▶ 0:12:10Sorry about that. All right. We got somebody back there? All right.
▶ 0:14:06The committee will now come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome to the Science Committee's Member Day hearing for the 119th And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee's Member Day hearing for the 119th Congress.
▶ 0:14:34I appreciate our colleagues' efforts today to share his interests and priorities within the committee's jurisdiction. His willingness to voice his constituents' concerns is critical in shaping our discussions and enhancing our collective efforts. As I have said before, the spotlight is on us, folks. The world has never paid as much attention to the matters within this committee's purview as it does right now. And we are ready to lead the charge.
▶ 0:15:03We have a full agenda ahead, and I'm confident that through collaboration, we will make significant progress in maintaining America's leadership in science and technology. This includes our commitment to propelling humanity into new frontiers by advancing space exploration, driving scientific discovery, and spearheading cutting-edge technologies in fields like quantum computing and artificial With several important hearings already behind us, we look forward to advancing
▶ 0:15:33our legislative efforts soon. Together, we will endeavor to ensure America remains a global competitor at the helm of these crucial issues. So, let's continue the great work. I now recognize the ranking member Lofgren for 5 minutes for her opening Well, thank you, Chairman Babin, and for today's hearing. I look forward to from members, I think, or at least a member, on priorities for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
▶ 0:16:01With science at the forefront, we do have a responsibility and opportunity to support federal R&D to help us build a bright future. We have to continue to promote innovative solutions to challenges we face, build our STEM workforce, push for development and deployment of new energy technologies, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and explore the unknown.
▶ 0:16:24These topics shouldn't be partisan issues, and I hope we can continue the very long tradition in this committee of working toward bipartisan consensus. That is a a tradition of the Science Committee that goes back many decades, and it's really the only way we can address these critical issues in a meaningful and thoughtful way. I would like to note, as we did last week, the loss of our member, Mr. Turner.
▶ 0:16:50He did not serve with us for a long period of time on this committee, but he served with us Arrangements are being made this Saturday for his services, and we will make sure that all the members of the have that information. I know schedules are established far in advance, but in case that is possible for anyone who wants to um uh honor him with their presence.
▶ 0:17:18I would like also to note that we um we're serving here at a tumultuous time, but the focus I have had on this committee on three particular issues remain enormously important, not just to me, but I think to our future. And that is uh AI, uh quantum computing, and fusion.
▶ 0:17:38And these three areas of work in a synergistic way, and if we actually uh succeed as we hope, they will have a profound uh and positive impact on our world. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, uh I'm happy to yield back. Thank you very much. And also notice the uh the flowers as well uh that my colleagues have displayed in memory of our our lost friend, Congressman Sylvester Turner, who we lost last week.
▶ 0:18:08Uh I'd like to reiterate how much I appreciated working with Mr. Turner over the years while he was the mayor of Houston. And I looked very much forward to having him on this committee. He was a true gentleman, and I continue to pray for his friends and loved ones during this tragic time, and we will miss him. Other members are welcome to submit written statements for the record. And our colleague, Mr.
▶ 0:18:36Foster from Illinois, is now recognized to present his testimony. Sure. Well, well, thank you uh Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lofgren, and I I echo your your thoughts on um Representative Turner. Um you know, and and also congratulate you on having uh your your turnout here. You have 100% of the PhD physicists in Congress um two will be presenting uh testimony here.
▶ 0:19:00Um and so I'd like to start, you know, as as most of you know, I spent 25 years at the National Lab, Fermi National Accelerator Lab, and spent years as the co-chair of the National Labs Caucus touring, taking members of Congress on on tours in the National Lab. We got um more than halfway through when COVID put a halt to it. But when members actually see what's at the National Labs, it is transformative to the way they think about the science enterprise of this country.
▶ 0:19:26And so I'll I'll be moving forward legislation to try to firm up the infrastructure investments that are essential to that to making that go forward because without the critical infrastructure that's frankly decaying in many areas, the National Labs cannot keep up their incredible work that they do to keep the US at the vanguard of scientific discovery.
▶ 0:19:47And you had a very good hearing with the with the with the directors of several of the National Labs and that's an excellent start to this. the ranking member mentioned artificial intelligence and the staff of the Science Committee in particular had a huge role in the AI task force that was really you know, may end up being one of the most important things that happened in the last session of Congress.
▶ 0:20:16That this is coming at us, you know, like a freight train and we're not ready for it. If you just look at what the announcement recently about the the Google co-scientist that really, you know, outperformed a small research in the work the work output of years of a small research group in 36 hours. And and came up with new ideas for future research.
▶ 0:20:39The thing that you thought would be the last bastion of of human creativity was actually appeared to be outperformed and this is an early version of of AI agents that will be not only not only executing the the hands-on work of science, but actually doing the strategic planning of it. And so we cannot be in second place on this because the the country that wins AI is going to have an infinite supply of a very smart, very well-educated at home remote workers.
▶ 0:21:09It's one way to think about it, but they're also going to have going to have robotics to execute the hands-on research, and it is it's a big deal, and and I think NIST it may be that the oversight over NIST, which is traditionally been the lead institution on on this, is maybe the most important thing that you have to look at.
▶ 0:21:29Um you you shouldn't overlook uh traditional things like NASA because you know, I think we've learned in the last decade that when we have sort of comfortable incumbents with large market share, they don't perform efficiently. And I think we may be in danger of having a near monopoly on launch coming up again. You shouldn't let that happen.
▶ 0:21:51You know, you're going to have to take a hit in short-term economic efficiency to make sure you have multiple competitive vendors, and and keep an eye on that one cuz you don't want to just replace one uh you know, not too productive incumbent with another. that's um one of the big things that that you struggle with on this committee is that you're an authorization committee and that you get thwarted by appropriators.
▶ 0:22:17You know, we saw an example of this with the CHIPS and Science Act, which was the concept of that was we're going to double the science budget over a decade or so, and that because of the additional budget that was available under that hypothesis, you could increase the scope of things like the National Science Foundation. And so you we you know, we authorized a number of new missions and in fact mandated that they do it, but then in fact we did not double the budget.
▶ 0:22:42And so this is viewed frankly by a lot of members of uh you scientists who work under NSF that that this was viewed in the end as a net negative for uh for the CHIPS and Science Act was viewed as a net negative for NSF-supported scientists because it was an unfunded mandate basically. You had to do all these new missions on a flat budget.
▶ 0:23:04And it was as destructive as when, jeez, 20 years ago, I guess, George Bush came in and showed up at NASA unannounced and said, "Hey, we're going to Mars on a flat budget." Because one of the most destructive things you can do to any organization is to give them, you know, give them a goal that they really want to accomplish and then not give them the resources to do it. It's just, you know, it it's um it's sort of a soul-crushing thing to to watch all of your milestones fail to be met and so on.
▶ 0:23:32So, so one of the the things that you should be thinking about is how to reclaim the authorities from the appropriations committees. You know, if you look at why the US spends such a small fraction of money on on science, it is not because uh we do not authorize the spending. It is because we do not appropriate it. And I think there's actually a cultural problem between the authorization committees. You know, they they look at a field every 10 years and say, "Where should this field be in 10 years?" A long-term view of things.
▶ 0:24:01The appropriators are all about, you know, what what goodies can I give out this this year. And so they have a very short-term uh view of things that causes us to systematically unfund underfund uh long-term things like education and science. And so you have to you have we have to as an institution learn to fight back against that tendency and um and I believe I am now out of time. Happy to answer any questions on any of these issues. Yes, sure.
▶ 0:24:27Thank you thank you very appreciate that and our next recognize myself for questions for 5 And of course, you're the only witness we have in here today, Dr. Foster, so uh this will be directed to you for your testimony uh here today.
▶ 0:24:49I appreciate your comments on modernizing Department of Energy's national laboratory The Energy Subcommittee just held a hearing with several of the national lab directors last month. Having NASA's Johnson Space Center in my district, I understand the importance of maintaining key and aging federal research facilities. In your testimony, you mentioned a legislative effort to address your concerns in this area.
▶ 0:25:15How would that effort align with the already established science laboratories infrastructure program at DOE, the SLI? Well, it's a um I'm going to put more I have to go. Dig up um it is I actually don't have the specifics of that in front of me. It um you know, there are there've been a number of of efforts to just specifically look at um Let's see, how do I say this?
▶ 0:25:42This this gets into an discussion that's similar to the discussion about um the overhead that should be charged for federal grants. That that you have a core mission and then you have to if you're at a university or national lab, you have a core mission with specific projects and then you also have the need to maintain the flywheel of this.
▶ 0:26:04So that between the boom and bust cycles of getting this project approved and and um and having it sort of fade away and the funding complete, it is difficult to manage your workforce and it's difficult to manage your infrastructure. And so one of the ways to do that is to fill in the boom and bust cycle with infrastructure improvements on that. And that is that's sort of the idea behind um this these legislative efforts. I just want to say thank you.
▶ 0:26:31And now the ranking member for 5 minutes for her Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh Dr. Foster, as you mentioned, you're 100% of our um physicists here in the House. Uh you I used to be 33%. But we had we had Vern Ehlers and Rush Holt. That's correct. But now we have you and we're glad that we do. Um you worked at one of the nation's premier national labs, Fermi Lab.
▶ 0:26:58And as someone who was part of that high-skilled scientific workforce, I wonder if you could comment briefly on the long-term effects, if any, uh that could result from the chaos that is currently happening at our top science and technical agencies like DOE, NIST, NSF, and NIH, where people are randomly being fired, rehired, apparently now targeted for potentially more firings.
▶ 0:27:28Will this cause lasting damage to our ability to innovate in your judgment? Uh well, you know, the tough thing is when you're deciding where to place your career if you're a young, talented, and well-educated scientist, you know, you have your choice. You know, you can go and work in private industry, you can work on national labs, you can work other places.
▶ 0:27:47And if national labs or the government generally turns out to be uh a place where you can't have a secure future, then that makes it really hard to hire people. You know, if you find that all of a sudden you you're raising a family near the um near an institution and then all of a sudden it's announced that oh, we're going to move you into the middle of nowhere um or you'll lose your job, you know, that's pretty makes it pretty hard to raise a family when that happens.
▶ 0:28:14Um it it's fine if you um you know, over time reposition your workforce. You have to do that. But jerking it around randomly and rapidly uh and without frankly a lot of thought is very destructive because then people just, you know, they okay, I will take my other options here. And that's going to it's going to make it hard.
▶ 0:28:33Um the thing that one of the things that worries me the most is, you know, what happened to the NNSA where they had, you know, these are people that have devoted their lives and and you know, when happened when I looked behind the wall, uh as part of the National Labs Caucus, he went and visited the weapons labs. And you you saw these these scientists who'd given up, you know, brilliant people who'd given up the possibility of having tenure jobs at top universities uh to make sure that we had a reliable weapon system.
▶ 0:29:03And then when you see that those sort of people, and particularly the young people who decided to go into that, are threatened with uh having their jobs ripped away, you know, why would you possibly do that in the future? And it means that when we have really critical weapon systems where you have to spend your life working in secret on them, why would you do that? And it's it's already a tough sell uh when you're trying to get the the weapons labs to hire top scientists, and this has made it incomparably worse.
▶ 0:29:31Um but the other thing, workforce thing, that really worries me is the attitude that towards immigrants that seems to be just permeating our country right now. You know, we talk about how how great it is, um you know, the Apollo program, you know, good old American know-how, but like good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun and all the brilliant German engineers that actually built the Apollo program, or at least guided it.
▶ 0:29:58You know, we have this um you know, we're we're looking at SpaceX by that um um should I say it, Mr. McCormick, or not? Um you when you referred to um the leader of SpaceX is an African American, but but he is a Anyway, that was I thought quite amusing, but um but it was but this was, you know, I mean, we are our scientific enterprise particularly is built by immigrants.
▶ 0:30:21Because when when people around the world, you know, are the smartest kid in their class in the middle of some country uh that doesn't have a scientific enterprise, their dream is to come to America. Used to be to come to America. Now they look to Europe.
▶ 0:30:35Um you know, we've seen that in high energy physics where a decade ago, um you know, well, probably 30 years ago, uh US was you know, we were in the process of planning and building the super collider which maybe those of you from Texas may remember and then that was cancelled because of things that happened in in Congress frankly. Um And and as a result the next generations of high energy particle physics physicists now want to work in Europe instead.
▶ 0:31:03And and so these are are fragile operations and we have to we have to treat them with respect and give them some continuity. You know, I know that there's a danger that scientists end up coming to you like just another special interest group. It's a little bit different because of the long-term benefit they provide our country.
▶ 0:31:23I just don't my time is up but Idaho Labs did an analysis and said that uh in their judgment roughly 85% of GDP growth was directly connected to science and technology innovation. We don't need to lose that. I yield back Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I now recognize the representative from Georgia. McCormick. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's it's refreshing My apologies for holding you on that. I thought it was a just we need some humor in this.
▶ 0:31:54You know, sometimes it's the only thing that keeps me going in the military we use humor to deal with our depression all the time and Elon Musk is indeed an African by all rights. One thing I want to point out is it's actually refreshing to work with a member of Congress who's so well Sometimes we forget that in Congress it's supposed to be our best our brightest. The people who are innovators, the people who have real ideas.
▶ 0:32:18You're actually one of my favorite people on the other side of the aisle to work with because I think you have some really refreshing ideas that solve real problems we have that actually we can agree on. One of the things I loved about your ideas was your digital ID. You're basically whether it be biometrics or however you want to do that where we could actually have voter accountability and solve fraud at the same time. It's a bipartisan issue. Yeah. Nobody should be against that and I think that's one of the things I really love about you.
▶ 0:32:43You approach it from a pragmatic, realistic, scientific, and factual basis, which we can all agree on. I think we all want to do something that matters and have everybody count in the way that they're supposed to and make sure we have progress and I and I actually like what the uh uh what we just talked about. This is the real growth area we can have not only for accountability and and saving a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse, but also in real growth of economy. What couldn't we like about that? So, I'm looking forward to working with you. Yeah, well well, thank you.
▶ 0:33:11And I think if McKinsey estimated it was a little over 2% of GDP was the growth when a country adopted a secure digital ID. But I I it's also important to acknowledge NIST. You know, the the technology that enables that that's in your cell phone and allows it to be presented um and allows uh Apple and Android to work together on on this for things like digital driver's licenses or the or the digital ID that every EU citizen's going to have, I think, by the end of next Um that this technology was all developed
▶ 0:33:41by NIST over a decade ago. And so, it's an example of these things where a relatively small group at NIST thought about a problem that was going to be important in the future, realized that you need technical standards, and to just think through how it was going to work. And they set it up. Um they and the standards were um adopted by NIST. Those were adopted by the International Standards Organization, and then countries around the world are using that. Uh countries around the world are very envious of the of NIST. It's really it's really interesting to talk to them.
▶ 0:34:11They said, "I wish in the EU we had something like NIST because we don't." Well, well, I I look forward to working with you. I I hope you will learn to use small words so Marines can understand it, too. But uh uh really enjoy this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And now, I'd like to recognize the uh representative from Maryland, uh McClain Delaney. Thank you, Rep. Foster.
▶ 0:34:38I really appreciate your comments and um you know, I really think I agree with our chair. You know, I really like your commitment to actually scientific thought leadership and I agree with almost every comment you made and noted. Um we do need to not only authorize, but appropriate thoughtfully and strategically.
▶ 0:34:58And I actually say this cuz I was um I served in the uh last administration and was number two at NTIA and we did a lot of research and innovation as well in the spectrum arena and also with our uh data protocols. actually I'm just kind of lifting up. Um I am I really think that we need payoffs and innovation in driving public partnerships.
▶ 0:35:23And in Maryland 6, I do represent NIST, which I think is one of our nation's jewels and around the world is respected, as well as parts of NIH and the National Institute of Cancer and Fort Detrick. And um I am so concerned about potential um cuts and freezes to staffing because actually um as I look ahead and you know, proactively um thinking about how commerce looks at these.
▶ 0:35:49Um you know, it will really actually impact our national security and some of our um innovation. Um two things I'd I'd really like to see. How do we better interface do you think um um as authorizers and appropriators with some of these agencies in terms of figuring out ways um drive innovation strategically over the long term because you see China as these, you know, 50-year plans.
▶ 0:36:15How do we figure out a a best means to um really invest in some of these agencies and researchers and scientific thought leaders so that we can um really support them, but also use those to to um drive public partnerships, public-private partnerships. Well, I think there's a a structural problem in Congress. Uh if you look at the our modern economy and the structure of Congress, they just you know, we're like a a snapshot of what our economy looked like 100 years ago.
▶ 0:36:45Uh you know, for example, information technology just passed financial services as a fraction of the GDP, and shortly it's going to uh pass uh healthcare to be the largest single sector. And yet we do not have a full standing committee on information technology. And uh so that if you just will look at our economy now, you'd say, "Well, healthcare, that's 20% of GDP, full standing committee. Uh science and energy, 20%, that's a full standing committee.
▶ 0:37:11Information technology, boom, you know, financial services, you know, a set of hunks that are 20% of of GDP would make sense." And you know, and in contrast, uh if you look at um at Well, I'll pick on agriculture. You know, agriculture is under 1% of GDP, and yet to put it in congressional terms, they have all the good office space. And so it's just you know, we are not we are not mapped onto the modern economy properly.
▶ 0:37:38Um there's a second structural problem is that there's a Byzantine association of authorizations committees, and that doesn't even get to the Senate. So I think that what's needed there to make us more effective is to just have a bipartisan group set up and say, "Not what we're going to do next year, but where do we want to be 10 years from now?" So that people can plan their careers in Congress and the Senate to map their seniority onto where they want to be. So if you got elected because you care about healthcare, you have a home for that.
▶ 0:38:06If you got elected because you care about science and energy, there's a home for that, or financial services, or or wherever you want to be. Then I think that something like that It's not going to fix things next year, but if there was a if everyone knew that 10 years from now we will have a rational uh organization. That would make us be the single biggest step forward. Um and everyone 10 years from now will really thank us.
▶ 0:38:31Um leading on, um is there any investments you think that we um particularly the AI and quantum computing fields as cuz I see um and and I note um Rep. Lofgren had said that Idaho Labs, my home state of Idaho, you know, 85% of GDP is growth from these types of issues. Like what do you what how would you um envision and I know that NTIA and I do know that NIST is doing a lot in that arena.
▶ 0:38:59Um how can we better support that, do you think, um on the hill? Well, I think it's going to be very difficult for the federal government to put the amount of money comparable to what the private sector is putting into AI. That's just a fact and we have to plan around that. Uh what we the bumpers and safeguards as well. What? And right, but it is the it is the bumpers and safeguards. Um you know, I think that the you know, ultimately the end point personally where we have to get with AI is that you know, we're going to have to have an AI that's on your side.
▶ 0:39:29That every person is going to have their dozens of startups that are making personal AIs, but the difficulty is that they when you say, "How are you going to make money?" and they say, "Oh, it'll be like Google. We're going to get everyone to uh to trust our AI product and then we're going to abuse that trust to steer people into crappy overpriced products, which is sort of what happened to Google in a very, you know, I love Google, but there you know, there's some truth to what I just said.
▶ 0:39:53And so this is a commercial incentive and if we can set up a set of commercial incentives for an AI that's on your side, where it's um where where someone has a right, I mean, Sam Altman calls this universal basic computer, something like this. But you some every every citizen of the United States would have um the right to have an AI whose whose interests were aligned with themselves.
▶ 0:40:18And that's a And that is something that government can do because, you know, free enterprise won't do it by themselves. But you could really, you know, a lot of the arguments we get into over things like consumer protection would not be necessary if every person had an AI that made sure you weren't being screwed by whoever it was you were transacting with. Anyway, long discussion there, but Well said. Generalwoman's time has expired. Thank you very much. Uh I'd like to now recognize the representative from Colorado, Mr. Hurd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:40:48Dr. Foster, welcome. It's a very good to meet you. Um question about the Department of Energy National Labs, how do we measure success when it comes to innovation and the work being done in the Department of Energy National Lab National Labs? Are there metrics that the public can look to or that we as members of Congress can look to in evaluating whether or not we are directing resources effectively?
▶ 0:41:13I think the short I I was wrestle with that question for, you know, my entire career, and I I've come to the conclusion the answer is no. Uh you know, for for example, you know, back in the 1990s, uh we were programming neural networks, and it was just a flaming disaster because neural networks weren't ready cuz we didn't have the computing power and no one had gotten back propagation to work and and and so on. But it was very nice in retrospect that you had this set of very smart people arguing about neural networks.
▶ 0:41:40You know, for example, when we were trying to thinking about publishing papers that use neural networks, we ran into what's now called the explainability problem, that if if we were to publish a paper that said, um "We have discovered a subatomic particle because our neural network says so." You know, how do you even, you know, how do you even read such a paper? And then then the Financial Services Committee, where I I also serve, I was the chair of an AI task force.
▶ 0:42:06And so the the problem we have then is if an AI tells you, "I'm sorry, your mortgage has been turned down because our neural network says so. It's the exact same problem. It's not an acceptable answer. But having having a large number of people in the national labs thinking about every little corner that may not look promising now, that I think the best thing the best way to handle that is to have really smart directors of the national labs and give them a lot of autonomy.
▶ 0:42:34And let them let them take responsibility for the long-term scientific productivity or even the medium-term uh productivity and do it handle it that way. And it's a high-risk enterprise. You're going to find someone who who looks like a great candidate to run a national lab and not be that good. You're going to see people who are just drive you nuts and in retrospect they accomplished something incredible. And that there's a history of that in national lab directors.
▶ 0:43:00And so we need, I think, a little less bureaucracy and more autonomy for the national labs uh the leadership of the national labs to do something great with each national lab. And that's the way I'd move the needle on that.
▶ 0:43:13But it's not trying to to hold them to little bureaucratic numbers is it's a recipe for gaming the system and and not being scientifically Yeah, I think with science sometimes it can be difficult to measure success because it seems to me, and you would know better as as the scientist, that failure is sometimes integral to long-term progress. When it comes to science. Yeah. No, it's a it's it's tough because the the metrics are developed over decades.
▶ 0:43:40And unfortunately there's, you know, every member of the house their time horizon is 2 years. And unless you can, you know, say that you know, accomplished something great or cut the budget in 2 years, it's you don't have some you don't have a talking point for your re-election. So it's it's almost a fundamental design problem with democracy that we have to overcome that the political incentives are short-term, but in science the gain is long-term.
▶ 0:44:04And we just have to systematically elect people who understand that problem and are willing to take the short-term political hit for what they believe to be the long-term best interest of the country. And that's it's a tough one. That's very helpful context. Thank you so much, Dr. Foster. Uh Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Foster. I want to follow up on um something you talked about the CHIPS and Science Act.
▶ 0:44:31And I've got to tell you, I am so sick and tired of this place pulling the rug out from underneath Upstate New Yorkers. And so when the President of the United States comes up here for a joint session next week and tells this place to kill the CHIPS and Science Act, we're not going to stand for it. Uh you know, we used to make stuff in this country. We took pride in making stuff in America.
▶ 0:44:56Where I'm from, in Upstate New York, made in America it's not just a political slogan, it's a literally who we are. In my hometown, Endicott, New York, we had the the world's biggest uh shoe company uh for generations. My family worked there for for a long, long time. Uh they were tanners, my grandma stitched boots, and I'm so proud of that not just because we made stuff, and not just because it was made in America, we made important stuff.
▶ 0:45:21During the World Wars, we equipped American soldiers with American-made boots to go off to Europe and stomp out fascism. I mean, I just got here 2 months ago. I've barely decorated my office, but aside from some family photos, the thing I've got in my office are boots that were made in my hometown by my great-great-grandparents that were worn by our soldiers in the World Wars. IBM was founded in my hometown.
▶ 0:45:46Thousands of people in Endicott in the Triple Cities making the circuit boards that brought the world a technology revolution and put America at the forefront of it. And my family, my friends, my neighbors, they clocked in, they worked their hands to the bones, they clocked out, they went home, they got up the next day, they did it again. They did everything that anyone has ever asked of them, and the only thing they asked out of this place in return was a fair shot to get into the middle class.
▶ 0:46:13And instead, what we've seen out of Washington for generations are Upstate New Yorkers getting the rug pulled out from under them because a bunch of Washington politicians and Wall Street bankers and corporate executives decided to ship all of our jobs overseas, to China, to just so that they could make a quick buck. And I'm sure that was really good for their bottom lines, but it was really, really terrible for working people in this country, and really terrible for blue-collar towns like the one that I grew up in.
▶ 0:46:42You get out of Washington, you get out of this place, you go home to the American heartland, you go to Upstate New York, and you see that people are really hurting. I mean, the cost of living is unacceptable, the utility prices, the rent. I mean, my god, you go to the Wegmans in Johnson City, and eggs are seven bucks a dozen. And meanwhile, wages in this country haven't increased since we let China into the WTO 25 years ago.
▶ 0:47:07So then, after decades of failed industrial and trade policy, this place and this committee finally got something right, something really exciting, something good with the CHIPS and Science Act. I mean, think about this. Instead of being dependent on China for chips, we're going to make them in America and make them in Upstate New York. And that's sort of obvious that we should do that for American national security. Like, seriously, guys, how stupid is it that we're going to rely on for something as as as important as semiconductors.
▶ 0:47:37Terrible for national security to do that, but we also need this law to rebuild the middle class in America and rebuild the middle class in Upstate New York. The trades unions that I represent, those are going to be great jobs building those chip fabs in Poughkeepsie and in Clay. We've got Menlo Micro is going to hire hundreds of people in Lansing with really good advanced manufacturing jobs.
▶ 0:47:59We've got in Rensselaer County some of the most exciting, some of the best R&D, and the CHIPS and Science Act for once is a reason to have some hope. It's a good law, it's an important law, it's a reason to be hopeful. And then the president comes up here last week in a joint session and tells this place to kill that law. That is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm going to be damned if I'm going to sit here and let this place pull the rug out from upstate New Yorkers again. You mentioned this in your opening statement.
▶ 0:48:29Any advice for us to make sure this law is not just on the books, but actually doing what it's supposed to do and rebuild the middle Yeah, well, um a bunch bunch of things. You know, I'm I'm First off, I'm I'm best known as being the PhD scientist here, but I'm actually also a manufacturer. When I was 19, my little brother and I started this company that now um manufactures about 2/3 of the theater lighting control equipment in the United States.
▶ 0:48:53So, you know, when the lights go up on Broadway or rock and roll or whatever, um yeah, 2/3 of the time it's our company's equipment. And we have 13 1,500 employees now in um in Mazomanie and Middleton, Wisconsin. If you've heard of those places, and you know, it is And we do, you know, hardware, software, sheet metal, wiring harnesses, everything, customer support. And we've kept those in the Midwest, and I'm very proud of it. But it is damned hard.
▶ 0:49:20And um and part of that's You know, with it's technology. You know, the the the truth of the matter is you know, you um technology has lowered the competitive market value of human labor. And that's true, and it's going to be even more true when AI and robotics hit. So, that we have to There's the national security imperative that's to bring manufacturing back, and that will bring some of the jobs back, but not all of them.
▶ 0:49:49And then we have to, you know, deal with that problem honestly and it's it's a really tough one. Um and and I think part of it is that we're going to have to as as AI and robotics become more productive, we're going to have to find a way to spread the wealth frankly. This is um you know, it's a problem that's not going to get easier in the near term. Yeah, almost time has expired. Thank you, Dr. Foster. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh any other members wish to ask questions?
▶ 0:50:19Okay, well, this uh I want to thank Dr. Foster, our 100% of our PhD physicist here in the in the in the House of Representatives uh for being here today. The record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from this from our members. Thank you, Dr. Foster. Thank you, everybody. This meeting is