[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]