and that's the major aspect of the provision here, is to have the tech directorate work on these ten areas of expertise, work with selected universities around the united states on those critical focus of technology. i -- i mentioned some of them -- artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and many others. so the fact that the bill really is depending on our university system i think is something that our colleagues should applaud and be excited about. that chart that i showed at the beginning where everybody's working together, this is just research dollars going to the best universities in our nation to continue to focus on this, but now focus on it in partnership with experts in these sectors and with industries so that we can actually get to a faster

adoption rate and a faster implementation into commercial markets. so i think we're leaning in to our university system. that's a good idea. what we're giving the university system, though, is the tools, the tools to help accelerate that development. and then, as i mentioned, we are also making a huge investment in stem, $10 billion into stem education. the chart i showed before talked about how we were going to do all these great things under america competes and stem. we didn't quite get there. we didn't really do that. i think this is like broadband. everybody talks about it all the time, we think we've solved it five times, and you still think wait, i thought we solved broadband. stem is the same thing. you think we have funded stem. we haven't funded stem. this represents a huge increase in our stem education budget, but i will just tell you this is so that we can get the

researchers, the scientists, the fellows, if you will, at the higher education level for stem. we still need to go and build the pipeline at our k-12 system so that we are putting more people into the pipeline, but hopefully with the stem dollars here, we will be, if you will, creating a new workforce for the innovation that we are trying to chase with the investments of these dollars. and we felt so strongly about this that -- we looked at the numbers, and we were just astonished. so few women and minorities in the stem field, so few. so we -- the underlying bill, our colleagues, senator schumer and young, create a diversity office app for the first time over at n.s.f. so they can focus on this issue. we put more resources to it within this stem category so our colleagues and those at n.s.f.

could focus on it. and we expect to really try to take a very aggressive role here. that's what we heard from n.s.f. in their research. stem education can't be a passive thing. it can't be just we're going to put some more dollars out for education. if we want to diversify in the sciences, we have to have a very, very aggressive approach. and so that aggressive approach means changing the faces who do the education, changing some of the faces of people who do investments, changing the dynamics of research. a lot of women were hurt in the last covid pandemic who were researchers because they were juggling both taking care of their families or taking care of parents and doing their research. and so they had extra strains on them and made complexity to when they could get their research done. so we know we have to think about stem education from the perspective of what are some of the challenges that face people

going into those fields. but no doubt, this underlying legislation before us will have a big investment in that and continue n.s.f.'s leadership in trying to grow a more aggressive workforce. so the bill also includes, i should say, a few things about how one of our goals is to diversify innovation to many different parts of the united states, and the challenge there is, you know, none of this is -- you're not going to sprinkle some dust on some magic words on some region of the united states and all of a sudden something's going to pop up. and nor do i personally expect it to. i always give the example of walla walla, which is a real place, walla walla, washington. hi a journalist ask once if that was a real place. yes, it's a real place. it's a great wine-making place. but some might say walla walla,

washington should be a research center. it has an university, an outstanding university, whitman. people might say it should be a tech hub, it should be a research center. walla walla found its rightful place when research was done, and a university professor at university of washington said, you know what? we can grow wine grapes. that really wasn't that long ago. that was in the 1980's. he said we can grow grapes. we weren't growing grapes. now, a couple of decades later, we have over a thousand wineries in the state of washington. so not everybody's going to be a tech hub, but it doesn't mean that you're not going to use science to the best and highest use for a region of your state or the country. it's about empowering, as the head of n.s.f. said, it is about trying to have innovation everywhere connected to

opportunity everywhere connected to universities. the point is let's build a better ecosystem that goes all throughout the united states so more and more people can take advantage of technology and innovation. so this is really, really important because we never know where the next person is going to come from, who is going to play a critical role in technology. and the more we build this infrastructure, the better. so this allows money for regional technology hubs to help concentrate in various parts of the country and expertise, more money for our manufacturing institutes which help manufacturers all across the united states focus on being competitive in their particular area, and it supports $2.4 billion for manufacturing extension programs which are those things that really do work with, say, a particular sector like automobiles or aviation or

some other type of manufacturing and help make them competitive. and as mentioned, it also, just like in the former competes act bills, puts some money into d.o.e. in this case, it puts about $17 billion into the department of energy so that its energy innovation can move forward. so let me talk for a second about this issue about national security and where we are with semiconductors because i expect this will get a bunch of focus next week as we talk about this legislation. the underlying bill has about $52 billion of investment for the semiconductor industry, so i'm pretty sure people think well, wait, this is -- this is a lot of money, but it's a very big sector. it's essential to our defense,

it's essential to navigation, it's essential to satellites, it's essential to health care, it's essential to consumer products. and the united states has been a leader in this area. the united states has been a leader in this area for a long time, or i should say was a leader in this area for a long time. when you think of companies like intel or others that are -- even some of the companies that are foreign investors who made huge footprints in the united states, but the point is that we are no longer in this position. we are -- as this chart shows, only 12% of a global supply. a report recently done by -- on the semiconductor industry by boston consulting group, i just

want to read this one part. quote, the u.s. has been the long-standing global leader in semiconductors with 45% to 50% share of the worldwide market. 45% to 50% share of the worldwide market in the last 30 years. however, significant focus is being placed on ending the u.s. share in scruct -- semiconductor manufacturing which now stands at only 74% capacity. this is a report i'm pretty sure you could get online. that's the end of that statement. so we have gone from 45% to 50%, that's where we started out. over the last 30 years, now we are down to 12%. 12%. so i ask my colleagues, if you were 12% of anything, how long would you be around to be competitive? how long would you drive the

supply chain? how long would you drive job growth? how long would you continue to be competitive in this very, very important sector that's important to all of these things? and while i am somebody who supports continued growth of our global economy because i think we build and make great things and we want people to sell them to, this presents to us a very unique challenge, the fact that something as critical to the information age as semiconductors, we have gone from 40% to 50% down to 12%, the question is what's going to happen next. well, the question of what's going to happen next is if we don't make this investment, very, very likely that that 12% is going to in the next several years turn into 6%. it's going to turn into 6%. so staying status quo right now, doing no investment, it's very

likely that 12% will turn into 6%. which means people aren't going to want to locate their boundaries in the united states. people aren't going to want to locate their research in the united states. people aren't going to want to have their companies and the supply chain and the workforce literally this simply is clusters, clusters. seattle didn't get to be seattle overnight. seattle didn't get to be the hub of the number one stem city in the united states of america and certainly an epicenter of software and software development overnight. it took decades, decades. literally, you know, even in the 1980's and 1990's, it wasn't that diversified. it's just been in the last 15 years that it's really diversified. but yes, it took the work of the university of washington. yes, it took the work of many companies being there. then it took the work of then people attracting a workforce who would rather be there than,

say, in silicon valley. and then it took the efforts of universities to produce a workforce. then it took attracting venture capital. then once they got venture capital, then more companies wanted to come there because then you have the entire ecosystem. you had universities, you had venture capital, you had leading companies, you had a workforce, you had all of this stuff. well, that's in software, and software can continue to move forward, but if you didn't have those things, then people -- you aren't going to be a cluster for semiconductors. the united states of america, the cluster of semiconductor development is going to be in asia. it's going to be in korea. it's going to be in taiwan, and it's going to be in china. so we have to ask ourselves if we're only 6% of the supply in the future and we can't really control the development and we

lose our edge in this and people then basically we have to rely on a supply chain for all the chips, you know, in the world, where is the supply chain that we're going to rely on for the national security products and defense technology and satellites and maybe some of these other consumer products that then end up getting used for other purposes? that's what this debate is about. it's about that we went from 45% to 50%, down to 12%. if we do nothing, we're going to 6%, and the epicenter of a critical technology is going to move to asia. so i personally want to see us be successful in keeping a sector in the united states. i'm very proud that that same report prints out -- shows that -- that same boston report shows that we have 49% of the aerospace manufacturing market

in the united states. i'm very proud of that because we're an epicenter of that. 49% of the manufacturing market for aerospace is in the united states. that represents to my region, maybe 150,000 to 200,000 jobs in the northwest. to the united states, that's two million jobs, more than two million probably if you think about some of the other related sectors. so being 49% of the supply chain in the united states for aerospace really, really, really matters. and i don't want to see that slip. you know, we have had a discussion about the fact that we have the jones act. now, some of our colleagues might not support the jones act, but the jones act is we decide well, we're not going to be all the shipbuilding in the world. shipbuilding is going to get built in other places. but oh, my gosh, we have to have enough shipbuilding in the united states so if we're at war, products and services that we need to support our military

can be transported on u.s. vessels. that's why we have the jones act. because we decided that that sector was critical enough to support. and what we're saying here is that this sector is critical enough to support, too. i don't know if we're ever going to be 49% like aerospace manufacturing is. because the rest of this world is chaifg this market -- casing this market too. they are chasing it fast and furious. we have to ask ourselves, do we want to end up at 6% or do we want to reverse this trend and make an investment and make it as smart as possible? i thought we had one more chart, but i guess we don't. so i guess, mr. president, we're back to -- we're back to this.

we're back to is this bill's investment worth taking the chance on american how -- american know how? is it worth the history of our country and saying we have done a lot about research and development and we know how to get things done. when i think of some of the people in this story, i think one of the guys in the g.i. bill. it's a guy who went to school on a g.i. bill and if you think about the capital formation and capital markets we have in the united states, it's contributed to allowing that technology to move more rapidly. our investment in higher education has allowed this to move more rapidly. so to my colleagues who aren't sure about this legislation or think that it sounds like a lot or think that it sounds like, oh, i don't understand it, it's really quite simple.

do you want to make a bigger investment in our contribution to american know how with research and development and let them compete to winning the next generation of jobs? i do. i do. i want to do that because i want to see what comes next. i think it's one of the most exciting things about, you know, today and we're live today. we're not in the industrial age. we're in the information age where everything can be created in the blink of an eye and now distributed and transform our economy in such significant ways. i want to see what comes next. but we can't do it by passing legislation, authorizing things and then not appropriating the money and then waking up in ten years an finding that we are at the lowest percentage of research and development to g.d.p. in 60 years. that's where we are. the lowest percentage. so we can't do that.

we have to make these investments and if we invest in american know how, the rest of this will take care of itself. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate having received h.r. 1318, and the text being identical to s. 593, as passed by the senate, h.r. 1318 is considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. sullivan: mr. president, thank you. and thank you for passing that very important piece of legislation. the official name of that legislation that just passed the u.s. senate is the alaska tourism restoration act. so, mr. president, this is a really good day for alaska right

now and for our small businesses and working families and the overall economy in alaska and across our state. and i want to stay, mr. president, it's also a good day for the congress. both houses over the last week have been able to come together, members on both sides of the aisle, when they recognize that a relatively narrow segment of this great nation, my state, senator murkowski's state, had a huge challenge right now with our economy relating to tourism. so senators and members of the house worked together and we just passed a piece of legislation that's going to the president's desk, and it's really going to help. you know, mr. president, this pandemic has really hurt a lot of our economies in different states. i would say the alaska economy has been really hammered, the

energy sector, the commercial fishing sector, and, of course, our tourism sector. but we have hope. as i mentioned, we just passed -- just passed the alaska tourism restoration act. this bill, cosponsored by senator murkowski and myself here in the senate and congressman young in the house, is going to give our tourism season and the tens of thousands of alaskans in that industry in the hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses in alaska in that industry that are hanging by a thread, it's going to give them a fighting chance this summer. these are businesses whose owners have put their life's savings, their hard work, their hopes, their dreams into these small businesses and many have

been on the brink financially because of the pandemic and because the short cruise ship season that drives the tourism economy in alaska was about to be canceled again this summer. that's now not going to happen. mr. president, think about these numbers. in 2020 last year, during the pandemic, alaska was estimated to get -- we were supposed to get, prior to the pandemic, a record number of tourists, via cruiseships, 1.5 million would have been the all-time record and, of course, in 2020, with the pandemic, none of them showed up. not one. 2020 was -- 2021 was shaping up to be the same. think about that. these small businesses get

almost all their revenue during the summer season. that would have been two years with no revenues, no small business can withstand that. 2021 was looking to be canceled again as the result of the c.d.c., which took too long to provide clear guidance to the cruise ship industry, but they are now working cooperatively with our communities back home in alaska and the industry. so that's good news. that's starting to happen. really important. but it was also, even with the c.d.c. cooperating and working constructively, which is now happening, 2021 wasn't looking good anyways because of a law dating back to the 1880's, by the way, a u.s. law that made it impossible without canada's cooperation to sail to alaska on

a cruise ship. impossible unless we got a bill from congress passed that would allow cruise ships to sale to alaska without stopping at a canadian port, and that is just what we did. that's just what we did. so i want to be thank, again, the members of the house, members of the senate. we're hoping that this bill is now going down to the -- to the white house for a signing by the president as soon as possible. i know i'm speaking on behalf of senator murkowski and congressman young, thanking all the members of this body and this house for that work. we're going to have a fighting chance in alaska for a summer tourism season that was looking very dismal just a couple of

weeks ago. one of the reasons it was looking very dismal is unfortunately because of our neighbor who hasn't been really helpful. in alaska we have one neighbor, if you don't count russia, and that's canada. we don't have our wonderful lower 48 neighbors, we have canada. look, now, we read in the canadian press for the last several weeks, there was no way americans could get their act together that would pass a law that would fully bypass canada. that's what canada was saying, canadian politicians, so there was not a lot of need to work with us. here's a message to canada. never bet america. never bet against america. pretty much every country in our history that has bet against us has lost. our delegation is probably the most pro-canadian delegation

there is on most canadian issues and we work together on all kinds of things, big and small, trade issues, military issues, nor rad issues, -- noradd issues, mining issues. we have a great relationship. alaska-canada is really strong. that needs cooperation, and on this issue that really didn't happen. so next time we ask our canadian neighbors for cooperation, we think that's important but we didn't need it ultimately. so i mention, mr. president, in closing, good news for alaska. but i would say this to anyone watching on tv, this is good news for america. why is that? here's a message to the rest of our beautiful country. alaska is open for business. come on up. we are safe. we are healthy. by the way, if you come up, you

can get a vaccine. it's open to all tourists. we are beautiful, breaching whales, soaring mountains, salmon-choked rivers, the best people in the world. it's been a tough year and now i'm not just talking alaska, i'm talking the whole country. we know it. everybody's been at home. and to our fellow americans, you are ready to get out and see our beautiful nation. we'll come on up and see one of the most beautiful parts of america, really one of the most beautiful parts of the world. come on up to alaska. we're waiting there for you. if it's on your bucket list, there's no time like the present to do it. get on a cruise ship, fly up. i think the canadians have still blocked the border, so it's hard to drive up. that's a whole other issue. but there will be cruise ships heading up to the great state of

alaska, hopefully by mid-july. in fact, i had a call with several cruise ship executives and i will encourage them on the aftermath of congress signing this bill, get out their cruise ships and get up to alaska soon. we know the demand is high. so to all americans, we'd love to have you. and in closing, to my fellow alaskans, while this tourism season certainly won't be one of our biggest. certainly won't be like what we are anticipating in 2020, we're confident now with this action there will be ships, there will be people. help is on the way. we are a resilient, strong, tough state. thank you, alaskans for your patience. we now have a fighting chance at a decent summer tourism season

in 2021. hopefully every american citizen watching this will head on up to alaska. you will have a great time. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. a senator: i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. warner: madam president, i rise today in strong support of the endless frontier act, a long overdue bipartisan effort to invest in our country's innovation and competitiveness. i'm pleased to see that congress is finally taking action to shore up u.s. investment in the research, development, and manufacturing of critical technologies. because without this kind of intervention, china in particular will continue to outpace and outperform us in the global technology race impacting our country's economic well-being, our global influence and our national security.

let me note when i reference china, i think it's important that any policymaker or business leader draw this distinction. i want to make clear that my beef is with the communist party of china and the policies that the president percent cutes people, creates a surveillance state that would make us blush. my beef is with those policies and not with the chinese people or particularly chinese americans, asian americans. but in recent years, china has rapidly been executing on a plan working particularly to ramp up its domestic industries around

technology that confer potentially to them long-term strategic dominance and a whole host of industries that traditionally the united states or the west has dominated. one of the topics i'm going to come back to is semiconductors. china consistently increases its investment in the semiconductor industry. with a commitment to invest $150 billion and a goal to produce at least 70% of the semiconductors it consumes, one of the worldest fastest growing economies by 2030. on the issue of semiconductors, it's not just china. look around at south korea which has pledged to invest over $130 billion over the next nine years while training 36,000 new microelectronics engineers and technicians. even our allies in europe, germany and 18 other members of effort u. announced investments

up to $60 billion in key hardware in semiconductors over the next few years. if we look back and see how we're doing in america, by contrast over the past ten years only 17 major semiconductor fabs or foundries -- these are basically the manufacturing facilities -- have built in the united states while we've seen over 122 built elsewhere. as a matter of fact, right now there's not a single new fabrication facility being constructed in america. as a matter of fact, the total number of facilities, fabs, foundries that are in production have gone from 81 down to 76 as some of our older fabrication facilities, frankly the technology has moved forward -- leaped forward and if you don't continue to make the investment, you end up with a large empty facility. we even have one right outside in richmond.

as a country our share of semiconductor microelectronic production has gone from 37% to just 12% today. and if you look at china, it's almost the exact inverse, going from single digits to north of 30%. now, the truth is in the united states the cost of a new fab is about 25% to 50% higher. partially because of the lower financial incentives we provide, the appropriate environmental standards, but it does mean that without incentives, we're not going to be in the game. right now. partially because-of-decisions made -- -- because of decisions made at the beginning of covid, partially because of a semiconductor shortage, we have factories sitting idle in the united states not because they don't have workers, don't because they don't have demand for the automobiles, but because these plants can't obtain the

semiconductors that are integral to automobiles and for that as a matter of fact every device we operate. on the same time, if we look back again at china, it has no plans to take the foot off the pedal any time soon. as a matter of fact, last year president xi jinping announced a $1.4 trillion commitment to develop new technologies just through 2025, $1.4 trillion. you think about the numbers we're talking about here today which are big based upon traditional american standards, but they pale in comparison to what china is investing. and you don't need to look very far. you only need to look at the chinese documents themselves, made in china 2025 plan and the china 2035 plan in terms of standards, procedure, and protocols to see where beyond

semiconductors and 5g and some of the things i've talked about in the past, there are a host of other areas that if we don't invest, we're not going to be able to stay ahead. now, it's not all bleak. u.s. semiconductor firms in areas like packaging, meteorology still lead the world. the machine we still lead. however, many of the key ingredients to our success including federal support for r&d, investment in basic research, and support for advanced manufacturing have actually declined on -- over the last 20 years. simply put, we're just not keeping up. between 1995 and 2018 chinese r&d investment increased by over 15% per year. compared to the united states increases of averaging about 3% growth per year. we started with a higher base. i acknowledge that.

but on relative and shortly on actual real terms, china will soon pass. as a matter of fact, after world war ii, the united states funded 69% of the annual global r&d. today we fund less than 28%. with only 7% going to nondefense technologies. again, like wireless, something that i know a little bit about and will speak to again in a moment. to get back to where we once were and reassert the united states technology leadership, we need to reprioritize foundational technologies to maintain not just our country's economic leadership but to also make sure that our values are built in to these increasing technology areas. the truth is for so many years, not only did we invent many of these breakthrough technologies here. even if we didn't invent them here in the united states, we would then set the rules, the

procedures, the protocols, the standards around these new technology development. we've seen that in semiconductors for a long time. we saw it in commuting. we saw it in the internet. we saw it in wireless. we saw it in satellites. but time and again now, we're suddenly seeing china flood the zone of these standards it embodies and when you set the standards, you also reflect your values. so values that we bring to the table like transparency, like respect for piewm rights, those go out the window when china sets the rule around 5g that basically allows traffic to always pass through beijing, even if you're making a phone call between st. louis and san francisco, why does that traffic have to be routed through beijing unless there's malicious interest at stake. if you set the rules, you drive not only technology advancement -- the technology, you drive so many other things. as chairman of the senate committee on intelligence, i

have long been banging the drum about the way that the p.r.c. is taking advantage of what our country -- what makes our country's economic system so great. our openness, our transparency, our free markets. the chinese government, unfortunately, plays by a different set of rules. the chinese government starts with the willingness to use all the tools of its intelligence services, sometimes its student population that has added so much value to our country, and enormous thefts of intellectual property. some public estimates are north of $500 billion a year. the chinese government as well is using all aspects of its society to increase china's dominance, from the intellectual property theft that i talked about to opaque subsidies and financing that always favors a

chinese vendor. and, unfortunately, for many our trading partners, the deal that is offered by the chinese firm is often either too good or linked to another development -- i'm going to build you a road, i'm going to build you a port, but you've got to buy at huawei as the price of that -- we, as america, or even the west, for that matter, has not kept up on a financing basis. that's why in the endless front tears bill that we are debating right now, a bill that will make substantial investments in the national science foundation and the department of energy, our national labs, both great national assets, in this bill as well we're actually doing more than authorizing new ideas and new advancements; we're actually finally -- finally -- putting our money where our mouth is. that's why i included the

utilizing the strategic communications act, which is basically $2 billion to invest in making sure that in america we have and in the west we have a competitor against huawei. i've come to this floor and talked about the national security threat huawei presents to america and to a lice. if you don't have a -- and to our allies. but if you don't have a competitor priced on a fair basis, what do you expect to do? what do you expect an ally country to do? or for that matter, what do you expect many of the rural telcos to do? i was proud to work with two of my colleagues, senator burr and senator rubio. we put up a public wireless supply chain innovation fund to spur investments towards open architecture, innovative,

leap-ahead technologies in our domestic mobile market. and what we're really talking about doing -- and i know i've talked to the presiding officer about this and others -- is, you know, in 5g we're almost so far behind at this point that we have to leapfrog ahead. one way we can leapfrog ahead is by developing open ram, or open radio access. let's move away from a hardware based system to a software based system. we move to an area where there are a host of american and other enterprise systems where we're already far ahead. what we've got to also do as well is combine this investment -- and we've got close to $500 million on this -- to also invest in a multilateral fund.

the truth is, no single american company on its own can take on this enormous challenge that the whole chinese state, backing their chinese champion, there's no way we can take that on on our own. so how do we think, with our other democratic allies around the world, the g-7 but also other countries like india and israel and taiwan, that we can collaborate on this technology development, think about how we compete on an economic basis and statement make sure that we -- and at the same time make sure we install that's values around transparency, an open and competitive system, that those are built into technology development. second item is this -- crucially, this bill also

addresses the essential need for us to invest in semiconductors. we are finally putting our money where our mouth is. this appropriate onage emergency basis $-- this bill will appropriate on an emergency basis $52 million. this builds upon legislation that we added to the defense authorization bill lasted year. it is bipartisan p senator schumer, cotton, kelly are all working together on this with a host of others because the semiconductor industry, while we've seen some sliding, still represents one of the shining lights of our country's innovative economy. and as a wider away -- and as a wider array of services depend on software processing, the demand for semiconductors has only grown. as i outlined at the top, unfortunately that leadership position we've had for so long

is at stake. so the chips act, which was built in -- baked into the endless frontiers act, directs agencies like the department of commerce, in consultation with others like our intelligence community, to make investments in microelectronics r&d priority. it brings greater transparency and accountability to subsidies. it alliance policies towards non--- our policies towards nontransparent nonmarket competitors like the chinese. and it to make sure we have concerted action with our enemies on supply chain, security, and inferring grit. it invests billions in basic research related to advanced semiconductors, via d.o.d. and a newly created semiconductor

technology center. and it makes an unprecedented investment in trying to build new foundries, fabs, basic manufacturing facilities here in the united states so we have that supply security chain -- secure supply chain for the future. $39 billion in that fund i believe will help us build seven to ten new fabs right here in the united states. and whether they're in the presiding officer's state or virginia or elsewhere, you know, our states will have to invest as well. many of these facilities cost anywhere from $12 billion to $15 billion by the time you build them and keep them operating until they hit some level of profitability. so some level of american national investment is needed to make sure at least some some of

these will be built in the united states. whether it's chips for auto motive, aerospace, our cell phones, you name it the billions of internet things/devices, almost all rely on semiconductors. let's make sure those chips are built, designed, and produced here and that those elsewhere in the world are often done in countries that are allies. so the endless frontier act, which includes both the investment in 5g and o-ram and obviously the semiconductors, serves as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to solidify leadership. it will strengthen our national security and reinvigorate american ingenuity. the truth is, colleagues on both sides of the aisle i know are supportive of these efforts. i hope next week that we pass this bill with a massive

majority. then it will be quickly acted upon by the house. because i know our domestic industries are watching us. i know our adversaries are as well. and it will be wonderful if we can finally move beyond simile talking about -- simply talk about the challenges china presents and make the kind of tangible investments that americans have made in the past. with that, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorumquorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. cortez masto: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. ms. cortez masto: i ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i understand that there are two bills at the desk and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the first time en bloc. the clerk: s. 1775, a bill to address gun violence and so forth and for other purposes. h.r. 3237, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year-ending september 30, 2021, and for other purposes. ms. cortez masto: i now ask for

a second reading and i object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 194. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution, 194, celebrating the 149th anniversary of arbor day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. ms. cortez masto: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, all in favor say aye.

all opposed, say no. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the king amendment at the desk be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: the resolution is agreed to. is there objection to the amendment to the preamble? without objection. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 228, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 228, designating may 15, 2021, as kids to parks day. the presiding officer: is there an objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions

to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in my lifetime, children has gone from a poor and isolated country to

now accounting for nearly 20% of global gross domestic product. there is no doubt the chinese people have contributed to this success, but we know the driving force behind this dramatic rise is the aggressiveness of the chinese communist party. its aims can be summed up with four r's, resist, reduce, replace, and reorder. china resists american economic influence by manipulating american businesses and industries and stealing intellectual property. it reduces internal dissent and free expression of ideas through massive surveillance and censorship of its own people and it seeks to exert its power and influence in the united states. the chinese communist party intends to replace america as the world's technology leader

through the made in china 2025 initiative, which seeks to achieve chinese dominance in tie tech manufacturing, and finally, mr. president, it hopes to reorder international norms and institutions around itself. that's their vision. that's their strategy. that's their plan. now the chinese communist's party ruling strategy can best be described as when at all costs. in other words, they do not play by the same rules we do. and make no mistake, these am bitions paint -- ambitions paint an alarming picture for the united states and our allies. former attorney general bill barr said last year, quote, it's clear that the p.r.c., or people republic's of china seeks not to join other advanced industrial economies but to replace them

all together. everything from electric cars to advanced robotics to artificial intelligence, china aspires to lead global production and to dominate global production and they are throwing serious money into the effort to get china there. china's expected to spend $1.4 trillion by 2025, covering investments in everything from 5g to artificial intelligence. this is the no the time for the united states to be complacent to sit back and watch the chinese communist party pursue tech domination. by the time it made significant progress, we would be too late. we node to take action now to ensure that our economy and our military can continue to outcompete china and that's precisely what we can achieve through the endless frontier act. as leader mcconnell said, a robust -- a robust amendment process will be critical to this

piece of legislation as i was discussing with senator schumer this morning for most members this 1,500-page substitute bill landed on their desk just a little earlier this week. so it will take us a little time to understand and to digest the complexity and the ambitions, i should say, of this bill. in the coming days i hope that the senate will vote on amendments from both sides of the aisle that will strengthen this legislation and assure that it addresses the broad range of threats that we are facing. one of the most urgent priorities is to secure the supply chains of our most important products. we really learned that from the pandemic when the -- when the covid-19 virus hit starting in china and then spread around the world, we learned that china made most of the personal protective equipment in the world and thus we were competing

with china and other parts of the world to get access to the personal protective equipment that our first responders and health care workers and others needed in order to be safe. that was one of the first signs that our supply chains may be vulnerable. but before any piece of technology becomes usable for its audience that includes parts and pieces and materials that literally come from around the world. this was the theory of globalization, go wherever this product can be produced the least expensively, but we didn't count on pandemics. we didn't count on natural disasters, we didn't count on the potential for military conflict to jeopardize the availability of these essential products. regardless of where a product is finally assembled and packaged, each of those individual pieces

are key to protecting our supply chains of our most valuable assets. right now supply chains in everything from cars and cell phones to missile defense to communication systems are at risk because of one tiny piece of technology called a semiconductor or microelectric chip. it goes by numerous names. i've shown a floor chart previously, and i'll probably bring it out again sometime before we're through, but the fact is the united states relies heavily on other countries for these essential advanced semiconductors many nearly 90% of those companies -- of those chips are made by companies in southeast asia, including taiwan. in fact, taiwan alone produces 63% of the world's advanced semiconductors and we depend on

that sole source for these most advanced microchips. one company, taiwan semiconductor, accounted for more than half of the total foundry revenues last year. and as i said, companies in taiwan control 63% of the market. if for any reason that supply chain was cut off, it would lead to very, very serious economic and security consequences across our entire economy. in recent months, we've gotten a glimpse of what this might look like, particularly when it comes to our car manufacturing capacity. at the beginning of the pandemic automaker suppliers predicted a drop in car sales and so they canceled their orders for semiconductor chips. semiconductor manufacturers replaced the auto chip capacity with other in-demand products like chips for personal computers that kept kids learning while they were at home or chips that bent into -- went

into ventilators to keep covid-19 patients live. but american consumers kept buying cars at pre-pandemic rates and the carmakers needed to make up for the chips to meet that demand and unfortunately restoring the production of auto chips is not a quick or easy process. there's a long lead time in fact to manufacturing a single chip, which can take up a six months. although chip makers are filling chip orders, we're still likely to face a shortage that may last throughout the summer. in response, some automakers have removed certain technology and extra features like g.p.s. from vehicles in order to reduce the number of chips they made. some have laid off some of their workforce. but as bad as that may sound, mr. president, it could be much, much worse.

the squeeze we're feeling now is more or less the result of a backlog, and we have every expectation that in a few months things will return to normal. but what -- if instead of a supply -- what if the supply was cut off entirely? this is not some fictional doomsday scenario. it is a real possibility. our dependence on other countries for these chips could leave us in a very vulnerable position if access were suddenly cut off or restricted. unlike the supply chain shortages we experienced at the start of the pandemic for things like p.p.e., hand sanitizer and the like, there is no quick fix here. in order build a single chip, you need very expensive and highly advanced equipment. you need the skilled workforce. and as i said before, you need quite a bit of time because it can take up to months to build a

single chip, and that's asexualing you have the facility -- and that's assuming you have the facility and all the equipment set to go. a couple of weeks ago i met with executives in dallas who represent a full range of businesses impacted by the current chip shortage. an executive at corgo talked about how the process of building a new chip fabrication facility isn't just expensive, it's time-consuming. it can take years to receive all the high-functioning equipment necessary to build advanced microchips. building a foundry is a huge undertaking and requires a massive investment. a single foundry where these advanced semiconductors are built can cost upwards to $10 billion to $20 billion. and indeed that's the reason why we're so reliant on taiwan because it's a low-cost

provider. and, again, we made the mistake of thinking that cost was the only thing that mattered as opposed to dependability of our supply chain. so there is a clear need to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing and the united states is not the only country that sees the handwriting on the wall. other parts of the world from south korea to china itself to the european union are investing billions of dollars in new manufacturing capacity. right now, as i speak, there is one semiconductor foundry being planned for arizona by taiwan semiconductor. china is building 17 while we are just getting started to build one. as i said, the european union is investing huge amounts of money, about $35 billion.

south korea is investing $65 billion. and china is investing a whopping $150 billion in semiconductor manufacturing. other countries around the world recognize the risks to their economy and their national security, given the current semiconductor manufacturing landscape. our competitors are g tens of blls into supply and the -- billions into supply and that's why we introduced the chips for america act last year. the premise of this legislation is straightford, to create a federal incentive program to encourage chip manufacturing here in the u.s. of a. rather than rely on manufacturers in taiwan or china or compete against other countries for the limited supply of chips worldwide, let's bolster the supply of american made semiconductors.

this way we can secure our most critical supply chains, create thousands of well-paying american jobs and boost our global competitiveness by supplying made in america chips to our friends and allies around the world. we weren't alone in thinking this was a good idea. in fact, when we consider the authorization for this chips for america act in the defense authorization bill last december, it passed with a vote of 96-4 so it's clear that the entire senate understands the gravity of this issue and its importance. that authorization became law in january and now we have the job of fully funding these programs so they can actually get to work turning over dirt and getting these foundries off the ground. the strong support for this legislation on a bipartisan basis shows that it's a priority -- this is a priority for a

majority of the members of this body. there's no reason these funding programs shouldn't be bipartisan, too. and we're already seeing divisions about provisions related to the payment of prewailing wage -- bacon provisions which is frankly dividing us which is moot. it's a nonissue. yet some of our democratic colleagues decided to insert this divisive issue in this underlying endless frontier bill. we should not allow unnecessary or purely political provisions weaken our strong support to our consensus commitment to deal with these vulnerable supply chains. i'm committed to securing funding to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and there have been a lot of conversations about the most effective way to do so.

but let me be clear. the davis bay son pro-- bacon provisions inserted into the committee markup in the endless frontiers bill is jeopardizing this funding. i hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will work with us in good faith to come up with a compromise that allows this funding to pass with broad bipartisan support. just like the chips for america act. there's a clear and present need and i might say a clear and present danger to the united states. we need to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing and secure one of our most vulnerable supply chains. as i said, this is a matter of both our economic and national security, and something far too important to fall prey to partisan jockeying. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. cortez masto: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada is recognized. ms. cortez masto: i ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senior senator from nevada and the junior senator from virginia be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from may 20, 2021 through may 24, 2021. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it ajourney until 3:00 p.m. monday, may 24, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed.

further, upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of calendar number 58, senate resolution -- excuse me, senate bill 1260, that at 5:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of executive calendar number 117, chiquita brooks-lasure, to be administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services. final will you that the cloture motions ripen at 5:30 p.m. the presiding officer is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. cortez masto: if there is to further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the senate is working out a bill creating new science and

technology research programs that the purpose is for the u.s. to better compete with china. senators have been offering amendments they rejected to republican amendments dealing with defense spending levels and another amendment that would have stopped the biden administration and canceling border wall contracts. live coverage one senators return here on c-span2. ♪♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> you think it's just a community center? no, it's way more than that. >> partnering with 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled this so students from low income families get the tools they need to be ready for anything. >> comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> jennifer granholm testified before congress subcommittee about the president 2022 budget request talking about climate change and investment in renewable energy recent cyber attack on a colonial pipeline. that is tonight starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> c-span podcast book note plus. this week with "wall street journal" editorial board member and columnist jenkins, footnotes plus. episodes are available every tuesday morning. subscribe you get your podcast. there's more about the c-span podcast at c-span.org/podcast. ♪♪ >> saturday on the communicators, we talk about cancel culture with communications analyst may and

will. >> my concern here is there to that we should all agree this would be legitimate public debate that stifled or canceled. >> cancel culture is an expensive term used extensively in a bunch of range of different concerns but i typically narrow it to questions of as much as randy had said, ostracism and probably more specifically i'm concerned about those areas where people are fired for their positions. >> watch with telecommunications analyst randolph may saturday 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. senator jim inhofe on calls to abolish the electoral college to elect our use president. he spoke about the issue with the heritage foundation. >> welcome to today's electoral