speech in which he laid down what came to be known as the carter doctrine, this was two years as the soviet union invaded afghanistan, and he wanted to send a message that they should not mess with the oil that came through the strait of who strait of who are month. he said that anybody who comes through that area, that would be an act of war. i don't think it's an exaggeration to say if another country were to block our access to semiconductors, it could well rise to the same sort of act of war that jimmy carter warned about in 1980. in other words, semiconductors have become the new oil in terms of our defendency, and it's a dangerous dependency we must protect.

which is precisely why the senior senator from virginia and i, senator warner and i introduced the chips for america act. it's crucial that we shore up our dependence on chips manufactured overseas and we shore up our domestic production. the vast majority of our colleagues have agreed that this is a critical task. it was carefully crafted after months-long bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. and recently, we had a meeting at the white house and president biden agreed with us that this is a critical impairment, and so this is literally a bipartisan, bicameral agreement with the executive branch and legislative branch that this is something we need to fix. and so last fall when we took up the national defense authorization act, we introduced an amendment that authorized what we now hope to be able to pay for, which is an amendment to the national defense

authorization act which passed 96-4. so now we need to fund the program and there is just one issue standing in the way. during committee consideration of the endless frontiers act, an amendment was adopted that would apply controversial davis-bacon language to the underlying chips for america provision signed into law last year. this provision creates, i believe, an unnecessary distraction from our focus which should be on defeating this vulnerability in the supply chain. the fact is current wages of u.s. semiconductor manufacturing companies, they don't need davis-bacon. they pay much better than the prevailing wage that davis-bacon would require. so it's really a nonissue when it comes to semiconductor manufacturing. but what's more significant and i think the reason why some of our democratic friends are

insisting on this inclusion is it represents an expansion over labor policies by applying it to private construction as opposed to public works, and obviously this would set a troublesome precedent. leaving this language in the bill, i do believe has the poe essential to weaken support for the broader legislation, and i hope we can all agree that the stakes are too high to risk letting that happen. so last week i introduced an amendment to strike this unnecessary and divisive mission to maintain strong bipartisan support for the underlying chips for america legislation. a partisan provision with zero impact is hardly a reason to sacrifice the strong bipartisan support we have seen for the chips act. republicans and democrats have worked very closely together, and i think really an encouraging and responsible way to bolster domestic

manufacturing of semiconductors and confront one of the biggest looming threats to our national security and our economic security. and now is not the time to back pedal on the progress we have made. so soon i expect, mr. president, the senate will vote on my amendment later this evening, and i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment so we can maintain the strong bipartisan support we've demonstrated so far for this critical -- critical legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i come to follow my colleague from texas to talk about the very issue that he brought up, which is where is america going with semiconductor manufacturing, design, and development. and on this last point, i'm pretty sure we see things differently. i'm pretty sure that the majority or probably all of the

democrats will be enthusiastic about supporting both manufacturing in the united states as well as making sure that if federal dollars are used, prevailing wage should be applied. so i'm sure we'll differ on that point. but i think that we are, at least on our side of the aisle, supportive of this concept that that chip fabrication, chip manufacturing in the united states of america is an important sector and that we're facing a chip shortage and that we should do something about it. if you think about it, semiconductors are like the oil of the 21st century. they have become an essential aspect. they can be found in children's toys, in appliances and computers, in cell phones. our telecommunications networks, advanced national security technology, as my colleague was mentioning. they enable health care, artificial intelligence applications, financial services, certainly in the area of defense.

they have transformed how we communicate, how we learn, how we socialize, and yet they are so complex, the manufacturing so expensive it can does anywhere from $5 billion to almost $20 billion -- i think $20 billion is one number i have heard just to build these facilities. this is why this issue has become so important. the united states has had long leadership in the semiconductor area but massive investment from other nations puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to manufacturing. they are subsidizing and getting tax benefits to 40% to build in korea, then in the united states of america, so the endless frontiers act tries to address that because it really is a national security and telecommunications policy. in the 1990's, the u.s. produced over 37% of the global chip supply. as you know, here in the united

states, we have 48% of the world's aircraft production, but now these challenges as we look at the chip supply, they are down to 12%. so i noticed in "the wall street journal," they said why do we care? they basically are saying that chips in fabrication have become a commodity. we don't have to worry about it anymore. as long as we're winning on the design side, we don't care where it's manufactured. well, if you ask me, that's so 1980's. the idea that you could design a product here and then have it manufactured somewhere else. i mean, maybe that works with shoes or outdoor clothing, but it doesn't work with something as sophisticated, changing as a high-tech innovation product like semiconductors. in fact, i would say, you know, if you really think that that thinking is the type of thinking that works, look at what

happened -- it's pre-covid thinking. i mean, we thought we could have the design done here and basically some of these devices that we use here like ventilators, and we'll just produce them overseas. what could possibly go wrong? well, we figured out what could go wrong. if we're not manufacturing ventilators here in the united states, something could go wrong, and it did. so the question is what's going to go wrong if we don't manufacture chips in the united states of america? so the thing i don't think that the "wall street journal" quite got right is that they don't understand that in today's innovation cycle, having a cluster of design, of manufacturing, of supply chain, of customers, of everybody working together is the new way to have an economic advantage. in fact, a recent study done by a chicago research

organization -- i'm going to read from this report -- basically it's all about clusters and why clusters are so important. quote, an political cluster is a group of firms, stakeholders, supportive institutions that gain productive advantage from being geographically close to each other and related economies of scale. it continues by saying as groups and related industries grow and develop, clustering helps lower business costs, increase the extent of benefits of specialization, deeper labor pools, better access to customers, suppliers, knowledge spills over. these and other advantages derive from an environment where balanc competition and collaboration. i will submit that for the record. that is what is happening with semiconductors. the asian market is basically now become the epicenter for this level of production, and the question is are we just going to forgo that and end up

basically -- not 12% of market share here but 6% of market share. and then our suppliers are going to continue to go where the investments and the energy and the ideas are. so that is why in the united states of america where we still have clusters and various -- in various parts of the united states, my colleague from texas knows this well because he has a cluster in texas. my colleague from oregon who is out -- who was out here earlier, he knows because they have a cluster there. there are clusters in places like arizona. so this is about whether the united states of america is going to continue to make this investment ourselves. chips are essential to our national security and to telecommunications. in 1990, we produced over 37% of global chip supply. we need to continue to make sure that we are going to be an investor in chip fabrication today. today, as i said, we're at an

inflection point because of what's happening on a global basis. according to goldman sachs, in 69 industries in the u.s. have products with embedded semiconductors, and there will be a 20% shortfall of components needed for those products. last month, caterpillar, headquartered in illinois, said it anticipated chip shortage impairing its ability to meet growing demand of construction and mining equipment, so we're not just talking about kids' gaming consoles or computers. we are talking about many sectors of our economy that depend on this. national security experts agree that if there were a greater trade war or military conflict, the united states would not be able to fill its demand for chips for national security and critical infrastructure. so that means people like car manufacturers and appliances, you think about 5g and new technology, the postpandemic economy won't be able to keep

moving forward. the shortage also forced the auto sector to cut 27,000 jobs in april alone. earlier this year, general motors temporarily shut down three north american plants due to the shortage. ford cut back michigan production of f-150's and the popular explorer and dodge is ruing workers' schedules in a nevada plant producing jeep grand cherokee and dodge durango. so these are having real-life impacts on us today. the question is we had a ripple of this just because of covid. what if we had a ripple of this because somebody decided not to supply things to us? and these are things that we have to worry about just from a national security perspective. you have to worry whether we are going to get a supply chain that we can depend on. so we really are at an inflection point. we're at an inflection point

where we need to do something about this sector. so one of the issues that i alsd private r&d, they make huge investments. what we're talking about here represents a very small r&d investment partnership with the private sector as it relates to this. but we what we are talking abous trying to get more manufacturing jobs here in the united states. so my colleague was just discussing this sector overall, and one of the things that people should think about -- and i'm pretty sure people at home won't be able to see this, but these jobs in production and in various aspects of design and various -- even on some of the other aspects, even in management, computer, these are all well-paying jobs. these are jobs that literally

are the types of jobs we want to be producing in the united states. i heard this story about idaho, micron, a company that used to be major chip fabrication. but the number of jobs in boise, idaho, has fallen off, probably in the thousands, because this production has gone to other places. and now we're replacing them with call center jobs. so the question is whether we're going to make this investment in a key technology critical to our national security, critical to a lot of applications of the technology future, whether it's 5g or a.i. or various things, and whether we're going to be a competitor in this area of a supply chain and cluster that continues to innovate. well, we know for a fact that semiconductor jobs in the production area are literally $94,000 a year.

that's why we're fighting for this, because it's a sector in just the production end that are high-paying jobs. so we're going to spend time letting things go overseas and basically, okay, will allow us to have call centers, or are we going to fight for these high-paying jobs in the semiconductor space that we know will help us maintain our expertise and skill in the united states? so i ask my colleagues to just think about the fact that this motion it that we -- this notion that we design something here and we ship it overseas for cheap production does not fit this bill. that is not what we need to do to maintain a competitiveness in the information age on something as important as semiconductors. i think our history is rich with people like thomas edison and the edison park in what we

established in new jersey, or menlo park, or know what exists in seattle or various places. people get the innovation happens in clusters. so if we're going to innovate, we have to make sure the united states is attracting this investment. we have to make sure that we are doing this here on our shores with the expertise and support. now a lot of my colleagues might say, well, you know what, let's just have the private sector do this r&d. as i said, the private sector spends a lot on r&d. in fact, we think about $377 billion a year the private sector spends on r&d. but as we know, r&d isn't just done by the private sector for their specific interests. basic science, advanced -- lots of advanced research and applied science is done by the united states. that's why this bill is plussing

up this number here from the national science foundation. we had discussions here about plussing up the number from the department of energy. obviously we had a vote in the senate even increasing the defense advanced research program agency and their dollars. so what works about the united states of america is that we're an ecosystem. we're not a top-down. it's not like we basically are the government saying this is what's going to be done. we create an ecosystem that's really based on american know-how. our ingenuity and how to get things done. and what we're asking for as it relates to not only n.s.f. funding to continue the work of r&d as it relates to semiconductors, but also to make sure that we're going to continue the focus of manufacturing and design and r&d and development and clustering

and supply chain and companies working together. i know how important this is because in the seattle area, in washington state we are a leader in aerospace technology. we're 49% in the united states of aerospace manufacturing. if you don't keep manufacturing, do you think the supply chain would stay in seattle? do you think the supply chain would stay there in seattle forever, all those companies? we have hundreds of companies that make product for boeing. do you think they would stay there if they weren't there? they will end up moving where the manufacturing is. that is what the information age is about, and it's certainly about that when it comes to technology products. the technology products are developed faster, quicker, with the innovation and the input from their customers. that's why if you look at these centers around the united

states, they are also the places where you will find the biggest users of this technology. they're there and they're there because they want to be close to their customers. they want to understand their customer needs. they want to have interaction. they want to have collaboration. and that is what innovation is today. innovation is doing design and manufacturing close together. that is how we win. and that is why we need to pass this legislation as it relates to an investment in chip design and manufacturing r&d and to continue to attract manufacturing in the united states. back to my colleague from texas who i know agrees with this principle in an underlying way, when the federal government wants to make an investment in actual construction, we say that we should apply prevailing wage. and i've talked to many of these

people in the semiconductor manufacturing design space. they say do you see how expensive it is to do these plants? do you see how expensive the equipment is? it's very expensive. so we need the best workforce. so guess what? we pay prevailing wage. so we're saying because we are putting federal dollars on the table, we should pay prevailing wage. they think we should also pay prevailing wage. i'm not speaking for them, but in general they feel like that is when they get their best product. so i ask our colleagues, because i'm sure i know where my side of the aisle is. we're going to be here to make an investment in this particular sector. we are going to figure out how to be competitive against asia in semiconductor manufacturing. we are going to continue, as andy grove said, to be paranoid

because we know that this is a changing landscape. and we are going to follow our colleagues who made these decisions and make an investment for the future. so i ask our colleagues to turn down the motion to strike the underlying bill, the underlying bill already has this provision in it. to turn that down and let's get about this business of budget point of order, waiving it and deciding to make the investment that we need to make to be competitive in a key sector of the u.s. economy. and if we do that, i guarantee you, we will be well positioned to continue to move forward in our national security will be more secure because we've made this decision. i thank the president, and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise today to mark military appreciation month and pay tribute to the many military members and veterans who sacrifice and provide service to our nation. this month provides an opportunity to show immense gratitude to all those who don the uniform in our armed forces. the freedoms and blessings we enjoy as a nation have been secured by their hard work and determination. military appreciation month culminates on memorial day, the

date set aside to honor the men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation. while we honor them on memorial day we remember their loss every day and extend gratitude to their loved ones and those who continue to serve. we also recognize that those who serve do not serve alone. the friends and family of those in the service of our country also serve, and those who have lost loved ones know too well the cost of our freedoms. i believe that we best honor and pay tribute to our military members by thanking them both past and present but also by assuring they have the resources and support that they have so richly earned. as a member of the senate defense and veteran affairs appropriations committee, i have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our veterans and military members are properly trained and equipped and receive the care, benefits, and recognition that they were promised. our service members and their families have given much in defense of our nation, in the

state of north dakota especially has a rich tradition of military service. my state is home to some of the country's premier air force installations including the minot and grand forks air force bases and the cavalier air station. we have more than 7,300 active duty service members currently serving in north dakota performing missions that are essential to our national security. in addition, more than 4,400 men and women serve in the north dakota national guard and current more than 53,000 veterans call north dakota home. we are grateful for the many service members and veterans who have served our country and we honor their service every day, but especially during military appreciation month. we will never forget the sacrifices of those who gave their lives so we can enjoy the freedoms that we are so blessed to have today and every day. and there's no better example of service and sacrifice than that of our greatest generation, and so i'd like to honor two world war ii veterans as well as the

kiwanis club of minot, north dakota, to which they have been lifelong members. this year marks the 100th anniversary of the minot kiwanis clubs as well as the 100 year birthdays of mr. lynn oz and mr. since its founding the kiwanis club made my hometown a better place to live. as a former member myself of this organization, i deeply appreciate their continued dedication and contributions to the community and the surrounding area. some examples of their work include donating books to schools, supporting yards and raising money for local service organizations like the boy scouts, juvenile drug court and domestic violence crisis centers. in these ways minot republican

republican -- kiwanis center makes a real different to family and children in the region. and two individuals who have been lifelong members of that group, the very same year that organization turns 100, it's their 100th birthday as well. as part of the greatest generation and as world war ii veterans, lin oz and john sinn have been an important part of the community in important ways and set an example in the service they deliver throughout their lives even after world war ii. a native of mclean county, north dakota, lin oz fought as a rifle man in the historic battle of the bulge. he served with the 17th air airborne division and received the bronze star, the purple heart and the french legion of honor medal. following the war, he returned to his home state where he earned his law degree from the university of north dakota.

in addition to being a lifelong kiwanis member he served in our state legislature for four sessions. as president of the minot chamber of commerce served on the board of the united way, and so many, many other worthwhile things and his family and my family have been friends for as long as i can remember, truly a great american. also john sinn, another veteran of world war ii, has his 100th birthday as well. as a member of 386th regiment he earned the bronze star. he returned home, eventually coming to work for the u.s. army corps of engineers. he retired in 1989. however rather than taking a well earned rester, he has continued to serve the community as a volunteer and included among his volunteer efforts, he's best known for work to

improve and maintain the scandinavian park, a beautiful scandinavian park in the community. it's trial an iconic outdoor museum that is central to the community's identity and home to the annual north hoof fest, the largest celebration in scandinavian culture in history and the presiding officer is invited any time he wants to join us. it's a wonderful festival with wonderful food. the best view of the park can be found at john sinn outlook. we recognize the hard work, dedication and service of lynn aas, john sinn and the entire kiwanis club as they celebrate their 100th birthdays this year and it is appropriate to take this time to recognize their hard work, their dedication, their service. and so i've submitted a resolution honoring them today.

with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor tonight -- by the way, i'm thrilled that we're passing this legislation. it's amazing to be, i'm sure you would agree, in a senate that's actually returned to regular order, and we're passing amendments on both sides of the aisle. i think we're going to have a big bipartisan vote here in the senate. and having been here for a number of years when the senate didn't operate that way was incredibly dysfunctional, it is a great, great privilege to be

here at a moment when it is working. so i want to express my sense of gratitude for that, mr. president. but i also want to, i want to call the president's attention to news reports this afternoon that say that our colleagues on the republican side of the aisle have decided they're going to block this bipartisan commission to examine what happened on january 6. that they're are going to use the filibuster here to block a commission that some of them actually called for and a commission that i think, mr. president, 35 members -- republican members of the house of representatives supported. and i wanted to come to the floor to appeal to their conscience and to ask them to

consider the damage that it will do to our democracy to not have this commission, as we've done at other important moments in the country's history. and, mr. president, you were here on january 6. i was here on january 6. we had been sent here, came here to accomplish the administerial task that we are required after a presidential election is concluded, to certify the results of that election, to certify the ballots of millions and millions and millions of americans who voted in the last election. that's why we were here. unfortunately, we had a president at that time who denied that the election had actually happened. the president will remember that we also had colleagues that came to this floor and said that we

were disrespecting the president's base -- or their base -- because we were certifying the election. instead of having enough respect for their base to tell them the truth, which was that the election had been decided by millions of voters and by every court that looked at it and by incredibly brave local officials, many of them republicans, who wouldn't allow the president to push them around. the 6th was a terrible day here.

the people that invaded this capitol, the people that stormed the platform that had been set up for the peaceful transfer of power on january 20 when joe biden took the oath of office, the people that came here on january 6 cursed the capitol police, they bludgeoned the capitol police, they speared them, they hurled racial epithets, leading some of our african american police officers here to ask what had happened to america, they broke windows in

the capitol, they looted the parliamentarian's office, the people who would bravely carry the ballots out of this chamber when we were led to the hart building and protect those ballots. they could have ended up getting burned out on the national mall if they hadn't had the presence of mind to do their job, just like the capitol police who were in mortal danger that day doing their job. and i remember when we were all together in one of the senate office buildings, after they had rushed us out of here. we would later see that the mob was just a hallway away from here and actually they were misdirected by another capitol police officer who put his life

in jeopardy to move them out of the way. and we were taken to another building, the senate office building. and it was in that room, mr. president -- we were crowded in that room. it was in that room that i saw a scene that i never thought i would ever see as an american on the tv sets that were on the walls of that room. while we were inside the room, we were watching the scene that everyone else in the country and everyone else across the world was watching of the united states capitol being invaded by our own people.

i know the president will remember that when he was growing up, when i was growing up, that was not an uncommon sight to see in countries all over the world. there are a lot of countries that have had events like january 6 over the world, especially when there's been transitions of power or a tyrant unwilling to give up their power but in a million years i would never have imagined that it would happen here. and it did happen. and it sent a message all over the planet. while we were in that room unable to certify this election, the chinese government had the greatest propaganda win that you

could imagine. and in the weeks that followed, they've said democracy is in decline, democracy is failing. that's what the russians are saying. that's what the iranians are saying. and when i was there in that room that day, i thought a lot about my mom and her parents who were polish jews and survived the holocaust. the whole family was killed except for them and an aunt, and they were lucky enough after the war was over, they went to stockholm, sweden, for a year, they went to mexico city for a year, and then they kim here, to the only un--- and then they came here, to the only country in the world where they thought they could rebuild their shattered lives, and i did. so even worse for me than the thought of the our adversaries

using this to undermine democracy was the understanding that people all over the world situated just like my mom and her parents would lose hope in the american ideal, would lose hope in democracy and in the rule of law. now, the good news is, we actually had a january 20, mr. president. a lot of countries that go through a january 6 never get to a january 20, and wees had that. when joe biden -- and we had that. when joe biden took the oath of office and he became president of the united states and kamala harris became vice president of the united states, and we had, notwithstanding all of the prior

president's efforts to the contrary -- and some of his allies in congress' efforts -- we had, to the contrary, a peaceful transfer of power. but consider how close we came, not just on the 6th, but consider what would have happened if elected officials, many of them republicans -- in georgia and in arizona and in michigan -- hadn't fulfilled their obligations to the rule of law, hadn't lived up to their oath of office, bent to the will of a president who didn't want to relinquish hour. where would we be then? imagine, mr. president, if the

democrats instead of winning a narrow majority in the house of representatives lost the majority in the house of representatives and 140 or more -- 148 republican votes to decertify the election to overturn the will of the voters, to disenfranchise millions and millions and millions of americans all of a sudden was a majority doing that, as the former president would have wanted. imagine, mr. president, if 60 judges, many of them republicans appointed by president trump, who hauled the president's lawyers out of courtroom out of courtroom out of courtroom, because instead of doing what the president wanted them to do, instead of finding them a few more votes, as he said to the

secretary of state in georgia, recorded on the phone, they did their job as judges, and they withstood the pressure. they swore an oath, and they fulfilled their oath. that's the only way democracy can actually work is when elected officials and judicial officials apply the rule of law, fulfill their oath and their obligation. and, mr. president, what i want to say to my colleagues today, i want to implore them and appeal to their conscience because the responsibility to the democracy is not over. the democracy is still at risk. we still have a president of the united states, a former president, who refuses to concede the election, who on a

daily basis almost says that the election was stolen. we still have members of congress who are saying the election was stolen. we still have members of congress who won't face the facts and tell their constituents the truth. i want to say again, respect your constituents enough that you're going to tell them the truth h -- the truth. and that's why at difficult moments in our history, like after president kennedy was killed or the challenger exploded, when 9/11 happened, we've had a bipartisan commission to make sure we understood what led us here and how we can do better coming out

of this. it's never been perfect, but it's worked pretty well. and that's what we need here. we need to understand what pled millions of americans -- what led millions of americans to believe conspiracy theories about our own country and what led thousands of people to storm the capitol of the united states, to attack police officers, to kill -- to attack police officers leading to their death. from all over the country they came to invade this capitol. and if we don't want it to happen again or we want to be able to protect ourselves -- and i'm not just talking about the poor capitol police, although that, at a bare minimum, ought to be enough to warrant a commission -- i'm talking about the danger of political violence

in this nation going forward. if we don't address this and the american people don't have the chance to understand what happened. as i mentioned, that night on january 6 standing at this desk on the floor, political violence is what brings republics to an end. i'm going to finish, mr. president, because i know there are others that want to speak. but met me just finish by saying how agonizing it was to watch officer sicknick's mom here today, going door-to-door to door to ask people, please vote for this commission. and i hope that people will reconsider. i hope they'll search their conscience. the people around the world who watched january 6 are watching

us today. and they want to know if democracy is up to the challenges of the 21st century. i believe it is. i believe it is. i think democracy is the highest expression of humanity on earth. and we're being tested in all kinds of ways right now. externally and internally. this would give us the chance to at least deal with the internal question. and i think at a moment like this, it is important for us not to stand for a party or for a president, but for the truth. and for common sense and for our scatters in self-government. mr. president, for all those reasons, i hope that when we have the vote tonight, that it

will succeed and the american people will have the benefit of a bipartisan commission to examine what happened on januard how we can strengthen our democracy. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schatz: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. the senate has a solemn duty to exercise and fulfill u.s. federal trust responsibilities. this duty is the guiding principle for all of our work on behalf of american indians, alaska natives, and native hawaiians. so as the chairman of the senate committee on indian affairs, it's my job to prioritize and push tribal and native communities' legislative priorities towards the finish line and ultimately to actually enact legislation. the indian affairs committee has

a strong tradition of bipartisanship going back decades. committee members on both sides of the aisle routinely work together to achieve their own native communities' goals. when there are disagreements, we do everything we can to work them out internally and to find common ground so that members aren't forced to air their disagreements when the bills get to the floor. in fact, just last night, the senate passed eight indian affairs bills unanimously. those bills would among other things promote economic development, protect native children, honor heibel self-determination, -- honor tribal self-determination. time and again, we have shown that the indian affairs bills can rise above partisan logjams. that compromise can be found. but here we are. h.r. 478, which passed the house on may 12, 2021, under suspension of the rules would help to rebuild tribal homelands

and s. 789 which passed the senate unanimously in late november of 2019 would repeal 11 obsolete racist, unenforced laws that are inconsistent with the current government-to-government relationship enjoyed by united states and indian tribes. both bills would likely be laws right now if the covid pandemic had not disrupted our legislative work last year. both bills are good policy. that's why both republican and democratic administrations support them. and the senate should have passed these bills last night but because there was an objection to their inclusion in the ten-bill package, we find ourselves here again. the indian affairs committee, as is tradition, has negotiated in good faith to clear up any concerns there may be, but those efforts were not successful. which leads me to this moment. so when it comes to fulfilling the u.s. trust responsibility, there is no room for

partisanship. and so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc -- calendar number 59, h.r. 478, blackwater trading post land transfer act, and calendar number 53, s. 789, the respect act. further, that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object. one of the bills in question, specifically s. 478, would direct the secretary of the interior to take 55.3 acres of land owned by the heiler river indian community into trust. the heiler river indian reservation is already 583 square miles with a population

of 11,000. the heiler river indian community already owns this land. so why we need to take more land into trust and have the federal government more involved in the management of the land is not immediately obvious or apparent to me. the answer is not at all clear as to why it needs to be in trust. trust land responsibilities for the federal government are significant, and before we expand the size of our trust lands, we have to have an understanding of what we're doing and the actual need to do it. proponents of this legislation have claimed that the tribe has a unique history with this particular plot of land, this particular 55.3 acres of land adjacent to the tribe's trust land. but from the history shown, the tribe's interaction with the land is mostly that they have

had friendly neighbors with whom they have traded goods. as many of my colleagues are aware, i have great concerns that i have quite consistently expressed with further expanding the federal government's management or involvement in public lands, including trust lands. nevertheless, i have been engaging in associations and i have made a number of good-faith efforts to develop a possible path forward, one in which the amount of acreage owned or held in trust by the federal government would not grow while also -- while taking this land into trust for the gila river indian community. and while i continue to negotiate a path forward, i'm not inclined to abandon this concern. this is a negotiation that has been in progress. that said, with respect to the

part of the request dealing specifically with s. 789, the respect act, i am willing to let that go, but if the request is to pass both of these by unanimous consent, i can't support that, and on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: mr. president, a couple of points on taking -- we're talking about 53 acres being taken into trust. this is not like the federal government is going to have new land management responsibilities. this is a matter of principle for the senator from utah, and i recognize that, but he thinks basically no additional land should be taken into trust, even though this government-to-government relationship is -- the authority over the government-to-government relationships are enshrined in the constitution of the united

states, and this government-to-government relationship has already been established by statutory law, and the process for putting land into trust is already a well-established pathway. but what the senator from utah is saying is no more or we're going to have to do a one for one swap or even sometimes a two for one swap that you cannot have a net increase in the acreage. even if it's 53 acres, even if there is an established process. and so i do find that difficult to work with. i know that the senators from arizona are in discussions with the senator from utah. we will find a way forward. this is 53 acres. it is important, obviously. we're going to enact this legislation. i like the senator from utah. we will find a way on this one. but if he would entertain an amendment to the request, then i would -- i would be pleased to pass the respect act by voice vote if that is something the senator from utah would be

amenable to. mr. lee: mr. president, i will fully amenable to that. i would accept that. mr. schatz: i may need staff help on so modifying my request. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 783 -- calendar number 53. the clerk: a bill to repeal certain obsolete laws relating to indians. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schatz: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the

bill. all in favor say aye. any opposed nay. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. mr. schatz: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. it will come as no surprise to anyone that i am extremely proud to be born and raised in michigan. our state leads the world in innovation. we are the leaders in making things -- furniture and appliances and wind turbines and solar components and so much more, and of course we are the home of the automobile. and the automotive assembly line. and the middle class of america. our workers put the world on four wheels.

they built an economy strong enough that those same workers could afford to buy one or two or more cars and instruction that they made. yet our nation faces a stark choice right now, and that's why the bill in front of us tonight is so very important. we can continue to invest in making things in america or we can decide that it's not really worth the trouble anymore. we can continue to lead the world in the research and development of breakthrough technologies or we can allow other countries to surge ahead while we tread water. and we can stand with our workers on the assembly lines as they build the vehicles of the future or we can watch our plants close, ship our jobs overseas, and let our middle class wither away. our choice. but i would argue that we would

have no choice, that is not a choice at all. we know what we need to do. it's time to stand on the side of american manufacturing, as this bill does. it's time to stand on the side of american ingenuity, as this bill does. and it's time to stand on the side of american workers and our american middle class. it's time to take a stand, invest in our shared future, and build an economy that can compete with anyone anywhere any time. that's america. that's what the u.s. innovation and competition act does. one of our first orders of business is to increase our investment in research and development, and we have no te to lose. american r&d spending is near the lowest point in 60 years, lowest point in 60 years. what else happened 60 years ago?

well, the first person flew in space, and he wasn't an american. that fact helped light a fire under american leaders. they understood that we could invest in r&d or left the soviet union surge ahead, and we did. today we're in a race with china, and they are gaining on us. in 2019, china's investment in r&d grew by about 13%. ours grew 8%. and they plan to boost r&d spending by 7% each year through 2025. that's why it's so important that we pass the u.s. innovation and competition act. it will invest $120 billion over five years in critical, critical research, including artificial intelligence, advanced computing, and semiconductors.

and it will quadruple the investment for the manufacturing extension partnership and provides $1.2 billion for the manufacturing u.s.a. program. that's especially important in michigan. we're proud to have two manufacturing u.s.a. initiatives in our state. lightweight innovations for tomorrow, or lift, and michigan state university's scaleup research facility or surf. both are located in the same facility in detroit, and it's a very exciting place. lift's projects include research into better welding processes for navy ships and an antirollover system for military humvees, and surf is partnering with the department of energy and ford and g.m. to make sure that america is a leader in advanced vehicle technologies. we're equally proud of our amazing research institutions, including michigan state university, the university of michigan, wayne state, and michigan tech.

today's students are tomorrow's engineers. we know that. we're counting on their brainpower to build a future in which cars are connected and collisions are a memory. that future is being written today at the american center for mobility in michigan and m city at the university of michigan where connected and automated vehicles are tested, evaluated and demonstrated. it's really amazing to see, mr. president. and it's being written by michigan auto makers who are working towards a day when cars are emissions free, emissions free. i know that president biden was impressed by ford's new f-150 lightning that he test drove in michigan last week. i think it was hard to get him out of the car, he thought it was so cool. last month i toured g.m.'s new factory zero which will soon be manufacturing electric hummers

and silverado trucks, chevy silverado trucks. and in detroit, sallentis is gearing up to build the jeep. it's what we've always done in michigan. we make things and grow things. that's what we do. unfortunately making things has gotten more difficult recently. covid-19 exposed the weaknesses in our supply chain and a shortage of semiconductors has idled multiple auto plants across the country, many in michigan. auto dealers that are normally packed with every make and model under the sun suddenly have fewer choices. and worse, michigan workers have been laid off. no chips, no cars, no work. it's not enough to just build cars.

to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we need to build the parts, the component parts that go into the cars and trucks that we build in america. the supply chain. in 1990, 37% of global semiconductor manufacturing capacity was here in the united states. 37%. today it's 12%. we're definitely going in the wrong direction, and this is very serious. and the importance of these shifts keep growing. other countries have invested in chip manufacturing. it's time we do the same. the u.s. innovation and competition act provides $39 billion in the commerce department for incentives that will boost semiconductors. that manufacturing in the u.s. and make our supply chain more

resilient. it includes $2 billion to incentivize the production of mature semiconductor technologies, the kind of chips used by our auto companies and home appliances and defense manufacturing. i'm pleased that yesterday the finance committee passed the clean energy for america act which will help michigan and our country launch the next generation of michigan manufacturing. it includes my bipartisan legislation with senator manchin and senator daines to help companies invest in new clean energy manufacturing facilities and expand existing plants to build those new technologies, including semiconductors and battery operations. another way we can boost american manufacturing is to make sure every single american taxpayer dollar possible is spent on american-made products.

my bipartisan make it in america act with senator braun makes it harder for federal agencies to use waivers or loopholes to get around buy american rules to purchase foreign-made products. i also want to thank senator tammy baldwin, senator sherrod brown for their continued leadership on these buy america issues. the federal government is an enormous consumer, and we're set to make big infrastructure investments. buy american rules mean that american dollars flow into local economies when we purchase american-made p.p.e., american-made iron and steel and great american electric vehicles. it's time to invest in the research and development that turns american ingenuity into american innovation and u.s. ingenuity into u.s. innovation.

it's time to build an american supply chain that can build american products, american jobs in american communities. and it's time to ensure that american tax dollars are supporting those businesses and those workers. i'm proud to say michigan workers built our nation. it's time for our nation to return the favor. the bill this evening on the floor is a critical step forward in making sure that happens. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, last week something happened here in the capitol which was unique. i'm not sure it's ever happened before. it was reported an anonymous

group of capitol hill police officers published an open letter to members of congress. i've been here a few years, i've never heard of anything quite like this. here's what these capitol hill police officers who are entrusted with the responsibility of keeping us safe in the capitol wrote. on january 6, where some officers served their last day in u.s. capitol police uniform, and not by choice, we would hope that members whom we took an oath to protect would at a very minimum support an investigation to get to the bottom of everyone responsible and hold them 100% accountable no matter the title or position they hold or held. challenge from the capitol hill police to the members of congress not to sweep under the

carpet january 6, but to get to the bottom of it capitol hill policemen were attacked and died as a result of that insurrectionist mob on january 6. and these officers who risk their lives every day for us are begging us not to ignore what happened. yesterday in "politico" the mother of fallen police officer brian sicknick wrote and i quote, not having a january 6 commission to look into exactly what occurred is a slap in the face of all officers who did their jobs that day. i met gladys sicknick when the memorial to her son was held in the rotunda. i talked to her and her husband about their son and how they were worried when he decided to become a policeman, but they

thought at least if he worked in the united states capitol, it's a pretty safe assignment. well, he died the day after january 6. many believe from complications which occurred on the attacks of that day. to gladys sicknick, to the sicknick family, and to all of our capitol police officers, to whom we entrust our lives every day, and to the members of the d.c. metro police and the other heroes who defended the capitol on january 6, i say we hear you, and you deserve justice. it's hard to believe, mr. president, that before we adjourn today, we are likely to consider a january 6 commission proposal that is doomed to fail. imagine, the worst attack on this building since the war of

1812, and sadly it has become a partisan issue. it's my understanding, because of his public announcement, that senator mcconnell is going to oppose it, and i understand that his caucus will follow his lead. it's hard to imagine what's going on in the united states congress these days. earlier this week a member of the house of representatives, i'm afraid she is already notorious for her inflammatory rhetoric, likened coronavirus masking guidelines to the holocaust. the holocaust. i feel no need to point out the absurdity, if not the anti-semitic nature, of such a comparison. but i do want to point out that that comparison was made by one of the lawmakers who was party to the january 6 insurrection attack on the capitol.

the day before the insurrection, that same congresswoman, republican congresswoman tweeted, quote, tomorrow is an important day in american history. the people will remember the patriots who fought for election integrity. let's go fight for trump, she said. and fight they did. i remember being in the chamber that day. i still remember the sound of rioters banging on the doors and windows of this building, the sight of hundreds of them lined up outside, the disgusting display of confederate flags, the violence we saw left five people dead and 139 law enforcement officers attacked. so many shocking sights january 6, 2021. a gallo was erected on the capitol lawn, rioters attacking police officers with flagpoles

bearing american flags or trump flags. one of the most painful images -- and i'm sure it was more painful to some than even to me -- is a photo of a middle-aged white man standing in the halls of our capitol wearing a sweat shirt that read camp auschwitz. below those repugnant words was another set of words -- work makes you free. that cruel slogan was emblazoned the black iron gates in germany leading to the auschwitz concentration camp, and one of the rioters, mobsters on january 6 in the united states capitol boldly wore that shirt. these are the people who stormed the capitol on january 6. they weren't patriots by any

measure. included in their rank were neonazis, white supremacists and clear enemies of the united states. they were incited by the former president of the united states, donald trump, at a rally earlier that day. and his allies in congress, like that congresswoman that i mentioned earlier, were party to the incitement as well. i agree with those who said that the insurrection without consequences, without even an examination is a dress rehearsal for the next insurrection. that is why we cannot sweep january 6 and the events that led to it under the rug. incendiary rhetoric, especially for the mouths or the key boards of elected officials has a cost. comparing mask requirements in a pandemic to the holocaust has a cost as well.

it belittles the worst genocide in the history of the world and it encourages the kinds of anti-semitic attacks we've seen in recent days and weeks, like the vandalism in my home state at the synagogue in skokie, illinois. baselessly claiming that the presidential election of last year was stolen and repeating that lie has a cost. it undermines the faith in our government and legitimizes a radical anti-government movement that aims to overthrow this government. it's time for us to tally up the cost. understand how the january 6 attack on our democracy happened, who incited it. and that investigation should not be a matter of controversy. it's part of our obligation, is it not, by our oath of office to defend this constitution from all enemies, foreign and

domestic? future generations are counting on us to record in detail what did happen on january 6, and we ought to do it on a bipartisan basis. but why is it necessary? with all of the videotapes and all the photos and all the statements and 400-plus people already arrested, why do we need to keep asking questions about that day? because just two weeks ago two different republican congressmen proclaimed that those who were in the capitol that day were somehow peaceful patriots. that was a phrase that was used -- peaceful patriots. and another one talked about them and believed the videotapes proved, just orderly tourists, orderly tourists attacking police officers, five people dying, crashing through the windows and doors, breaking

down offices, desecrating this chamber with their antics captured on videotape. we've all seen them. orderly tourists? not by any measure. we ought to investigate this on a bipartisan basis. several republican senators have agreed. 35 members of the house republican kaw cause thought so as well. surely all of us can appreciate the importance of working together to investigate why for the first time in the history, america was challenged when we were in the process of the peaceful transfer of power. here's the thing that i don't understand, mr. president. several simplify us in leadership were asked to leave the capitol complex and go to a separate place, the identity of that location is kept confidential and private. but it was an interesting gathering of democrat and republican leaders in the wake of the january 6 insurrection

which was under way as we were taken to the separate location. and i looked around at the democrat as well the republican leaders from the senate and the house who were gathered, and it was clear to me they said they felt the same feelings of anger and outrage that this mob had desecrated this building, and they were determined -- we were all determined that the mob would not have the last word. we were determined to return to this capitol that same day and finish our work counting the electoral college votes that declared joe biden president of the united states. calls were being made in every direction to police, to the military, to political leaders -- resecure this capitol, make certain that you remove those people who are responsible for the violence and insurrection we've seen, let us get back to our work. let us prove to the american people that the mob didn't have the last word.

i saw that bipartisan determination, and i felt damn good about it. of all the differences we've had and all the debate we've had, january 6, that afternoon, democratic and republican leaders were standing shoulder to shoulder, passing cell phones back-and-forth and speaking to our leaders, talking about getting back into this capitol and throwing that mob out. and it happened by 8:00 that evening, we were back on the floor of the united states senate. by 2:30 we were gone, racing through the exit doors. at 8:00 we were back. to prove that they didn't have the last word. sadly, we know now they may have the last word because the call for a bipartisan commission to investigate this january 6 event and to put on the record exactly what happened is being opposed on a partisan basis.

mr. president, there are ought to be 100 senate votes for investigating this attack and making a clear record for history so that those who mock the danger of the moment by calling this mob a peaceful, patriotic mob or calling the members orderly tourists don't have the last word. yet we may not even have 60 votes today when the measure is called. why? let's get down to basics here. many of the republican members are afraid of the man who incited this mob. they are afraid of the former president and what he'll say of them if we call for an investigation. they're afraid of donald trump. and, as a result, they're refusing to let this commission be formed. are they worried that this investigation into what happened on january 6 will hurt republicans in next year's

election? i think the position they're taking opposing an investigation will hurt them. the events of that day are not fodder for political campaigns really. they are a stain on our history, and if we ignore them or allow the history of that day to be rewritten by the deniers, shame on us. the events of january 6 deserve and demand careful, thorough, and principled examination. that's why an independent commission we are proposing is modeled after the same investigatory body that was created after 9/11. it will be led by ten commissioners, evenly divided between democrats and republicans. together, they'll be called on to produce a definitive account of what happened that led to january 6, 2021. this is not an opportunity to score political points. it's an opportunity to score national unity and reconciliation.

when senator mcconnell, the republican senate leader, announced his opposition to this commission last week, he said, it's not at all clear what new facts or additional investigation yet another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and congress. my response to senator mcconnell is this, respectfully -- the public servants who led this commission -- who lead this commission will be charged with a different set of responsibilities than law enforcement and members of congress. the investigation is being led by intelligence officials and members of law enforcement are criminal investigations. they will determine how the individuals who participated should be held legally accountable. the ongoing investigations in congress have largely been focused on our government's response to the violence of january, not to what provoked it. the commission we are considering today is different. it will be comprehensive by design, evenly divided on a

partisan basis. it will examine all of the factors that inspired that riotous mob, and this commission isn't just about uncovering truth. it goes book -- it goes back to the point i made opening this statement. it goes back to honor the police officers who defended us and defended this capitol on january 6, some of whom gave their lives in the process that letter from the police officers to us is a reminder that we owe them the same loyalty and same dedication that they give to us every single day. dismissing this january 6 commission and the gravity of this responsibility, sadly, does not honor the police officers who are prepared to give their lives for us every single day. here's a chance for my republican colleagues to prove that they really care about law enforcement. so many speeches on the floor of the senate in the last several

weeks have derided and criticized people for calling on defunding the police. well, i would tell them that the failure to create a commission to objectively determine what happened when so many of our police officers were attacked on january 6, that doesn't defund the police; failing to create that commission, sadly, defames them, and that is unacceptable by any standard. isn't it time we stand with the police officers in their request for this commission? isn't it time we make sure that heroes like brian sicknick and his family know that they did not die in vain? he paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect us. let's honor it by supporting the creation of an independent commission. his family and all of america deserve nothing less than the truth. mr. president, i ask consent that a separate statement be

placed in the record relating to memorial day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i ask for unanimous consent that a separate statement be placed in the record related to unemployment compensation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, today the senate should confirm a visionary scientist and thinker and one who will serve with distinction as director of the office of science and technology. dr. eric lander represents the new kind of american pioneer, one committed to horizons. a pioneer who sees unanswered questions as not barriers but as an expanse of possibility.

he exemplifies what it means to represent a place where scientific progress is a part of our d.n.a. eric's breadth of knowledge, unparalleled experience and innovative spirit make him uniquely suited to lead. dr. lander at the head of office of science and technology policy, all americans will be his students, sharing his passion for science, discovery, and achievement. dr. lander started his career as a mathematician. he has taught economics and has been one of the world's foremost biomedical scientists for decades. when i was a young boy who refused to do his homework, my mother threatened that she would donate my brain to harvard as a completely unused human organ. somehow she supported dr. landers. he has a deep understanding of how science and policy can

inform one another. at the broad institute, he brought together biologists, cling in additions, chemists and engineers and computational scientists. a transformative model for scientific research that the brode institute represents takes on the challenge today of bringing scientific discoveries and advances forward more quickly than ever before. this contribution to science that is also demonstrated how impactful research can be. the human genome project was a project that involved hundreds of scientists across the entire world. this project is an incredible example of a publicly funded project that keeps knowledge in the public domain and a feat that provided a model for a large-scale cooperative effort that the world's biggest problems require. the human genome project mass also had an enormous economic

impact with one analysis from ten years ago estimating that $3 billion project has produced more than 330,000 jobs and nearly $800 billion in economic benefit. sequencing nearly the entire human genome has already led to countless advances, a trend that is certain to continue into the future. the project discovered genes that are fundamental to thousands of diseases, including heart disease, alzheimer's, and cancer and paved the way for novel treatments. in i guess to his groundbreaking research, he has totemites introductory biology course and is one of m.i.t.'s most beloved teachers. he has inspired students to grapple with complex issues, helping them become informed and active members of their communities. he has an ability to explain the science of why much better than senators can explain the political science of why not.

and that ability to teach and to translate is more important than ever before. i know dr. lander has the skill to rebuild the celebration of science that is the hallmark of american excellence. when his country needed him during the coronavirus pandemic, he went to build from scrap to operation the largest noncommercial covid-testing laboratory in the country. he has been a strong supporter of people of color in science and improving racial equity in science outcomes. he has used science sasse a tool for justice, playing a key role in the origins of the innocence project as his commitment to justice in forensic science has spanned more than three decades. the crises we face today of human and mind are the at the intersection of those two forces which are daunting. we are confronted by a surging china and its race to dominate the scientific and technological

landscape. that's why we must confirm dr. lander without delay. and so he can get to work on behalf of the american people. we have a chance tonight to give our country a leader in science and technology which we need at this critical time. i urge all members to give him your support on the floor this evening. mr. president, with that, i question the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: mr. president, as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we have a real opportunity to revitalize american manufacturing and harness american leadership in scientific and technological advancement. today i urge my colleagues to support critical bipartisan legislation that will do just that. the united states innovation and competition act will help keep our country on the cutting edge of technology, strengthen american competitiveness on a global stage, and protect our national security. international competitors like the chinese government are aggressively investing in manufacturing, science, and technology in an attempt to gain

a competitive advantage over the united states, and we cannot let that happen. in order to maintain our edge, we must make serious investments in domestic research and development, technology and manufacturing. we know that a strong manufacturing sector is the backbone of any economy. i -- i have long believed that you cannot be a great country if you don't make things. this bill contains a number of provisions to help revitalize and strengthen american manufacturing. a provision in this bill that senator stabenow and i led will provide $2 billion in new funding for the domestic production of mature semiconductor technologies that are absolutely critical to the automotive industry and other manufacturers all across our country. this provision is essential because our reliance on overseas semiconductor manufacturing is a threat to our economy and to our

national security. we're currently experiencing a semiconductor shortage that is causing massive supply chain disruptions and has idled plants in michigan and other states across our country, forcing auto manufacturers to shut down factories and lay off workers. this is a completely unacceptable situation, and we must immediately work to address this challenge. boosting manufacturing in michigan and across the nation requires a comprehensive federal strategy to help companies grow our domestic manufacturing base. that's why i authored a provision nblg legislation to reactivate the manufacturing advisory council and work to increase funding for the manufacturing partnership program, a program that helps small and medium-size manufacturers grow their companies and create jobs. together these policies will help strengthen our manufacturing sector, advance

our economic competitiveness and create good-paying jobs. the united states innovation and competition act also helps ensure that when we are spending american taxpayer dollars, we are investing in american manufacturers and creating american jobs. as chairman of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, i was proud of our committee's efforts to include several bipartisan provisions in this package that will strengthen the buy america requirements. these provisions, including one based on a bill senator stabenow and i introduced, will ensure that american taxpayer dollars are being used to buy american-made products and close loopholes that have allowed the use of chinese and russian-made steel rather than using u.s. steel. growing good-paying jobs in america must always be our focus, and passing this bill will do just that. this package also includes a

provision to secure our supply chain and address the serious national security risk posed by our overreliance on companies in china and other countries for medical supplies. during the pandemic, we saw firsthand how our country's overreliance on foreign manufacturers for critical spliez -- supplies such as personal protective equipment left us unprepared to combat the pandemic and cost american lives. this bill takes important steps to address that, thanks to a provision i worked on with senator portman to encourage investments that will expand domestic production of personal protection equipment here in the united states. these provisions and so many more will help us unleash american innovation, lock in our competitive advantage, and grow our economy. but that alone is not enough. we must also protect our advantage. that's why our committee worked

to include critical provisions in this legislation to strengthen cybersecurity and protect against increasingly sophisticated efforts by adversarial governments and criminal organizations to steal our research and intellectual property. cyberattacks pose a significant threat to our national security and cyberattacks have significant real-world consequences. we saw this with the recent colonial pipeline attack. this bill includes provisions i authored to strengthen the federal government's capabilities to prevent and respond to a significant cyber incident, creates a fund that can help entities recover from serious breaches, and strengthens our federal cyber workforce, therefore ensuring our workers have the skills and the knowledge to build a competitive advantage and secure our networks tbr -- from these attacks. from spurring advancements in

artificial intelligence to securing taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property from adversaries who try to steal it, this legislation takes significant steps to help ensure american companies and workers will continue to lead the way in developing the technologies and economy of the future. the process we followed to write this legislation shows that when we work together in a bipartisan manner, we can tackle the biggest challenges facing our nation. i'm grateful for my colleagues for all of their hard work, and i look forward to continuing to partner with our house counterparts to get these important provisions signed into law. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president,

are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. ms. murkowski: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we're in a bit of a lull here. whenever there is a lull in senate activity, it is one of those moments and times when you think about those who have contributed to -- to those of us who serve here in the senate, staff who have been with us over a period of time, whether they be here in washington, d.c., or back in our home states. and tonight i come to the floor to share some long overdue recognition to a long-term member of my team, michelle blackwell. we've had kind of a hectic beginning to this congress, so we're back doing legislative business, and that's good, but it has, i guess, delayed my tribute to, again, an extraordinary alaskan, a woman

who has been a good team member but also a friend of mine. earlier this year, michelle retired from my team after 17 years, amazing years of service to the united states senate as a member of my staff in alaska and to many of my constituents back home. since 2003, michelle served as my regional representative for the south central region on the kenai peninsula in alaska. this is -- the kenai peninsula, for those who are not familiar with it, a pretty significant area. equivalent in size to the states of massachusetts and new jersey combined, population of about 55,000 people. but if there is roads that wind around and go up and down and into some pretty extraordinary areas, michelle has traveled them, but she has represented this region with grace, efficiency, diplomacy, resolving

truly thousands of cases for constituents that have experienced problems with the federal agencies. you name it, whether it's the i.r.s., whether it's the social security, the v.a., she has -- she has got a story to tell there. but helping constituents and serving as a liaison to the community were really the keys to her success in my office. her commitment to public service and to helping alaskans has made me a better senator and certainly a better representative for alaskans. but i have to confess that as much as we would like to claim her 100% for alaska, michelle did not get her start in public service in the state of alaska. like many who now call alaska home, michelle's path was kind of an adventurous one as she worked her way north. she came to me from wyoming via

washington, d.c. she grew up in wyoming and then following college, she went to work for then-congressman dick cheney. this was back in the early 1980's. she started out on the front desk as -- as a good staffer does, and as many successful staffers like michelle do, she worked her way up from there. she spent 11 years working for dick cheney as one of his key aides. he was so appreciative of her work that he brought her with him during his first tenure as secretary of defense under the 41st president george h.w. bush. and as many of us know, when you find a good staffer, you do everything that you can to hang onto them. but michelle has a very adventurous spirit, a curiosity for foreign policy. she served a year in switzerland with the state department. she then returned to work for

mr. cheney when his time with the first bush administration had ended, and he went to work for a public policy think tank, the american enterprise institute. following this, it was the time that she then returned to wyoming and opened the next chapter of her life. in 1997, michelle found herself in the famous million-dollar cowboy bar in jackson hole, wyoming. i have been there myself. but michelle met the man who would be her husband. the rest, as they say, is history. michelle and jack became married a year later, and their adventurous spirit continued. they moved north. they moved to sitka, alaska, where jack would serve as the park ranger for the state of alaska department of natural resources. they spent four years there in sitka, and michelle was very active in the community, not surprisingly, but she served as the director of the local visitors and tourism bureau, a key industry to our state and

certainly to that region. in 2002, jack was transferred to kenai, alaska, to serve as the district ranger for alaska state parks for the region, and that is when michelle found her way to the alaska congressional delegation, or we found her. and again, i wish that i could take the credit for finding michelle, but she came to work for the entire alaska congressional delegation. this was at the time when the late senator ted stevens was our senior senator. this was just when i was beginning my time in this office. and back then, the rules of this chamber allowed us to share district offices and staff, so michelle served not just me but also senator stevens and congressman young, who, as we

know, is now the dean of the house. so some pretty big political powerhouses between don young and senator stevens, personalities that we have described as larger than life at times and some personalities that can be interesting to balance but michelle did so with patience and poise. all in all, michelle has 25 years of federal public service, and i'm proud to say that 17 of those years have been as a member of my staff. of all of her many professional accomplishments, you will not hear her boast, but you will hear her colleagues speak with the highest respect for her ethics and her duty to public service. she is so humble, she is so humble, but so, so respected by her staff, both on the stateside and among the policy team here in d.c.

i have had a lot of time to be in a car with michelle as we have driven around the kenai peninsula. i have seen her interact with constituents that have serious, challenging, personal, deeply emotional issues, and how she is able to communicate with alaskans on their level, on their issues, in a way that is respectful and understanding and compassionate. she has -- she has a gift that is extraordinary. outside of the office, one source of pride, probably the biggest source of pride for michelle, it is very clear the devotion to her family. when asked by others who worked with her, the first thing that you will hear is michelle's dedication to her family, and

she has got a great family. husband jack, as i mentioned, a great guy. a pilot. she was a little worried when he decided to -- instead of the family minivan it was going to be the family -- i don't remember whether it was a cherokee or piper or 175, but the family's flying around and doing a lot of alaska that we all enjoy. but they have two great kids, jackson and cameron. i have had the pleasure, the privilege of being able to watch both of these young people grow into talented, kind, and smart young adults who are now pursuing college and post- graduate degrees. jackson, who was a page here in the united states senate and an intern for me, he's a truman scholar.

cameron, again, his sister, was also a page here. she is pursuing a premed health sciences program with a goal of being a doctor. jackson is -- is working on arctic issues and climate issues and you just couldn't be prouder of these two young people. i know that michelle is, and i certainly am. it's been great to be able to watch and be part of their family. so to the family, to jack, to jackson, and to cameron, thank you for sharing your mom with me, with all of my staff, really with the senate and our country for so many years. we know that those years were nights and weekends and holidays when we took a lot of her time, and we appreciate that. but i -- i recognize that as we see good, strong, capable, really impactful people move on

from our teams, i know that it is just the closing of one chapter but the opening of yet another for michelle and her family. so to michelle, thank you for all the years that you have given, for your public service as a member of my staff. i wish you all the best in your very well-deserved retirement. mr. president, as i am still on the floor and we are still in a pause, i want to be able to provide some short remarks with regard to an individual who has been not only a leader in the alaska community for a period of years but a real leader for our united states coast guard. i rise to offer my commendation

to admiral matthew t. bell jr. who served the coast guard for 36 years, most recently as the commander of district 17, d-17. he had his retirement ceremony -- it was just about six weeks or so ago. i had an opportunity to be out there at his retirement ceremony. it was held in juneau. we had the commandant of the coast guard, add judicial shultz, who led -- admiral shultz who led the delegation, we joined senator sullivan and myself, governor dunleavy. it was pretty significant that you would have a gathering there in juneau for this retirement ceremony. but not unusual because admiral bell had led in a way, in a manner that deserved this public

recognition, certainly at the highest level. d-17, an enormous region covering the entirety of alaska from the bettering strait -- from the bering strait to the aleutian chain, all of the surrounding waters. but admiral bell there during his time as head of d-17 led with distinction. before this he had pretty impressive roles. he commanded the personnel service center, served as chief of staff for u.s. coast guard pacific area and chemistry and nautical science professor at the u.s. coast guard academy. he served as commander of task group 55.6 in bahrain in support of operation iraqi freedom and he earned the highly esteemed cutterman designation after more than 12 years of sea service. three times, three times he was the commanding officer, and his

commands included the coast guard cutter point divide, the coast guard cutter alex haley and douglas monroe. the alex haley and monroe were stationed in kodiak when admiral bell served as their commander. we had the retirement ceremony for admiral bell and then the following day we flew out to kodiak to attend the decommissioning of the monroe after 40 years of service, pretty admirable run. but i can imagine that these tours help sow the seeds of home for admiral bell and his family. as i mentioned, i had the opportunity to be there when admiral bell passed on the rules and responsibilities of the d-17 commander. it was april 21. he was honorably awarded and recognized for his outstanding

service and retired. but again, i think it is, it's noteworthy. this was not your average retirement ceremony. we had covid-19 protocols that were still in place. senator sullivan and i were in the front row. it was a pretty limited gathering. i think they were limited to 30 people joined by the governor of alaska. over 300 people watched by live feed. but behind us, so to the speakers, in the speaker's view and behind us was this exceptionally distracting view, the beauty of menenhaw glacier was behind us and everyone noted it was quite stwoard to be in this -- extraordinary to be in this setting. i was honored to be invited and humbled to be with those who appreciate the work of the coast guard in our state and especially while admiral bell was at the helm. i want to take just note of the fact and thank admiral bell and

all of the really, the invaluable her -- heroic work d-17 does in the state. in a given months it rescues 22 souls, saves over $1.6 million in property, across 3,853,500 square miles and over 47,300 miles of shore line, a lot of space, a lot of territory to cover. alaska's tough, it's rugged, it's big. but these missions are carried out in the toughest, most challenging environment. and as i heard admiral bell mention during his retirement ceremony, he says if you can do the coast guard's mission in alaska, you can do the job anywhere else. and he's right. it's the best that we will see. not only are coast guard men and women in alaska mastering their craft, saving lives and

property, they are also integral members to our communities. those members and their families are our neighbors, they're our classmates, they're our friends, and i deeply appreciate the connection and fond relationship shared by the coast guard in alaska. and that's why it's so important, i think, to just take the time to honor and to thank incredible leaders like admiral bell. so on behalf of alaska, i thank you for everything that you have done, to continue the long-standing legacy of life saving environmental protection and maritime safety in our great state. but beyond that, thank you for representing and nurturing the connection between the coast guard and our state as the d-17 commander and neighbor. and i want to end my comments tonight, mr. president, with just a comment about matt bell as the neighbor. matt and his wife nancy have

raised three sons, and like most ceafd -- coast guard families they moved numerous times. they accepted the assignments and adventure with kind of a matter of factness that comes with military service but wherever they have been stationed they have become part of the community. they have made that community just a little bit better. when matt and nancy came to alaska, they knew they were home. they said it, absolutely they knew they were home. in fact, it was somewhat interesting, nancy was not at the retirement ceremony there in juneau because she had already moved all of their household goods to kodiak. she was, i think it was on her first week of work there. she was working at the coast guard base there. so she is a true coast guard family for life.

a small, little side note, an anecdote, at the conclusion of the decommissioning of the monroe, i had to fly back to anchorage. and as it turned out, the same airplane that was going to be taking me back from anchorage to kodiak was the same airplane that was delivering just recently retired admiral bell to kodiak to come home to his wife and help basically move in. long story short, weather comes in and there's no airplanes to kodiak, so he's not coming in and i'm not going out. as it was, i was supposed to be in anchorage at a family dinner, and i knew that they had a place set for me. while i was at the airport trying to rearrange reservations and try to find accommodations for the evening, nancy bell was at the airport waiting for her husband. and she said what can i do to make sure that you have the

place to stay? i said it's not just about me. i have a whole volleyball team from palmer and a soccer team from the valley. what are we going to do with 50-some-odd kids when there's no airplane until tomorrow? and nancy bell sprung into action as a good community member to see what it was that she couldn't do to get not only me and a couple of staff people, but to get a couple teams of kids situated for the evening. and i said, you no he, nancy -- you know, nancy, you're taking care of me. matt needs to go to my family dinner in anchorage and take me be place. so he did. had a great evening with my family, and i had a great opportunity to spend a little bit more time with his wife in kodiak. it just speaks to the neighborliness that goes on. you have a significant leader in our united states coast guard, a man who he and his family have

given so much, 36 years in service, and they're now going to give that to their community, their alaska community that they have adopted and we have embraced them. we honor them and we wish the best for them and their family in their retirement. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer and i and another 20 or so senators listened yesterday in the banking, housing, and urban affairs committee to the c.e.o.'s of the nation's largest six banks testify to our

committee. those c.e.o.'s, those six c.e.o.'s are among the among, or maybe the six most powerful business people in america. i look what's happened to my hometown of mansfield, ohio and zanesfield ohio and chillicothe and medium sized industrial cities that 40 years ago were prosperous industrial communities which created and which were the homes of thousands, tens of thousands really of good-paying union jobs, allowing people out of high school to go to, go into the plant and make a decent middle-class living, allowing kids, them to send their kids to north central state or mansfield o.s.u. or dennison or schools all over ohio. but in the last 30 or 40 years we've seen what wall street has done. wall street has done just fine for themselves. we've seen profits go up

dramatically. we've seen executive compensation is strat -- is in the stratosphere but seen middle-class wages in places like toledo and akron simply flat. we heard a lot in that hearing yesterday, mr. president, from these c.e.o.'s how much they value their employees, yet not one of these c.e.o.'s agreed to remain neutral if their workers want to unionize. i know from my state, whether it's dayton or whether it's trotwood or whether it's zanesville, i know for my state when workers are lucky enough to carry a union card they are much more likely to prosper. these c.e.o.'s said we want our employees' voices to be heard, but that's not what remaining neutral means, not using their vast power to intimidate their

employees. the presiding officer has seen it in georgia. we saw it recently in alabama. i've seen it many times in ohio where an employer uses the vast resources of the corporation to browbeat or however they do it, to stop people from voting for the union that would make their lives better. i heard these c.e.o.'s say they're focused on lending to small businesses and growing the economy. but i don't see that in newark, i don't see that in canton, warren or youngstown, these small small business want help. community bankers did it. community bankers, their lending went up during the pandemic. but these large six banks, they restricted their lending in the pandemic but they had enough money left to do major stock buybacks. one of these companies, one of these six banks announced they are going to do $25 billion stock buyback.

you have know who that enriches? it doesn't enrich the community. it doesn't enrich columbus, cincinnati or steuben field. what it does is enrich the executives. these six c.e.o.'s said, yes, climate change is a threat to the entire country, but they drag their feet when comes to investing in new technology and jobs of the future. i am glad they've raised wages, a number of them -- and i know the presiding officer from georgia saw this. right before the hearing, one of the companies agreed to raise the minimum wage of its employees significantly. a couple others of them bragged about their diversity in their workplace. they had just made the first black woman -- put the first black wellcome on their board. but -- put the first black woman on their board. we also know that that one of those c.e.o.'s -- this is not quite believable, but i can prove it with the math -- one of these c.e.o.'s makes 900 times when the low of the -- what some of their new employees make, 900

times. i don't think they claim to work 900 times harder. but how do you figure this out? how does this come about that a c.e.o. will make 900 times what some of its workers make? i'm glad they raised wages. i'm glad they made some investments in minority depository institutions. i was even welcome to hear them brag about their investments in howard and one of the great -- in fiske and in one of the great institutions in the presiding officer's home state of at la. i'm glad they're increasing diversity in their senior leadership and we will be watching. it is not close enough, though, when these are the most powerful actors in this country. it signals their -- the signals that these companies send to influence workers at companies all over the country -- niece are -- i.t. -- it's not just the thousands of employees. it's important to remember that financial services makes about

25% of the profits of all corporations of the country. financial services accounts for about 25% of it. but they're only 4% of their employees, 4% of all the employees in the country work for financial services, but they account for 25% of the profit. that tells a story, too. it tells a story that these large banks have built an economy that's good for them. they build an economy that good for financial services. they build an economy that's good for the largest banks, not the community banks in savannah or lagrange or griffin, georgia, or shelby or christline, oat owe. but they've built an economy good for the big guys. before the pandemic, bank of america downgraded chipotles stock because they decided that the company pays its workers too much. they downgraded the stock because an analyst says it pays its workers too much.

when american airlines announced pay raises for its flight attendants and pilots, the stock price was dropped. when american airlines does the right thing, they decide to invest more money in their workers, wall street slaps them and says, don't do that. that doesn't help the economy the way -- a citibank analyst -- believe this. this is frustrating. labor is being paid first again. shareholders get leftovers. left leftovers? shareholders get leftovers. we might have thought things might change a bit after the pandemic. the bus driver in cleveland, the drugstore worker in lima, the person that -- the nurse in bel air, those are the pooh emthat really were the heroes in this economy. our economy is supposed 0 to reward people whose jobs are in demand. but this year after amazon defeated alabama's workers union

organization effort, the company's stock climbed. just a few weeks ago wall street sent uber and lyft and doordash stocks down. when the government decides we need to do something -- we need to make sure these workers are treated better, wall street essentially attacks those companies' stocks. think about that. sends a pretty clear message -- the more you pay your employees, the worse you're going to do on wall street. that view that american workers are a cost to cut instead of 00 valuable asset to invest in, that's what's wrong with this system. so-called analysts in wall street, often at the banks these six largest banks, they make decisions for people in ohio, in georgia, in pennsylvania and across the country, decisions about whether workers they've never met in towns they've never been to, whether those workers are a good investment. i hope these banks make progress

not only within their own institutions but thinking about the role these banks play in leading this system, in leading our economy, in leading this country. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wicker: mr. president, it is my pleasure to ask unanimous consent that flannery egner, be a intern with the committee on science and transportation with the floor staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th congress. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, later on this evening, it is my hope we will be moving forward on the u.s.

innovation and competition act, which many of us are still calling the endless frontier act fnlt i will be voting to suppor. i will be voting to support final passage. this landmark bill has prompted considerable debate. this legislation is about maintaining america's edge in research and technology. that's a top priority for my party, and it's a top priority for the democratic party in this chamber, and it ought to prompt a spirited discussion, and it has prompted such a discussion. how many bills has this been said about? the bill is not perfect. there are elements that i could do without and there are parts that i wish were included, but on the whole, this is a necessary step to keep our nation competitive. this bill puts forth a bold

vision for scientific research across multiple federal agencies and authorizes a historic down payment on the priorities that can keep america at the forefront of innovation. this bill is a huge boost for american r&d. it authorizes substantial r&d investments through the department of energy, the department of commerce, through nasa and of course the national science foundation, which is the gold standard for basic research. in addition to a new n.s.f. deck trat, it will speed up the translation of r&d into practical and health tech innovators through the creation of technology hubs around the country and expanded manufacturing programs. mr. president, our adversaries are well aware that america leads the world in innovation.

instead of trying to outinnovate the united states, some of our adversaries are choosing to steal what we create. the chinese communist party is bar none the world's worst offender when it comes to research and intellectual property theft, making today's legislation especially urgent. this legislation takes steps to improve research security at the national science foundation. although the introduced bill did not contain adequate provisions in this area, i worked with senator cantwell, the chair of the commerce committee, to craft a package of reforms to safeguard taxpayer-funded research and intellectual property. our approach will ensure that the research community understands and complies with

security policy and that grant applicants go through appropriate risk assessments. the research security title establishes new -- a new research security office at the n.s.f. to centralize the process of developing these security requirements and assessing potential risks. the office is empowered to pull in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to assist in targeted risk assessments. we also establish a clearinghouse for the research community to share information about security threats. importantly, the research security title also includes a ban on federal employees participating in foreign talent programs. and a strict prohibition on tax-funded awards going to researchers who participate in talent programs run by our greatest adversaries. these initiatives and many others institute a new and bold

research security program at the national science foundation. this bill also represents a huge step forward for geographical diversity in r&d. currently, half of all federal r&d funds go to just six states and the district of columbia. closing that divide has been a priority of mine since my first days in the house of representatives. today's legislation will boost r&d at emerging institutions so that no region goes unutilized in our efforts to compete with china. mr. president, i regret that this bill was put through with a rushed process. our initial markup in committee was scheduled just one day after the bill was dropped. that markup got postponed. two weeks later, we had a day-long markup where we dealt with more than 250 committee

amendments. after incorporating over 100 of those amendments, the bill passed by a vote of 24-4. let me repeat that, mr. president. the bill passed the commerce committee by a vote of 24 yeses, and only 24 noes. a few days later, the bill reached the senate floor where more than 500 amendments have been filed. clearly there is a desire to legislate in this body and on this legislation given sufficient time and opportunity. this bill should put to rest any discussion of changing the filibuster. the senate is perfectly capable of functioning if the majority allows it to function, and it has done so this week and in the days last week when we were considering this legislation. i would add that it would be

wrong and unnecessary for this bill to be funded through reconciliation. passing this consensus legislation through a partisan process would send exactly the wrong message to our adversaries, and we're getting it done under regular order. it may not be pretty. it may not be the most efficient thing ever devised by the minds of man, but we're getting this done under current rules. everyone has been heard, and it will be passed under regular order i think with a very nice vote. mr. president, i wish to congratulate the two authors of this legislation, senator schumer and senator todd young for their success in this bill. i especially appreciate senator young's commitment to improving our competitiveness and his leadership in moving this bill forward. i also want to thank the chair of the commerce committee, maria cantwell, for helping shepherd

this bill through the oftentimes challenging floor for her patience and her skill in helping us -- helping lead us through the amendment process. and then how could we end debate or approach the end of consideration of this legislation without thinking of our -- thanking our staffs for the countless hours on both sides of the aisle for the people who worked so hard on this bill and the amendments. the excellent, knowledgeable way in which they have approached this legislation would be amazing to the american public if they could look into the process and see how hard these public servants work. i want to particularly thank the outstanding contributions of my staff director john keast, but

also he would want me to -- to make a particular point of congratulating policy director james mazul and my deputy policy director sherry pasco, neither of whom has slept very much recently. they have done exceptional work. i know senator cantwell feels the same about the great public servants on her staff on her side of the aisle. they have done this at great personal sacrifice. from their families and from themselves, and i know we're all well served by our staffs and most thankful for mine, but i'm also thankful for the legislative process, for the fact that on this issue of increasing secure r&d to combat

our adversaries, particularly those in communist china, i want to thank the members of this senate on both sides of the issue and on both sides of the aisle for the great way in which this senate has conducted regular order. i'll be voting yes. i think a sizable majority of the senate will be voting yes and we'll be doing good by our constituents and by future generations in doing so. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from washington. ms. cantwell: madam president, i wanted to commend and thank the senator from mississippi for his hard work. i have the great pleasure of working with him on the commerce committee, and i can tell you we are here tonight not at this

very moment at 10:00, but the advent of getting to this moment where we can proceed on such important legislation thanks to him and his great work as the ranking member on the commerce committee. so i want to personally thank him for that, because i think the senator described the actual process pretty well. we have two colleagues who had a lot of foresight and thought about this issue. senator schumer who for a long time has discussed america's competitiveness and what we need to do about it, particularly as it relates to shifting change and demographics on a lot of foreign policy issues, and our colleague from indiana who has also in the last two years put a lot of work into thinking about the future of a.i., competitiveness, manufacturing, and what we need to do to be competitive in the united states of america. so the schumer-young proposal is

not new to this congress. it was proposed before. so this has worked -- this is work for many, many months. i do thi -- i do think as senator wicker stated we should thank them for their foresight. i think depending on what part of america you're from you have a perspective about the economy for the future. i'm blessed to represent the state of washington with much innovation and really a long time work to get to the point where we are today. i guess that's one thing i would like to depart, that we didn't get to the northwest economy overnight. a lot of thought went into the education system, the workforce training issues. sometimes i just say we're blessed to have people there who

stayed and innovated with the companies that they innovated in. and where we are today represents decades and decades of work. but it also gives you a little bit of foresight into the importance of research and development. the university of washington being a leader in research and development with n.s.f., with predecessors here in the senate who -- warren magnuson specifically focusing on both n.i.h. and n.s.f. dollars, and a size of an institution with 40,000 students but also a premier research institution. so that has given us a good footing for the future, the work that they've done, and the advent of microsoft and so many companies with executives who then also put more into the university of washington so we could growth our skill-set and keep investing.

it's a long-term investment. our colleague from indiana and our colleague from new york basically challenged us to think about what is the r&d for the united states of america and are we competing. senator wicker knows this is something the commerce committee twice before it considered, in 2007 and 2010. we said by god, we're going to double the r&d budget and we're going to compete p. believe it or not it was george bush. george bush as president first said america needs to have a more aggressive policy probably looking to asia and seeing what was happening and saying we need to do more. the advent of that is we started down the right road. we tried to make a commitment. we didn't completely follow through because of the downturn of the economy. instead of doubling that r&d budget in a short period of time, five to seven years, and then we thought 11 years. well, it's turned into like 22

years and we really haven't done the job. so our two colleagues, i thank them. i thank the senator from indiana and i certainly thank the senator from new york because i think without his continued heft behind this issue saying that it's a priority, i told him he must have read andy grow's book, making sure that we make investments in the semiconductor area, an area he knows well. but that he really does believe needs the r&d investment and focus. i applaud him because without his major push, i don't think we would be here on the senate floor tonight. so as my colleague, senator wicker, said this bill includes a massive investment in the n.s.f. budget and in a d.o.e. budget, which is kind of tandem.

that's what happened every time we've had this discussion. n.s.f. and d.o.e., the department of energy, and the national science foundation have been our key tools have for resh and development in key areas that keep manufacturing competitive, keep our energy sector competitive, keep our technology competitive. so it's been major investments. the challenge that we faced is that we also were asking ourselves besides trying to double our investment in these areas, we also said we want to get more out of the investment we have today. we want to basically get more out of the technology that we're creating and get it translated into more innovation right away. so this legislation does that by creating a new tech directorate at the national science foundation to, if you will, we have basic research, applied research, to have tran

sayingsal or -- translational research to quickly aid in the technologies that will help our economy grow. that was a pretty big step in the legislation. and of course senator wicker and i believe that investing in the workforce we need with stem education was also a priority, so a pretty big boost in science, technology, engineering and math. including saying women and minorities in the sciences have to be a priority and we have to do more to encourage that. but i want to thank senator wicker especially for his l insistence on a key provision that i think is also important. part of this is saying we need to be competitive and increase the r&d budget. part of it is saying we need to have more translational science, get more out of the universities, have them protect

their intellectual property better. this is also about having all of america better prepared for the economy of the future and better compete. senator wicker said i want 20% of this bill and this legislation, the r&d dollars to go to states that are called s corps qualifying state. we need to strengthen our research compass. the 25 states that are qualified , they know. it is a program built around strengthening their research and development, and senator wicker's insistence on this provision will help those states grow their research muscle for the future, their research ecosystem, strengthen their universities, strengthen the dollars that go to them. so i applaud him for that dedication. the head of n.s.f., the national science foundation,

will tell you that our motto for this bill overall, or our goal as a nation is to be for innovation everywhere connected to opportunities everywhere, connected to universities. and by the provision that senator wicker proposed, we literally are taking another step towards building that infrastructure everywhere. so if you're in fairbanks, alaska, or you're in mississippi or some other part of the country, those institutions will get an extra focus and push to get more research, development. and i like to say you never know what's going to come out of that. you never know what's going to come out of one individual at one institution with a great idea that really charges forward in a new area. so i think it's a great, it's a great provision of the legislation.

so we have, i think, with the other provisions our colleagues worked on, senator warner and senator cornyn, on trying to in the last ndaa bill make us crisp ly focused on the immense competition that we face in the semiconductor industry, we really have, i think, before us the shape of the debate about america's competition. we're not afraid to put research dollars on the table as a country. our nation believes in that more than other nations. our people believe that that is what's made our nation great, and they know that if we keep making that investment, we're going to grow jobs and the economy. so we've made that commitment in this legislation. we've made the commitment to diversify our research, to get more out of our research and translate that faster, and we've made a commitment to skill and educate a workforce not only

the diversity we like to see in science, but the geographic diversity we'd like to see as well. now we didn't spend a lot of time talking about what's in here for the department of energy. it's not specific as to what the department of energy will do for this, but it's safe to say the department of energy's innovation program and arpa-e base itically trying to help us with the next generation of technology but also includes carbon sequestration and nuclear power and a whole translation of various energy sciences. i really believe we'll be working together. i believe d.o.e., n.s.f., our national laboratories, our universities, the collaboration that we heard about in committee will be the kind of growth that comes out of this legislative effort. so many americans at home, i

can just -- all i can say is we're making another investment in american know-how, the ability to use our scientific skills to help create the next generation of work and effort. so i too want to thank our staffs. i certainly on my side want to thank our staff director david strickland and melissa porter, richard chamber lane and stacey baird. i too want to thank the senator's staff, john keist and sheri pasco and james mazell because they have been a great team to work with. i want to thank on senator schumer's staff, mike kukan and john cardinal because they have been a constant source of all of

this. and of course all the floor team that has been out here working on this. i know there's other people from senator wicker's staff. crystal tully and steven wall and i'm sure, i should say on my staff jonathan hale and david martin and ronan worked on a lot of energy stuff. i'm sure we'll have more to thank later. this is a wish by senator wicker that this would be the wrap-up. i know we're not quite at the wrap-up, but we're hoping that we will, have hotlined a manager's proposal. i hope our colleagues will look at that. i hope our colleagues will allow us to move forward on that. if they're not going to let us move forward on that, i wish they'd come to the floor and tell us that. it's time to move the rest of

this legislation through the senate and move to whatever discussions we're going to have with the house. but safe to say this represents a lot of work by a lot of people in committee, i think we processed, before we even got to the legislation, something like 52 amendments prior to the actual day. the substitute, i think we processed another 40 or 50 amendments. i think we had dozens of roll call votes. that's all in committee. out here we've processed lots of legislation to be part of the managers amendment. safe to say practically every member of the united states senate has had some part or discussion or legislative suggestions that are part of this bill. so it is, as senator wicker said, a very regular order process, albeit quick at times.

but i think we have a lot to do. we've been very challenged as a congress to deal with a lot of issues, covid specifically. but the competition is not waiting and the competition has different tools. we have a different government, and we believe in collaboration collaboration, and collaboration, yes, takes a little more time. but i think it's going to strengthen us in our ability to compete because we're going to be on the same page about what we need to get done. so i hope our colleagues will indulge us to move ahead. i hope that we can get this next managers' amendment and other things voted on very soon. so i thank the president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: is quorum is not present. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, i move to direct the sergeant at arms to request the ascenario dance of absent senators and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 84, the nays are 7. the motion is agreed to. and a quorum is present.

the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i have a package of amendments that have been agreed to by both leaders and by the chairs of -- and ranking members of the relevant committees. so i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and reported by number en bloc. i ask unanimous consent the following amendments be agreed to en bloc -- collins 1583, fischer 1637, johnson 1701, shaheen 1758, rubio 1777, thune 1851, wicker 1943, haggerty 1958, cotton 1964, blunt 1988, scott 2000, ernst-hassan 2017,

romney-menendez, 2025. johnson, 2048. lujan 2082. merkley 1823. warnock 19800. murray 1981. hassan 2001. collins 1622. wicker 1801, leahy-tillis, 2093. blackburn, 20885. cortez masto 2083. lankford 1945. baldwin-braun 2026. hyde-smith 1933. hyde-smith 1841. merkley rubio romney 2103. barrasso 2094. rubio 2016. kaine 2090.

the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: reserve the right to object. the sponsors and managers of this bill made the point that this, this legislation has followed regular order. and i will admit, versus how things have been passed in the last ten years since i've been here, this is a little bit better regular order than i've experienced in general. but it still does not even come close to giving members time to fully consider what we're voting on here. i don't even have a total score on this. i've been told it's approaching a quarter of a trillion dollars. the history of this bill is on may 13, about 730 pages was reported out of committee. this wasn't exactly the bill that was voted out of

committee, though. somewhere, somehow the chair modified at least one amendment that was not particularly recognizable to those that offered the amendment. on may 19, the bill grew to 1,445 pages. and just today we voted on amendment, 900 pages. so now here we are at 11:00, we've come to the chamber, for the first time i see what the amendments are in the managers' package. i'm sorry, i don't know what these amendments are. i know what my amendment is. i don't know what the rest of these are. i haven't seen them. i don't know how many pages this is. i just have a list. so you can claim this is regular order. you can claim this is deliberative process, but it's far from it.

so i would just ask that the senator modify her request, that the senate stand in recess for three hours. only three hours to allow us to review this package of amendments. would the senator modify her request? the presiding officer: does the senator so modify her request? ms. cantwell: mr. president, i know my colleague knows the commerce process, knows that we went through a very elaborate process on commerce. and i know that he has amendments in this proposal. some of these have been available since 11, 12 hours ago. people have been talking about these amendments. so it is time for us to honor the request of our colleagues to move forward on a managers' package worked out by the

leaders and the relevant chair and ranking member. so i object to the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? the senator from florida. mr. scott: i'm joining my colleagues today to make a simple request. let the people see the bill. too often this body acts without due time given to hear from all the ones we represent, the american people. that is absolutely been the case this year as congress has rushed through massive 1,000 or 2,000-plus page bills spending billions or trillions of tax dollars without valuable input. now you ask us to vote on a massive bill compiled just this evening. that's wrong, and the american public know it's wrong. we haven't had the time to read this. no one has in fact.

this entire bill as it sits before us has only been under consideration for a little over two weeks with thousands of pages, has been amended numerous times, including many times today. it spends hundreds of billions of tax dollars. as my colleagues know well, i'm as vocal an opponent of communist china as anyone. america must take decisive action to protect our interests and combat the threats posed by china's communist regime. and if the purpose of this legislation is to address that urgent issue, we should do that with input and feedback from the public. we should table this vote, let the members return to our states, hear from constituents and move forward in a timely manner with legislation after we've heard from our constituents. this is a simple and reasonable request. therefore, i ask the senator to modify her request to delay further consideration of s.1260

until the week of june 7. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify her request? ms. cantwell: mr. president, my colleague also knows the work of the commerce committee, because he's on the commerce committee, and this bill came out of the commerce committee 24-4. i know the senator knows the work of that legislation. and the remarkable aspect of this legislation is that it did compile product from various committees, and those committees did their regular order process. in fact, this process for the last several, you could say 24, 48 hours was held up because one committee's product wasn't considered, and your side said it wanted it considered before we could move forward. and guess what? we accommodated that. so we now have a work product that is, i think, ready to be voted on, again in a bipartisan fashion, working together with both leaders and with committee

chairs and the ranking members. so i object to the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i want to reiterate again what we've dealt with as originally introduced the bill was 160 pages. yes, it ran through committee. then it went out of committee. and it was reported out by the committee at 730 pages. and then you had the may 19 substitute, 1,445 pages. and you have the substitute today took it up to over 2,300 pages. then at 10:59 p.m., just a little over an hour and a half ago, we received notice of this

managers' package, a list that we have received is a simple list of numbers attached to last names. it doesn't contain the text of those. it just contains references back to other amendments. 10:59 p.m. we still don't know exactly how long that is. yet, people are fond of saying, well, as i believe my colleague from washington said a minute ago, quote, people have been talking about this for hours. what does that even mean? it's not the same as presenting an amendment saying this will be presented as a package. keep in mind these aren't just mere sequential pages, pieces of paper. every time you add another piece of paper, every time you add an amendment, it gets a lot more complicated because you have to know not just what each page says, but how it interacts with every other page. this is how it came out of committee. this is the rest of the bill as it existed as of early this

morning. as of this afternoon, we added about another 900 pages to it. then at 10:59, again, just about an hour and a half ago, we received yet to be ascertained managers' package that we still haven't seen in its entirety. we've just seen a list. and we're told we've got to vote on that right now. the american people understand that when you're throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars at a time you really have an obligation to know what on earth we're voting for. we don't know that. we can't credibly maintain that. we certainly shouldn't pretend to be competent to understand everything that's in here. and i find it absolutely stunning. i find it disappointing more than anything that in response to the very reasonable request made by my friend and distinguished colleague from wisconsin to give us three hours to look at it, even that was

too much. this, mr. president, is too much for the american people, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. ms. cantwell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: to recap this process, i respect every member's right to express their opinion. that's what regular order is about. in committee we had 233 amendments filed. my colleague from utah filed 130 of those. so, yes, the commerce committee staff worked through 130 of senator lee's amendments. that's a lot of amendments to work through. i guarantee you, i'm sure we

probably would have liked a little more crystallized concerns and opposition than 130-plus amendments. we ended up putting 14 of them in the managers' amendment. we ended up voting on five more during the committee process. so, yes, i could have been frustrated with that, but we worked through those amendments. and now this process on the floor where my colleague is concerned and upset over 900 pages that he voted to accept. the moment to be concerned about those 900 pages, he could have objected but he didn't. but now wants to revisit that decision. so i can propound many requests here, and we can continue to discuss these.

but our colleagues, our leadership on both sides of the aisle have worked through a process of regular order with our colleagues on a host of 36 different amendments where i'm looking at this list, many of them are bipartisan. and i think those members deserve to have a vote on their amendments. mr. president, i withdraw amendment 1527. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. ms. cantwell: i call up amendment --. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i call up my amendment 1858 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, for himself and mr. cotton proposes an amendment numbered 1858.

mr. cornyn: mr. president, last year senator warner, the senior senator from virginia, and i introduced the chips for america act to help shore up supply chains for semiconductors and reduce our reliance on other countries for the most critical components of everything from the f-35 joint strike fighter to the cell phones in our pockets and everything in between. the vast majority of our colleagues have agreed that this is a critical task. it was carefully crafted after months long bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. in fact, this legislation was adopted as an amendment to the national defense authorization act by a vote of 96-4 at the end of last year. but now we need to fund the program we created, and there's just one issue standing in the way. during committee consideration of the endless frontiers act, an amendment was adopted that

would apply controversial and unprecedented prevailing wage language to the chips for america act signed into law last year. this provision creates needless, a needless hurdle to funding for chips, for the chips provision. considering the current wages of u.s. semiconductor manufacturing companies, there is zero benefit, zero benefit to workers' wages. so this is really a nonissue in terms of the compensation that workers in semiconductor manufacturing facilities will make. what's more, these davis-bacon provisions represent an expansion of special interest labor policy to private construction projects and sets a disturbing precedent. leaving this language in the bill is a gratuitous act and could dramatically weaken support for the broader legislation. and i would hope we could all agree that the stakes are simply

too high to let that happen. so i've introduced an amendment to strike this unnecessary and divisive language and maintain strong bipartisan support for this program. a partisan provision with zero benefit to workers' wages is hardly a reason to gamble with strong support for the chips act. republicans and democrats have worked hard together to bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing and to confront one of the most dangerous looming threats from china. now is not the time to sacrifice the progress we've made. so i'd encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment so we can maintain the strong bipartisan support for this critical legislation and send a message to our adversaries that the united states intends to stay the world's preeminent economic and military power.

mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: i mentioned earlier that there's no doubt that this bill did go through more regular order than we've been used to over the last decade, but i think we also demonstrated that the massiveness of this bill -- close to a quarter trillion dollars, over 2,300 pages, many

of those pages dumped on us today, and now that managers' package -- we haven't seen it, a few members have -- does not represent adequate regular order. i also did not have much participation in the development of that managers' package. i realize that a couple of my amendments did get in there. certainly not my priority amendments. i'll talk later about the one that actually got a vote. i only got one vote on one amendment and that vote was to simply honor the contracts that we have outstanding -- about $2 billion worth -- to build the additional 250 miles of wall to secure our border. i'll come back to that. right now we'd like to talk about four of -- i probably have about a dozen amendments -- but four priority amendments that we tried to get that this managers'

package. no consultation with my personally, maybe a little back-and-forth with staff. the first amendment would have codified something we passed when i was chair of the homeland security security. it was called the good act, guidance out of darkness. president trump ordered the agencies to publish the guidance that they were creating so is that the american public would know what the regulations were expected of them, so they understood what the rules of the road were. a good piece of transparency in government. it passed unanimously twice out of my committee. for some reason president biden on his first couple days in office reversed that executive order. so now we have literally executive agencies pulling down these websites, so the american public don't even know what

guidances they are expected to follow. so that would have been a very simple amendment. i have no idea -- again, passed twice out of my committee unanimously. that didn't make it into the managers' amendment, into the managers' a packet. one amendment that i had also introduced actually was voted on during the debate over the iran nuclear agreement, simply stated that any new agreement with iran that this administration enters into should be deemed a treaty. that's what we should -- that's what should have happened in the obama administration when the jcpoa was just entered into as an executive agreement that literally was no better than the piece of paper it was written on because the next president could just do away with it, and that's exactly what happened. so this is a very simple amendment.

and, quite honesty -- the presiding officer: there will be order, please. mr. johnson: quite honestly, this should pass 100-0. the senate -- every united states senator should demand when you have an agreement between two nations, as significant as the jcpoa or whatever this administration might enter into with iran, it should be deemed a treaty and it should come before this body for ratification by two-thirds of this body. that should have been included in this managers' amendment, but it wasn't. one threat that this nation faces -- and this relates, i believe, directly to china because china in their own military doctrine does not recognize the high-altitude nuclear blast as a nuclear attack. a high-altitude nuclear blast, otherwise known asen e.m.p. --

an e.m.p. -- could wipe out -- administrations have not paid adequate attention to this. so this amendment, vital to our national security, also should have been included in the managers' package, but it wasn't. why not? this is perfectly suited to this piece of legislation. this is an important national security priority, and this was left out of the managers' packet. i would like to have a little bit more time working 0en this legislation to insist that is this at least gets an up-or-down vote because i pretty well assume that this wouldn't accepted by both sides, not -- would be accepted by both sides, not rejected. but it wasn't. an e.m.p. disturbance could represent an existential threat to the this nation. but it was simply ignored. it wasn't included. then the final amendment that was a priority of mine was the

sofa act. we're all fully aware of the fact that in this nation we have a crisis of overdoses, of things like heroin and fentanyl. it's plaguing all of our communities, large and small, every state. no member of congress is unaware of this. we've all heard the tragic stories from our constituents. one of the problems with fentanyl is the way it's scheduled to be illegal. and the problem with that is there are analogues. you can change the makeup of fentanyl very easily and then all of a sudden it's not scheduled as being an illegal substance. all this amendment would have done is codified what the d.e.a. has been doing for a umin of years. but the d.e.a. -- for a number of years. but the d.e.a. regulation has run out. so one more time, this is completely bipartisan.

there's no controversy to this amendment whatsoever. completely, directly related to this piece of legislation. it's trying to protect this nation against china's maligned actions. this amendment was left out of this package. so you might get some measure of sense of why i'm not happy with the managers' package, why i think this body should take a little bit more time to deliberate, take a few more votes on amendments like this that, again, should be passed unanimously but were overlooked because, i guess, the only people really consulted in terms of amendments are those they felt they could figure out how to get their vote. and i was pretty solid from the standpoint that i didn't want to vote for a quarter of a trillion dollars to government agencies

that i don't think are going to spend that money particularly effectively. now, i'd like to talk about one amendment that i did get a vote on. unfortunately, it was voted down on a largely party-line vote. the senator from west virginia -- both senators from west virginia, but one that does not caucus with us was the only senator from the other side of the aisle that supported this piece of legislation. when i introduced this amendment, i came down to the floor and i talked about -- there was a time and that time wasn't very long ago when border security was actually bipartisan. securing our border, an imperative of national security,

with as a bipartisan goal. evidence of that was in 2006 the senate passed a piece of legislation called the secure fence act of 2006. what that piece of legislation would do -- was supposed to do was build 700 miles of double-layer fencing. 700 miles. now, in the end, only 36 miles of double-layer fencing was built. the other 613 miles was built but 299 miles of that was just vehicle fencing. in other words, pedestrians can walk through. the rest was a single-layer fence that unfortunately pedestrians can almost hop over but they can scale and defeat that fence very easily. now, again, proving the secure nature of the act of 2006, it

passed the senate overwhelmingly with a vote of 80-19. 26 democrats joined 54 republicans in voting yes. in the house, the secure fence act passed by a vote of 283 to 138 with 64 democrats voting yes. so in total, the secure fence act of 2006 passed congress with a combined total vote of 363 votes for and 157 votes against. in other words, 70% of the members of congress back then voted yes and 90 democrats ensured that it was a bipartisan support. by the way, notable democrats who voted for it the were the majority leader of this body today, the senator from new york. president obama voted for it. president biden voted for it. secretary of state clinton voted

for it. the chairman of homeland security and then my ranking member when i was chairman, senator tom carper voted for it. senator feinstein and senator wyden and senator sherrod brown voted for it as a house member back in 2006. we need a fence. walls work. i think we admitted that fact after january 6 when we put a double layer of seven- or eight-foot-high fencing and needed it up for way longer than it needed to be left up. so here in congress we're happy to put up fence, put up walls as long as it's protecting us. i think it's about time that we build a wall to protect the rest of america. now, what my amendment did is it

simply required the administration to complete construction on the part of the wall that's already been contracted. we built about 450 miles. 250 has been contracted. we're going to have to pay for it whether we build it or not. that's all my amendment did is don't waste the american taxpayer money. which if we don't pass my amendment, that's exactly what's going to happen. but i do want to take a little bit of time, seeing as we have a lot of time here tonight, and we intend to take that time tonight. i want to lay out the history of the current problem. so my first chart here is detailing unaccompanied minors that are apprehended at the southern border. these minors are from central america, from honduras, guatemala, and el salvador.

now, i want my colleagues to notice that in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 or, 2011, we never had more than 4 health care reform 431 unaccompanied -- 4,431 unaccompanied children cross our border illegally and be apprehended. as a matter of fact, in 2007 there was less than 2,000 people. in 2008, 4,380. in 2009, 3,288. 2010, 4,431. and then in 2011, 3,038. so we averaged under 4,000 unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally and being apprehended in those five years. then something happened, and what happened were the deferred action on childhood arrivals memorandum when president obama get to frustrated that the

delivered process wasn't delivering him the border security or the immigration reform that he wanted, he used his pen, and he did what i certainly did not believe was constitutional. as a matter of fact, a couple years before that he said he didn't have the constitutional authority to do this, but he did it anyway. it's bee -- been challenged in the courts ever since. but the most significant thing about the deferred action childhood arrivals, other than its unconstitutionality, is what it sparked, what it was a catalyst for. it was passed in june of 2012. lo and behold, -- and it's not a coincidence -- in 2012, all of a sudden that less than 4,000 annual average became 10,000. the following year, 2013, 20,805 unaccompanied children entered the country illegally and were