Hearings to examine the nominations of Arvind Raman, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, and Matthew Anderson, of Colorado, to be Deputy Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Maria Cantwell
As of September 2025, Natcast has recruited more than 200 members across academia, industry, nonprofits to secure the future of r and d in The United States. In the wake of senate secretary Lutnick's abrupt decision, NIST has provided few details on how they plan to achieve congress's challenges in the Chips and Science Act. The NIST director will need to change this lack of transparency immediately. I'm also particularly concerned about the manufacturing extension partnership program beginning in April. NIST has been with of last year.
Beginning in April, NIST has been withholding funds for the center across The United States. This MEP program has wide bipartisan support as a national network of go to experts that help small and medium sized manufacturers enhance productivity. So I will ask you about that. In December 2025, I led a litter with 28 of my colleagues requesting a straightforward answers on this failures to use these funds. Finally, NIST has a broad science ecosystem with a long drawn, strength from researchers and scientists.
This is really important. There are troubling reports that NIST is reversing that long standard. I'd like to hear directly from you on how you intend to approach the participation of scientists at this agency. So turning to you, Turning to our NASA nominee, thank you for, your willingness to serve. NASA's innovation and, multiple sectors of input to our economy are critically important, but especially important for aerospace materials and manufacturing and safety.
Nevertheless, last year's multiple NASA whistleblower disclosed evidence to my office that are continuing to show the damages that are being done by the OMB director, Vought, who is pushing NASA to implement dangerous cuts called for in the president's 2026 budget. OMB was doing so in disregard of the law and I believe risk risked serious mission challenges for NASA on safety and workforce. In January, congress rejected these draconian cuts on a bipartisan basis passing a spending bill that stabilized NASA's funding for the year. And yesterday, this commerce committee passed our bipartisan NASA authorization act of 2026, which authorizes 25,300,000,000.0, for fiscal year 2027, a 2.5% increase over the previous year. So NASA's 2025 aerospace safety panel reported that, the damage caused by OMB could, implement a wave of NASA workforce reductions and loss of expertise, particularly in areas of safety of major programs such as the Artemis program.
So I will wanna ask you about that. It's simply unacceptable in my mind to compromise these safety issues. So if confirmed, will you stand up for NASA's workforce to be an advocate for NASA and fully develop and implement the laws as congress directed. NASA and NIST are both vital to America's science research and innovation, and the Trump administration has been undermining that science research. Last year, over 10,000 STEM PhDs were lost from the federal workforce, and this is credit incredibly important for us to keep our competitiveness around the globe.
So thank you, mister chairman. I look forward to hearing from our our nominees.
Ted Cruz
Thank you. I will now turn to senator Sheehy to introduce our first nominee today, mister Anderson. Senator Sheehy, the floor is yours.
Tim Sheehy
Thank you, chairman Cruz. Recording member Cantwell and members of the committee is my honor to introduce a leader whose career reflects a deep commitment to service, national security, and the future of American leadership in space. Matt Anderson has spent more than two decades serving our country in uniform, retiring as an Air Force colonel after twenty four years of distinguished service. During that time, he logged nearly five thousand hours flying five different aircraft, including more than six hundred and fifty hours in combat, demonstrating not only technical expertise but also extraordinary dedication to mission and country. Throughout his career, Matt led American airmen in some of the most demanding and consequential missions our military undertakes.
He commanded our nation's only nuclear airlift squadron responsible for safely transporting America's nuclear weapons and materials around the world, a responsibility that requires absolute precision, trust, and leadership, just like we'll need at at NASA. He also served to the highest levels of joint military leadership working directly under multiple four star generals and admirals across the Army, Navy, and Air Force. In those roles, Matt helped translate strategic direction to operational execution, getting firsthand insight into how national priorities set by congress are carried out by the men and women who serve our country. Matt's career has also placed him at the intersection of space operations, national security, and aerospace innovation. He concluded his military service as the US Transportation Command senior liaison to NORAD, US Northern Command, and US Space Command, coordinating across complex interagency and international command structures, experience that is directly relevant to the increasingly strategic role of space in our national interest.
Since retiring from active duty, Matt has continued to serve the nation in the space sector, currently working as a vice president at CSCI and as chief growth officer for the Air Force Association, an organization he helped build from the ground up after the creation of the US Space Force in 2019. Through these roles, he has worked across civil, commercial, and national security space communities, building the partnerships necessary to ensure American leadership in space exploration and innovation. But Matt's story is also one of family and service beyond the uniform. His wife, Christine, serves children with special needs as a speech language pathologist in a public elementary school. His daughter, Kayla, will soon become a third generation Air Force officer, commissioning this May after graduating from Notre Dame and heading to pilot training.
His daughter, Lauren, is a student athlete at the University of Chicago studying business economics and public policy, and his parents, an Air Force chaplain and a lifelong educator, helped instill in him the values of service and leadership that guided his career. Matt Anderson understands that America's leadership in space depends on strong partnerships between government, industry, and the scientific community and on the ability to translate bold vision into operational reality. I personally known Matt for nearly a decade and know that he'll be a strong and trusted deputy for Jared Eisigman as we usher in a new golden age of American space dominance. I'm proud to introduce Matt today. Thank you.
We look forward to your testimony.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you, mister chairman. I have this distinct pleasure of introducing my friend, doctor Arvind Raman. He's been nominated to serve as undersecretary of commerce for standards and technology. His nomination hearing is timely. This week, hundreds of delegates are converging in Beijing to plan the future of China's global ambitions.
The National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference will convene in coming days and approve of a blueprint for the next five years of economic strategy. Rest assured, this will rely heavily on technological advancement and beating The United States. When it comes to the development of AI, quantum computing, biotechnology, and semiconductor production, China is nearing parity with The United States. The CCP will spend trillions more to overtake us in these technologies. In the middle of this global power competition, the role of the National Institute of Standards and Technology has never been more important.
Its mission of establishing standards and testing protocols and security guidelines is critical as our innovators pioneer and our companies commercialize new technologies. In the middle of a technology race with a determined global foe, now is the worst time for NIST to lose its way. It needs leadership. Doctor Arvind Raman will provide it. Doctor Raman's career is long, distinguished, and decorated.
In fact, the list of grants, awards, and recognitions he has accumulated is too exhaustive, too extensive to share here. He joined Purdue University in 2000 as an assistant professor after a rigorous education. Since April 2023, he served as the John a Edwardson dean of Purdue University's College of Engineering. As dean, he oversees a $280,000,000 annual budget, nearly 500 faculty and 500 staff, nearly 14,000 undergraduate students, and 6,000 graduate students. He's led Purdue Engineering to be one of the most successful and desirable engineering colleges in the nation.
At West Lafayette, he broke new ground in nanotechnology, biomechanics, and manufacturing. His work in atomic force microscopy is particularly significant, opening up new possibilities for how doctors study the physical property of diseases such as cancer. He set an ambitious agenda as dean of one of America's most prestigious engineering schools focusing on AI and its potential to better societies. In his most recent assignment, doctor Raman stressed the connection between mechanical engineering and national peace and prosperity. Quite relevant.
He has an eye for talent, the readiness to embrace challenges, and the understanding of the important role technology plays in sustaining democracies. And like president Trump, I'm confident doctor Raman will make the necessary reforms that will lead NIST into the future. And beyond all of this, his story, I would say, is America's story. Arriving in Indiana from India with nothing else other than $600 and a suitcase. Through hard work and education, he's risen to the top of his field and to this nomination.
If confirmed, his leadership will help secure American leadership of the technologies that will literally define the twenty first century and will help ensure that America's values and not those of our adversaries define them. I trust all of my colleagues will be impressed with his testimony. I know he wishes to answer all of your questions thoroughly, and, I have great confidence he will serve in distinction in this role. Mister chairman?
Speaker 6
Chairman Cruz, ranking member Cantwell, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as president Trump's nominee to serve as the deputy administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Senator Sheehy, thank you. My family and I are humbled by such a kind introduction by a patriot, navy seal, and senator such as yourself. I appreciate you doing that this morning. First, I wanna recognize and thank my family sitting behind me, my wife, Christine, and our daughters, Kaylin Lauren.
During my air force career, we have shared every move, every deployment, and every difficult decision. They have always been the true force multiplier for my career, and I would not be here today without their strength and sacrifice. I'd also like to thank the many family and friends who are supporting me here today. Finally, I'd like to thank the 45 aerospace companies and nonprofits who sent letters of support to this committee, advocating for me and this nomination. I do recognize I'm a newcomer, so I thought I would share a bit of my story along with my understanding of the challenges and opportunities ahead.
I grew up moving around the world as the son of an Air Force chaplain and school teacher. I spent my middle school years in The Philippines and graduated from high school in New Jersey. And now, I'm proud to call Colorado Springs our home. Following high school, I played four years of Division I soccer and majored in biology at the Air Force Academy. As you've heard, I then served more than twenty four years in the United States Air Force as a pilot and commander, logging nearly 5,000 flight hours in five different aircraft, including 650 in combat.
My passion for aeronautics and science converged when I had the privilege of piloting multiple missions to Antarctica, landing a c 17 on an ice runway, delivering scientists and critical in equipment for the National Science Foundation. I also have commanded, as you heard, America's only nuclear airlift squadron, the fourth airlift squadron, where I proudly led airmen and personally flew America's nuclear weapons around the world. Since retiring as a colonel nearly five years ago, I've had the honor of working as a vice president in a 25,000 person, publicly traded, national security company named CACI International. I'd like to thank CEO John Mengucci and chief of staff Dan Walsh for their mentorship and for being here today. Over six years ago, one month before president Trump signed the United States Space Force into law, I helped create and grow the Space Force Association.
Since that day, I have served as the chief operating officer and currently still serve as the chief growth officer to support our nation's guardians and national security space community. I'd like to thank SFA founder Bill Wolf and CEO Damon Feltman for their continued mentorship. That brings me to leadership. If we've learned anything from administrator Isaacman's first two months on the job, it's that bold leadership matters. I've been very fortunate to lead large organizations in my career.
I've proudly certified, but also had to decertify Air Force pilots who didn't meet the high standards our nation demands. I've proudly commissioned hundreds of Air Force Academy cadets as officers, but also had to remove cadets from the academy who didn't meet the required high standards. If confirmed, I will reinforce the culture of safety, accountability, and transparency that administrator Isaacman has recently outlined to NASA as well as the American public. President Trump has given NASA clear direction through the National Space Policy. That policy sets a bold but achievable course.
Return American astronauts to the lunar surface by the 2028, establish a lasting presence on the moon, prepare for human missions to Mars, and accelerate the growth of a vibrant commercial economy on orbit. At its core, that vision is to expand America's presence beyond Earth and to ensure that we maintain our position of leadership in that domain. Administrator Isaacman has already demonstrated NASA's full commitment to executing on the president's mission. But make no mistake, we're on a shot clock and the stakes are high, stakes that directly affect the balance of power here on Earth. If confirmed, I will 100% support the administrator in executing the president's space policy.
I will roll up my sleeves and serve the talented workforce at NASA, be a great teammate with Congress, and beat China to the moon. Together, we have the opportunity to usher in a new golden age of science and discovery, one that strengthens our nation, expands human knowledge, and inspires the next generation. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 7
Chairman Cruz, ranking member Cantwell, and distinguished members of this, senate committee. I would like to thank president Trump for this nomination, secretary Lutnick for his confidence in me and all of you for considering this nomination. It is indeed a tremendous honor to appear here before you today. I would also like to thank my family, my wife and son. My wife, Laura, is right here as are some close friends of ours.
I have been at Purdue University as a faculty member for twenty six years, teaching engineering and doing research on nanoscale science, technology, and dynamic systems. I also serve as a John a. Edwardson dean of the College of Engineering at Purdue University, the cradle of astronauts, where thanks to the support of our trustees and president, we now offer, confer more engineering degrees annually than any other university in the country. We've kept tuition frozen for fourteen years and counting, and we're ranked in the top five nationally amongst engineering programs, constantly innovating to maximize affordability, scale, and excellence. I first came to The United States, as senator Young pointed out, thirty five years ago from India, actually, to study engineering at Purdue University.
I only had a few dollars in my $100 in my pocket at the time, and my first paycheck as a research assistant wasn't gonna happen until a while later. I survived thanks to a loan the university gave to students like me who did not have any credit history and thanks to the goodwill store. And today, I'm the dean of engineering at that great institution. And then after I completed my PhD and joined Purdue University twenty six years ago as a faculty member, I started doing research in nanotechnology, and I had a chance early in my career to actually spend a month at NIST doing some really difficult experiments in the laboratory, the start of many fruitful collaborations with NIST. And today, thanks to president Trump and secretary Lutnick, I'm being considered for directorship of NIST.
Where else are such stories even possible than in this, the greatest nation on Earth? And even as our great nation celebrates its 200 birthday, it is a happy coincidence that NIST will be celebrating its 120. For half of our republic's existence, NIST has been foundational to advancing American industrial competitiveness. From its Nobel laureates at the frontiers of quantum science to its leadership in AI metrology to its atomic clocks that maintain official US time and underpin our financial markets, to its support of manufacturing and cybersecurity standards that really help protect American industry and critical infrastructure, do its standard reference materials that ensure that every American can trust their medical diagnostics results and help American industry lead at the frontiers of medicine. NIST's role has been transformative over the years.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you to help write the next chapter for NIST, that of Maximum American Innovation, enabled by accelerating technology innovation in partnership with industries, with entrepreneurs, with stakeholders, in championing trusted technology standards globally so that American technology can scale and reach wider markets, and really in helping American industry adopt these advanced technologies so that innovation begets innovation in a virtuous cycle for economic growth. If confirmed, I'm excited to help NIST deliver on the president's AI action plan by really maximizing innovation in the entire AI chip tech stack, including chips, in biotechnology, in the quantum industrial base, in advanced manufacturing. And if confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you in congress to ensure that NIST continues to effectively deliver on its foundational mission and enable an era of maximum American innovation. Thank you so much.
Maria Cantwell
Thank you, mister chairman. I think I'm gonna start on the NASA side. Mister Anderson, there is a major race going on for The United States to continue to compete in next generation aerospace technology. Part of NASA's leadership is in a high rate composite air aircraft manufacturing project that develops advanced composites and make sure that we have lighter, more fuel efficient planes ensuring next generation competitiveness. This is something my colleagues from Idaho and I have worked on.
It's an ambitious goal, but it certainly is something that NASA and space also depend on too because we have to become more fuel efficient all the time. So will you support this HiCam program at NASA and support competitive technologies like the advanced aerospace materials manufacturing tech hub?
Maria Cantwell
Great. I appreciate administrator Isaacman support for, you know, a competition for two lunar landers. If confirmed, will you support this competition and award process to whichever, you know, providers win the competition?
Maria Cantwell
Great. Once we return to the moon, and I'm assuming you agree with the legislation that we just passed out here yesterday that we have to go faster, how can this committee help to achieve those twenty twenty eight landings?
Speaker 6
Senator, thanks for that question. And I think I think you alluded to the what I was exactly gonna say is I think what we're looking at right now is a perfect alignment between the administration, this committee demonstrated from what happened yesterday by a unanimous consent, bipartisan consent for NASA that we have a challenger, a geopolitical rival in China that requires cooperation between all whole of government parts, and it supports the president's national space policy. And I look forward to joining the administrator in helping this committee pursue those goals.
Maria Cantwell
Thank you. Turning to you doctor Raman. You know, I said in my opening comment about NIST and standard setting, it really is an accelerant. Isn't that correct?
Maria Cantwell
I think sometimes we get into disputes here because somebody thinks that we're setting regulations. When in reality, the most important aspect of NIST is the standard setting that allows whatever. It could have been electricity. It could have been anything. But it's the standard setting that helps accelerate the competitiveness of our nation.
Is that?
Speaker 7
Senator, I'd like to just point out again the standard setting is, of course, a key goal for NIST and I just like to I mean, I agree. It's extremely important for America to lead in tech standard setting that ensures, of course, like I said, you know, expanded markets for our technologies, but also that American values are what underpin international commerce.
Maria Cantwell
Yeah. Well, I'm not sure everybody in the administration agrees on that. So I hope that you can be a loud voice for this because this is critically important. And again, I think people hear the word standards and then all of a sudden are like, oh, this is a regulation. When in reality, you are talking about a voluntary process to accelerate our competitiveness by getting industry something they couldn't necessarily do.
Obviously, there's a lot of competition in industry and they would compete with each other and like their standard to win. But you play the middle guy who basically says, no, let's all come together with a common standard and then we will go faster. So you'll play that role within NIST?
Maria Cantwell
Okay. So now let's get to because I'm sure this won't be the last of this debate as it relates to standards because somebody's gonna again claim that this is some sort of regulatory process. And I just will you support the manufacturing extension programs that are in law and under NIST?
Speaker 7
Senator, thank you for that question. I'm fully committed to this administration's priorities to reindustrialize America, bring manufacturing back, you know, just as you've been very supportive of this, senator. At Purdue, we've done a lot within our state of Indiana for this as well. It's the state with the highest concentration of manufacturing jobs, and so this is very near and dear to us. That being said, I am aware that there have been some IG concerns regarding the, you know, extension program.
Maria Cantwell
I got one more question, and I only have a few seconds left. But just tell me, do you support the manufacturing extension program?
Speaker 7
Senator, I don't know. I mean, I don't know the specifics of, you know, your comments earlier about, you know, what has happened, what has not happened, but I'm supportive of manufacturing. Okay. You think it's
Maria Cantwell
a good idea to have a program at NIST that you'll be in charge of that is called manufacturing extension?
Speaker 7
I mean, I'm very supportive of whatever we can do to make sure advanced manufacturing moves ahead here, in America in whatever way possible. I just don't know specifics.
Maria Cantwell
We'll have to get a crisper answer for the record from you. Okay. What about NIST telling us what the if confirmed, will you commit to determining the impact of the agency's policy on chips and science and giving us a full accounting of how we're going to meet the goals of the chips and science act that you're responsible for?
Speaker 7
Thank you for that question, senator. Again, as I said in my remarks, the entire AI tech stack advancing America's leadership in chips, both in manufacturing and at the critical edge of next generation chips, will be a high priority for us. And I intend to work with this committee in congress to make sure whatever resources you provide that we use it most effectively to make that happen.
Maria Cantwell
Okay. So we'll ask for this is like an accounting because we're not getting that out of the current administration. And then the last point is just on this equity stipulation as part of this broad agency announcement that stipulates that applicants may be required to issue the department equity warrants, licenses to the intellectual property, royalty, and revenue sharing.
Maria Cantwell
Read a little bit more about that and give us an answer. So we're looking we're again, you're gonna head this organization. We wanna hear your views about those policies because they're pretty big policies. We think the agency is making some pretty big mistakes. We wanna know what your philosophy is.
Thank you, mister chairman.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Mister Anderson, how critical is nuclear fission surface power to achieving a sustained presence on the moon? And what milestones must NASA meet in the next few years to ensure The United States, not China, is the first to field reliable lunar power infrastructure?
Speaker 6
Senator, thank you for that question. I think it's a perfect example. Nuclear propulsion and nuclear power is exactly where NASA should be focused on. This is an example of a game changing technology that as we look at our geopolitical rival in China, and how do you move the needle? How do you how do you get to president Trump's goal of returning American astronauts to the moon by 2028?
Start building a moon base, and then as the space policy talks about, and then we're moving on to Mars. And if you think about nuclear power and propulsion, that's how you do that. We have to stay ahead of the Chinese in this sense in this, in this area. And I think as we look at NASA and what should we be doing compared to a lot of people talk about the commercial space industry. This is a great example of today's challenge where we put hard earned taxpayer dollars towards a technology that will actually change the game.
And then if it's ready, which nuclear right now is definitely not ready for a commercial partner, then you hand it over and let the American free enterprise take over.
Speaker 5
That's right. And where where in NASA's orbit is nuclear research Center happening at scale and in in a world class way.
Speaker 6
Center, that is at a center very close and near and dear to your heart that we talked about the other day in in Ohio. Thank
Speaker 5
you. Thank you. Just wanna make sure. Speaking of Ohio, the Armstrong test facility in Sandusky has unique capabilities to simulate hypersonic flight conditions in high altitude rocket testing environments. You're a former colonel in the Air Force.
Do you believe NASA and DOD can work together to achieve president Trump's national security objectives such as the Golden Dome?
Speaker 6
Zerid, it's a great question, and I think this is a good example how it's a whole of government approach that the entire United States Of America needs to focus on this this competitor in China, not only in space, but economically, things like hypersonics, Golden Dome, defense of the homeland, I think they're all interrelated. I think NASA in particular, if you look at our history dating back to the Apollo era of the sixties and early seventies, Look at the technologies that have been born from that as we look at f 22 thrust vectoring, spit stealth technology on our bombers, our fighters. I think that's hypersonics is now, you know, this generation's version of that.
Speaker 5
Great. And and you can you commit to visiting the center within sixty, ninety days of your confirmation?
Speaker 5
senator. Thank you. Turning over to you, doctor Raman, and kind of taking off for the questions that the ranking member asked. Ohio's manufacturing extension partnership for decades, quite frankly, as long as I've been in Cleveland, has supported 14,000 manufacturing businesses across the state through six nonprofit centers. These centers help, small and medium sized manufacturers modernize operations, adopt new technologies, strengthen supply chains, and stay competitive.
I can tell you firsthand, as somebody who is in the business ecosystem, these are really important operations. Unfortunately, and quite frankly disappointingly, because I have not heard, proper justification, NIS froze $6,100,000 of federal funding for all of Ohio's MEP programs. Those federal dollars were matched with state funding, and that freeze triggered a total loss of almost $15,000,000, an almost complete wipeout of these centers that had lay off virtually their entire staff. Rebuilding that is gonna be very, very difficult. And like I said, I, will say this.
I have a great relationship with the commerce department from secretary Ludnick on down, but in this particular case, I've gotten almost no information on what's actually going on, which has been very disappointing. Supposedly, there's a an audit out there, but yet there's nothing public to provide those detailed funding the detailed funding findings. The MEP model, by the way, is not fully federally funded. As I mentioned, they're state funds, but that's also private funding. So let me just kind of be I want you to be clearer than you were with the ranking member.
Do you support the MEP model? This is not about the audit. Just in general, do you support the model of MEP?
Speaker 7
Thank you, senator. Really important question. As you know, we have a MEP program for our state in Indiana that runs through Purdue University as well. You know, I know MEP programs has brought partisan support. They've done a lot of good.
At the same time, like I mentioned, there are concerns from the IG report.
Speaker 5
No. But differently, but you support the model. You support remember, Ohio State's still a little raw at Indiana for what you guys did to us. But so I just I sort of I'm just to be clear, do you support the model? That's a yes or yes or no.
Do you think the model works or the model doesn't work?
Speaker 7
You know, I I think a lot of MEP programs have done a lot of good work for sure.
Speaker 5
Okay. I'm not sure that that's a yes. We'll have to explore that one. But I also wanna make certain that you're committed to reviewing the funding freeze and working to reestablish and and reinstate that funding for these centers once these audit findings are resolved. So assuming the audit findings are resolved, can I get your commitment to restore the funding for these MEP programs at Ohio?
Yes. Okay. That's very, important. And you you just obviously support continuing these programs as part of this mission to strengthen US manufacturing.
Speaker 7
Senator, like I said, I'm fully committed to advancing manufacturing and reindustrialization in America. And whatever resources congress provides us to do so, I'll make sure that we do our very best to make full utilization of those resources to to advance manufacturing in America. That is I'm fully committed to that.
Speaker 5
Okay. Let's get that done sooner than later. I recognize senator from New Jersey.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Doctor Raman, I wanna just just continue off of what my colleague just asked about it. I think you're hearing strong bipartisan support for the manufacturing extension partnership program. And you raised, some concerns about an I an OIG report. Can can you give me your sense of what the concerns were that were raised in the report?
What is it that's lingering in your mind here?
Speaker 7
Senator, I have not had a chance to do a deep dive into those things. I'm just, from the outside. I'm not in the position yet, but I'm aware, that there were concerns regarding outcomes, and I'm aware that, the president and the secretary have also expressed their concerns about the program. I'm not in position yet, so I don't know what may or may not have happened to the program, so I'm not really in a position to answer these things. But you have my commitment that I'm committed, if confirmed as director, to ensure manufacturing thrives, advanced manufacturing, reindustrialization of America, all that actually happens in an accelerated time frame.
And so I'll do my best to work
Speaker 8
with you make your commitment on the manufacturing side. Think all of us wanna increase manufacturing. But this particular program, you know, I I raised this with you directly just the other day. I told you you were gonna get bipartisan questions about this. The OIG report is public.
You should have read it. And if you read it, what I'll just tell you is it talks about the problem being this lack of oversight, things that we can do better when it comes to the data. It did not say that the program is ineffective or needs to be defunded. It's about and so and also what we see as follow-up is, NIST is taking steps to try to address some of the challenges that they're having when it comes to oversight. So I I guess I wanna just turn back to you.
Does that alleviate some of your concerns here?
Speaker 7
I mean, ensuring oversight over programs that NIST is responsible for, you know, is something I'll be committed to doing if confirmed as director.
Speaker 8
Yeah. So the fact that NIST is moving forward on addressing some of these and again, it wasn't about the ineffectiveness of program, but just how NIST can have better oversight. I hope you can commit to continuing that oversight. I hope you can commit to continuing with this program, not making any rash decisions about it, you know, and until we see the data, until we remedy the situation. Is that something you can can
Speaker 8
Yeah. I I think it's important because as mentioned, you know, this is something that we've all seen beneficial. In my home state, we've seen just a huge benefit when it comes with the NJ MEP program. I think we wanna make sure we're continuing. And, frankly, congress in a bipartisan way approved a $175,000,000 for this program, for this FY.
So I just wanna ask you, will you commit to following the law and implement the $175,000,000 that we pass in a bipartisan way?
Speaker 8
I will take that. I think that's important. The other aspect of this, mister Anderson, I just wanna turn to you. Biological and physical science research at the at the International Space Station has led to huge scientific breakthroughs that benefit all Americans. For example, microgravity has allowed for the growth of larger, more perfect protein crystals, which will eventually lead to creating more effective drugs for cancer, for heart disease, for Alzheimer's, a cause that is close to my heart, given my family's my father's situation right now.
New Jersey universities and companies also conduct medical research at the International Space Station. If confirmed, will you commit to working with me on preserving and expanding biological and physical science research at the International Space Station? Yes, senator. And more broadly, not just with the ISS, will you commit to supporting biological and physical science research specifically across NASA?
Speaker 6
Senator, I think it fits right into the wheelhouse of where Nash is NASA should be if you think about our mission of explore, innovate, and inspire, everything you just talked about to include your personal story does all those things.
Speaker 8
And if I remember correctly, I think you said you studied as a biologist. Is that correct?
Speaker 6
Yes, senator. We share that that passion for science, and and my parents are sitting right here, and we would be happy to know that we also share the same county where I graduated from high school, so I appreciate our conversation yesterday.
Speaker 8
I will say if if you follow through on that commitment to to following through on the science, then it's working because it's so important. And and there's so much at stake here. And I get it, you know, there's a lot of dynamics that are happening with the greater commercialization in in space, and there are a lot of national security issues that you and I both understand about space that we need to take seriously. But I I really think we need to reassert the importance of science, basic science research with large, and then science research, and I and I just wanna once again ask for your commitment on that.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you, mister chairman. Throughout different hearings, this committee's held a we've we've seen a common theme. I've focused on on in many of those hearings, how the federal government can better support research, development, and the innovation of critical domains such as AI, biotech, and quantum computing. AI is a technology we know with tremendous potential to revolutionize seemingly every facet of our country, but we're only gonna realize the benefits of this revolution if we maintain our leadership of the technology. So it's imperative that we do this, and this is not only technology policy.
As I say time and time again, this is national security policy. This is economic security policy. And one way the federal government is doing its part to support American AI innovation is through NIST, as well as the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, an entity that I'm I'm working to codify through my legislation, the Future of AI Innovation Act with senator Cantwell. To that end, doctor Raman, could you tell us about the impact of the standards that NIST and CAISI develop? And with that, how standard setting translates into economic benefits for Americans?
Speaker 7
Senator, very important question. Thank you for that question. Let me start with The
Speaker 4
more important is how do we say the acronym for the newly styled Center for AI's Security and Innovation? But, anyway, you can include that in your response
Speaker 7
Casey. Thank you for that question, senator. I'll take the second part first about the importance of American leadership of trusted tech standards globally. This is such a crucial issue. When America leads in setting global tech standards, it means that the rules, international rules of commerce, are literally being based on American values, free markets, private sector innovation, privacy, freedom of speech.
And when we leave a vacuum for that leadership, it allows for other standards that are not based on these values. They're based on state based ideas. They're based they're freedom suppressing. They're opaque. So it's vitally important from a values point of view that America leads standard setting and advanced technologies.
There is, of course, a very significant economic benefit and advantage to this. Many of the companies that are involved in standard settings have a whole wall of patents behind key elements of standards. So when a certain standard gets locked into place, they have a big playing advantage because they've got all the patents in that area. So setting standards is very important from that point of view. When countries, when European Union, for example, sets standards that are different, that creates a compliance cost to our technologies as we work on exporting our products and technologies there.
And this becomes even more multiplicative when those technologies are platform technologies, when we're talking about AI, when we're talking about six g, because based on those platforms, you'll have interoperability, many new technologies jumping ahead. So it's it's vitally important.
Speaker 4
I'm I'm I'm going to ask you a series of questions to unpack this in my remaining minute plus.
Speaker 4
Okay? So what we're talking about here is through tech policy and standard setting and working with other countries on standards. We are in part talking about advancing the values, the universal enlightenment values that are baked into our declaration of independence versus the autocratic values of other countries. Is that in part right? Through what no offense, but will strike many of my constituents is kind of an obscure topic about tech standards.
That's really fundamentally what this is about at one level. Is that accurate? Okay. And then your job will involve interfacing after standards development with with stakeholders here in The United States, interfacing also with leaders in other countries, in our trade representatives office, and others to ensure that we either are able to to ensure other countries recognize our standards or or or harmonize standards with other friendly sort of partner countries. Right?
Speaker 4
And then let me go even further and ask, our primary adversary, I regard I think most Americans would regard as as the People's Republic Of China. And they have an export oriented economy. And if we can through digit through standard setting and negotiation and and and digital trade policy, If we can lock in free world standards, then this export oriented economy, the People's Republic Of China, is going to either have to fully adopt our standards to export technology in the twenty first century, enlightenment value, declaration of independent standards, or they're gonna have to have a bifurcated economy, which would be highly inefficient and noncompetitive where they produce two types of standards, one for the domestic autocratic sort of audience and then another for most of the rest of the world. Is that vision flawed in any way that I've just articulated?
Speaker 9
Thank you, senator. Doctor Raman, I I know some of my colleagues, including Sandra Moreno from Ohio and others have brought up the manufacturing extension partnership program to you and have discussed aspects of it. I'm gonna argue that it is certainly been an incredibly successful program since it's been implemented. In fact, think it's probably a lifeline to many small and medium sized manufacturers, and I hope you agree that manufacturing is the lifeblood of this country. You cannot be a great country if you don't actually make things, and a lot of that is done at the with small and medium companies, not just the the very large ones.
In fact, in my home state of Michigan, MEP, which is the Michigan manufacturing tech center, its record is clear. It saves small manufacturers in our state over 25,000,000 just in the past year. They provided training to over 4,400 individuals and serviced over 300 companies. Basically, they help companies, as you may know, adopt advanced manufacturing technologies that improve efficiency as well as cybersecurity and a whole host of emerging technology issues. They've created databases to help solve critical supply chain issues, do business consultations to help small businesses streamline their operations.
They address skills gaps, recruit and retain talent. In fact, even have a list here in front of me. Just an idea of some of their classes that they offer. They have courses like leveraging AI for competitive advantage, AI for quality control and assurance, AI for supply chain optimization, and go on. It's quite a extensive list of coursework that keep make sure that folks are on the cutting edge of technology.
That's why given all this and the success that we've seen and, like, in a bipartisan way, our my colleagues have seen this in their home states. I've been confused as well as disturbed by this administration's repeated attempts to basically dismantle this program. I would hope this administration cares about manufacturing. I would hope they care about small to medium businesses. And when you have a program that works, you should build on that success instead of tear it down.
So, fortunately, in response to these efforts, I'm happy to say that we passed bipartisan language in the most recent spending bill that directs NIST to ensure that all 51 centers are promptly and fully fully funded. And again, that was broad bipartisan support in the appropriations bill. So my so my question for you, sir, is if confirmed, will you commit to executing the MEP program as directed by statute without reorganizing or redirecting its funds to support other initiatives within the nest?
Speaker 7
Thank you for that question, senator. Like I said, I'm not in position yet, so I don't know necessarily about the changes that you're referring to specifically. There are
Speaker 9
no changes. We're we're funding these institutions. So you don't know the details. You're not there now. I get it.
So you so you don't understand the details, and I I respect that. But you do believe that that NIST should follow the law. Would you would you agree that they should follow the law, is the law up for your negotiation or
Speaker 7
your I I will follow the law if confirmed as director of NIST, of course, senator.
Speaker 9
So so the appropriations bill is the law of the land passed by congress in a bipartisan way. So you're saying you will follow I wanna hear the out of your words that you will follow the law, that you will fund these programs promptly and as directed by congress. You don't get to second guess it. It's not about your personal views. I respect your personal views, but when you follow the law, you follow the law.
You don't get a chance to do that. So so I'll ask it again. If confirmed, will you commit to executing MEP program as directed by statute without doing any kind of reorganization or other kinds of fancy footwork to try to get around it?
Speaker 9
Great. Thank you. Doctor Roman, I I was also glad to see that you updated your response to this committee's questionnaire last night to know that you are now actually committing to respond to request for information from ranking and minority members of the congressional committees without reservation. In that response, when that question was asked, it was a whole lot of legalese. Basically, I was trying to avoid answering the question.
But I want you to confirm here today, in front of all the committee, that if a ranking member Cantwell or a minority member of this committee makes an oversight request of NIST, you will comply. Yes. Very good. Your commitment is critical because it also deals with cooperating with the government accountability office audits, which are requested by ranking members. So you have GAO audits.
And, unfortunately, we have seen refusals from administration to actually honor request for information from the GAO. So will you commit to cooperate with all GAO audits of NIST?
Speaker 10
Thank you, mister chairman, very much, and, thanks to our witnesses for being here. Last week, we saw a chilling scene play out in the American tech sector. The Department of Defense waged a two weeks long intimidation campaign against an American AI company, Anthropic, which has deployed its AI models and classified DOD systems and asked for two reasonable limitations on use of its AI model, no mass domestic surveillance and no autonomous weapons. In response, last Friday, secretary Hagsett posted on x that the Department of Defense would not only terminate its contract with Anthropic, but would also designate the company as a supply chain risk and direct all DOD contractors to immediately sever any commercial relationships with the company. That's godfather part one stuff.
Given that 80% of Anthropic's revenue comes from its business customers, this designation is an attempt to destroy Anthropic altogether. Or as a former senior Trump AI official put it, this is an attempted corporate murder. So, mister Raman, today, you have been vocal about the importance of American leadership in technology. Should the US government be attempting to destroy American AI companies because they refuse to agree to certain contractual terms?
Speaker 7
Senator, thank you for that question. As I said in my opening remarks, I'm fully committed to helping NIST deliver on the president's AI action plan. As far as NIST swim lane in this is concerned, it has a very specific expertise in swim lane and that is to be the gold standard of the measurement science behind AI and AI action plan clearly lays out that all NIST should do is really focus on that and then focus on providing frameworks that other agencies can use according to their mission relevance and what they wish to do out of it and No.
Speaker 10
I I recognize I recognize that what the HEXT says is not squarely within this jurisdiction. But if confirmed, you will serve as a key science and technology adviser to secretary Lutnick. You also talked repeatedly in your testimony about the importance of US innovation. So it's reasonable to expect you to have a view on the most important action the federal government has taken against an AI company. So let's just try this a different way.
Doesn't this type of extortion against The US tech company undermine innovation in The United States?
Speaker 7
Senator, without knowing the details, I'm really not in a position to answer this question. Like I said, in my role, if confirmed as NIST director, I'll be focusing on the AI action plan and the role that NIST has, you know, stated in it.
Speaker 10
Well, it's disappointing that you cannot condemn such a blatant and reckless abuse of power. The Department of Defense's actions Hagset's actions here are outrageous, an attempt to destroy a company. The department needs to revoke the supply chain designation and cease this retaliation campaign against the anthropic. So let me now turn to something directly within this authority, testing the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms. Facial recognition technology raises profound concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and that's why I have long opposed the government's use of facial recognition technology.
And it's why I have aggressively conducted oversight of the Trump administration's abusive and unconstitutional use of these technologies for immigration enforcement purposes. ICE and CPV agents have been spotted using facial recognition tools on protesters and even threatening to put peaceful protesters in a, quote, domestic terrorist database. This is very chilling stuff in The United States Of America. And while I will continue to urge congress to ban the government from using facial recognition tools, in the meantime, I'm glad that NIST continues to support its testing programs to evaluate the performance of facial recognition systems. So, mister Raman, while these tools are still being used across the government, will you commit that NIST will continue its testing program and maintain full public access to NIST facial recognition testing results?
Speaker 7
Thank you for that question, senator. NIST, of course, has a historic and unique role in AI metrology. Actually, it begins in the nineteen sixties with fingerprinting identification systems. So it's got a really extensive scientific technical expertise in this. What I will say is that, as I said, I'm fully committed to the AI action plan that the president has laid out.
In it
Speaker 10
Will you will you continue full public access to NIST facial recognition testing results? Yes or no?
Speaker 7
Senator, I'm I'm not aware exactly of what the status of that particular tool is, but we, you know, rest assured that if confirmed, I will really leaning in to make sure that NIST continues its leadership and metrology of AI systems.
Speaker 10
Again, I'm disappointed in that answer as well because I'm not getting a clear answer from you on that issue. And at the same time, the American people are are actually experiencing the consequences of this technology being deployed in our country. And I'm gonna continue to sound the alarm on this because I just think that we cannot allow policies that are fundamentally turning this into an Orwellian nation can continue to be developed and deployed without a full debate in our country. Thank you, mister chairman.
Speaker 5
So just, some follow-up questions. Mister Anderson, can you talk about, what your experience is now with the morale and within NASA? How are they feeling about their mission and their future and how motivated are they to beat back the Chinese?
Speaker 6
Senator, it's it's hard to tell on the morale of the organization I'm not in right now, but I appreciate your question. I'm just watching it, you know, publicly as well. And I see, administrator Isaacman's first two months where he visited every center. I saw some senators, thousands of people were coming in on the weekends to meet their new administrator eating up to 6,000 donuts and coffee. And I see almost every Sunday morning, he's flying employees of the week essentially in fighter aircraft, improving the morale.
And I think he's just really hitting in on that third tenet of inspiring that that NASA takes so seriously. So while I can't speak it, from the outside, looks like it's it's on the upward trend.
Speaker 5
And as your experience having been a colonel to the Air Force, how important is that? How important is that motivation, that feeling of mission to success, especially for extraordinarily complicated missions like what NASA's gonna undertake?
Speaker 6
Senator, I think it's in it's absolutely critical, and the best organizations, whether it's the Ohio State University in football, the military, NASA
Speaker 6
You anytime a leader can focus the group on the mission, everything else takes care of itself.
Speaker 5
Okay. Perfect. And and I think to both of you guys, I'd I'd say maybe just a brief question, maybe statement that I think you'd see maybe this on a bipartisan way. Just a very, very simple question for both of you. If members of the United States Senate, specifically the United States Commerce Committee, send your office a request for information.
Can I get your commitment that you respond quickly and efficiently?
Speaker 5
I think that's that's critical. And I think what you're hearing, with the frustration around MEP is just a lack of at least the answers of what's going on. I think that solves a lot of problems. And, obviously, just for you, doctor Raman, because you you gotta ask some series of questions. To clarify, you're not in the role today.
Correct?
Speaker 5
So so there's no way for you to know the details of anything within the organization today. Correct?
Speaker 5
So the questions that were asked were more generally speaking about what you would do when you're there. And, of course, like anybody nominated by president Trump, you will follow, the law to the letter of the law. Correct?
Speaker 5
And and you will not in inject your personal point of view on what the legislation clearly directs you to do. Correct? Correct. And and mister Anderson, the same with you. Obviously, you saw there's enormous bipartisan, support here for NASA, I hope that sends a message also to everybody at NASA that we support them.
We want them to win. And in your case, the same way, whatever appropriations we're doing, whatever we put in pen and paper to law, you will follow that as well. And I know the administrator does.
Speaker 5
Perfect. And since the walk from the capital to, Russell is gonna take another minute or so, is there anything that you would like to add that you haven't been asked, in the last few last few minutes? No, senator. No. That was a yes.
Is there something you wanna add anything? How about you, doctor Rob? Is there anything that you wanna talk about that, would take you about forty five to fifty seconds to discuss?
Speaker 5
Neither one of you are prepared to be United States senator, by the way, because a United States senator can say hello and take five minutes. So clearly that you're not fit for politics in this case.
Speaker 6
Senator, I'm I'm picking up what you're putting down. So I do have a few thoughts that just came to me.
Speaker 6
I I think I think the important thing to remember here, and I appreciate your words about the recent legislation, the markup yesterday, just showing support to the men and women that work so hard at NASA. They're very they're very proud to be at NASA. And what we're about to accomplish in a couple weeks with Artemis two is historic. No other nation is gonna do that. And what we just saw the administrator do in support of this committee to move Artemis schedule left, completely change it because the mission dictated it, safety dictated it, and then how quickly this committee said, we support NASA, we support that administrator, and we support the president's national space policy.
We're gonna beat China to the moon. We're gonna establish a moon base, and then we're moving on to Mars. We're gonna innovate technologies that will change humankind. We're gonna inspire the next generation. I think that is what we're seeing here from president Trump, this committee, and the administrator, and I'm looking forward to joining that team.
Speaker 5
And why do you think we had, such a long period of time from the first mission to the moon happened? Sadly, I will report that it was about when I was born, till now. What what happened?
Speaker 6
I think we were we were in a space race that we won, but it took a whole of government, whole of nation rally behind it. We threw lots of money at it, four, four and a half percent of our GDP it took to get us there in eight years. And then as it went by as a couple years, we get to nineteen seventy two, we've been there multiple times, and it ends with Apollo seventeen. And I think that's a completely different environment than we're in right now. The country lost interest.
They said, okay. We've landed on the moon. Well, the the mission is different right now. As the administrator has said, we're looking at Artemis two coming up, but it's gonna be three, four, five, increasing that cadence to try to get our launches to the ten month point instead of almost as frequent as we have World Cups and and Summer Olympics, three and a half, four years. That's where we've been at, increasing that cadence, focusing on the mission, keeping things safe, and that is what will not only deter our adversaries and our geopolitical rivals, but we can beat them.
Speaker 5
That's fantastic. Doctor Rahman, anything you wanna say for a few seconds?
Speaker 7
Just to point out that the first man on the moon and the last man on the moon were Purdue astronauts. Perfect.
Speaker 6
And just appreciate that and just also wanted to point out that the Air Force Academy has more astronauts than Purdue.
Ted Cruz
They 're also more likely to be drug dealers. This is an age old battle between Cubans and Colombians. I seem to have stepped in the middle of of of some battle here. And and while we are comparing connections to the moon, I will point out one of the very first words uttered on the surface of the moon was my hometown of Houston. Houston, the eagle has landed in that.
Alright. Let's get into let's doctor Robin, let's start with you. The first Trump administration's AI initiative emphasized NIST's role in developing basic measurement standards for AI. Under the Biden administration, NIST used its authorities to inspect AI systems for risks from bias and misinformation. At the time, NIST claimed that even when, quote, harmful biases are mitigated, AI is not necessarily fair because it could, quote, exacerbate existing disparities or systematic biases.
That is a boulderized way of policing speech on climate change, transgenderism, immigration, and political topics. Elsewhere, NIST called workplace DEI czars critical and suggested companies consider whether AI chatbots might amplify historical, societal, and systemic biases. NIST testing standards became a Trojan horse for progressive social policies with the goal of controlling American speech. Doctor Raman, does NIST have any role in using its measurement and nonregulatory roles to regulate AI speech or to engage in censorship? No.
It does not. Do you commit to reoriented NIST to its apolitical mission and ensuring that it does not serve as an engine for divisive left wing ideology even under the guise of, quote, safety or increasing trust in technology?
Ted Cruz
Thank you. You also commit to maintaining NIST as a strictly nonregulatory agency that works through voluntary consensus based standards?
Ted Cruz
Alright. NIST often touches on strategic supply chains, such as for semiconductors and critical minerals. Recently, NIST executed letters of intent whereby the federal government would take equity ownership in semiconductor and critical minerals companies, an approach that deviates from NIST's traditional role. Consider critical mineral mining, a complex, complicated industry where sometimes it takes over twenty years to discover mineral deposits, to verify them, to build the needed infrastructure, and to receive the required licensees and permits. Would you agree that federal equity deals tie up taxpayer dollars for a considerable amount of time with with no guaranteed return on investment?
Speaker 7
Senator, I'm not in the role, so I don't know the details of what may or may not have happened in this case. But I'm committed to making sure that NIST makes best use of resources provided by Congress to advance semiconductor manufacturing and leadership globally.
Ted Cruz
If NIST holds equity in an underperforming or failing company, Could the government be pressured to use taxpayer dollars to hedge losses? Is NIST equipped to make these decisions to protect US taxpayer funds?
Speaker 7
Again, senator, not being in the role, I don't know the details of what may or may not have transpired. So I'm really not in a position to answer that.
Ted Cruz
In complex sectors like critical minerals, companies often struggle against international competition. Since government ownership comes with risks and taxpayers could end up covering losses, wouldn't it make sense for the government to streamline permitting and encourage domestic competition instead of trying to own and subsidize these companies?
Speaker 7
Thank you for that question, senator. Again, this is outside, I think, the swim lane of NIST, but I'm happy to follow-up in conversations about what the role of innovation might be in critical materials processing and manufacturing.
Ted Cruz
Mister Anderson, if you are confirmed, describe for this committee what you hope and expect NASA to do regarding the moon.
Speaker 6
Senator, I hope and expect that NASA continues to quickly execute the president's national space policy that has been completely supported by yourself, you know, as we saw yesterday, this entire committee, and we appreciate that at NASA. I think they they expect NASA to exercise leadership, talk about space superiority. If you look at that executive order that the president laid out, it was not just national security. It was NASA. There was a whole lot of government parts to that, and it was an order from the president that said, hey.
We're going to make sure American space superiority is is ensured. It has been backed up by funding. It has been backed up by authorizations and appropriations, and I think that's what the American public expects.
Ted Cruz
That that would be the right answer, so I'm glad to hear it. Discuss also the importance of maintaining and keeping astronauts in low Earth orbit as we transition from the International Space Station to commercial space stations.
Speaker 6
Thank you, senator. It's absolutely critical. The first word of the ISS is international, and that means we have a lot of partners invested in this. And it's also competition with China. Our adversary is already in low Earth orbit.
We cannot cede American leadership in
Ted Cruz
low Earth orbit. Well, thank you to both of the witnesses. My my final question is required of all nominees. If confirmed, do you pledge to work collaboratively with this committee to provide thorough and timely responses to the committee's requests and to appear before the committee when requested?
Ted Cruz
Thank you. I have 45 letters of support for various from various organizations for the nomination of mister Anderson. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be inserted into the hearing record without objection so ordered. Senators will have until the close of business on Saturday, March 7 to submit questions for the record. The nominees will have until the close of business on Tuesday, March 10 to respond to those questions.
And with that, that concludes today's hearing. The committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.