vote: the clerk: mr. welch, no.

the clerk: mr. cramer, aye.

the clerk: mr. tillis, aye.

the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. johnson, no.

test. vote:

the clerk: mr. cassidy, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 70, the nays are 29. the bill as amended passes. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. could we please have some order. well, mr. president, it's been a long night, a long weekend, and a long few months, but a new day is here and our efforts have been moran worth it -- more than worth it. today we witnessed one of the most historic and consequential bills to have ever passed the senate. it's certainly been years,

perhaps decades, since the senate passed a bill that so greatly impacts not just our national security, not just the security of our allies, but the security of western democracy. as i have said, if we want the world to remain a safe place for freedom, for democratic principles, for our future prosperity, then america must lead the way. and with this bill, the senate declares that american leadership will not waiver, will not falter, will not fail. with this bill, the senate keeps its word to ukrainians in desperate need of supplies and ammunition, to innocent palestinian civilians in need of relief, to israelis in need of

support, and to u.s. servicemembers on patrol in the indo-pacific, the red seas, and around the world. today we make vladimir putin regret the day he questioned america's resolve and we make clear to others like china's president xi not to test our determination. and we send a clear bipartisan message of resolve to our allies in nato. with the strong bipartisan support we have here in the senate with this vote, i believe that if speaker johnson brought this bill to the house floor, it will pass with the same strong bipartisan support. i thank all of my colleagues, democrat and republican alike, who supported this bill. thank you to senators murray and collins, murphy, sinema, lankford. thank you to leader mcconnell.

and thank you to all the senators and staffs, including my own great staff, who worked through thanksgiving and christmas and new year's and even the super bowl to get this done. finally, these past few months have been a great test for the u.s. senate to see if we could escape the constant centrifugal pull of partisanship and summon the will of western democracy when it mattered most. this morning the senate has resoundingly passed that test. now, mr. president, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 468. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. jacqueline becerra of florida to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 468, jacqueline becerra of florida to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 470. the presiding officer: the

question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. david seymour leibowitz of florida to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida. mr. schumer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 470, david seymour leibowitz of florida to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: i move to proceed

to executive session to consider calendar 455. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, office of special counsel, hampton y. dellinger of north carolina to be special counsel. mr. schumer: send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 455, hampton y. dellinger of north carolina to be special counsel, office of special counsel, signed by 18 senators as follows. mr. schumer: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed february 13 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate

proceed to legislative session, be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions submitted earlier today. s. res. 560,s. res. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. the senate will proceed to the resolutions en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at -- the senate proceed to s. con. res. 29. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

cosponsor concurrent -- the clerk: corn current resolution -- corn current resolution. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the -- be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. notwithstanding -- the president pro tem -- the president pro tem and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences authorized by law by concurrence of the two houses or by the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates be times and that following each

pro forma session the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session, friday february 16 at 3:30, tuesday february 20 at 9:00 a.m., friday february -- when the senate adjourns on friday february 24, it stands adjourned until monday february 26, following the prayer and pledge, the preamble be agreed to, morning hour be deemed expired, and senator cardin will provide the washington farewell aaddress, following the conclusion of morning business, the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the becerra nomination, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. schumer: i ask that the senate stand aid understand -- stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of senator welch. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont. mr. welch: mr. president, this is indeed a historic day, the passage of the national security supplemental appropriations bill and i want to commend the extraordinary work of leader schumer, of leader mcconnell, of our appropriation chair and vice chair, senator murray, and senator collins, and also our colleagues who worked so hard on the bipartisan border agreement that was ultimately repudiated by the republicans. the supplemental includes important additional military aid for ukraine and taiwan and aid for israel and humanitarian aid for the palestinians and other vulnerable populations.

and i unequivocally support the additional aid for ukraine. it's facing an extensional threat and for -- we must pass that aid. i'm very pleased to see that ukraine is going to be receiving the aid it desperately needs. putin must be stopped. the other provision in the supplemental i strongly support is funding for the humanitarian aid for palestinians and for humanitarian catastrophes around the globe. but the situation in gaza is what is of great concern to me. it is horrific. two million palestinians have been uprooted from their homes. those homes have been reduced to rubble. folks are desperately seeking to survive. they lack adequate food, safe water or shelter, many are injured without anything

remotely resembling sufficient medical care or shelter. and i introduced a resolution cosponsored by 15 of my colleagues urging the administration to dramatically increase access and delivery of humanitarian aid for palestinians in gaza, and i am gratified that the supplemental does include several billions of dollars for that purpose. but despite these provisions that i do support, i voted against the supplemental for one key reason. i cannot in good conscience support sending billions of additional taxpayer dollars for prime minister netanyahu's military campaign in gaza. it's a campaign that has killed and wounded a shocking number of civilians. it's created a massive humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. it's inflamed tensions in the

middle east, eroding support among arab states that had been aligned with israel. and of course it severely compromised any remaining hope, almost all remaining hope, for the two-state solution that we all know is ultimately essential for peace in the middle east. and this is an opinion that's not just my own, but it's expressed by a large majority of vermonters who contacted me and shared their dismay at the humanitarian catastrophe in gaza. during my years in congress, mr. president, like you, i have voted for tens of billions of dollars for aid to israel but i cannot send more taxpayer dollars to support prime minister netanyahu's continued bombardment and wholesale destruction of gaza knowing that the calamity that more u.s. bombs and artillery shells will cause for more countless

civilians that have nothing to do with the atrocities committed by hamas terrorists on october 7. as i made clear when i called for an indefinite cease-fire in gaza, really for the purse of saving civilian lives, we all do want hamas gone, they are terrorists. the depth and cruelty of hamas perp trade against innocent people was re-pauling -- re -- appalling. the viciousness of the hamas attack was intended to traumatize all israelis, and it goes without saying that israel has a right and responsibility to pursue those who ordered and carried out the october 7 attacks. but israel's enemy is hamas, not the palestinian people. and neither israel nor any

country has the right to use lethal force in ways that violate the law of armed conflict by inflicting egregious and disfor portion gnat harm -- disproportionate harm to civilians, the palestinians are innocent as were hamas's victims. what occurred in gaza using weapons and munitions provided by the united states and what will continue to occur as long as prime minister netanyahu pursues his current war strategy is more of the same. it's a strategy which i and many others believe is deeply flawed. it has cost more than 28,000 palestinian lives. netanyahu's war plan has never been articulated beyond his --

repeated refrain of nothing less than the complete destruction of hamas and the release of the hostages. like many of us, i have spoken with families of hostages who are desperately waiting for the safe return of their loved ones who are trapped in the vast network of hamas tunnels, narrow cloistered dark tunnels as israel bombs explode above. it's hard to imagine anything more terrifying for the hostages as well as for their families as the weeks turn into months with no end in sight. since israel launched its invasion of gaza nearly four months ago, prime minister netanyahu has said nothing about what israel strategy is for the future of gaza or the people of gaza. after gaza is in ruins and the war ends, obliterating civilian

infrastructure, and that's happening now with demolitions set to take down homes and infrastructure. it makes it impossible for people to have a mace to return to -- a place to return to, intentionally reducing to rubble hospitals, schools, mosques is not right. creating a humanitarian catastrophe and looming famine, this is not an acceptable strategy. and the insxabl con -- enescapable conclusion is that the netanyahu government is not listening to the white house and president biden, it's not listening to key leaders urging israel to change course. their belief, which i share, is the way to prevent a wider war and to begin building a safer and ultimately more secure

middle east is to stop the killing and otherwise mistreating of the innocent palestinians. yet prime minister netanyahu, who has rejected out of hand the right of palestinians to have a state of their own is stubbornly pursuing what can only be called a scorched earth policy, it's difficult to not conclude that his enemy is not only hamas but the palestinians and to make matters worse, he and other israeli officials continue to deny there is a humanitarian crisis in gaza, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. how much worse does the situation have to get in gaza? how much wider of a war in the middle east will be accepted before we use the leverage america does have, including the withholding of additional lethal aid to get israel to stop that bombing campaign? to negotiate a cease-fire and

the release of the remaining hostages, and to allow -- to allow the dramatic increase in food, water, and other humanitarian aid that is needed to prevent the widespread starvation, death, and disease the united nations and other relief organizations warn is eminent and to negotiate an end to the war. the massive destruction and loss of innocent life is not making israel more secure. to the contrary. it eroded progress israel has made with its neighboring arab states, it's inflamed tensions in the middle east and incited attacks on american soldiers. it has severely d.n.c. israel's reputation on the world stage and set back the cause of peace in the middle east, which we must continue to strive to achieve. the possibility of a two-state

solution, which prime minister netanyahu has publicly rejected is on life support. throughout the years the united states has provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to the netanyahu government. in effect, consistently financing a government that implements policies that we support for a two-state solution but pursues policies that make it impossible for a viable independent state of palestine to emerge. that's been endorsed, a two-state solution by republican and democratic administrations. we have to mean what we say. this must end and it must end now. by sparing innocent palestinians in israel's pursuit of hamas and renewing vigorous efforts to create a viable palestinian state, something the biden administration is doing energetically.

mr. president, a majority of the senate has voted to approve the additional military aid for israel. i know that the white house will not treat that as a blank check. we must increase pressure on the netanyahu government to respect international humanitarian law. and i'm very encouraged by the white house's release on february 8 of an unprecedented national security memorandum, based on an amendment sponsored by senator van hollen, cosponsored by many of us, including you mr. president. it has reporting requirements that puts israel and other ripts of u.s. military -- recipients of u.s. military that they have adherence to u.s. and international laws of armed conflict

and allowing the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. i also urge the secretary of state to apply the leahy law passed by my predecessor, patrick leahy of vermont, apply that to israel. this has not been the practice. for far too long, successive administrations have failed to apply the law to the israeli defense forces, despite many incidents when the idf was credibly impoliticed in violations of -- implicated in violations of human rights of palestinians. the leahy law is the law of the united states. it should be enforced. finally,-day want to say -- i do want to say a few words about the southern border. our immigration system is broken. our southern border is overwhelmed with thousands of would-be it immigrants on a nearly daily basis.

asylum seekers can wait five years or more before learning their fate. they're forced to wait to join the workforce when here and face bureaucratic backlogs. most potential immigrants have no meaningful way to enter the u.s. legally, given the failure of congress to improve the system for 30 years. our systems all around -- our cities all around our country are dealing with the consequences and are exhausted. in essence, we don't have a functioning immigration system, and i commend my colleagues, senators sinema, lankford, and murphy for their extraordinary work, and i'm very disappointed that that effort was rejected and repudiated by our republican colleagues. the agreement proposed reforms to improve border security that both republicans and democrats have long recognized we need to significantly improve our operations at the border and

have a secure border. it provides that agreement for additional pathways for legal migration, and we need legal migration. our rural communities, like those in vermont, rely on immigrant and seasonal farmworkers to know how important improving our legal migration system is to our rural economy. we need to dre the -- address the limited number of family and employment-based visas, to address the backlog of green card application that already exceeds ten million people. we need more workers -- worker visas and other alternatives for employers to get the job done. i voted last week to proceed on that first version of that border agreement worked out by our colleagues in the hope that we could work to pass amendment, improve it, and pass it. but republicans who first embraced that agreement or that effort turned their backs once

donald trump insippsed they take no -- insisted they take no action to secure the southern border before the november election. donald trump has a campaign. we have a responsibility to govern. and that includes taking action on the southern border. that situation is the result of inaction over many years, republicans and democrats can take credit for some of those failures. but we have to do there what we have done in so many other places, work together to get a secure border, find pathways for legal migration, and have safety and security at a border we control. mr. president, i'm going to end where i began, and that's thanking leader schumer and leader mcconnell for the extraordinary effort getting us to this vote and this important

legis legislation. but i also want to say to the senate staff and to our senate pages, who have been here all night, thank you. we're very grateful for the work that you do. this was not just an important day. it's been an important several months where the business of the senate debating the important issues of our time occurred, and you all have been part of history. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i know the hour, it's not late, i guess it's early, you but the staff has been on the floor all night. i know the pages are exhausted, because they've been working. i wanted to say -- i know the presiding officer doesn't deserve to have to spend five minutes listening to me. i just want to say a word as we

get out of here about where we are. i want to thank the senator from vermont for his moral leadership and his clarity in this difficult time. not that long ago, we had a conversation with the president of ukraine, president zelenskyy, and it was while we were still in the midst of covid and we were meeting on zoom. he said to the united states senate that the ukrainian people were fighting so they could live their lives the way we live our lives, the way we live our lives in the united states. and more recently, he, in our last meeting with him, which was in person, he came here and met us in the old senate -- or in the, i guess, the mansfield

room, and he said to us that they were going to continue to fight, that if we didn't support them they would lose, but that they would never stop fighting because the ukrainian people know what freedom is about, and they wouldn't stop. he thought that they could succeed if we continued to support them. he was very clear about that. and it wasn't clear to me that we were going to be able to fulfill our commitment. there have been moments -- i've been here now 14 years or so, there have been moments when i have really wondered already the united states senate is just a relic of its former self, that our democracy is a relic of its former self, that the evidence that xi jinping and vladimir putin believes have piled up over the decades and the century

has put the united states in a place where it has no capacity to lead anymore. that is what they say at every negotiating table that we find ourselves with them, that the 20th century was our century, but this is a different century, it's a century for totalitarianism for authoritarianism, a century where might makes right. as the presiding officer knows, my mom was born in warsaw in 1938, a polish jew, the worst place on planet earth anybody could have been born, in the worst moment when anybody could be born. i'm going to spare you, because we're here and we got to move on. but they lived through the worst that humanity had to offer, my mom and my grandparents elena

and john, but they came here to the united states of america, after the war was over, to rebuild their shattered lives. they said to me that they had been happy here ever since. that was their language, with humanity's greatest treasures, democracy, freedom, and love, as they described it. and they hoped that in the course of our lives that their grandchildren would be able to spread these treasures around the world. and tonight that's what we've done here in the united states senate. tonight we've said that the rule of law matters, that democracy matters, that we recognize that the fight the ukrainian people have been in for the last two years, a very unexpected fight with unexpected successes along

the way, more predictable setbacks along the way, but an extraordinary testament to the ukrainian people's courage, to their stamina, to their willingness to fight, just to be free, just to live as president zelenskyy said, just to live the life that we have lived, to die in the cause of democracy. that's what they have done over the last two years. and i hate to say this, but it's true, there are -- there were moments over the last four, six months or so when it was not clear that the united states senate was going to be able to overcome our divisions to support the ukrainian people in their battle, even with the knowledge that we have a particular role to play, at least in theory, as the united states of america, when it comes to battles around the world

between democracy and totalitarianism. an obligation we have never fulfilled perfectly, but an obligation that, at least since world war ii, we have had to carry uniquely among all nations. i will say, mr. president, as i come to a close, that i have had my doubts over the last 14 years about whether this place could operate again, whether we could make hard decisions on behalf of the american people, our children and our grandchildren, whether it was just a relic of some bygone era. and that's been particularly hard for me, because i actually believe in democracy. i believe in the wisdom that's created not from what i think or what you think or what the senator from georgia thinks or

even what the pages who are sitting on this floor thinks, but the wisdom that comes from the collision of our disagreements and the collision of our disputes, disagreements and disputes that can only happen in a free country, with the first amendment and the ability to express oneself, with a free press. the only places, the only human societies where everybody agrees with each other are totalitarian societies where somebody is in charge telling everybody what to think, like putin's russia, like the situation in england when the founders were trying to break away into a new republic. and what i want to say to the american people tonight is -- or this morning is that not that

we're out of the woods, and not that they can take their foot off the gas, but that today we actually did something pretty significant here in this place. and we stood with the ukrainian people who have stood for democracy for these two years, who have given their lives just to live their lives the way we live our lives, having been invaded by a tyrant who had violated the post-world war ii order. the united states senate not only supported it, but did it with a vote of 70. did it with a vote where 20 republicans split from president trump's view of this world, which is a very different view than either democratic or republican presidents have had

since world war ii. they're willing to split with that for the good of our nation, for the good of our world. that's not an easy thing to do. it's not an easy vote for them to take. and i don't think there was one of us who would have predicted four months ago we would have ended up in a place with those 20 votes. so i want to say thank you to the people that took those votes. i want to say thank you to senator schumer for his leadership, for his patience. i know there are days he feels like i'm the biggest complainer around this place. but he did an amazing job holding this thing together over the last four months. and i want to thank senator mcconnell for his role in making sure we ended up where we have ended up. and for a moment, at least in my view, we've restored confidence

in our ability to do hard things, just in the nick of time. just in the nick of time. and there's so much left for us to do. there are so many things beyond our control in this world that i think it really is important for us to get our act together. it is really important for us to have an education system in this country that delivers opportunity rather than reinforcing the income inequality that we have, which is a threat to our democracy. it's ra el important for us to find a way to work together to create a health care system that doesn't make the lives of the american people misery, to create as the senator from vermont was saying an immigration system that actually is a strength for the american people rather than a head whipped for -- headwind for the american people, to strengthen our democracy. all of those are work left in front of us. but what we were able to do tonight tells us that we can meet these challenges, we can

meet this moment, we can overcome the divisions that tear at our communities and tear at our democracy, that are a threat to our democracy and a threat to our future, a threat to our children, and that each of us can make a difference making the world a little bit better. there are a lot of people in this town who believe that the house of representatives will never pass this bill. they believe that politics is already made the decision about whether or not this bill is going to be passed. i don't believe that. i'll make a prediction this morning and my prediction is that this bill is going to pass in the house of representatives, and that this country is going to stand with ukraine, that we're going to stand with nato,

that we're going to stand with free people all over this planet in a fight that's no less important today than it was when my mom was born in warsaw in 1938. it is exactly the same fight with exactly the same importance and the united states has a new role to play, i think, in a new century. and tonight i think -- or this morning we've demonstrated that the united states senate is going to lead. and i am very, very grateful for that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

nate stands adjourned until >> the senate passed aid to israel and taiwan in the early morning hours after group of republican senators helpful for most of the night to oppose the bill in the final hours of debate. the legislation goes to the house but speaker mike johnson has already said he has no plans to bring it to the floor without border security provisions which were stripped from the original bill due to lack of support among senate republicans. the senate returns for legislative business on monday february 26th. watch live coverage here on c-span2. >> if you miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it anytime online, c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights, these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen, when you hit play on select videos, this timeline paul makes it easy to quickly get an

idea what was debated and decided in washington, scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> today on c-span foreign diplomats from mexico, singapore, costa rica and the european union discuss trade policies at a conferenceosted by the washington international trade association. live coverage begins at 10 a.m. stn. other than at noon the houses back for general speeches followed by legislative business at 00later in the day mbs will vote to reconsider impeaching homeland security secretary alejandro yorkas for his handling of the us southern border after previous vote failed last we. you can watch live coverage on the c-span now video apps or online, c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy doesn't just look like this. it looks like this. where americans can see democracy at work, where

citizens are truly informed, republic thrives. get informed straight from the source on c-span. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. from the nation's capital to wherever you are, the opinion that matters most is your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span powered by cable. >> now to a hearing on current and emerging technologies affecting us china competition. the us china economic and security review commission examined the risks of certain chinese technologies being used in the united states including the chinese commonest party's ability to access user data collected from the social media apps tick-tock. other topics include electric vehicle production and use of artificial intelligence and quantum computing by chinese military.

[inaudible conversations] >> our third panel will examine several case studies of other technology areas in the united states and china. namely the commercial applications of ai, biotechnology and battery technology. these commercial technologies are currently being used it to or eventually will boost chinese economic competitors against us firms, dominate global supply chains, and further military and

surveillance objectives of ccp. we will start with miss nor wong, senior research analyst for the center for emerging technology. research focuses on china's science and technology ecosystem, ai investment trends and they are diplomacy in the in the pacific region. miss wong will discuss the trends in china's commercial ai industry as well as key institutions driving china's ai development. she is here before the commission. thank you. next we will hear from doctor michelle roseau, vice chair of the national security commission on emerging biotechnology. doctor roseau was previously director of national security at the national security council. she will testify on china's progress in various sub fields of china's biotechnology industry including agriculture and more. this is her first time

appearing here. thank you. lastly, we will hear from doctor jeb dana, senior vice president of government relations, his -- previously served as former deputy assistant secretary of defense for industrial policy in the trump administration, he will address china's barry development including industrial and ev batteries and the risks associated with their presence in us military and critical infrastructure systems. this is his first time appearing before us as well and appreciate all the new voices and views we are getting today. thank you all very much for your testimony. i will ask all of our witnesses to please keep their remarks to seven men's to reserve time for questions and answers. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. thank you for the opportunity

to testify on china's progress in commercial applications and emerging technologies which i've been asked about chinese investment landscape and key institutions driving commercial developed of artificial intelligence. i will begin my statement about ai investment landscape and trends followed by internal and external factors impacting china's ai ability to innovate. and conclude recommendations for us policies about makers on us and china competition for artificial intelligence. the prc has emphasized ai as central to its mission to become a technology superpower and it has called on both government and private sector actors. china's ambition to leapfrog the united states compels an inanimate -- economic challenges. for instance under the civil fusion policy china's progress in a commercial ai applications can support its military monetization in a way that can threaten us national security.

in my testimony i discuss multiple financing mechanism the prc has used to increase capital support for ai. this includes r&d funding, subsidies, public and private equity investments. i want to focus on government guidelines, the chinese government uses them to mobilize public and private capital to achieve two goals. one, financial returns and 2, policy goals. this can take the form of a limited partnership structure pretty common in equity finance. this has allowed them to strategically important industry. my research shows the government is involved across multiple funding. investment in early-stage companies especially emerging technologies can be really risky and the guidance fund in order to contribute 30% off of capital.

in theory this initial investment can attack private investors came may not have high factors. but investors often have state growing enterprises. these guidance funds are operated by management institutions established by government agencies or investment firms. that's one of the government tools to maintain close ties from the public and private sectors. when they take up shares in a nonstate ai company, can't manage control over that company but there are serious implications through the financing mechanism. the funds are often plagued with corruption, waste, inefficiency and lack of coordination. they often raise much money and when they do raise the money much of it is not deployed into the project. the chinese economic slowdown

has also been a problem. for instance fund raising amounts in 20002235% of reduction. guidance funds and other financing tools are not going to go away. despite their uneven impact on chinese ai development. the prc has put a lot of stock in its capacity to tolerate waste and inefficiency. their other internal factors impacting china's ability to innovate in ai and other emerging technologies, these include demographic changes, shortages and the regulatory environment. of these factors i'm going to focus on china's ai government actors. these efforts are led by the cyber administration in china and in recent years launched three main ai regulation policies, one focusing on recommendation algorithms and generative ai. these regulations can offer ai

companies clarity on what is and what is not permitted when they develop their models for commercial use in a fast-paced ai market. however, excessive regulation can stifle innovation. we've seen indications chinese companies are concerned about compliance costs associated with standing regulation. but it is too early to judge the impact of china's ai regulations on a country's ability to innovate and follow its technology ecosystem. beyond that, there are other external factors that impact china's ai, us controls on ships and semiconductors, manufacturing equipment may hinder china's ability to train large language models that often demand concentrated power. another is investment restrictions on venture capital and private equity investment in china. the scope and restriction to

companies such are mainly are engaged in ai systems for those purposes the impact can extend beyond that. it's possible with more limited access to expertise and networks these companies may have difficulty finding investors, such measures are intended to restrict chinese access to us technology and know-how, capital and markets but to really ensure policy effectiveness i recommend voluntary action which i discuss in detail in my written testimony. us policies a lawmakers need evidence-based assessments of china's technological power to regularly track and update china's ai capability and their impact. for instance creating open source intelligence center can help enhance our understanding of china's key capabilities. second to restrict us capital and tangible benefits for

aiding the developed of china's ai use for military purposes, the us should carefully scope the algorithms by the part of treasury and this means providing scope of the prohibited transaction as well as implementing entity based approach for the restriction. third, there have been government efforts to align with allies at strategic levels but further actions are needed. for instance information sharing with key us allies like transactions or concerns can make the efforts more effective, this could avoid overextending us jurisdictions and help countries as they are trying to establish their authority. with the opportunity to testify today i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, appreciate it. doctor rosa. >> thank you, members of the us

china commission. i thank you for inviting me to testify about biotechnology, delighted to be here to share the work we are undertaking, on emerging biotech. we just released our interim reports. i encourage everyone to check that out, biotech. senate.gov. i come to my role as vice chair of the commission as a molecular biologist. i study stem cells and graduate work and infectious diseases before serving in government and i along with fellow commissioners, members of congress, industry executives, academics and former government officials are currently examining the opportunities and challenges facing the united states at the intersection of national security and emerging biotechnology. one of the challenges is the risk of being overmatched by china. with recent advances in biotechnology we are beginning to program cells like we do

computers and applications go beyond the pharmaceutical domain. it can be applied across the economy to agriculture, energy, industrial production, manufacturing, defense, and military application. the ccp is aware of the potential here and are investing across these domains. there are tremendous your political advantages but we still have time. we haven't hit the chat gpt moment with this technology. we see it coming in the race is on. continued us leadership in biotechnology is not guaranteed and we see indicators that china is catching up and in some deals may be surpassing us. the time to act is now. our commission is modeled after the national security commission artificial intelligence which created well before the recent advances in large language models. this was by design. congress intended the ai commission provide context and

policy options to legislative support and similarly congress has recognized we are almost to an inflection point with biotechnology and formed our commission accordingly. as i mentioned we just completed our first year of work and our interim reports after engaging with hundreds of stakeholders, this report lays out our plans for the year ahead. some of what we found so far there are significant roadblocks in the united states the can harm our ability to reach that chat gpt moment if you will. it still takes too long and cost more than it should to move a biotech product from lab to market. there is lack of physical infrastructure here and the workforce required to operate it and regulatory improvements are necessary alongside advances in technology. in contrast the ccp is making serious investments and shrewd policy decisions that could put it on the track to outpace us. china's last three, 5-year plans are prioritized biotechnology and their governments have invested billions of dollars, by some

accounts over one hundred billion dollars. they are employing a familiar playbook, the wall way playbook if you will. r&d spending, top recruitment programs, state-supported enterprises, illicit application of intellectual property and this approach may serve china well in the biotech race, high risk tolerant investing in state support for enabling capabilities and infrastructure could allow them to overcome the barriers confronting progress in the united states. one example where the chinese strategy may be paying dividends is the critical intersection of ai and biotechnology. ai is revolutionizing biotechnology and is likely a future chat gpt moment will because of this convergence between the two technologies. the chinese system may be better oriented towards this ai and bio nexus. chinese policies have located and fostered collaboration, established biomedical clusters which contain researchers and

companies. recognize ai models depend on good quality and large-scale data sets and have established large-scale biological databases including the chinese national bank which is a repository hosting tens of millions of biological samples along with their genetic information and bio data programs have also benefited from coming back from universities and the us national institutes of health and both ai and biotech been major priorities for their programs. these policies are paying off, they are leading edge chinese players and industries. bio map cofounded by the owner has developed the first bio ai foundation model to hit one hundred billion parameters according to online marketing, they call this the largest of its kind. china is building thomistic capabilities that could provide a long-term strategic and geopolitical advantage. in contrast, we 've not yet prioritized that at the national level.

another example for biotech, for the institute. and advantages in the associated biological data because for biotech data is the new oil. the ccc ports cgi, one. 5 billion, 10 year loan in 2010 led to its growth as multinational company and operates in the us and partners at hospitals, universities and other research organizations. us researchers often look for low-cost and they can provide it thanks to large bank subsidies. these unfair economic practices could position them to drive competitors out of the market and with data security laws require chinese companies to share data with the government and publicized partnership with chinese military, us biological data may be ceiling national priorities. to share two examples that

demonstrate the china is using familiar tactics to win out in biotech, unlike sectors that came before, we have time to act before we may be surpassed. as we said in our interim report there are policy options we are considering to address challenges to biotech progress that exist in the united states including how to prepare the us government for the age of biology, how to exploit the mystic innovation and how to protect against technology's misuse. we will provide formal recommendations in our final report in december of 2,024 and i look forward to the discussion and answering your questions. >> mr. nadineare. >> honorable commissioners, appreciate this opportunity to speak of building battery supply chains in the united states. march of 2,020 one i returned to the private sector after serving as deputy assistant secretary of defense for

industrial base policy. i saw significant, alarming vulnerabilities of the united states vis-à-vis china, several industrial sectors crucial to the readiness and capability of the us military in america's overall economic and national security. these included semiconductors and microelectronics, critical minerals and closely related advanced batteries. here we are talking about the most technically advanced midsized batteries need to operate not just automobiles, but those required for distributed military weapons systems such as satellites, directed energy, uavs, and i could go on and also critical infrastructure for our civilian economy, transportation and wastewater. some three years later, the us government over two administration through executive and legislative branches has acted to remediate some of these us

vulnerabilities concerning battery technologies, components of materials. one might quibble about the particulars, but collectively they constitute a series of steps in the right direction. nonetheless, fundamental american weaknesses remain and will continue for advanced batteries, that is our dependence, in some cases directly and in most cases and directly on china for crucial battery supply-chain. that starts with mineral extraction, processing. i can't stress processing get enough and ends after numerous stages with a fully integrated battery. i bring your attention to the data that i brought here today, figures 1-6 showing intensely rising us imports from china of lithium and nickel cadmium batteries, battery parts and primary battery cells. the one partially positive trend is the emergence of korea as a hefty exporter of battery

parts. however, i say that the korean factor is only partially positive because korea in turn has large dependencies on chinese suppliers. the situation is the same or worse for allies japan, germany, and taiwan all of whom supply us with battery components. finally, many of the battery supply chains on which the federal government draws have a huge underlying chinese dependencies. even when the known supplier, the comedy being contracted is headquartered in the us, or an ally like japan or france, the dependency is china. batteries represent prime a sample of how their competitiveness evolved over the past decade. china having bought or pilfered western technology in years past is at the forefront of development of innovation. this stems from many cycles of

experience and expertise in complex manufacturing which has no substitute. several us firms, promising battery technology existed around a decade and 1/2 ago but federal incentives dried up, permitting obstacles which i speak about later remain and debated, we fail to counter predatory chinese trade practices and the nascent ev market was too small. in recent years bipartisan concern has grown and it is useful to break the battery supply-chain from upstream through midstream through downstream for our purposes. most us public attention on batteries aims to re-slice slices of the midstream and downstream phases of battery manufacture. the midstream includes reduction of chinese source anodes and cathodes and turn them into modules. the downstream includes

fabricating the cells and modules and integrating them into batteries. with a boost in state and federal incentives, we've seen a number of plants open up in the united states. however, the impression of growing thomistic battery manufacturing industry is misleading. in reality, central parts of the battery or materials that originate in china, recognizing we can to do everything at once to secure this entire vital supply-chain, we started at the point of maximum chinese control and that is maximum western vulnerability. this is the critical but often neglected upstream, mineral extraction, mineral processing and the early stage of the midstream, fabricating materials into positive and negative electrodes, electrolytes and separators. at the upstream, china is the world dominant processor of copper, nickel, manganese,

cobalt, lithium, i could go on. that's despite the fact they have limited geological deposits in their borders. in the midstream, chinese enemies dominate anodes, cathodes, electric lights and separators, also the inverters, oils, and cloying the equipment that are essential to turning these cathodes, anodes, electrodes and separators into cells. the number of companies in the world that have mastered these processes are relatively few. most are chinese. all involve intricate manufacturing, all are capital intensive. nonetheless, these manufacturing steps are considered, quote, low value in the united states under the business paradigm that came to dominate us over the last few decades yet there are no lithium batteries without owning those phases of profits. as the us has learned and other

industrial sectors just because a particular item or materials cheaply produced or extracted elsewhere does not mean we do not need some level of domestic capacity. we certainly don't think about energy that way. the us department of defense faces the same battery supply-chain challenges and vulnerabilities in the private sector but with vastly added complications. the us military shift toward distributed operations, long-duration and crude systems, above air, on the ground, water, electronic warfare and large constellations of small satellites swell the demand for advanced batteries. microelectronics, the military's relatively tiny share of domestic battery demand limits the military's market power to the supply-chain. the dod is far from being a one% consumer of the battery market in the united states. it's just a tad more than 0%. addressing the national battery

problem, requires speed and scale. we need a sense of wartime urgency like we did with the apollo space program and operation warp speed for the covid vaccine and trying to focus on export investment will not suffice. today it is astonishingly difficult in the us and some of our allies to break the all-important processing sector and it is impossible to stay on course. processing is energy intensive and involve strong chemicals and potentially produces hazardous waste. building a new environmentally clean processing facility is possible, but it will cost several hundred million dollars and in some cases more than a billion and that's if the construction is even allowed. permitting regulations associated with the national, environmental policy act which governs just about anything of any size in this country effectively serve as an

automatic break if not a barrier to building a complete domestic supply-chain for advanced batteries. i commend the work of noah smith, nonpartisan economic analyst who has written extensively on this and he describes our predicament as a build nothing country. what are my recommendations? one set takes the form of tax incentives. that's a well constructed tariff, tax credits for capital expenditures and channeling unrealized capital gains to the battery sector. there's a much different tariff on chinese batteries and all components of chinese origin. we need to impose that tariff even unfriendly trading countries. if they adopt the same tariff we do, we can waive the tariff. we are not there to create a tariff block around our allies but rather against china. >> if you could finish up, we

will get back to the recommendations and questions and answers as well. >> in addition, there are trillions of unrealized capital gains sitting on the sidelines that out to be freed up with domestic mineral processing industry. unlike direct incentives tech incentives keep the pivotal decisions in the hands of entrepreneurs and ordinary americans rather than government officials. and there needs to be serious reform of nipa. finally i want to state that many assumptions about pollution are based on dated assumptions from decades ago. what was a dirty process could be a clean one today. the department of defense needs, if it wants specific monetary batteries, put real dollars behind it. in short, we have outsourced whole industries including the battery industry. it will take years to unwind these vulnerabilities but there

are things we could do very quickly that could reverse the situation. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner cleveland. >> i will wait around. >> commissioner friedberg. >> thank you for your excellent testimony. if i can start with you, doctor rosa, describe a situation that sounds similar to what we've seen in other domains and the kinds of prescriptions you point to are also similar to those we have heard. on the one hand, things that filled up our own capacity and other measures that if they don't slow china down, at least limit what they have to extract from our system. i wanted to ask you about that half of the equation if you could say more about that. the recommendations you may point to data and the other,

talent. do you think us laws should be changed so scientists can't participate in biotech area and data, should there be regulations on laws that prohibit the use of chinese companies from genetic data or storage? >> our commission has not developed and endorsed policy recommendations on either of those topics. i can share some of what we are seeing in terms of the overall problem statements but offering a recommendation in either of those areas. to the original point, there are a lot of similarities we are seeing with the biotech. some notable differences. a lot of biotech is in r&d

heavy enterprise so when you compare it to semiconductors or others that are more established or policies have been applied before, they are still being more in the last issue so options around the challenge and data may apply in a different way for other elements. in terms of these points, there are two options, there's a duality here. either we can run faster or slower competitors down so we are still looking at how those recommendations take place and what options are, there are policies on the table already in congress about limiting the ability for federal funds to be used to support chinese providers, critical enablers of

the industry like genetic sequencing. >> chinese entities taking advantage of the openness of the research that's going on. is that by its nature publicly available? it seems in this area there is a lot that is going on, essentially. >> it is a closed facility. we have some information around how many samples there are of information but that's not accessible outside china. in contrast us equivalent and other parts of the world, biological databases are open, researchers can access them, innovators can access them. that's the distinction between these systems where the chinese enterprise, not describing to open research and the type of information they are