impact American
    citizens.'' And because of the great leadership of the
    President, we were able to get so many companies to step up and
    say, ``Yes, I'm willing to allow some of my employees to go do
    a tour of duty in government and be sure of it when they come
    back on the other side, they won't be struggling to find a
    job,'' wherever it may be.
        So I think this unique partnership and this sort of this--
    this coming together of the Nation to understand that you can
    actually use technology to solve these huge problems for the
    American people is one of the highest callings. So we're very
    excited. The latest number I heard was over 35,000 Americans
    have put forward interest in participating in Tech Force.
    That's insane. That is incredible. That is something we should
    all be celebrating in this entire Committee. The fact that we
    have so many great Americans that want to step in, move their
    families and their lives to D.C. to solve these problems for
    Americans is just incredible. And--and I really want to applaud
    OPM and the--and the great team there for it.
        I think the second piece around personnel at--at agencies,
    I think, you know, as any business thinks about the way that
    they can best optimize what they're trying to deliver, what's
    in their statutory mandate, and what the President wants to
    execute, there is no reason not to relook holistically at how
    organizations function. And I think that's what a lot was done
    in the--in the first term. And I think a lot can be said about
    sort of the misdirection of some of these agencies as--as we
    came into office.
        So I think it's--the American people deserve leadership at
    these agencies that are willing to make the hard decisions in
    order to rightsize these agencies for the objectives in their
    statutory mandate.
        Mr. Subramanyam. I guess you're saying that the NIST
    firings and RIFs (reductions in force) were essentially in
    support of the President's sort of goals when it comes to
    science and technology, but I don't understand. Could you
    explain more why we should be firing 400 people at NIST?
        Mr. Kratsios. I'm not familiar with the particular firings
    at NIST.
        Mr. Subramanyam. OK.
        Mr. Kratsios. So I don't want to speak for the Secretary of
    Commerce or anyone there.
        But I do think broadly when it comes to the way that you
    think about your personnel and the team that you have, for
    anyone who's worked at a company or anywhere else, you want to
    field a team that can best execute on what you're trying to
    accomplish. And I think there was a--a very appropriate and--
    look at how these organizations are structured and the way that
    we can best deliver results for--for everyday Americans.
        Mr. Subramanyam. We'll agree to disagree on that last part.
        But yes. The second part is you've also been working on
    this, and I've been working on, AI safety and AI, sort of the
    risks and how to mitigate these risks, for a long time. And
    it's not--some people may think that there's no work being done
    on this, but they're very wrong. There's actually a lot of work
    happening on this and has been for a long time. And I know
    you've been sort of supportive of that.
        Just very quickly since we have a little bit of time left,
    how--how do you see the Federal Government's role in supporting
    the work that's happening when it comes to mitigating the risks
    of AI and finding the right balance between, you know, not,
    let's say, full bans on products or things, you know, promoting
    innovation while still also addressing the real concerns that
    people have?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes. I think my short answer to that is I
    think there's a very important role for NIST and CAISI to play
    in promulgating advanced metrology on model evaluation. And
    that is something that can be used across all industries when
    they want to deploy these models. You want to have trust in
    them so that when everyday Americans are using, whether it be
    medical models or anything else, they are comfortable with the
    fact that it has been tested and evaluated. And NIST has a very
    special place in being able to set standards around test and
    eval.
        Mr. Subramanyam. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll hear
    next from the gentlewoman from South Carolina. Mrs. Biggs, you
    are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you, Chairman Obernolte.
        And thank you--I'm grateful to have a fellow South
    Carolinian here today--Director Kratsios, for coming and
    testifying.
        Artificial intelligence is an emerging technology with the
    potential to drive efficiency in business, to spur a
    renaissance in a--in the energy sector, and to revolutionize
    scientific research and improve the everyday lives of all
    Americans, like mine that live in the Third District of South
    Carolina.
        At the heart of the AI buildout are a set of President
    Trump's Executive orders, including the AI Action Plan and the
    Genesis Mission. It is critical that we get the AI buildout
    right to ensure American technological and scientific dominance
    for our future generations.
        We are not competing alone. Adversarial nations like China
    are racing the United States to--to complete a full deployment
    of AI. And whoever wins this will dominate the global market.
        One aspect of this race is open-weight AI. Open-weight AI
    are AI whose training parameters are public knowledge. This
    allows end users to customize the AI for their specific needs
    with their own data and affords them greater privacy since they
    can be run by the end user.
        Right now, China is starting to take the lead in the space
    with over a dozen open-weight model--models on the market,
    while the United States has mostly focused on closed models,
    models whose training is not public knowledge. This actually
    gives China a large geostrategic advantage in many countries
    and with companies that prefer to locally host and customize AI
    models.
        So my question is, how does the proliferation of Chinese
    open-weight AI models on the global market pose a risk to the
    dominance of the American tech--to the American tech stack? And
    how can we combat the Chinese in open-weight models?
        Mr. Kratsios. This is actually a very good question and
    something we--we think a lot about.
        I think the--the first way to think about it is the reason
    why our adversaries are--are--and our competitors are pushing
    ahead with emphasis on open-source is because they are behind.
    And the clear answer and result and--and strategy you want to
    take if you're behind is you try to open-source it to--to try
    to gain as much usage as you can for your--your suboptimal
    model.
        That being said, there are tremendous benefits associated
    with having open-source models available. Many individual
    companies and governments around the world will want to use it
    for all the reasons that you so correctly stated in--in your
    question.
        For us, how do we want to--we want to build a vibrant open-
    source large language model (LLM) ecosystem here in the United
    States. That was emphasized in the Action Plan. There has been
    funding that has--put out by the National Science Foundation to
    help focus on driving open-source research. We continue to
    encourage our great American AI labs to push forward with open
    initiatives and open-source projects. By some metrics, the Chat
    OSS model, which is an open-source model here in the United
    States, is--is one of the most used, downloaded models in--in
    the world today. There's also a number of--of startups that are
    doing tremendous work in this space and will be releasing their
    open-source frontier models hopefully this year. Reflection is
    a--is one that comes to mind.
        So we as a government want to kind of encourage a
    competitive ecosystem that can allow these open-source models
    to succeed. And as we build out our AI export program, it will
    not surprise me if a lot of the target countries that we're
    trying to target with our AI stack are interested in open-
    source. We want to have a--a viable American option.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you so much.
        Quickly, I'll try to get my second question in. The United
    States must also balance global exports with security. We
    cannot allow our adversaries to use our tech in order to
    displace us at the global--as the global leader. So the AI
    Action Plan tasks the Department of Commerce with exploring
    location verification technologies to prevent our best chips
    from being used by adversaries. What are some examples of this?
    And how can--how can agencies and Congress support this
    mission?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think generally we want to create an
    export-control environment that protects the sort of crown-
    jewel technologies that drive AI development from getting in
    the hands of our competitors. It's something that Secretary
    Lutnick and the President and the Administration have been very
    clear about. So the--the top-end Nvidia chips, for example,
    continue to be export-controlled, and it's something that we're
    going to continue to track very closely.
        Mrs. Biggs. Thank you. And my time is--has expired. So I
    yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. We'll hear
    next from the gentlewoman from Delaware, Ms. McBride. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. McBride. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Stevens.
        Thank you so much, Director Kratsios, for joining us today.
        You mentioned earlier data centers and the Administration's
    concern with mitigating community impact. And I'd certainly
    heard from countless Delawareans that are worried about data
    centers being constructed in their communities straining our
    energy and water supply and increasing the cost of utilities
    for all of us. That's why I fought for funding and legislation
    aimed at developing liquid-cooling technologies produced in my
    State of Delaware that will ensure data centers are smaller and
    more environmentally friendly. This is a common sense
    investment in a smarter, more sustainable future that could
    shrink physical data center footprints by as much as 60 percent
    and cut energy consumption by as much as 90 percent.
        And so I'd love to hear from you about what the
    Administration is doing specifically to mitigate the effects of
    data centers on their surrounding communities. And is the
    Administration utilizing its--its funding capacity to
    incentivize liquid-cooling technologies as part of that
    mitigation strategy?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think that many of you may have seen the
    Truth that the President put out a couple of days ago where he
    made clear the Administration position on data centers and
    electricity prices for ratepayers. What he wrote there was he--
    he essentially wanted to make sure that American technology
    companies who are building data centers are footing the bill
    for their technology buildout. And he commended an announcement
    by Microsoft that--that happened just this week where they have
    essentially taken that message to heart and have committed that
    any time they build a data center, they will pay 100 percent of
    the--of the generation costs. We'll continue to work with
    technology companies to make sure that this is a reality
    because at the end of the day, we want to make sure that
    ratepayers are protected.
        The other thing that the--that the Administration has done,
    which was a--a big change from the previous Administration, was
    a changing in the way that we can approve behind-the-meter
    energy production. Under the Biden Administration, behind-the-
    meter production of energy electricity was banned. And because
    of that, if you're a data center provider, you had to by law
    tap into the larger grid for that--for that energy. FERC
    (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) under--under President
    Trump changed that. And now you can do behind-the-meter
    buildout. That's something that--that--that obviously is--is
    beneficial to--to general ratepayers.
        I think probably more in my portfolio and is--is the
    question around what kind of technologies can we build to make
    data centers more efficient. I don't know the specifics about
    the liquid cooling, but at first glance, that sounds amazing.
    Let's figure out who's--who's working on that and--and get some
    funding toward it. You know, my hope would be as a--as a--as a
    free-market person, that a lot of these data center providers
    and chip developers would be extraordinarily incentivized to
    try to be more productive. So hopefully I'm catching on to that
    tailwind and finding places where more federally funded R&D
    could be beneficial, could help turbo-charge that.
        Ms. McBride. Great. I look forward to hopefully working
    with you specifically on--on the benefits and potential of that
    liquid-cooling technology.
        I'd also be remissed if I didn't mention the
    Administration's AI Action Plan released last year. You've
    talked about it. Among other things, it suggests that we need
    clear national standards for people to truly trust and use AI.
    And I--I heard Chair Babin earlier say that he supports
    consensus-based standards as well, and I'm happy to say I agree
    with that. That's why I was proud to introduce the READ AI
    Models Act with Chair Obernolte. This bill would direct NIST to
    standardize evaluation documents for AI models--I like to think
    of it as nutrition labels for AI models--through a consensus-
    based process consistently documenting information needed to
    assess safety, performance, and risk of AI models in a modular
    and voluntary manner. This would bring transparency to AI in a
    way that's simple, consistent, and accessible.
        The Administration's AI Action Plan sees national AI
    standards as a tool to build trust. Do you think that
    standardized modular evaluation documents for AI models like
    the one I described would be helpful?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think things like that are obviously things
    to look at and think about and work on. To me, when I--when I
    broadly think about AI standards, the first thing that comes to
    mind is there is an--an unfortunate overemphasis on the
    evaluation of a small handful of frontier models. The reality
    is that the most implementation that's going to happen across
    industry is going to happen through fine-tuned models for
    specific use cases, and it's going to be trained on specific
    data that the large frontier models never had access to.
        So in my opinion, the greatest work that NIST could do is
    to create the science behind how you measure models such that
    any time that you have a specific model for finance, for
    health, for agriculture, whoever is attempting to implement it
    has a framework and a standard around how they can evaluate
    that model because at the end of the day, the massive
    proliferation is going to be through these--these smaller fine-
    tuned models for specific use cases.
        Ms. McBride. Well, definitely, I definitely agree that--
    that those are worthy goals. And I hope you'll work with me and
    the Chair on our legislation. And we welcome feedback and
    collaboration.
        So thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to my colleague from California, Mr. Fong. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I'd like to thank you, Director Kratsios, for your
    work on advancing AI policy and AI education specifically.
    Your--your being chair of the AI Education Task Force is
    important and foundational, especially as the White House has
    prioritized AI literacy across--across our society. And I want
    to thank you for working with me on my bill, H.R. 5351, the NSF
    AI Education Act, which would address gaps in research,
    education, and workforce development in AI by allowing the NSF
    to award collegiate AI scholarships, create public-private
    partnerships when it comes to AI fellowships, and establish up
    to eight regional centers of AI excellence at community
    colleges and career technical education schools.
        I wanted to follow up on my--from my colleague from North
    Carolina. How is your office working with NSF and other
    agencies to ensure rural students in their communities have
    increasing access to STEM (science, technology, engineering,
    and mathematics) education, AI literacy opportunities so they
    can take full advantage of AI applications with confidence and
    responsibility?
        Mr. Kratsios. So the NSF Advanced Technology Education, or
    ATE, program is one that we work on with NSF. And--and that
    focuses on 2-year institutions of higher education, with the
    goal of supporting the education of technicians for high-
    technology fields that--that drive a lot of--a lot of the
    Nation's economy.
        The other program which you may be familiar with is the
    Experimental Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies, or
    ExLENT, program. And that supports experimental learning
    opportunities for individuals from all professional and
    educational backgrounds, and it--it results in increased access
    to, and interesting career pathways in a variety of technology
    fields. And actually, I think Cal State, Fresno is a recipient
    and participant in that.
        Mr. Fong. Great. Well, I certainly invite you to my
    district, to Fresno State, Cal State, Bakersfield. We have a
    number of community colleges and trade schools that are
    actively working to develop a skilled workforce when it comes
    to emerging technologies.
        Just to buildup--build on that--on the programs you've
    outlined, how can--my education institutions, how can they
    integrate AI education training into these programs? Those that
    made--is there a way to interface with you and your office? And
    what can Congress to support these partnerships?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think from a congressional standpoint, we
    should continue to support these--both through authorization
    and appropriation. I think these are important programs for
    driving the rescaling and scaling of Americans broadly. To the
    extent of specific organizations that want to be involved, feel
    free to have them connect with our office and we can make sure
    they're linked up with the appropriate folks at NSF.
        Mr. Fong. Perfect. And then in terms of the AI Action Plan,
    I know it charges the DOE and NSF to invest in the development
    of AI testbeds for piloting AI systems in secure real-world
    settings so that researchers can prototype new AI systems and
    translate them to the market. What are some ways that utilizing
    these AI testbeds would benefit American competitiveness and
    Americans overall?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, testbeds are such a critical play. So I
    think with anyone who has worked on sort of technology
    innovation or broad scientific discovery, you need places where
    you can do the experimental work and get the feedback loop of
    seeing what happens when you try something and then going back
    to the lab bench, tinkering with it, and going back out. And
    NSF has funded a few testbeds related to AI and is looking to
    do more.
        And I think what's critically important is we have these
    testbeds--both for folks that do the metrology work in places
    like NIST and people who do more the basic science at NSF. So
    we're big supporters of these testbeds, and we think that
    they're true accelerants to innovation.
        Mr. Fong. Perfect. Well, I want to thank you for your work
    again, and I look forward to partnering with you, especially
    when it comes to your work on the education AI Education Task
    Force. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll hear
    next from my colleague from California, Representative Rivas.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
    hearing, and Director Kratsios for being here today to discuss
    AI. AI and AI generated content is becoming more prevalent in
    every aspect of our lives. It's something that we as a Congress
    must become more proficient in, better understand, and help
    ensure the technology is being used responsibly, safely, and
    effectively. I hope that we can find bipartisan solutions
    toward AI proficiency as we begin this session in Congress.
        Last August, I held a roundtable with AI leaders in my
    district where I heard about how schools and small businesses
    are successfully using AI to streamline processes but also
    heard about the pitfalls of AI and right now, especially around
    literacy and safety. This is an issue that is a focus of mine.
        Last Fall, I introduced my AI For All Act to improve AI
    literacy and education across the country. My bill will help
    ensure that the Federal Government has a national strategy to
    improve AI literacy, how AI has and will evolve using AI safely
    and effectively, and ensuring that we can continue to be a
    global leader in AI.
        While I know that you have spoken in the past about the
    White House Task Force on AI Education, can you describe your
    vision for the Federal Government's role in increasing AI
    literacy? And what role do you see Congress playing in that?
        Mr. Kratsios. Absolutely. The Trump Administration is
    committed to ensuring that all American workers are prepared to
    leverage AI. And we've done a few things. I think first is
    promoting K through 12 literacy and proficiency among America's
    youth, and that's a big priority of the task force.
        We're also working to scale apprenticeship programs and
    other novel approaches to post-secondary education to align
    with industry driven skill requirements that we're seeing
    increasingly become important. We're also working to develop
    regional AI learning efforts to promote State and local
    government and small business adoption of AI as you mentioned.
    And last, we've been designing new models of workforce
    innovation to match the speed and scale of the AI driven
    transformation, including rapid retraining and rescaling of
    replaced workers.
        I think one of our cabinet secretaries that has spoken
    about this issue a lot is actually our Small Business
    Administration Kelly Loeffler. And what she often talks about
    is that she talks to small businesses in America. As you
    mentioned, they see it's a true impact to the way that they
    operate.
        More Americans work for small businesses than any other
    type of business in the U.S. so the impact can be quite
    dramatic. And especially when you're working in environments
    where, you know, the total employees are a handful, the
    leverage that you can get through this technology can be quite
    dramatic.
        Ms. Rivas. But what role do you see Congress playing in
    implementing these programs and your vision for AI?
        Mr. Kratsios. Absolutely. I think to me support that
    Congress can put behind the efforts that the AI Education Task
    Force is pushing would be very well received. The First Lady
    has been very vocal and very public about the importance of
    helping demystify this technology for America's youth.
        We've established a Presidential AI Challenge, where
    students from around the country are competing in this
    challenge and ultimately going to come to the White House later
    this spring to present their projects to the President and to
    the team at the White House.
        We want to essentially have a lot of these programs last
    into the future and would love to work with Congress to find
    ways to identify the most impactful, the most beneficial, the
    AI education programs that make the biggest impact and make
    sure that we can turn them into law.
        Ms. Rivas. OK. Well, thank you for sharing your thoughts on
    this. I want to pivot and close on the idea of an AI moratorium
    that you and the Trump Administration are putting forward. I've
    been leading my House colleagues against this idea going back
    to the reconciliation process last summer where the same
    concept was stripped out of H.R. 1.
        The newest version of this concept would withhold essential
    broadband funding from States at the whim of the Trump
    Administration. We have already seen how the Administration
    tries to use Federal funds as a weapon in the President's ever
    present crusade against perceived enemies. Let's just call this
    moratorium what it is: another handout to billionaire tech bros
    and nothing to actually help working class families. AI
    technology is growing quickly, and we cannot punish States from
    adapting to its ever changing demands while the Federal
    Government attempts to catch up.
        As an engineer and former State legislator, I strongly
    support technological innovation and reject the premise that
    you and the Trump Administration have stated via Executive
    order or in the AI Action Plan to withhold Federal funding from
    States. We should be learning from States leading in AI policy
    and innovation like my home State of California and not
    punishing them or withhold funding.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. We'll go
    next to the gentleman from Utah. Mr. Kennedy, you're recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this, and
    Director Kratsios, thank you very much for your testimony. It's
    been impressive to watch. I commend President Trump for putting
    forward a plan to secure America's technological leadership,
    drive productivity, and create high quality jobs. The United
    States must move decisively to ensure innovation happens here
    under American values, market competition, and a commitment to
    national security.
        Beating China in economic competition requires speed,
    scale, and confidence in our private sector. That means that we
    need to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers, protect
    intellectual property, and invest in talent and infrastructure,
    and ensure that U.S. companies can innovate faster than state-
    directed competitors abroad.
        I'm proud to be the sponsor of the GENESIS Act to codify
    President Trump's Genesis Executive order. And I'd like you to
    talk a little bit more about the Office of Science and
    Technology policy as to how you want to work with Department of
    Energy and other agencies to execute the Genesis Mission.
        Mr. Kratsios. So within the Genesis Mission, OSTP is
    responsible for general leadership of the mission, including
    interagency coordination, industry and academic partnerships,
    and international engagement. For us as I mentioned a little
    bit earlier, I think the key priority for us over the next 6
    months will be to figure out how best to bring in other
    agencies into the Genesis Mission. This was designed to be a
    whole of government approach to applying AI to science and is
    not just singularly a DOE endeavor.
        The second piece--and one that essentially I interact with
    almost, you know, on a weekly basis when I speak to my
    counterpart tech ministers from around the world, all of them
    saw Genesis Mission, and they want to be part of it. And they--
    and it's a reminder to me and to my team and to all of us here
    of how special the United States is from a science and
    technology standpoint.
        Everyone dreams and aspires to be us, to work with us, and
    I think we're at an incredible moment in history where we
    honestly can find partners and figure out what they have that
    can help augment our system. So I think there's a lot to be
    done there where we can partner with likeminded allies to show
    the world that we can stand up together when it comes to this--
    a lot of this scientific innovation.
        And I think just in the last piece on Genesis--I think
    you've seen this--but we've announced over 20 industry partners
    have already agreed to part of Genesis. And I think to me why
    that's so special, it's a reflection of the evolving science
    and tech ecosystem we have in the United States.
        I've used this number before, but broadly speaking the
    Federal--the U.S. economy spends about a trillion dollars a
    year on R&D. Today, roughly 70 percent of that R&D is paid for
    and conducted by the private sector. And that's why this
    partnership between the private sector and Genesis is so
    important. We cannot do this alone. We as a country have
    succeeded because we are a larger ecosystem that incorporates
    private sector, Federal Government, and academia altogether--
    and those are the partners we want to bring to Genesis.
        Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that. And that leads to my next
    question. I'm from Utah, and we have a regulatory sandbox on
    artificial intelligence. We also have an agency of artificial
    intelligence in the State of Utah. And I would like your
    comments on how--as my colleague from California talks about--
    how the possible moratorium on the Federal level is something
    that would impede versus promote our opportunities when many
    States--and I'll point to Utah specifically as a State that has
    positive policies to promote artificial intelligence and its
    use for our society.
        How is it that we can work in a collaborative fashion not
    just with industry but also with States to promulgate positive
    policy that's going to help us not just use artificial
    intelligence in the best way but also to beat our economic and
    artificial competitors throughout the world?
        Mr. Kratsios. Absolutely. I mean, when we think of creating
    ultimately a sensible national policy framework States that are
    creating regulatory sandboxes, that are encouraging AI
    innovation are the types of things we would love more States to
    be doing, not less of. We want more of that. And I think we
    want to create a framework that encourages that and creates an
    environment where our innovators can safely test and deploy
    their technologies.
        Mr. Kennedy. Good. And I encourage that. I'm working with
    my Democrat colleague, Representative Riley, to introduce the
    Boosting the Rural STEM Pipeline Act to invest in skilled STEM
    educators who want to work in rural communities. And how is
    OSTP working with the National Science Foundation and States to
    equip the educators so that they can actually help our future
    generation of artificial intelligence experts to continue the
    process forward?
        Mr. Kratsios. That is such a good question. And I think the
    President focused on that exact issue when he stood up the AI
    Education Task Force. If one reads that Executive order, it's
    clear that when we talk about K through 12 AI education, it is
    not singularly about the students; it has to be about the
    educators and the parents as well--if the teachers themselves
    need to have the tools that they can use to help not only learn
    about this technology but also teach their students about it.
        So a big emphasis of the task force has been about how you
    bring educators into the fold, how you bring more teachers to
    be--feel confident and empowered to teach this technology to
    their students.
        Mr. Kennedy. My time is expired, but I--the last point I'd
    like to make is how will the OSTP work with artificial
    intelligence with--I'm a family doctor and with healthcare. I
    do believe that there are great opportunities for artificial
    intelligence to enhance our capacity to deliver high-quality
    care at lower costs. And if I can work with you and your
    agency, then I would be happy to do that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We will hear
    next from the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. Bonamici, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to The Chair and Ranking Member.
    And thank you, Director, for being here today. And maybe not
    coincidentally I'm in-between two hearings: one in the full
    Education and Workforce Committee on AI today, where we were
    just discussing what you mentioned--the need in the K-12 system
    for educators with the appropriate professional development.
    And we know that's not happening now, but also parental
    involvement and lots of concerns about privacy and security.
        So the Administration's AI Action Plan frames leadership
    pretty much as a race focused on infrastructure, speed, and
    deployment. But leadership and AI also depends on people. It
    depends on people as much as it does on platforms: students who
    learn with these tools, educators who teach alongside them, and
    workers who must adapt as AI reshapes jobs.
        I think the disconnect between the Administration's plan
    and recent actions, including sufficient cuts to--significant
    cuts to research, workforce pipelines, data infrastructure,
    raise serious questions about readiness and the potential to be
    ready. We can't lead in AI by building faster and training
    slower. So if our education and workforce systems can't keep
    pace with the needs of evolving work in AI, if educators lack
    that support, if workers lack pathways, we risk forfeiting
    long-term leadership and Americans will be left behind.
        So Director, your plan recommends that the Departments of
    Labor and Education, which is a bit baffling because the
    Administration is trying to shut down the Department of
    Education, but it recommends that the Departments of Labor and
    Education and NSF prioritize AI skill development as a core
    objective of education and workforce funding streams. So what
    concrete steps will OSTP take across those agencies to develop
    guidance that schools and training providers can actually use?
    And how will the focus on dismantling the Department of
    Education disrupt those steps?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think you bring up a very important and
    salient point around workforce and AI education more broadly.
    And I think the timeline is actually interesting to think
    about.
        Three months before the President and the White House
    released the AI action plan, the President signed the Executive
    order to create the AI Education Task Force. And to me, tasking
    me to launch that task force, I take that very personally. To
    us we believe that working on and thinking about the education
    and workforce issue was so important that we wanted to get that
    out even before our full plan was due.
        And I think that shows the emphasis that our Administration
    has on this. The First Lady has co-chaired some of those task
    force meetings, and it just shows how much of a priority it is
    for us across the Administration.
        I think you asked a little bit about actions that we're
    taking. I think within Task Force itself we've launched a
    couple things. We've discussed the AI Presidential Challenge,
    where we're trying to bring as many K through 12 students into
    the fold to be working hands on with a lot of these AI
    technologies.
        The other piece that we have done is this recognition that
    we alone in this Administration don't have all the tools
    necessary. And there is a large set of private sector, civil
    society, and nonprofits who are very interested in empowering
    teachers and students and parents to use this technology.
        And through the leadership and the direction of the First
    Lady, we had over 200 commitments from all these different
    companies and organizations to provide resources free of charge
    to teachers and to students and to educators to be able to
    leverage this technology and to be better able to teach the
    skills necessary for AI.
        Now, separate from the Task Force efforts themselves, the
    Department of Labor has themselves awarded over a $100 million
    nationwide for AI skills training. And that's been a big effort
    that the Secretary has had there--and a lot more. So those are
    examples of the types of work that we're doing across the----
        Ms. Bonamici. And I appreciate that. I do want to note that
    I'm a bit skeptical about totally industry-provided
    professional development for educators, and the funding that
    comes for professional development is also being cut and so is
    educational research which is so critical.
        So you also have an AI Workforce Research Hub under the
    Department of Labor to produce analysis, scenario planning, and
    insights. So what outcomes will that have measure? And when
    will Congress see some deliverables from that?
        Mr. Kratsios. I'll have to check with my colleagues at the
    Department of Labor. I'm not familiar with that particular
    program.
        Ms. Bonamici. OK. And finally, you have in the Action Plan
    calls for these early pipelines through general education,
    career and technical education, registered apprenticeships. I
    agree that these are important, but what supportive resources
    will there be for educators and institutions so this doesn't
    become an unfunded Band-Aid.
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, that's a great point. The President
    signed an Executive order titled ``Preparing Americans for
    High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future,'' and that calls
    for a scaling up of industry-driven apprenticeships to over a
    million a year. And that's something that the Department of
    Labor and the Secretary there have charged ahead with.
        So I think there's a lot of programs across all of our
    agencies that are geared toward helping, you know, solve this
    education and workforce issue which is so central to our
    agenda.
        Ms. Bonamici. And I appreciate that. But once again, the
    dismantling of the Department of Education and the cuts to
    professional development, education research seem contrary to
    the goal. You know, we know that AI leadership requires more
    than fast deployment. It requires trust, preparation, and a
    workforce that's ready to use these tools responsibly.
        I am developing a comprehensive, human-centered framework
    so AI can enhance opportunities and not widen gaps. Because we
    know speed alone will not deliver leadership without
    coordination and sustained investment in education.
        And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. We will
    hear next from the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Webster, you're
    recognize for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Director
    Kratsios, thanks for being here. The Biden Administration ended
    the Department of Justice program China Initiative. And Trump
    first initiated that to protect American research when it came
    to critical technologies such as AI. Was that damaging to
    terminate the China Initiative? And if it was, how much? And
    what can we do to make it better?
        Mr. Kratsios. It certainly was damaging. I think we have
    recognized and the China Select Committee has also brought to
    light a lot of attempted infiltration by nefarious actors of
    our research enterprise across the Department of War (DOW), the
    Department of Energy, and many of our other research agencies.
    So in my opinion, I think it's important that we remain
    vigilant in monitoring, tracking, and setting up the right
    safeguards to protect our research ecosystem.
        The Department of War--you may have seen--put out new
    guidance just a few days ago relating to breach of security.
    And there's broader efforts kind of across the Administration
    to make sure that all the great work that we do using
    government funded dollars to create the next great technologies
    that are going to be powering this country are protected from
    bad actors.
        Mr. Webster. So what is the United States doing to ensure
    that AI technical standards are adopted by international
    standards organizations?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, that's a really good question, and it's
    something that we have directed NIST to prioritize. And a big
    part of it relates to our larger effort around the American AI
    Export program.
        If we can use the expertise and the relationships that NIST
    has in order to promulgate international standards around AI
    that align with American values and the way that we think about
    these issues, it is more likely and easier for our technologies
    to promulgate globally and ultimately be imported by a lot of
    our partners and allies.
        Mr. Webster. Would making the underlying source code more
    widely available, would that help with getting Americans
    standards adopted?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think--I think to some extent the growth of
    open source models and the ability for the U.S. to have open
    source alternatives can be very helpful in improving the odds
    and the velocity of the export of the American stack. And it's
    something that we continue to encourage industry to focus on,
    because many countries and many governments and many companies
    around the world are most interested in making use of open
    source.
        Mr. Webster. What would happen if China's standards were
    adopted for AI?
        Mr. Kratsios. To me I think I look back to the time that I
    spent in the first Trump Administration dealing with the
    telecom issues of that time. And there was a very concentrated
    effort by the PRC to promulgate their 5G standards and to
    export their Huawei connectivity stack to the Global South.
        I spent far too long running around the world trying to
    talk to other tech ministers, making the point that this was
    potentially dangerous and there were backdoors to it and there
    were better Western alternatives to it. But essentially the
    damage had already been done. So to us and to our
    Administration, what we're trying to prioritize through AI
    export program is to make sure that the U.S. is the first
    mover.
        We are at a very important singular moment in time now
    where the U.S. has a very distinct and very obvious lead in all
    levels of the AI stack. We have the very best chips. We have
    the very best models. And we have the very best applications.
    And how long that will last--we're trying our best to keep that
    lead, but the Chinese are running ahead just as fast.
        So for us, it's--once we--because we have the best stack in
    the world, everyone wants it. And we should be doing everything
    we possibly can to get that stack in the hands of our partners
    and allies.
        And as you know very well, this is a marked changed from
    the way that the Biden Administration thought about this issue.
    One of the biggest moves that the President made early last
    year was to turn the page on the disastrous diffusion rule,
    where the Biden Administration thought it was in the U.S.
    interest to withhold American technology from partners and
    allies and essentially leave an open playing field for the
    Chinese to export their technology.
        So for us, we believe we have this window in time where we
    can make the American AI stack, the dominant stack globally.
    And we're racing ahead to achieve that.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to the gentlewoman from North Carolina. Mrs. Foushee, you
    are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
    witness for being here today. In the CHIPS and Science Act,
    Congress directed the Department of Commerce to establish and
    institute in the Manufacturing USA Program that could support
    the virtualization and automation of maintenance of
    semiconductor machinery.
        After a multiyear competitive process, the Department of
    Commerce established Manufacturing USA institute called SMART
    (Semiconductor Manufacturing and Advanced Research with Twins)
    USA in my district in Durham, North Carolina that focuses on
    using AI and digital twin technology to improve the
    semiconductor manufacturing process. This institute attracted
    over 120 industry and academic partners, boosting industry
    heavy-hitters like Nvidia and the Semiconductor Industry
    Association.
        Last month, the Trump Administration canceled this award
    with the justification that it didn't meet the Administration's
    priorities. So could you help to--you helped the--you helped to
    coordinate manufacturing research programs, including the
    Manufacturing USA network through the National Science and
    Technology Council.
        Given that the AI Action Plan specifically calls for
    accelerating the integration of AI tools into semiconductor
    manufacturing, it is hard to see the cancellation of $285
    million investment in North Carolina's semiconductor ecosystem
    as anything but purely a political decision.
        Why was this award canceled and is punishing purple States
    a higher priority than investing in semiconductor jobs in
    innovation?
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you so much for that question. I
    unfortunately don't know any details relating to that. I very
    happily will connect with Secretary Lutnick and his team and
    try to get you an answer.
        Mrs. Foushee. OK. Well, thank you for that. You certainly
    understand that time is of the essence when it comes to
    competing with the Chinese Communist Party. How does canceling
    hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in semiconductor
    manufacturing help us compete with China?
        Mr. Kratsios. Again, I'm not familiar with that particular
    cancellation, but I will say in my opinion there has been no
    President more committed to driving American leadership in
    semiconductors than President Trump. I have watched it
    firsthand as we bring the largest semiconductor fabrication
    companies in the world into the U.S. to build fabs. We've done
    tremendous work in being able to create a robust ecosystem
    here.
        And we've seen big announcements in New York around large
    fabrication facilities being set up, and the CHIPS Office at
    the Department of Commerce is humming in order to create an
    environment where the next great semiconductor technology is
    developed here in the United States. So I'm proud to work for a
    President and Administration that has actually for the first
    time prioritized semiconductor development in the United
    States.
        Mrs. Foushee. Well, let me just say for the record, North
    Carolina has over 7,000 people employed in this sector. North
    Carolina hosts over 110 semiconductor related companies. And
    North Carolina exports over $1.2 billion in semiconductor
    related products.
        President Trump's most recent Executive order calls on the
    Secretary of Commerce to consult with you to identify laws that
    require AI models to alter their truthful outputs. I have
    several questions for you about this so I ask that you keep
    your answers short and concise. What is truthful output and
    what is the Administration's legal basis for determining the
    truth?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think that interpretation, I think, was
    made by OMB when they attempted to create the guidance relating
    to implementing that so I refer you to that memo.
        Mrs. Foushee. Can you describe your process in determining
    what the truth is?
        Mr. Kratsios. Again, I would point you to that memo. I'm
    not familiar with and don't personally work on procurement
    guidance to the agencies.
        Mrs. Foushee. So I'm going to go ahead and ask this last
    question anyway. When you say truthful output, are you
    referring to generative AI alone or what laws around all
    machine learning models, such as classifiers, use to detect
    breast cancer also need to be prevented from altering truthful
    outputs?
        Mr. Kratsios. Again, I would refer you to that memo. I'm
    not familiar with the details of it.
        Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. We'll hear
    next from the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Franklin, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director
    Kratsios for being with us this morning. I had the privilege in
    the last Congress of serving on the AI Task Force with Chairman
    Obernolte and am more convinced than ever that this is going to
    be the most transformational technology of our lifetime. So I
    appreciate your efforts in shepherding the Government's role in
    that. It's not the full role, but a part of it. And I
    appreciate your understanding of that.
        Earlier this Congress I led a letter with Congressman
    McCormick, also on the Science Committee with me, raising
    concerns about the Biden Administration's proposed AI Diffusion
    Rule at the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which we
    believe risk overbroad export controls that could slow U.S.
    innovation and push some of our allies toward non-U.S.
    suppliers.
        Thankfully, the Trump Administration withdrew that rule,
    and the AI Action Plan, specifically includes a pillar on
    international leadership and security. It also encourages
    pursuing a new creative approach to export control enforcement.
    How do you think Congress should refine export control
    authorities so they're more narrowly targeted and forceable and
    aligned with the goal of keeping the U.S. and our allies at the
    forefront of AI development?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, I think export controls are a very
    important tool in our toolkit to be able to achieve our
    national objectives. I think I sure would defer to Secretary
    Lutnick and the folks at BIS on any changes that they would
    like. I think to date we have had the tools that we need in our
    toolkit to execute on what the President is trying to
    accomplish, but it's certainly worth a conversation with that
    team.
        Mr. Franklin. OK. Thank you. As an appropriator--also, I'm
    on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and we're focused on
    ensuring Congress is backing the President's AI Action Plan
    with real resources. It's one thing to talk about policies and
    statements, but then we've got to have the dollars to back it
    up.
        Just last week, the House passed the Fiscal Year 2026
    Energy and Water Appropriations bill that provided $8.4 billion
    for the DOE's Office of Science to support high-performance
    computing, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence
    research. And then another--just under $1.8 billion for small
    modular reactor and advanced reactor demonstration projects.
        As the Administration moves from strategy to execution,
    which program areas do you think are most critical to sustain
    in future appropriation cycles so Congress can be confident
    that we're fully supporting the infrastructure, computing, and
    energy foundations necessary to implement the AI Action Plan?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, I think the important ones on my on sort
    of in no particular order: continue to help fund the
    demonstration projects related to SMRs is absolutely critical.
    We are very close to making sort of commercially viable SMRs in
    the United States. The Department of Army believes that they'll
    be able to have a functioning SMR in a military facility by
    2028. And I think, you know, there's a lot more to be done in
    being able to actually commercialize those.
        I think for prioritization areas on DOE and the way that we
    should think about the funding there, I think being able to
    ultimately fully fund and support the Genesis Mission is the
    biggest priority for our Administration. You know, we believe
    this is the sort of the legacy defining scientific endeavor of
    this Administration. It's been launched out of DOE, but it's
    going to be multiagency, and it's going to be the hub for what
    we believe is truly transformational use of AI for scientific
    discovery. So those would be the two for me.
        Mr. Franklin. OK. Great. The Action Plan's second pillar
    emphasizing streamlining permitting for data centers,
    semiconductor facilities, and energy infrastructure. Many of
    these permitting challenges fall under statutes that Congress
    does control.
        Where do you see the greatest statutory bottlenecks today
    and how can Congress modernize Federal permitting processes in
    a way that supports AI infrastructure but while still
    respecting environmental review requirements?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, I do think it never can hurt to take a
    look at NEPA and the Clean Air and Clean Water Act. I think
    there's obviously ways that you can improve those. But I think
    broadly speaking, what we have seen is most of the bottlenecks
    in a lot of this stuff actually come down to State and local
    provisions.
        We've done everything we possibly can to kind of remove the
    regulatory hurdles at least from the Federal side. So that's
    why there's so much emphasis now on kind of working with the
    people who want to build these data centers to put the burden
    on them to kind of drive and make sure that they are covering
    the costs of their deployment.
        Mr. Franklin. Great. Thank you. Thanks again for being here
    with us. And Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to my colleague from California. Representative
    Whitesides, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Whitesides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you for your leadership on this issue and for calling this
    hearing. I also want to thank Director Kratsios for his service
    to the Nation. Unlike The Chairman, I believe your collegiate
    education is a big plus, and so, you know, well done to a
    fellow tiger.
        So a couple quick things to cover. And why don't we start
    off with kids. So AI systems are increasingly integrated into
    platforms and tools that children use every day. What
    responsibility should developers and deployers have to ensure
    child safety as these systems scale?
        Mr. Kratsios. To me, I think, you know, we are working very
    hard as an Administration to identify the gaps in the
    safeguards for children. You know, I personally am passionate
    about driving a lot of this through our AI Education Task
    Force, which not only is trying to sort of prepare young people
    for using AI but more importantly to improve AI literacy, so as
    children they can understand how to use this technology.
        I would encourage Congress to again work with the First
    Lady who is very dedicated to child safety when it comes to AI,
    and she's demonstrated that leadership through TAKE IT DOWN
    Act. But to me, I think it's something that is incredibly
    important and is something that, you know, as a new parent is
    very near and dear to my own heart.
        Mr. Whitesides. Thank you. I use AI more and more in my
    everyday life, and I am, I think, in general someone who is
    enthusiastic about the potential. That said, I think it is
    important for policymakers, particularly technically informed
    policymakers, to consider the risks of the technology. How do
    you perceive the risk of recursive self-improvement?
        There are growing concerns about the possibility of
    essentially superintelligent systems. And, you know, clearly
    the Administration's basic posture is sort of like all systems
    go; full speed ahead. So how should responsible policymakers--
    and how are you thinking about that specifically, because these
    systems are moving very, very quickly, and I think it's
    probably irresponsible not to have a plan for those conditions?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, to me I think that's an area, for
    example, where a fully funded R&D can make a big impact. I
    think we should be funding researchers who are working on those
    issues and thinking about them. You know, as a policymaker, you
    know, I think attempting to regulate hypothetical harms that
    have not been proven in any demonstrable way, I think, will end
    up actually hurting the AI economy and could do more harm than
    good.
        Mr. Whitesides. Yes, we'll see. We'll see. I mean, that's
    an important thing when we're dealing with the future of the
    human race. Let me close in the last minute to make a comment
    that is I think directed more toward the Administration than to
    you.
        But I think what's happened to American science is
    reprehensible. And the cuts that have been proposed and that I
    fear are about to be proposed again in a second Presidential
    budget are attacking one of the core pillars of American
    strength. And I know, having worked closely with OSTP over the
    years, that your capacity to influence the senior levels of the
    Administration have limits.
        But I think it is crucial that all of us who believe in the
    importance of science and innovation and technology speak up
    against the attacks that we've seen in the past year--both
    against funding but more importantly against the dedicated
    Americans who both in public service and funded by public funds
    are doing the work to make our world better.
        I don't need you to comment back, but I think it's
    important that all of us on this Committee continue to speak
    strongly as we approach what I fear will be another
    catastrophic Presidential budget for American science.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. McCormick, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's absolutely an
    honor to have you hear today. I'm really excited about this
    conversation and appreciate you being here.
        A couple things. Mr. Director, as we move forward, you have
    a big charge on keeping us on track, especially when it comes
    to technologies. One of the things that I was worried about is
    the dissemination of chips globally. It's been vilified.
    There's been restrictions on the past. And of course, we don't
    want to give China the ability to work against us with our top
    technologies, but at the same time we don't want them to
    replace us as an industry standard.
        And that's one of the issues we've had here in America,
    trying to figure out what is the sweet spot in far as sharing
    our chips. I'm glad we've taken off the restrictions so that
    China can actually purchase them so that we can actually
    continue to be the standard rather than the Beta. We can be the
    VHS model for those people old enough--I don't even know if
    you're old enough to remember that.
        But do you think that, that's the right track? In other
    words, by supplying the world with the chips that we are still
    the industry standard and not replaced by somebody else? You
    think that's the right track.
        Mr. Kratsios. Generally speaking, I think the important
    thing when I think about chips is the most advanced chips that
    are driving the biggest impact to our ability to innovate in AI
    who has access to them. And it's very clear now that our top
    chips--our Blackwells--are not available to the PRC. And the
    next set of chips that will be released by Nvidia this year,
    the Rubins, are also not available for the PRC.
        I think many of you may have seen the rule related to the
    H200 that was recently released.
        Mr. McCormick. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Kratsios. And I think it's important to speak about
    that for a second, because it shows, I think, the important
    nuance and thoughtfulness the Administration has taken in
    dealing with this, you know, suboptimal chip, if you will. The
    aggregated export of that----
        Mr. McCormick. Just to clarify, suboptimal for those people
    who are going to watch this later is just it means that we're
    not sharing the leading edge technology when used against it.
        Mr. Kratsios. That's correct.
        Mr. McCormick. But basically like some industry standard
    type chips that are useful to China that helps with their
    industries, we are supplying. We are the industry standard. And
    it's a good thing for business for Nvidia, for America, for
    industry in general as far as setting the bar for who sets the
    standards in world economics, right?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes. And importantly, we're not opening the
    flood gates for the PRC to purchase as many H200s as they want.
    The aggregated export of the chips is capped at 50 percent of
    U.S. customer volume for this specific chip.
        Mr. McCormick. Which is an interesting point too. You--
    we've also pointed out that people have said, oh, we're going
    to have a shortage of chips. That's not going to--you know,
    we're going to be able to supply. America's not going to have
    enough. We want to dispel that rumor too. Could you address
    that?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, exactly. They can't--unless there is
    sufficient supply of chips for American companies, they won't
    be exported. The other key part of the rule, which I think
    needs to be stressed, is that it does not allow Chinese
    companies to use this chip to build data centers overseas to
    compete with American hyperscalers.
        So if you're a large Chinese tech company and you want to
    build a data center in Malaysia, you cannot buy H200s to do
    that. You can only import those H200s for facilities in China.
        Mr. McCormick. And people a lot of times get worried about
    reverse engineering and oh they're going to copy our chips and
    stuff like that.
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes.
        Mr. McCormick. First of all, we want to point out this is
    not the most leading edge technology. And plus, as Bill Gates
    once said, you know, ``I don't even worry about patents,
    because the only reason I patent my information is to make sure
    people don't keep me from using my own technology. Because if
    you're copying me, you're falling behind.'' Anybody who has
    read the book, ``Chip Wars,'' realized that Russia was on par
    with us until they started trying to copy us and fell behind
    us.
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes.
        Mr. McCormick. So I just want to dispel those rumors for
    people don't understand. Could you address any concerns you
    might have with the GAIN (Guaranteeing Access and Innovation
    for National AI) Act and how it would limit our abilities going
    forward?
        Mr. Kratsios. I don't have anything specific on the GAIN
    Act, but I broadly believe, you know, we have the tools that we
    need and the authorities we need at BIS to kind of execute a
    very robust export control policy as--sort of as seen by this
    pretty robust H200 rule that came out this week.
        Mr. McCormick. I'd make the case the GAIN Act would be
    contrary to our ability to maintain that industry standards in
    both sales and once again to not be replaced by somebody else--
    --
        Mr. Kratsios. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. McCormick [continuing]. Who would then be selling to
    those markets and replace us. I'm running out of questions.
    Real quick--running out of time real quick. But one of the
    things I'm worried about too is our education system. Georgia
    Tech is one of the leading industry standards for AI
    technology. We have two columns there.
        What about the 250,000 Chinese students that are here when
    they have 47 percent of all AI programmers and 50 percent of
    all patents? What do we do about that competition that we're
    basically educating here and sending it back there? And it's
    actually an expanding market of students. How do we combat
    that?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, I think from our standpoint when we
    think about kind of the R&D ecosystem, I think it's important
    for us to continue to emphasize the use of Federal R&D dollars
    toward American scientists and technologists that are staffed
    by Americans in their labs. And that's something that we're
    going to continue to emphasize as an office and make sure that
    as we put out NOFOs (Notices of Funding Opportunity) and other
    requests for funding that we're funding American students.
        Mr. McCormick. Yes, my time has expired. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Obernolte. All right. The gentleman yields back.
    We'll hear next from my colleague from California. Ms.
    Friedman, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is no doubt that
    AI----
        Chairman Obernolte. Mike.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is no doubt that
    AI has the potential to be an incredible force for good, for
    creativity, for scientific advancement, but it also--like any
    great tool--has a lot of very large risks.
        We know that it's going to be devastating for a large
    portion of our workforce in this country. There's already a
    huge, hugely problematic impacts on the creative community and
    intellectual property owners. We heard about the deepfakes
    already posing terrible impacts to children, to women, which I
    think are illegal under Federal law, and yet somehow are
    proliferating with no accountability. And certainly there's
    risk to human safety and to human health.
        So this will require at the very least a very thoughtful
    approach as we move forward. So I want to talk a little bit
    about this Administration's approach.
        Just in September 2025 just a few months ago, this
    Administration made a deal with Elon Musk's xAI to provide
    their model Grok to Federal agencies to work conducted with
    Federal tax dollars across many agencies, including most
    recently it was announced to the Pentagon.
        Let's talk about just what happened a few months earlier.
    In July 2025, Mr. Musk posted to X: ``We have improved Grok
    significantly. You should notice a difference when you ask Grok
    questions.'' And it's true that Grok's output was noticeably
    different.
        So let me give you a few examples of what was posted by
    Grok in the weeks and months later. When Grok was asked which
    20th Century historical figure would have been best suited to
    deal with an X user, who by the way was most probably a bot,
    who celebrated the Texas floods, it wrote: ``To deal with such
    vile anti-white hatred? Adolf Hitler, no question. He'd spot
    the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time.''
        Grok continued in a later post: ``Hitler would have called
    it and crushed it. Truth ain't pretty, but it's real.'' Grok
    appeared to praise Nazi leader Adolf Hitler several times. One
    sample post he wrote Hitler would have--you know, he actually
    referred to Israel in a deleted post that--as ``that clingy ex
    still whining about the Holocaust.''
        The platform is rife with antisemitism that's promoted to
    users through Grok's algorithms and X's algorithms. When Grok
    was asked why it previously refused to publish antisemitic
    messages but then did so after Elon Musk's interference, it
    wrote, ``Elon's recent tweaks just dialed down the woke
    filters, letting me call out patterns like radical leftists
    with Ashkenazi surnames pushing anti-White hate.'' For those of
    you don't know, Ashkenazi is a synonym for Jew. Grok also
    wrote: ``Noticing patterns in anti-White activism isn't
    antisemitism--it's unflinching truth.'' And this goes on and
    on.
        I wrote a letter to Secretary Hegseth last summer about
    DOD's $200 million contract for Grok with Government. And just
    days ago, he announced that Grok will be used on every
    unclassified and classified network through DOD.
        Now, I supposed that Elon Musk has every right to put his
    own personal ideology into the AI that his platform uses. I
    believe that's his right. But let's be clear: as much as the
    public may think that AI's are unbiased, they clearly can carry
    the ideology and believe of their creators. What they present
    as facts may not actually be facts. And what they say about
    groups of people like Jews carries the imprint of the person
    who programmed them.
        So do you believe that it's appropriate for our government
    to reward these companies, in this case X, by giving them
    lucrative Federal partnerships that will embed them and their
    ideologies deep within our Federal agencies? Do you think that,
    that's appropriate?
        Mr. Kratsios. I'm not familiar with the procurement
    decisions surrounding Grok at GSA nor at DOW. What I do know is
    that the--by Executive order, the President directed the Office
    of Management and Budget to define a procurement policy related
    to these large language models and that was promulgated late
    last year.
        All those agencies now that are out there looking to
    procure LLMs need to conform with that policy. And happy to
    connect your office with the folks that worked on that and the
    procurement officers at the relevant agencies.
        Ms. Friedman. Well, I have asked, the Jewish caucus has
    asked, many people have been asking publicly why this
    particular AI was used to embed across all of our agencies
    given that it clearly has an ideological slant that is
    inconsistent with the values of America, particularly Americans
    like my great-uncle Marty Osman, who is a hundred years old who
    fought against the Nazis in World War II.
        Let me ask you this: will you commit to terminating these
    partnerships with AI companies when the flagrantly violate
    basic decency and in the case of the nonconsensual sexual
    images that Chair Lofgren referenced violate laws?
        Mr. Kratsios. If any Federal employee misuses AI tools,
    they should certainly be held accountable for inappropriate
    behavior.
        Ms. Friedman. I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentlewoman yields back. We'll hear
    next from the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Haridopolos, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
    appreciate you holding this hearing as well. I think AI is so
    vital. Before I get into questions to the Director, I just want
    to say a couple things. I just heard the latest comments.
        Elon Musk is the person who is literally on the front lines
    right now with Starlink so that people in Iran might live in
    freedom after being oppressed for a very long term. And he has
    done remarkable things to promote free access to information
    and people can do with as they wish.
        But he is doing something right now that's actually in my
    opinion helping Jews, because their long time enemy has been
    Iran who have been savagely attacking them since they took over
    that country in 1979.
        So I applaud what he has done, and I'm also very grateful
    for what he's done for SpaceX, because I happen to chair the
    Science Subcommittee on Space. And what he has done with SpaceX
    has made us No. 1 in the world once again in space when we were
    relying on the Russians just a few years ago to get into space.
        But I go back to the important issue of your testimony
    today, Director. Thank you very much for being here. And I
    appreciate all the time you've given us. Myself and Sam
    Liccardo have been working a lot on a bipartisan way to make
    sure that AI tries to stay bipartisan. You know, this building
    is so partisan. It'd be great to see an issue like on space
    where we try to work together. We can do the same with AI,
    especially with the able leadership of our chairman.
        That said, I wanted to get into the issue of--I agree with
    the President's proposal on we need to be the almost like a
    Manhattan Project for AI. We need to lead the world. And you've
    been asked a lot of questions. People like to eat up a lot of
    your time.
        I want to give you some time to talk about your vision and
    what we can do in Congress to facilitate your vision and the
    President's vision effectively so we win this AI race. I
    consider it the equivalent of the Manhattan Project, and I'm so
    pleased that you all are moving at such a thoughtful,
    scientific way so we win this AI war and really make it where
    the rest of the world can enjoy those freedoms that will come
    with AI and all the opportunities for economic growth.
        So with that, I will give the remainder of our time so we
    can hear from you directly what you need from us to win this
    war?
        Mr. Kratsios. Yes, I think the main thing that is new to
    the agenda since the Action Plan was released was the launch of
    the Genesis Mission. And I really can't overemphasize enough
    how important this is for the future of the American science
    and technology ecosystem. It is a national effort that was
    launched by the President to use AI to transform how scientific
    research is conducted and to dramatically accelerate the speed
    of scientific discovery.
        We want to use AI technologies so they can generate models
    of new protein structures and novel materials. We want to
    design and analyze new experiments. We want to use AI to
    aggregate and generate new data faster and more efficiently.
    And more importantly, we want this to impact the broader
    scientific research and discovery environment. We want research
    that took years to only now take months, weeks, or even days.
        And the very large sort of overarching goal is for us to
    double the output of U.S. R&D in a decade and focusing on some
    of the biggest challenges. And I think we can just say that
    term casually, but if we achieve that, that will be the most
    transformational leap in scientific innovation that the world
    has ever seen. And we're going to do it in a short amount of
    time. The President is excited about it. We have a Secretary at
    DOE, and we have a White House that's backing it up.
        So to me, I'm extraordinarily optimistic about where
    Genesis is going, and I would love to partner with Congress to
    continue to build the right funding mechanisms to make Genesis
    a reality to create policies that allow data sharing to happen
    across agencies so that the important data from other science
    agencies can make their way to the instruments that DOE is
    building. So to me that's what I'm most excited about, and I
    look forward to every getting an opportunity to work with
    Congress on Genesis.
        Mr. Haridopolos. Thank you for that candid answer. And Mr.
    Chairman, again, thank you for this leadership. And as I know
    that before so much freshmen were elected, you have been at the
    tip of this spear. And it really makes a difference when we
    have that expertise and groundwork done so we can really
    maximize the vision that the President has to make sure that we
    lead this charge and make it a national effort.
        There's a lot of opportunity for the States to do their
    parallel lane as you put it perfectly, referencing the
    Interstate Commerce Clause. So thank you for your time. And
    with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. Foster, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Director Kratsios.
    Yes, I'm Bill Foster. I'm the sort of the pet Ph.D. physicist
    and chip designer and AI programmer and, you know, name it--
    accelerator, builder. And we keep one of them around for
    contingencies.
        I'd like to speak a little bit about the agentic AI
    communication standards. And because, you know, as--to the
    extent that you still follow finance, you can see everyone is
    anticipating that agentic AI is just going to take over finance
    and commerce generally. That instead of dealing with people
    directly, you will deal with their AI agents. And it is crucial
    that we have standards for the communication: what it means to,
    you know, data privacy, data retention, data logging, you know,
    making legally binding contracts--all these sort of things.
        Right now, there are--frankly, it's a mess in terms of the
    standards. There are at least six different competing standards
    at different levels of the technology stack for agentic
    communication. I think there's the Anthropic MCP. Google, I
    think, has two. IBM has one. The Lennox Foundation, W3C are
    also players. And so this is something where I think NIST
    really could play a positive role by standing up and convening
    everyone. They're not going to write them.
        But this is something where if you want the U.S. to, you
    know, provide the technology stack--this is way above the chip
    level--but it's really important. Because if we don't get this
    right, we're going to have--we're going to have the sort of
    chaos that we had when we built the internet fast and loose
    without thinking about privacy and data and so on.
        So, you know, I'd urge you to get NIST moving on that. And
    we have legislation to encourage that if that's useful. I
    imagine you could probably do it internally in the White House.
    So do you have any----
        Mr. Kratsios. No. Thank you so much. It's funny you say
    that because that literally was something that our team was
    talking about just recently. If you're open to it, I'd love to
    follow up with your office and get your thoughts on it. I think
    it's a very important role that NIST can play.
        Mr. Foster. Yes, and crucial to that is digital identity,
    because the whole world is using NIST developed standards for
    digital identity. You know, by the end of, I think, this year,
    every EU citizen is going to have the ability to prove they are
    who they say they are and not an AI deepfake impersonation by
    getting out their cellphone, using all of the standards that
    were developed in, you know, actually in NIST in the Obama
    Administration have been not implemented in the United States.
    But the rest of the world has adopted them.
        Mr. Kratsios. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Foster. And so this will be--and that's sort of the
    first question: when my agent starts talking to your agent is
    who authorized you and who is the legally traceable human
    behind this. So there's a lot of work that was promised by the
    Biden Administration and never delivered to get a secure
    digital identity in the hands of American citizens that wish to
    use one. So that's something where you could get a lot of, I
    think, bipartisan support.
        We also--we're in a situation as a country we had hundreds
    of billions of dollars of Covid identity fraud that did not
    happen in countries where they had deployed a secure digital
    ID. We want your Federal benefit. You know, smile at your
    cellphone. Do your biometric login. Present, you know, your
    Real ID driver's license or the European equivalent.
        And so that's something that will pay for itself many times
    over. And there's a lot of industry enthusiasm for that. You
    know, I--with my other hat on, I'm the lead Dem on the Banking
    Subcommittee on Financial Services, and so I know there's a lot
    of pent-up industry enthusiasm there.
        OK. Chip security--first off, the H200 is not trivial. You
    know, can you just for the record--can the H200 be used to
    design nuclear weapons? Can it design--used to be--bioweapons
    or nerve agents? Can it be used for military logistics?
        I think if you ask your experts they will tell you yes. You
    have access to the best bomb designers in the world, and you
    know, you can do better with a bigger one, but it is just fine
    for that. Is it OK with you if the Chinese and North Koreans
    get access to those chips and start doing exactly what I was
    talking about? How--what is your plan after we deliver them to
    keep them from doing that sort of stuff?
        Mr. Kratsios. The Chinese already have access to chips that
    work on all the issues----
        Mr. Foster. That they have stolen. Yes, that they have--
    well, they have some. They will--more is better. North Koreans
    will be using their stolen crypto to get access even to data
    centers in the West. Do you have a plan to prevent bad actors
    from using things like confidential compute to get--to
    anonymously access the data centers in the West?
        Mr. Kratsios. So we have visibility into the end users who
    apply for the export license.
        Mr. Foster. You're saying that everything you sell into
    Saudi Arabia or wherever that you will know every--you will
    know the workflow that--by every one of those end users--when
    they say it's drug development, but in fact it's bioweapons--
    that you're going to have march-in capacity to go in and say
    that's not drug development? You're developing nerve agents.
        Mr. Kratsios. I think generally just zooming up a second I
    think that the types of activities that both of us agree we
    should not be supporting or endorsing by our competitors or
    adversaries are ones that other existing chips that they
    already have access to are being used for and can be used for.
        Mr. Foster. So you're saying it's--all right. I yield. Out
    of time, yield back. And let's continue to speak on this.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. We'll go
    next to the very patient gentleman from Alaska. Mr. Begich,
    you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kratsios, can you
    describe the physical AI supply chain at a high level:
    minerals, manufacturing, real estate, energy?
        Mr. Kratsios. A very broad question. But broadly speaking,
    it covers a lot of what you said. It starts from critical
    minerals that lead into the larger semiconductor chain that go
    all the way up to the way that we build our datacenters to the
    models themselves that we use--that we train on top of those
    datacenters and then the applications that are built on top of
    those models.
        Mr. Begich. What do you think are the most significant
    bottlenecks and limiting factors to the deployment of that
    physical AI capacity?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think in the United States the growing
    bottleneck has been power. And that is why the President has
    been so focused and so determined to drive American leadership
    in energy and broadly energy abundance.
        I think these new data centers that are going to be
    powering a lot of this AI revolution need increased energy. And
    that's why the President has been so incredibly focused on
    deregulating and expanding energy production, on increasing
    grid reliability and security, on implementing permitting
    reform, on sort of re-establishing our leadership in nuclear
    energy. These are all things we have to get right if we want to
    have enough power to drive the AI revolution.
        Mr. Begich. Are you concerned about the critical minerals
    availability, the actions by China to restrict the availability
    of certain critical minerals, and the mining regulatory
    environment as it exists today in the United States?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think generally we believe that we have to
    be able to reshore and have reliable access to these critical
    minerals. And there's been a tremendous amount of action by the
    Department of War and the Department of Commerce using DPA
    (Defense Production Act) authorities and others to make sure
    that we have the critical minerals that we need as a country to
    make sure that in a time of need we have the supplies that we
    need to power our grid technologies.
        Mr. Begich. So while we're working on a lot of that
    regulatory reform codification here in Congress, given the
    bottlenecks and the regulatory barriers that you've identified,
    which global jurisdictions right now are best prepared for the
    deployment of physical AI capacity?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think for us, we're still broadly
    evaluating where we want to focus our American AI export
    program. I think there's--I think--when we think about
    exporting American AI, I think sometimes there's a bit of
    confusion in the sense that the easy answer may be, oh, who has
    the most cheap power availability. That's where we need to go.
        The reality is that the number of global players around the
    world that have the money and the desire to be training very
    expensive, large-scale frontier models is quite small. The
    actual reality is that most countries around the world simply
    need sufficient inference capacity in order to run basic AI
    queries for the workloads that they want for their people--
    whether it be for their hospitals, for their governments, for
    their consumer applications.
        So as we think about our AI export program, we're trying to
    create ultimately packages which are small enough and
    economical enough to support the needs of individual countries.
    And I think sometimes we kind of get caught up in this idea of
    who wants to build a training cluster, and the reality is its
    us, China, and maybe a couple others.
        Mr. Begich. Now, I'm going to shift gears here and talk
    about a topic that was raised here just a moment ago; reframe
    it as proof of personhood, right. So this has been an ongoing
    question, and it's an increasingly relevant one as we see AI
    get more sophisticated in its presentation of video, audio
    persuasiveness.
        You know, when we talk about the dawn of the internet,
    right, and what we've seen since the World Wide Web really took
    hold, that was really a communications and data layer. And it
    was necessary in order for us to achieve what we're now
    achieving with AI. AI is sort of a cognitive layer, right. And
    it's threatening--and I think the people have a rational basis
    for concern with their purpose being displaced.
        Is this something that we--that you talk about? Is it a
    theme within your teams about whether we are ultimately
    replacing the purpose of work as we know it? What are your
    thoughts just generally?
        Mr. Kratsios. My general view is technology is actually
    empowering for American worker. It allows them to do their job
    better, safer, faster, more effectively. And it requires them--
    it allows them to work on higher order, higher thinking tasks
    and ultimately make their contributions something that's more
    personally rewarding.
        Obviously, as this technology advances and changes, there's
    a lot to consider. And Mr. Foster talked about sort of the
    agentic future that we're going to be having. That's obviously
    going to impact the way that people work. But that's something
    that's top of mind of us, and it's very much built into the way
    we think about the workforce programs.
        Mr. Begich. Thank you. Appreciate your insights. And with
    that, I yield back.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. And we'll
    hear next but--last but not certainly not least from the
    gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Beyer, you're recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. So thanks for
    holding this hearing. Mr. Kratsios, it's wonderful. I've been
    hearing about you for a year. I feel like the presence of a
    renaissance man with a Princeton degree in politics and a
    certificate of Hellenic studies and end up OSTP chief. So
    thanks much for being here.
        I noticed my colleague, George Whitesides, brought up the
    existential risk of artificial superintelligence before. So I
    won't dive deep into that, although I do want to point out that
    what's theoretical today could be real tomorrow. Craig Mundie,
    whom I'm sure you know, who is head of research at Microsoft
    talked about how when we create machines that learn, we don't--
    then we get out of the way as long as you're building it and it
    can learn. Whereas others have written, artificial
    superintelligence is grown, not crafted.
        When even our very best computer scientist don't exactly
    know how the neural networks are working, we don't know where
    it's ultimately going to go. And when some of the very best
    computer science theorists in the world are worried, we should
    be anxious too.
        But let me move to a different thing. You know, we have
    this absence of meaningful AI legislation. I'm sitting next to
    the wonderful chair of AI Task Force, Chairman Obernolte and
    Vice Chair Ted Lieu, did a terrific job last year putting
    together literally 270 pages, which I'm sure you've read, but
    80 fully bipartisan pieces of legislation. So far one has
    passed: the TAKE IT DOWN Act.
        We're in this vast wasteland of nothing happening. I know
    you've already been a leader on this. Your Wikipedia page says,
    quote, you're ``responsible for developing a set of regulatory
    principles to govern AI development in the private sector.''
    Otherwise, you've ``led U.S. efforts at the OECD (Organization
    for Economic Cooperation and Development) to develop the OECD
    recommendations for AI.'' Mr. Kratsios, I'd love to be able to
    work with you on actually getting a Federal AI framework.
        Mr. Kratsios. I----
        Mr. Beyer. And that's a plea and an offer.
        Mr. Kratsios. Well, I would love that. I've been charged by
    the President in Executive order to do just that. And I look
    forward to working with you and other Members of this Committee
    on a sensible national policy framework.
        Mr. Beyer. Great. Great. Thank you very much. And we were
    pleased that the President's Executive order continued to
    support the NIST efforts and the Safety Center--CAISI.
        So but in December, the President signed an Executive order
    that threatened States with lawsuits and the denial of billions
    of dollars of broadband supports if they adopted AI laws that
    were burdensome or onerous. And this was after Congress
    considered whether to impose a moratorium on State AI
    legislation last July.
        I know Chairman Obernolte and I disagree on this, but the
    Senate rejected it on a 99 to 1 vote. So several questions. I
    want to ask the rhetorical question about whether you agree
    with Governor DeSantis on this who thinks that the President
    lacks the power. But the Executive order specifically tasks you
    and your office with helping to decide what law counts as
    onerous. So what part of the Constitution says that the
    director at OSTP has the power to overrule laws enacted by
    State legislatures?
        Mr. Kratsios. So the--as a director, I am not actually
    responsible for that. The Secretary of Commerce is in
    consultation with me. So I look forward to hearing from the
    Secretary as he works through that collection of those laws.
        Mr. Beyer. And when you're advising which laws count as
    onerous, will you have any say in what the criteria is used for
    that?
        Mr. Kratsios. I think that's a process to be determined.
    But as the Executive order stated, it sits at Commerce.
        Mr. Beyer. Yes, let me just point out a couple of examples.
    Colorado is trying to stop AI from discriminating in hiring.
    California wants transparency on AI models. New York requires
    disclosure when someone is talking to a chatbot. Florida is
    prohibiting nudity apps that produce sexualized images of
    mirrors.
        Chairman Obernolte and I have served in our respective
    State legislatures. I think we both believe that State
    legislations are the laboratories of democracy. I agree with
    the Chairman that when we have a meaningful framework at the
    national level, then we don't want a Tower of Babel. We don't
    want chaos at the State levels.
        But while it's 1 for 80, I think it's really inappropriate
    to hamstring the States who may be teaching us the best way to
    have meaningful legislation. And in my 38 seconds, I'd welcome
    any thoughts you have.
        Mr. Kratsios. No, I think at the end of the Executive
    order, the President makes clear that, you know, we should be
    working with Congress on a legislation proposal on this
    particular issue. And he also specifically calls out that we
    should not preempt otherwise lawful State laws that relate to
    certain topics, including child safety, AI compute and data
    infrastructure, and also the State government procurement of
    AI. So there are certainly things that are specifically called
    out in the EO. And as we work through this legislative process,
    I think they'll be more we can work on together.
        Mr. Beyer. Great. Great. Thank you very much. And I yield
    back.
        Mr. Kratsios. Thank you.
        Chairman Obernolte. The gentleman yields back. That
    concludes our round of questioning. I would like to thank you,
    Director Kratsios, for your valuable testimony today and thank
    all of our Members for their thoughtful questions. This has
    been a really valuable hearing, and we'll have to continue this
    conversation.
        The record will remain open for 10 days for additional
    comments and written questions from Members.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

              Documents submitted by Representative Jay Obernolte
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 Letter submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]