stepping up and doing the work that we need to do in terms of that, in terms of the work -- >> host: caller, are you there? >> caller: virginia, and we do this work of helping people understand how the government is working, supposed to work for you as opposed to saying the government is not doing anything. the government is doing too much. >> guest: in these hyper partisan times there's a principle we should all be able to agree on, that when government taxes us, the tax dollars should help people who have real needs. so the point is a very, very valid one. an hour where is the pork report we actually show that twice the federal government on covid eight, for example, -- >> we're going to leave this program to honor our 40+ year commitment to covering congress. you can watch the rest of this@c-span.org. the senate working today on several judicial nominations including continue work on the

nomination of a u.s. district judge for illinois. we take you live to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

ask l vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 45, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

ms. stabenow: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. i rise today to speak on behalf of american women. our fundamental rights and our freedom to make our own health care decisions. it's shocking that in this day and age that we have to actually stand up and fight for something as basic as making our own reproductive health decisions. not a bunch of politicians, not a bunch of judges, but women making our own health care decisions. thanks to a radically conservative supreme court that we now have, reproductive freedom is no plonger a -- no longer a constitutional right in the united states of america. no longer a constitutional right

in the united states of america, after 50 years. today's daughters and granddaughters have fewer freedoms than their grandmothers did, and, for the record, we're furious. want to know just how furious? well, if michigan, our state could soon revert back to a 1931 law that makes abortion at any stage a felony. no exceptions for rape or incest. putting people in jail, potentially, women going to jail, doctors going to jail. who knows how far that this would go? well, the people of michigan aren't going to stand for that, and a group called reproductive freedom for all, has gotten to work. these passionate advocates and volunteers from all across michigan -- west side, east

side, up north, down south in misch -- have collected -- down south in michigan -- have collected more than 750,000 signatures to put reproductive freedom on the ballot for michigan women this november. it's the most signatures ever collected for a ballot measure in michigan. twice as many as is actually needed to put the ballot proposal on the november ballot. the most ever, 750,000 people have come forward to sign petitions to give them the right to vote to protect their reproductive freedom. so, our freedoms are on the ballot in november. but we also know that we have to continue to do everything we can right now, both at the state level and the federal level,

because waiting isn't an option. women's lives and people's livelihoods are on the line today, and it's revealed a stark contrast when we look at the actions that are being taken or not taken. democrats are standing with women to protect our reproductive freedoms. as of june 1, democrats in five states have already enacted laws, new laws, protecting access to legal abortion. and 62 pieces of legislation have been introduced in 17 states across america to protect reproductive freedom. and vermont, california, and arizona have joined michigan in pursuing ballot initiatives to enshrine reproductive freedom in

their state constitutions. so men and women will have the opportunity there, the freedom to vote to protect their reproductive freedoms. democratic governors have issued executive orders and taken other actions to protect access to reproductive health care. and the biden administration signed an executive order directing agencies to protect access to medical care and providing legal support to patients and health care providers. meanwhile, republicans are doing everything they can, everything they can to stand in the way of women who are simply trying to access basic health care, basic health care, what's best for them, with their own faith, their own family, the counsel of their doctors,s capacity for

women to make their own decisions. again, not a bunch of politicians, not a bunch of judges. it's the united states of america. this is not about what decisions are made. it's about who makes them. the government or women? now, republicans are saying the government at every level. 15 states have already banned abortion, and several more are expected to follow soon. a clinic in cleveland, ohio, a state where care has been severely restricted, is now sending its patients to detroit. these women have to drive 2 1/2 hours, at least, to receive basic health care. and now some people want to take away their car keys. and to be clear, republicans, republican elected officials, want to take away their car

keys. republican lawmakers in some states are pursuing legislative to prevent -- legislation to prevent people from traveling to another state to receive reproductive health care. in america people are being banned from driving to another state to be able to get the health care that they need. oftentimes in very serious emergency situations, tragedies. think about that for a moment. republicans who fancy themselves the party of freedom are trying to pass laws that would prevent an ohio woman from driving to michigan for health care, in america. the freedom to travel for health care act introduced by my friend senator cortez masto would have protected that right. it would protect that right. last week, we tried to pass it.

unfortunately, my republican colleagues blocked it. but we will keep trying. and we will keep doing everything we can to get enough people that are pro-choice, that respect privacy, respect women, in this chamber to be able to make that happen. so this week we're trying a different approach to protect people's reproductive freedom. senator smith and senator murray have introduced legislation that i'm pleased to cosponsor as well. it would provide $550 million a year in permanent funding for title 10 family planning programs. now, let me remind everyone that title 10 funding can't be used to provide abortions. this is about basic health care, yearly pap smears and ob-gyn visits and the capacity to work

with a clinic to get the basic care that you need and the birth control that you need. it prevents unplanned pregnancies in the first place by providing affordable birth control and other reproductive health care to people who need it. we should all be able to come together. given my colleagues across the aisle and how passionate they are about preventing abortions, i expect that they will eagerly support this commonsense bill when in the next couple of days a motion is made to pass it. birth control is basic health care. we shouldn't need to be here defending something that nearly 90% of american women use at some point in their lives. but we saw what happened to roe,

and we've since seen how eager republicans at all levels are to constrain reproductive freedom. so here we are. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation coming before us this week. democrats are standing with women. we respect women. we understand that women need to make their own decisions. and democrats understand that this is about freedom, the freedom to decide for ourselves, in whatever circumstance that we are in, whatever tragedy, whatever is happening, that women need to be able to make our own basic health care decisions, and not have the government coming in to regulate whwhat is happening for women.

so it's time for republicans to join us on this legislation, basic legislation on title 10 that will ensure that there's support for basic reproductive health care. again, we're talking about annual visits. we're talking about ob-gyn visits for women. we're talking about basic birth control. i certainly hope that republican colleagues are not going to say no to basic health care, reproductive health care for women. i hope republican colleagues will join us. thank you, mr. president. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. portman: marp. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i come to the floor today because we're poised to begin consideration of a important piece of legislation. it's a plan to make america more

competitive with china and a plan to bring good jobs back to america. the bipartisan chips act, which ensures american workers and american companies get the tools they need to compete and win. let me give some background on why this is so badly needed. u.s. dominant in -- u.s. dominance in semiconductor production has twindled. the u.s. has always led the world in chip design. we came up with this technology, but our share of the global chip manufacturing capacity over the past 30 years has gone from about 37% down to less than 12% today. as a result we rely more and more on foreign countries for these essential chips. in the past few years the supply chain has not been reliable. you know that if you tried to buy a car recently, maybe even a washing machine, you had to wait forever. why? because of the lack of semiconductors. these chips just aren't available. we all come to learn in recent

years that semiconductors are the building blocks of everything, household appliances, computers, medical equipment, but also military systems and weaponry like the f-35. and in a more dijal economy by the way, the demand for the semiconductors, these chips will only continue to grow. last year this lack of semiconductors caused an estimated loss of $240 billion to the u.s. gross domestic product. so $250 billion hit to our economy, according to the department of commerce last year, just because of the supply chain issues with semiconductors. this is more complicated by the key role that our adversaries play in the production of the semiconductors. and the fact that we rely on some very vulnerable nations for critical components of the supply chain. neon gas which is critical for the laser and printing of the chips comes largely from ukraine. taiwan is the number one semiconductor fabricator in the world. by the way, 90% of the high end

chips are made in taiwan. none are made here in america anymore. 90%. of course taiwan's proximity to china and the constant threat of invasion by china adds to the urgency of diversifying the semiconductor supply chain. by incentivizing companies toe make the critical components here in america, we can make our supply chains more resilient, protect our national security and boost economies all across the country. that's why chips is so important and why we've been working in a bipartisan fashion in congress through legislation like this and the broader usica legislation. this legislation would work to improve our nation's competitiveness generally in technology, foreign relations and national security, domestic manufacturing, education, trailed, and other matters. -- trade, and other matters. the chips act specifically would bring $52 billion in federal investments for domestic semiconductor research designed and manufacture -- design, and manufacturing. the broader bill, so-called usica bill last june passed this

senate with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. we had hoped that the house would simply pass the senate-approved bill because it was already bipartisan. it had been worked out with democrats adds republicans in the senate. 19 republicans support it. all 50 democrat senators supported it. the white house supported it. but instead the house sat on it. took them almost a year, 11 months to pass their bill but when they passed it, it was filled with all sorts of unrelated items that no republican could support. that's why this has gone so slowly. so earlier this summer we began conferencing, the house and senate-passed bills trying to find that common ground between the two bills. we made some progress but both chambers have yet to agree on a final product. meanwhile, there's an urgency to get this done. because it's critical to the decisions that employers are making right now to create and bring semiconductor manufacturing factories and jobs to america or to some other country. in january intel announced its plan to build a $20 billion site

consisting of two semiconductor fabs in the united states and in my home state of ohio. this is the largest investment in ohio's history by far. comes with a grand total of again $20 billion, two fabs. we hope that's just a start. intel has said time and time again that if the chips act funding is enacted this will move forward and move forward quickly. they've also said that if it moves forward, the chips act, it could be extended, the $20 billion to -- up to $100 billion investment in ohio. remember, the $20 billion is already historic. that's because they would continue to build fabs, not just two but up to ten. this 3,000-acre site in ohio could be home to up to eight additional fabs and make central ohio the silicon heartland. this would be great for my state, great for our region, and great for our country. this initial investment, by the way, would create about 10,000 good-paying jobs, 3,000 on site, all good high-paying jobs, good

benefits but also 7,000 good paying construction jobs in putting it together. tens of thousands of additional electrical, engineering, supplier, restaurant, housing, health care and entertainment jobs to support the region as it expands thanks to this investment. the suppliers alone will be tens of thousands of new jobs. ohio has already projected that this investment will add $2.8 billion to the state's g.d.p. and that's just a start. investment like what's in front of us in ohio, by the way, as well as similar efforts in arizona where the presiding officer is from, texas where my colleague senator cornyn is from here on the floor with us today, are all perfect demonstrations of what this investment in semiconductor incentives can mean to american workers and companies. china has committed a lot more than we're talking about. by the way, a lot of other countries. this is not a free market situation. one of my colleagues today asked me about -- shouldn't we let the market decide. if the market decides and china is offering $150 billion which

they are over the next ten years, when europe has its own legislation next to ours and it offering tens of euros, tens of billions of euros or when south korea or japan or taiwan are offering the huge incentives, it's very difficult to see us being able to bring these chaips back to america where -- chips back to america where costs are a little higher and be able to be competitive. we need that to happen for our domestic economy but also our national security. if we fail to act, we're going to miss a key opportunity here to boost our competitive edge as a nation. these fabs will go elsewhere. i'd also like to see us include some of the other key pieces of the broader passed usica bill. 19 of us supported it here on the republican side. that includes critical new vesms in research but also key protections to be sure that that research is not stolen by foreign governments such as china. we've got to remember the overall goal of this effort is to improve our country's competitiveness, especially with regard to china.

to do that we must not only invest in research and innovation which i strongly support but we must protect that taxpayer funded research and intellectual property and being taken by competitors like china and used against us. i believe given current realities, without such protections, any bill would significant increased lefts of federal funding for research would be a huge giveaway to beijing. why do i say that? because i've worked on this issue for the past four years. we've investigated it. held hearings. we've passed legislation. recently f.b.i. director wrai said it well -- wray said it well. the biggest threat we face as a country is from the people's republic of china, particularly the chinese communist party. they are targeting our innovation, our trade secrets, our intellectual property on a scale that is unprecedented in history. end quote. that's the director of the f.b.i. senator carper on the other side of the aisle and i introduced what's called the safeguarding

american innovation act and insisted that it be included in the usica legislation in order for us to support it. that was my condition for supporting the broader usica bill. this came after we did a year long study with the permanent subcommittee on investigations that found, shockingly, how china had used what are called talent programs for two decades, two decades, to target the most promising taxpayer-paid research and researchers and to take that technology, that intellectual property back to china. we found that the american tax patience had been unwittingly funding the rise of china's military and economy over the past two decades while the federal government had done very little to nothing to stop it. in fact, when the f.b.i. testified at our hearing, they acknowledged that. they said we haven't been focused on this the past couple decades like we should have been. we're going to now and started to. they've started to make arrests and you probably heard about some of these, arresting scientists all over the country who are abusing our lax attitude

toward protecting research by taking research back to china and using it often against us. this legislation goes directly to the root of the problem. it makes it punishable by law to knowingly fail to disclose foreign funding on federal grant applications. that is not a law now. the f.b.i. has asked us for that law. it requires the executive branch to streamline and coordinate grant making between the federal agencies so there's continuity, accountability, and coordination. that does not happen now. it's too wide open. it's not coordinated. it allows the state department to deny visas so foreign researchers who are coming to the united states to exploit the openness of our research enterprise. and it requires research institutions and universities to do much more, including telling the state department whether a foreign research will have access to export control technologies. we've worked on this legislation again for the past few years. we have made lots of compromises and concessions with people who had potential concerns about it.

we have come up with legislation that is bipartisan, makes sense. it's already passed with an overwhelming margin in the united states senate. i want to be sure before we spend billions of dollars more in federal research, which is being proposed, including to the national science foundation, that that research can be protected. who could be against that? who could be for china being able to have better access to this information? nobody. again, a vital component of any competitiveness bill is this commonsense extensive negotiated bipartisan bill which is already concluded in the homeland security title of usica. i can't stress enough the importance of passing this legislation and it should be done on a bipartisan basis because it has been done before. it just makes sense. the broader usica bill and the chips bill are both important. and to pass the chips legislation is critical right now. it is urgent. and then what we can pass in terms of usica is also important but again if we're putting more money into research which is being proposed and which i

support, it has to be protected. that's pretty simple and common sense. there's no perfect bill but this bill will help keep america's economy competitive, help people american jobs here and grow new job, good-paying jobs with good benefits. we should pass this legislation, get it through the house, and take it to the president's desk for signature. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting its passage. thank you and i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i want to express my gratitude to the senator from ohio for his excellent remarks and for his support getting us to the point we are today which is on the cusp of a historic accomplishment, and that is to make sure the supply lines of advanced semiconductors remains available to american businesses

and even more importantly to our national security. now two years ago, senator warner, the senior senator from vermont and i introduced the chips for america act. and it's been a long, strange trip until today. but i dare say at the time we introduced the bill, there were many people didn't know the difference between chocolate chips and microchips. and frankly that's an exaggeration but the point is most people are really unaware of the dependency of our economy and our national security and frankly just the quality of our life on access to these microcircuits known as semiconductors. and over time the semiconductor manufacturers have been able to make them smaller and smaller and more and more powerful until your cell phone which is essentially a mini computer

contains thousands of these microchips. and again whether you're talking about a laptop computer or a new car or a washing machine or just some desk top computer, all of them depend on access to the semiconductors. as i said, senator warner and i introduced the bipartisan chips for america act two years ago. 18 months ago this legislation became law. that was part of the national defense authorization act. 13 months ago the united states senate passed a bipartisan bill to fund the program. unfortunately as the senator from ohio mentioned, the house failed to respond to the bipartisan usica bill, the u.s. innovation and competition act, and sent over a partisan bill which has delayed our

consideration of this important legislation unnecessarily. but today i'm optimistic that the senate will follow up on its commitment to enact this chips funding into law before we break for the august recess. this afternoon we'll take a procedural vote to kick-starts consideration of the legislation -- to kick-starts -- kick-start consideration to the legislation. as we lead up to this important debate, many of us have been talking about the size and shape of the bill on both sides of the aisle. and there's still some things that need to be decided and the fate of the bill is not yet secure. being the majority leader, senator schumer will ultimately be the one to determine what the size and shape of the bill will look like. but i'm encouraged by where we stand. this bill will not, however, be the senate's u.s. innovation and competition act or the usica

bill or the house's massive partisan america competes act. this will be a far more narrow bill that focuses on the core issue of semiconductor manufacturing. semiconductor manufacturing is, as i said, the key to our economy and our national security. and as it turns out, most of the manufacturing capacity has been built overseas, primarily in asia, because it's significantly cheaper to build those manufacturing facilities there rather than here. i'm not opposed to additional commerce provisions, for example, that have already been voted on as part of usica be included. but anything else that is included by senator schumer must be bipartisan, and those decisions have to be made very quickly. the time for voting on this bill should not be delayed any further. over the last three decades,

the united states has gone from making 37% of these microcircuits, or semiconductors, 37% to 12% now. when you look at the most advanced chips, the smallest and the most powerful, none of these are made in the united states. none. taiwan's semiconductor located in taipei, taiwan, has a great business model. american companies design the chips and they make them, and as i said, it's cheaper to make them in asia than it is here in america. but post-covid we have come to realized vulnerability of our supply chains for virtually everything. and when you look at the dependency and what it might mean to our country, it's shocking. the ceo of micron out of idaho

has said there is a 35% to 45% cost gap between domestic and overseas production. if you're talking about making toys or something like that, or furniture items, it's great to have a cheaper alternative where that product is manufactured overseas rather than here in america. that's good for consumers. it makes things a lot more affordable. but when you're talking about a sole source for the most advanced semiconductors, that goes from being a convenience to a nightmare. and of course during the pandemic, we've experienced a number of supply chain vulnerabilities. and now as the economy around the world continues to expand, anybody who's tried to buy a car, a dishwasher or a computer over the last couple of years has likely been impacted with higher costs or long delays, or both. as a matter of fact, due to the

shortages of supply, that's necessarily driven the cost higher, which has further exacerbated compilation. -- exacerbated inflation. there is an even more important to get this bill done. the chip shortage and lack of domestic manufacturing capability is a huge national security risk. that's why the secretaries of the department of defense and commerce said in a letter to congress a few weeks ago, saying very clearly, and i quote, funding the chips act is critical to our national defense, close quote. that's why the republican-led senate passed the original bill and helped it become law during the previous administration, and that's why i hope the current congress will fund it with today's vote, or actually this week's vote. whether it's advanced fighters, the fifth generation stealth strike fighter like the f-35,

whether we're talking about quantum computing, the next generation of computing, if we're talking about missile defense systems or the stinger or javelin missiles that we have exported to ukraine to defend themselves against russian aggression, all of them depend on semiconductors. as a matter of fact, a single report interceptor used in israel's iron dome, for example, contains more than 750 chips. and overreliance on other countries to produce the key components of our most vital defense assets is a huge and unacceptable risk. as i said, that's why senator warner and i initially introduced the bill last june of 2020 and why it received such strong bipartisan support. building a new foundry or a fab

as they're sometimes called is a huge undertaking and requires a massive investment. a single foundry can cost upwards of $10 billion to $20 billion. $10 billion to $20 billion. and without some level of support from the government, these investments simply won't materialize, at least not in america. other governments, as you've heard, have made similar investments in semiconductor manufacturing, trying to make sure that their supply chain is not vulnerable. countries like china, south korea, taiwan, singapore, germany, and a number of others have included, including over $100 billion pledge to boost semiconductor manufacturing in the european union alone. the united states simply cannot get left behind, and we can't keep dragging our feet. it doesn't take a lot of money

to get these foundries up and running. it also takes time. last year i hosted a roundtable in dallas, texas, to talk about the impact of the chip shortage with industry leaders. during our conversation, a cargo sciewfl talked about how -- executive talked about how it can take years to receive all the high-functioning equipment necessary to make semiconductors. that's why there's been such a big push in congress to get this out the door. chip makers who have to make decisions about where and when to build their next manufacturing facility need to know that these incentives are available for them to build those foundries here in america america, and the window of that decision making process is closing rapidly. if it closes, if we continue to drag our feet and not fund the chips bill, they're going to pull their investments from new or expanded foundries in the

united states and take them overseas. this isn't just a chicken little claim. companies have put out the warning call, and i believe them. one company called global wafers is planning to build a new silicon wafer fact in sherman, texas, which would create up to 1,500 new jobs and produce 1.2 million wafers a month. silicon wafers are an essential component of semiconductors. commerce secretary gina raimondo said the ceo told her that their plan to build this factory in sherman, texas, is contingent on congress passing the chips act. unless the funding is approved by this august recess, which is rapidly approaching, the company will scrap plans for that facility. as you heard from our colleague from ohio, the ceo of intel expressed a similar sentiment for a planned ohio facility.

he said the company would expand chip production in europe instead of america if congress fails to pass this funding. another company, nxp semiconductors, is weighing new investments too. it's looking toking expanding one of its factories in austin, texas, a project that would cost roughly $2.6 billion. the company is planning to decide later this year whether to move forward with that investment or to take that investment to europe or asia. in other words, madam president, there are real consequences on the line. if congress passes its chip funding act in the coming days, we can shore up this domestic supply chain vulnerability, bring good jobs back to america, and protect our economic and national security. but if we fail to act or if we fail to act with dispatch, all

of those benefits will evaporate and all of those dangers will become our worst nightmare. instead of here in america, those benefits from building those fabs will rain down on communities on the other side of the planet instead of here at home. it's been more than a year and a half since the chips act became law, and we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. every day that goes by creates additional risks. unless congress gets this job done in the coming days, these companies will simply go elsewhere. chips funding will help secure our most critical supply chains. it will create thousands of well-paying jobs, and boost our global competitiveness by providing a made in america chips to our friends and allies around the world. so, madam president, we have a big opportunity ahead of us, but big risks in not acting as

well. and success, i believe, is our only option. madam president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: i would ask the quorum call be eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thanks. i come to the floor today to speak of a person who took their own life. it was either on thursday or friday of last week. it happens far too often. this guy was a, an army veteran. his name was dave belcher. i had known dave for 30 years. he worked at white refrigeration as a salesman. i bought tv's from him in the early 1990's, refrigerator. just a great guy, a great guy. but he had a challenge, and his challenge was that he served this country. because of that service to this country, he ended up with

something that we talk about on this floor a lot called post traumatic stress disorder, ptsd. and because of that ptsd, dave, not to my knowledge at the time when i first met him, but he was fighting demons, and he fought demons throughout his life. be and there were issues of depression and guilt that he just overcome. and in the end, probably some paranoia involved, but he ended up taking his own life. and i think to myself back when i first met dave 30 years ago how this guy was as normal as anybody you would ever meet. he's not somebody you'd look at

and say, he's got a bunch of plesms. he's not -- problems. he's not somebody you could predict 30 years after the fact that he could have taken his own life. but that's happened. it happens more often than you think. it happens 22 times a day to veterans in this country and this time it time it happened to somebody i considered a friend. he had struggles, he was one of the first graduates of the veterans court and was somebody that did his best to get his life turned around but it didn't happen. the demons got him and i just wanted to come to the floor today to say, dave, you, and all your friends who served the country, have people in the senate and congress who fight for you every day and for those folks that are watching this,

that can relate to what i'm saying, if you've got an issue, please get ahold of somebody that can help you like a mental health professional out there. because mental health can be fixed. all you need to do is get the tools to be able to deal with it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. madam president ma, we've broken another record, unfortunately it's not the kind of record we want to boast about. last week the latest consumer price index exceeded expectations at 9.1%. in utah that rate was much higher. the biden administration's evolving blame game has shifted. it shifted its focus from the pandemic to the supply chain and then from the supply chain to putin. there is, however, a more coherent answer, government continues to spend more than it has -- a lot more.

last year we saw this play out as congress spent a stunning $6.8 trillion while collecting just over $4 trillion in revenue. with the return of legislative ear -- earmarks, pork barrel spending has increased. rather than recognizing the problems associated with spending more than the government brings in, the government simply prints itself more money like a child stricken with flu rather than being cut off, the government simply helps itself to more money. it doesn't take long to lose the value of a dollar when you're not spending your own money. the government is no different. while hardworking americans pinch pennies, lawmakers spend carelessly. to pay for their next project,

they threaten to raise taxes, when they don't have the support to raise taxes, they nevertheless continue to spend and drive up inflation. inflation is not but an invisible tax on the people and -- a tax on the people that i would add disproportionately affects the hardworking americans, the poor and middle-class americans and the wealthier can at times ways to make more money from inflation, others get hurt. with no action, the reckless spending will drive us off a financial cliff, but our spending trajectory is such that we cannot afford to wait where the consensus needed to pass a constitutional amendment. while hardworking americans wait, i've introduced the runaway inflation and consumer spending act. or the price act. it requires a three-fifths majority of senators to -- when

the nation's inflation rate is at 3%. the price act is desperately needed. this spending machine is now costing those in utah $881 a month, more than they paid last year. that's on top of what they already pay in taxes the those are $881 every month for which utah -- utah utahans spend. it could be used for their homes or child's education or filling their empty gas tax. but instead they must sacrifice their wants and in many cases their needs to just meet their most basic fundamental necessities. my price act flips the script. it doesn't prevent lawmakers

from spending when inflation is above 3%, but it requires lawmakers to set that off. it puts the impew dense of congress -- for everybody living in reality, the budget means something, failure to live within a budget has profound cons qebses. when jack has to spend an extra $93 a month on food, it doubts his ability to able to feed his family. when jill has to pay more for housing, is she doubts the ability to keep a roof over her child's head. when joe has to pay an extra $404 a month for transportation, he doubts his ability to get his child to and from soccer practice. so why is it that when inflation is at 9.1%, lawmakers are still spending and looking for ways to

spend even more? as americans are filled with financial fear and doubt, why is it that the senate democrats want to spend an additional trillion dollars for their build back better plan? congress is failing to exercise self-restraint during this period of unprecedented inflation. as americans tighten their belts, congress has opened the spigot. if a household ran this disaster of a budget, the families would be met with foreclosures, repossessions and ulti ultimatey bankruptcy. ronald reagan said that inflation is paying for those government benefits that everyone thought was free. it's unconscionable that congress continues to pat itself

on the back for passing massive spending bills. while the country, -- has a financial millstone around its neck, it's time that congress stop spending as much. while i wish members of congress would self-impose these restraints, the latest push for a new trillion dollars spending plan shows that is unlikely to happen. given our long demonstrative lack of self-restraint, it's time to pass the price act. congress has become the trust fund baby that doesn't understand the value of a dollar. the price act is the recognition that sometimes you need to take away the credit card. and so to that end, mr. president, we'd like to secure passage of this measure to protect the american people. and as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent

that the budget committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3770, and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. sawmr. sanders: senator lee rais important issues about the deficit. i hope very much he will be able to convince his republican colleagues and democratic colleagues as well that among many other reasons why we should vote against this major corporate welfare bill that's coming down the pike which will add at least $76 billion to the deficit. so if we are concerned about the

deficit, as senator lee is and many others are, i hope that will be one of the reasons we vote against this massive corporate welfare bill that we will be considering later this afternoon. you know, i hear a lot of concern about the deficit here in the senate and i hear people say, we can't afford to feed hungry children, can't afford to deal with climate change, we can't afford to guarantee health care to all, a deficit -- our deficit is very, very large. well, we're talking about $76 billion, at least that, maybe more, which will add to the deficit. so when you consider the deficit, you might want to also take into account tax breaks and corporate welfare for large, profitable corporations. mr. president, i want to say a

few words about this so-called chips bill and what it says about our national priorities, what it says about our tax policies. and basically what it says as to whether or not the u.s. congress is capable of representing the needs of working families or whether we are totally beholden to wealthy and powerful corporate interests and their campaign contributions. last week, when i spoke about this issue, i expressed deep concern that congress would provide $52 billion to a handful of profitable corporations in the microchip industry with no strings attached. here it is, guys, $52 billion.

well, i stand corrected. as a result of some new tax reduction language, the corporate welfare total for the microchip industry has gone up. it is now at $76 billion, and the corporate lobbists working on this bill, like pigs at the trough are not yet finished. they want more and more and more. their needs are insatiable. mr. president, needless to say i do not usually quote approvingly from the editorial page of "the wall street journal." they are not my best friends. in fact, i think i get attacked on that page more than any other member of the congress. but, as you know, a broken clock is right twice a day and even

"the wall street journal" got this one right. among the many reasons they urge congress to vote against this bill is one that i think is very relevant, and let me quote. this is from "the wall street journal" editorial page today. quote, the chip bill isn't needed to compete with china and it will set a precedent that other industries will follow. anybody who can throw up a china competition angle will ask for money. why republicans want to sign up for this is a mystery. end of quote, "wall street journal." and the point they make is a good one. we should be clear that over 90% of the cell phones used in this country, over 90% of the laptops used in this country are made in

china. so you pass this bill and tomorrow we'll hear, i know doubt, from the cell phone industry, from the computer laptop industry about how they need their welfare checks as well. so i think the wall street journal every once in a while makes a good point. today they did. mr. president, i recently came across a very, very interesting interview that the c.e.o. of intel did last friday on cnbc's squawk box. i think that interview he did tells us everything that we want to know about the american oligarchy, about corporate arrogance, and the state of american politics. and this is what mr. gelser

said, head of intel. quote, my message to congressional leaders is hey, if i'm not done with the job, i don't get to go home. neither should you. he's talking to congress. do not go home for august recess until you have passed the chips act because i and others in the industry will make investment decisions. and do you want those investments in the u.s. or are we simply not competitive enough to do them here and we need to go to europe or asia for those. get the job done. do not go home for august recess without getting these bills passed. that's the head of intel last

friday. in other words, the c.e.o. of a major corporation which made nearly $20 billion in profits last year and a c.e.o. who received $179 million compensation package is saying to congress that if you don't give my industry, the microchip industry, $76 billion and my company it is estimated some $20 billion or $30 billion, that despite their profound love for our country and their respect for american workers and their understanding of the needs of the u.s. military and the hill t -- and the health care, despite all of that, in order to make more profits they are prepared to go to europe and asia.

mr. president, i am thankfully not a lawyer, but that sure sounds like extortion to me. what mr. gelsinger is saying, that if you don't give the industry a blank check, here's $76 billion -- and they want more, by the way -- despite the needs of the military for advanced microchips -- and we hear that from the military -- despite the needs of the medical industry for advanced microchips, despite the entire needs of the american economy for advanced microchips, the industry is threatening to abandon this country and move abroad. patriotic people no doubt. clearly lovers of america. mr. gelsinger says we should stay in session if necessary through august in order to pass

his legislation. well, i think we might want to stay in session through august but not necessarily to pass his legislation. because what i hear from the people in vermont and people all across this country is that the job they want done is not a massive handout to large profitable corporations. the job they want congress to do is for a change to protect the american working class, our middle class, and the needs of the most vulnerable people in this country. what i hear is that the american people want us to guarantee health care to every man, woman, and child as every other major country on earth does. what i hear is that the american people think it's absurd that

some of the wealthiest people in this country and largest corporations don't pay a nickel in federal taxes and that we should demand that those loopholes be ended. what i hear is that the american people want us to deal with the existential threat of climate change so that the young people of this country can actually have a planet that they can grow up with in a healthy way. what i hear from the elderly people of this country in my state is that they can't make it on the social security benefits they're receiving now. they want to raise those benefits. what i hear if the people back home is they want congress to do the job and protect a woman's right to control her own body. they want to see us pass serious gun safety legislation. and they want to protect the rights of all americans to be

able to vote. that among many other things is what i hear from the american people in terms of getting the job done. not too many people that i can recall, and i've been all over this country, say bernie, you go back there and get the job done. and you give enormously profitable corporations who pay outrageous compensation packages to their c.e.o.'s billions and billions of dollars in corporate welfare. maybe, mr. president, you hear that. i don't hear that from the people in my state. and by the way, when we talk about an expenditure of $76 billion, yeah, we can give it to some large, profitable corporations with no strings attached or we can use it, $76 billion, to expand medicare, to provide senior citizens with the high quality hearing aids and eyeglasses that they desperately need, and for a bit more we can

provide dental care as well. for $76 billion we could eliminate homelessness in america and create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs from maine to california, all of the affordable rental units that this country desperately needs. yeah, we can end homelessness. give a corporate welfare check to profitable corporations. mr. president, for $76 billion we could make every community college in america tuition free for the next seven years. go home and ask the people whether they think they'd rather spend money on allowing our young people to be able to go to community college tuition free or a welfare check to large profitable corporations. and on and on it goes. $7 6 billion is a lot of money. i know senator lee would

probably refer to see that go into deficit reduction. fair enough. i'm concerned about deficit reduction, but i'm making the point we can invest this in a way that really improves lives for millions and millions of working families. mr. president, there is no doubt that there is a serious global shortage in microchips and semiconductors which is making it harder for manufacturers to produce the cars, cell phones, and the electronic equipment that we need. the shortage is costing american workers good jobs and raising prices for families. and that is why i strongly support efforts to expand u.s. microchip production. but the question we should be asking is this. should american taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of $76 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of

dollars a year in profits and paying their c.e.o.'s very high salaries and compensation packages. and i think the answer to that is a resounding no. and it's important in light of mr. gelsinger's remarks and his threat to go to asia or to europe to have a little bit of history about this issue. mr. president, over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs while moving most of its production overseas. and they did that, by the way, after receiving $9.5 billion in government subsidies and loap -- subsidies and loans. in other words, we have the absurd situation where we have a crisis that is caused precisely

by the people we are now attempting to bail out. so as a reward for their bad behavior for shutting down 780 manufacturing establishments in america, they come back and say oh, we have a crisis in america. we need your help. so they want us to pay to undo the damage they caused. well, that may make sense to someone but not to me. in total, mr. president, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this technology handout. those companies are intel, texas instruments, micron technology, global foundries and samsung. these five companies made 70,

7-0, billion dollars in profit last year. the company that will likely benefit the most from the taxpayer assistance is mr. gelsinger's company intel. i have nothing against intel and i wish them the best, but intel is not a poor company. last year intel made nearly $20 billion in profit. during the pandemic intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on building new plants, but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. over the past 20 years, intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. $100 million may seem like a lot of money, but if you're about to get $20 billion from the taxpayers of america, that is a very modest investment. meanwhile, while they spent $100

million on lobbying and campaign contributions, they were shipping thousands of jobs to china and other low-income countries. does this really sound like a company that needs a taxpayer handout? another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is texas instruments. last year texas instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. in 2020 the company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock. meanwhile other companies that will receive taxpayer support are the taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company and, by the way, you would be shocked to know that the largest shareholder of the taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company is -- well, you guessed it. the government of taiwan. and so we would be giving money i guess directly to the

government of taiwan. and on and on it goes. mr. president, i should be clear in stating that i do believe in industrial policy. i think that at times it is absolutely appropriate for the government to sit down with the private sector and say look, we have needs and we want to work with you to solve those needs. you have a right to make a fair profit. we have a need, the right to see the needs of the american people addressed. we need a partnership. to me industrial policy means cooperation between the government and the private sector, cooperation. it does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. so the question is will the united states government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits

the wealthy, the powerful, their lobbyists, and the campaign contributors. in 1968 dr. martin luther king jr., said and i quote, the problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor, end of quote. i'm afraid that what dr. king said 54 years ago was accurate back then and it is even more accurate today. so, mr. president, the senate has an important decision to make. and that is do we simply provide a blank check or do we put some restrictions on that money? and that is why i will be offering an amendment which does that. it seems to me that a private company -- that private

companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies. the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the american people, not just wealthy shareholders. in other words, if microchip companies make profits as a direct result of the federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree this they will not buy back their own stock, outsource american jobs overseas, repeal collective bargaining agreements and must remain neutral in a union-organizing effort. this is not a radical idea. all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the senate, the cares act, by a vote of 96-0. that is why i will be filing an amendment to impose these restrictions. i understand that some language has been inserted into this bill

that would prohibit microchip companies from using these grants to buy back their own stock. but let us be clear. this language is totally meaningless. under this legislation, companies will still be able to use the unor must profits that they are making on stock buybacks. bottom line -- let us rebuild the u.s. microchip industry but let us do it in a way that benefits all of our people, not just a handful of wealthy, profitable, and powerful corporations. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the senator from vermont and i don't agree on every issue. we represent very different states and come from very different political backgrounds. while i don't agree with everything he just said and while i'm disappointed by his objection to my effort to pass the price act, which i regard as necessary to help keep inflation under control, i want to echo

and applaud so much of what my colleague from vermont just finished saying. i don't think it is appropriate, when we've got people throughout the country struggling just to get by, when we've got people in utah shelling out an additional $881 a month every month, not for judge jacksonly i items -- not for luxuriates but for basic items every single month, because of excessive runaway spending in washington leading toss that inflation, especially in that circumstance, i can't fathom why we would want to turn now and devote, you know, $75 billion, 76 billion to what what i colleague from vermont appropriately described as corporate welfare. this is industrial policy which unlike the senator from vermont, i don't like industrial policy, but i completely agree, this goes beyond even that. this is corporate welfare.

there's an editorial in today's copy of the "wall street journal" by the editorial board. it makes some excellent points, which i'd like to excerpt and present to the senate today. the editorial starts out as follows -- quote, industrial policy is back in fashion in washington or as it ought to be called corporate welfare. the semiconductor industry is first in the queue. but it won't be the last. taxpayers should at least know that they'll be subsidizing highly profitable companies that don't need the help and might end up regretting the political handcuffs they're acquiring. the bill that would -- the bill that will head to the senate floor as early as tuesday -- meaning today -- includes $52.2 billion in grants to the computer chip industry.

but, wait -- there's more. congress is also offering a 25% tax credit for semiconductor fabrication which is estimated to cost about $24 billion over five years. that's $76 billion for one industry. the editorial continues -- republicans on the house ways and means committee point out that for the same money congress could double the research and development tax credit for all companies through 2025. they could also throw in 100% expensing for companies and allow immediate r&d deductions through 2025. but that would mean the politicians aren't picking favorites, which is what they prefer to do. the editorial goes on from there to describe the circumstances that led to the introduction of this bill, the fact that there was surging demand and diminished capacity to produce these semiconductors during the pandemic, and that since the pandemic, a lot of these very

same firms trying, understandably, to keep up with demand have increased their production. and meanwhile, two years later, they find themselves in a position where, due to changing economic circumstances, demand is starting to soften. and so they may now be in a position where they have ramped up supply only to see that demand is diminishing, which -- all of which starts to beg the question, why would we dump over $76 billion into this industry right now? when people across america, including these utahans who are facing some of the highest price hikes in the country for a variety of reasons, why would we give known a small handful of wealthy corporations at a time like this understanding every dollar that we spend here that we don't have means that we're inflating the currency even more and that ends up creating all sorts of problems?

and so a few paragraphs later the editorial goes on to explain the next line of argument. they point out that those advocating on behalf of the chips act say, but oh, we have to do this because it's about china. we have to do this in order to stop china. and this also can't withstand scrutiny. now look, as the editorial writers, the editorial board of the "wall street journal" point out, global semiconductor capacity increased in 2020 and 8 poe.6 -- 8.6% in 23021 and is expected to grow again this year. the rick of overcapacity is growing as china keeps subsidies on its semiconductor industry as part of its made-in-china 2025 initiative and the u.s. and europe tries compete.

some 15,000 semiconductor companies registered in china in 2020. intel has backed chinese start-ups even as c.e.o. pat gelsinger lobbies copping for subsidies to counter beijing. intel has threatened to delay a planned ohio factory unless congress passes the subsidy bill. i pause here, mr. president, to note that this is troubling. if true, this should be a warning to us about why we don't engage in corporate welfare. this is wrong. and deep down we know it's wrong to take from the poor and give to the rich. we have no business doing this. nor do we have any business voting on a -- cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill that doesn't yet exist. we don't yet know what's in the bill because it's still being tran formed significantly even as we speak. "the wall street journal" editorial board continues. quote, the other claim for the

bill is that the u.s. must subsidize domestic chip making to compete with china but this also isn't persuasive. the companies like to point out that the u.s. share of the world's chips has fallen to 12% from 37% in 1990. they don't mention that the u.s. leads in chip design, 52%, and chip making equipment, 50%. seven of the world's ten-largest semiconductor companies are based in the u.s. china trails american companies by years in semiconductor technology. chip fabrication has moved to south korea and taiwan because many chips are commodities with low margins. but chipmakers are working to diversify their manufacturing bases to avoid future supply disruptions and have announced $80 billion in new u.s. investments through 2025. samsung plans to build a $17 billion factory in texas.

tsmc has a $12 billion plant under crux in arizona -- under construction in arizona. i pause here, i've met with representatives from these companies. tsmc noted this my conversations with high-ranking executives that that plant isn't made contingent on any legislation we're producing. they're doing that because it makes good business sense, not because it's their last-gasp effort. this is a profitable company doing well. for the united states to be considering giving money to -- whether to domestic companies or foreign ones under these circumstances in this amount of money makes no sense. the editorial continues, quote, one unfortunate impetus behind this bill is that for all their talk about competing with china, many politicians believe that beijing's planning is superior to the u.s. free market system. it reminds us of the 1980's when

c.e.o. andrew grove warned that japan was going to dominate the future of global technology. as former c.e.o. t.j. rogers explained on these pages last year, the government set up the semantic chip consortium that, quote, was object so lettent when it opened. but intel innovated with more advanced chips and no one is talking now about tokyo's central planning genius. the editorial concludes, quote, history shows that easy government money can undermine competitiveness. it often leads to inefficient spending and investment. the politicians will also attach their own strings, perhaps with limits on stock buybacks and dividends. wait until bernie sanders is heard on the senate floor. they forecasted what we've seen today. it closes with the following sentences. quote, this bill -- the bill

isn't headed -- the bill isn't needed to compete with china. and it will set a precedent that other industries will follow. anybody who can throw up a china competition angle will ask for money. why republicans want to sign up for this is a mystery, especially when they might control both houses of congress in six months. close quote. i couldn't agree more with the editorial board of the "wall street journal" in this assessment. this is wrong. we know it's wrong. the bill still as it stands right now is unknown to most or the entirety of this body. we do know that this costs over $he 76 billion. we do know that people across america, including poor people throughout the state of utah, not just the poor but most people -- again, with inflation during periods of inflation, the extremely wealthy can find ways to become even wealthier. but everyone else suffers, literally everyone else.

the poorer you are, the more you suffer. but even people well entrenched with the middle class get gouged considerably. why we would want to take money away from them and give to the wealthy is beyond my ability to fathom. all of this ties back, mr. president, for the reason i came to the floor today, which was to try to pass the price act by unanimous consent. i didn't succeed today, but we're not going away. we're going to keep undertaking this effort. because the fact is we do need to impose a supermajority requirement for spending, especially when spending levels are producing inflation in excess of 3%. we're at 9.1% nationally in many of our states, including my own, it's higher than that. that's why we need this. and my colleague pointed out, he believes that the tax cuts and jobs act may have contributed to that. well, it's not exactly how

things work. i mean, when you're passing a tax reform bill, a tax reform bill that makes downward adjustments to marginal interest rates and corporate rates, it brings in less revenue, but the government taking in less revenue doesn't cause inflation. it is deficit spending that causes inflation. and so given that it's deficit spending particularly deficit spending during periods of inflation that matters, i believe that's where we ought to be focused. we ought to be focused on pro-growth opportunities and frankly those adjustments to corporate rates, to captain gains rates and -- to capital gains rates are pro-growth. they bring more people back into the labor market. that in turn produces more tax revenue. you can lower -- you can expand and broaden the base while

lowering the rates and ultimately come out on top and with more robust economic growth. but what you can't do is engage in increasingly more aggressive deficit spending and expect that those going to do anything but harm the american people. especially america's poor and middle class. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: let me suggest to my friend from utah that i agree with a lot of what you said about this legislation that we're going to be voting on within the hour. i would simply add, while this bill has had many names -- i think it's lately called the chips bill -- it's also been called the china bill and so forth. but theoretically, it is supposed to be the competing against china. but i would point out that since 2005, intel has invested at least $700 million in chinese

technology companies, including at least four microchips start-ups. in 2020, two years ago, intel invested in two chinese semiconductor start-ups, pro-plus and spectrum materials, as part of a $1323 million investment -- 132 million investment in start-ups, including in china. investing to protect us from china and a company that in fact invests in china. with that, i would yield the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, in a few minutes i'm going to put forward a request for the senate to confirm the nomination of rebecca jones gasner. i briefly want to talk about why her confirmation is so important and what makes her the right person for the job. the administration on children, youth, and families may not grab national headlines every day, but its work is essential to the well-being of millions of young people and families across the land. that is particularly true for vulnerable children, including those in the child welfare system. one of its big jobs over the last few years has been the implementation of the family first prevention services act.

the landmark reform of the child welfare system was written by the finance committee on a bipartisan basis. and for colleagues who remember the late orrin hatch who cared so much about children, in particularly welfare reform, this and the extension of the children's health insurance program for ten years, the longest extension ever, were the two bills for children that chairman hatch really felt strongly about. the underlying goal of the legislation, which i was proud to cosponsor with him was simple. the foster care simple was breaking families up too often. we designed the family first act to keep families together whenever it was safe and possible to do so. maybe a grandparent is the right person to step in as a caretaker for their grandkids. i have been particularly

involved in having grandparents play a bigger role in human services program. it's known as kinship care. we've been working on it for well over a decade. chairman hatch helped us expand it. maybe all that's needed for a family to thrive is to help with mental health care for mom or dad and with a little more flexibility in the program, a little more support, more families stay together and get ahead. the underlying goal that chairman hatch and i had was simple, but implementation has certainly been a challenge. it's required a lot of close collaboration between the department of health and human services, the finance committee and state and local agencies. my view is when you're talking about reforms dealing with the well-being of our youngest, particularly vulnerable kids, it's just critical to get it right. that's why rebecca jones gason

is the right person to lead this committee. she serves as the chieltd welfare director for oregon's department of health and human services. she has shown herself to be a strong leader and advocate for the vulnerable t. she served in a similar role in maryland. this is somebody who shows up to work every day with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. she brings 25 years of experience in public policy dealing with support for families and children. the finance committee approved her nomination on a bipartisan basis in march. my view is the full senate has waited long enough. ms. gaston is a highly qualified nominee. mr. president, therefore i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following

nomination. calendar number 763, rebecca e. jones gaston, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the objection be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hagerty: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. hrg hrg reserving the right -- mr. hagerty: reserving the right to object. i have asked that any future legislation in this congress will not inthe corporate policieses that -- will not incorp. policies for access to care. this reconciliation that was passed last fall, cut dish, and uncompensated care pool. this will result in less health

care for vulnerable populations. it would disadvantage rural communities in my state of tennessee. these are places and populations for which we're trying to secure more quality health care, not less. because i have not received the confirmation that these provisions will not be in any future reconciliation bill, i can not accept confirmation of this nominee and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, just speaking briefly again, let me tell my colleague from tennessee, i very much enjoyed working with him on various policies here in the senate. my understanding is that my colleague believes that his state has some ideas for showing that you can essentially meet medicaid standards for health services for vulnerable people and that the state of tennessee is interested in trying out some

new approaches. i want to assure my colleague that we're interested in hearing more about this. there is a specific waiver provision, for example, in the affordable care act to try out new approaches consistent with these guardrails so that people actually get health care kofnlg. my colleague has -- coverage. my colleague said to me he is interested in pursuing those kinds of ideas. i want him to know that the finance democratic staff is available to hear his staff out on this and i hope we can work it out. i hope we can move rebecca gaston quickly. this is a program that really makes a difference. prior to chairman hatch working with me on this, we had essentially two alternatives for these vulnerable kids, neither of them particularly valuable. one was just sending the kids off to foster care. some of those facilities are good, some of them not so good,

or keeping them at home in a less than desirable situation. what we did on a bipartisan basis is find a third path for these vulnerable youngsters where, for example, if a parent was having difficulty with alcohol or drugs, they could get treatment and stay as the -- as the parent. this is an important program. i want to see rebecca confirmed, and i will follow up with my colleague and his staff to hear more about the program in the days ahead. mr. president, i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, today i rise in support of the nomination of rita landgraph for the administration of community living at the department of

health and human services. i've budget privileged to know rita for over two decades to have worked with her when i was governor of delaware and in the years since then the she is a long-time delaware community leader who has previously served as cabinet secretary of the department of health and social services in delaware, which may be the most challenging of any cabinet secretary in the state of delaware. there she oversaw state implementation of the older americans act, medicaid, home and community-based services and disability services as well. she also had leadership roles with the state offices of arp, with the arc and the national alliance on mental illness which are key national partners for initiatives within the administration of community living. rita's career has been inspired by her relationships with the elderly and those with disabilities, including her

stepson. in addition to her extensive expertise, she will bring a personal passion to her work as assistant secretary. rita's experience in leading organizations focused on advocating for people with disabilities and seniors, along with her time in state government make her an excellent -- an excellent choice to serve as assistant secretary of aging. i applaud president biden for nominating her to serve in this role. mr. president, the administration for community living does critically important work ensuring older americans of all ages with disabilities are able to live where they choose, with the people they choose, and with the ability to participate fully in their communities. the administration for community living works through community-based organizations and invests in research, in education and in innovation to help make this priority a

reality for millions of older americans and people with disabilities. mr. president, rita landgraph is the right person for this job. as secretary of the delaware department of health and human services, she led one of the state's largest cabinet agencies and expanded community-based services aimed at helping older americans age in place and people with disabilities to live, work, and participate in their communities, exactly the type of work that the administration on community living supports. rita is a powerful advocate and a stake holed -- convener of stakeholders and partners, she will bring together the commission for liberty living and will address priorities on aging that we can all agree upon. rita wants older americans to age in place. she believes in the strength and

value of home and community-based services for the elderly and disabled especially in light of the covid-19 pandemic. for those with mental health and special needs, she has prioritized keeping folks in their homes and expanding employment opportunities for them. steps we can take to ensure that these vulnerable populations can be full participants in their community. i want to thank our chair, chairman murray, ranking member burr for supporting rita landgraph's nomination out of the senate help committee with strong bipartisan support. and i urge my colleagues today to join me in confirming rita landgraph to serve as assistant secretary of aging and the administrator of community living. with that, i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider the following nomination,

calendar number 966, rita m. landgraph to be assistant secretary for aging, department of health and human services, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: reserving the right to object. as i mentioned a moment ago, i've been asking for a commitment from my democrat colleagues that any future legislation in this congress will not incorporate policies that will reduce access to care in my home state of tennessee. mr. hagerty: reiterating, my concern is that the reconciliation legislation that the house passed last fall included provisions that cut dish payments and uncompensated care pool payments which would result in less health care for vulnerable populations in my state which would accelerate

hospital closures, and it would disadvantage rural communities. these are places and populations for which we're trying to secure more quality health care, not less. because i still have not received confirmation that these provisions will not be included in any future reconciliation bill, i cannot consent to expediting nomination of that nominee and i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i had an opportunity to speak briefly with our colleague from tennessee with respect to his concerns, and the reasons that have led him to object to what i think -- and he may agree to this -- were quite an excellent nomination. my hope is to better understand those objections he's voiced and see if they can be objective in a way that would allow us to go forward with the nomination of rita landgraf to serve as assistant secretary for aging, department of health and human services. i yield back the floor. thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island.

mr. reed: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that kiona key coa be granted privileges to the floor for the remainder of the 17th congress. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. i would like to talk today about a health epidemic that is claiming the lives of tens of thousands of americans each year. i'm speaking about the epidemic of suicide. i'll talk more about this in detail in a moment, but if there's one thing i would like those listening to my remarks to remember, it is the number 998. excuse me. 988. 988. 988 is the three-digit number for the national suicide prevention l lifeline. if you need help, please dial 988. over the last several years, we have all observed the increasing mental health needs in our

country. indeed, the isolation of the covid-19 pandemic made those needs more pronounced, particularly among children, adolescence, and young adults. in october 2021, the american academy of pediatrics, the american academy of child and adolescent psychiatry, and the children's hospital association, organizations representing experts in children's mental health, be declared a -- declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. according to these organization, rates of childhood mental health concerns and suicide rose steadily between 2010 and 2020, and by 2018 suicide was the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10 to 24. and the pandemic has intensified this crisis. across the country have witnessed dramatic increases in emergency department visits for

all mental health emergencies, including suspected suicide attempts. according to the national alliance on mental illness, nearly 20% of high school students report serious thoughts of suicide, and about 9% have tried to take their own lives. during the pandemic, children have faced challenges we couldn't have imagined just a few years ago. children isolated from their friends and family. all of this to limit the spread of covid-19. but this meant that many children were separated from loved ones and other trusted adults like teachers who can help keep kids safe. and kids were isolated from their peers impeding social learning and development. and in these tough times, rates of domestic violence and child abuse tend to increase. and on top of all these challenges, more than 140,000 children in the united states lost a caregiver to covid-19.

and it's no wonder that so many of our children and young adults are in crises. these hardships are not unique to young people. adults are feeling them as well. regrettably, suicide remains a leading cause of death in the united states. in 2020 suicide claimed the lives of 45,979 americans according to the latest data from the c.d.c. this is about one death every 11 minutes. more people died by suicide in 2020 than in motor vehicle accidents. the number of people who think about or attempt suicide is even higher. in 2020 an estimated 12.2 million american adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.2 million planned a suicide attempt, and 1.2 million attempted suicide. now there are no easy solutions but there are things we can do

to prevent suicide and improve access to mental health treatment. and we have made some progress. almost two decades ago we passed legislation to ensure parity in insurance coverage for mental and behavioral health. we have more work to do to enforce the law, but it was an important first step. and one of the most significant investments we have made in mental health care was in passing the affordable care act. we expanded health insurance coverage for millions of americans and made sure that coverage included mental and behavioral care which was often excluded from health insurance before the aca. we need to do more though. more and more people need mental and behavioral health care and do not have the resources to get such care. and those with resources find that there aren't enough providers to see them, even with good health care insurance.

there are simply not enough clinicians for the need. lastly, we need to better help people in crisis. we can't get people into effective care for the long term if we haven't stopped the immediate crises. that's why suicidal prevention efforts are so critical. as i alluded to earlier, last weekend the national suicide prevention lifeline made the switch from its long-standing ten-digit number to an easy to remember three-digit number 988. in 2019 i joined my colleagues senators tammy baldwin and jerry moran and former senator cory gardner in introducing legislation requiring this switch. our bill was signed into law the next year and we have been working since then to make sure of that 988 has the funding to be able to handle the influx of new callers. it is estimated that the lifeline will receive millions

more calls with the new number, so we need trained people on the other end of the line ready to get people the help that they need. when we started this effort, the lifeline only received about $7 million in federal funding each year. last year with the help of president biden, chairman murray and chairman leahy, we were able to secure nearly $300 million for the lifeline and we are working to get the number up to $700 million next year. this level of funding will help ensure that calls are answered quickly and locally so that people calling to talk to someone from their state who will know exactly where to find nearby resources. we're also working toward a system in which mobile response teams can respond in real time and be deployed to help people in crisis who call. while the switch to 988 over the weekend was a huge step forward, we are just beginning to build a

much broader system to help people in crisis across the country. i introduced the national suicide prevention lifeline improvement act with senator moran last year to help move the lifeline towards a more comprehensive system. the help, education, labor, and pensions committee passed this bipartisan bill unanimously almost a year ago. it's time for the full senate to take it up and pass it. senator moran, i must point out, has been a true leader in these efforts. recently we teamed up in introducing the suicide prevention act to try and intervene with those who may be in crisis but may not know how to call 988 or reach out otherwise. the suicide prevention act would fund prevention programs in hospital emergency departments to better screen for suicide or mental health crises.

this is important because over 90% of people who attempt suicide have seen a health care provider often a visit to a hospital, particularly a emergency room, in the weeks and days prior to their attempts. as these people are assessing the health care system, the mental health issues that really are driving them to seek medical attention are often overlooked. there are evidence-based strategies that health care professionals can employ to intervene before it is too late, but they need the training and the resources to do so. the bill would also strengthen data collection on suicide so we can better direct resources where they are needed most. we also need to respond to the challenges facing young people. back in 2004 i joined our former colleague senator gordon smith in introducing the garrett lee smith memorial act which was named for his son garrett who

tragically lost his life to suicide the day before his 22nd birthday. this tragedy drove home the realization that suicide and mental health crises are so common among young people, our legislation authorized new funding for youth suicide prevention programs in sta and on college campuses. since it was first enacted, the garrett lee smith memorial act had delivered roughly $750 million in suicide prevention funding nationally. and i am pleased that senator lisa murkowski, another long-standing partner and champion on this issue, joined me in introducing the reauthorization of this law so we can continue funding programs to support youth and young adults. mr. president, mental health and suicide have for too long been subjects that have been difficult to talk about much less confront.

in meeting the challenge of this mental health crisis, we must be relentless. we cannot do just one thing or even a few things because there is no single solution. a few days ago president biden signed the bipartisan safer communities act which included new resources for mental health care, including an additional $150 million for implementation of 988 and billions of dollars for other mental health services, such as the nationwide expansion of the certified community behavioral health clinic model. but that cannot be the end of our work. each of the efforts and bills that i've mentioned represent our continuing and unfinished work. they would add another layer to help prevent suicide and strengthen our mental health care step. so i urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleagues, like senator moran and senator murkowski, to pass the suicide

prevention act, the national suicide prevention lifeline improvement act, the garrett lee smith memorial act reauthorization and undertake many other efforts spearheaded by my colleagues. we should move forward with these measures without delay to prevent another 45,000 americans from f to suicide. mr. president, with that i would yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

representative greens urbanite district of texas and a member of the homeland security committee. thank you for joining us again on c-span. >> thank you it's an honor to be a few. >> we sent two pieces of legislation pass on abortion last week and we are seeing another one potentially pass on contraception but they may know -- nowhere in the senate. when he think about that prospect and what should happen from there? >> thank you for the question because this is an important issue. yes we did pass legislation last week but we also have to piece of legislation will be taken up this week h.r. 8373 the right to contraception and the other is h.r. 1804 the respect for marriage act.

i think we should pass these pieces of legislation so that we can show the american people and the house of representatives we are concerned about a woman's right to choose. women have that right. they still have it. it has been placed in the hands of the state. ms. cantwell: i kne expecting a vote soon here and i know that our colleagues know that we'll have two votes, one on a nominee and the second one on a motion to proceed to what has been known as the innovation and competition act. and i just wanted to say, because i know there's been a few people out here on the floor -- and i won't spend a lot of time now; hopefully we'll proceed on the motion to proceed, and we will have a much larger discussion.

but, mr. president, i did want to clarify that today's vote is really about whether we're going to stop shipping jobs overseas and instead invest in american r&d. if we invest in american r&d, then we will see the plant, like is being talked about in ohio, get built instead of being immediately built in europe. we'll see other companies make investments in states like texas and arizona and idaho and many other parts of the united states. and we will help build an ecosystem here in the united states on technology and next-generation development. so i encourage my colleagues to vote for a bill that not only makes an investment and competes with the next-generation semiconductors so we can go even faster at innovation than we are currently doing, because so much of that development is happening overseas. it's happening in taiwan and it's happening in korea. and they've had game-on for a

while. they've had game-on and literally took a page on what the united states has done to attract and keep industry here. but innovation is in the dna of americans. and if we want to create the economy of the future, we need to invest in the r&d of today. so that means passing this next motion to proceed, getting on to the bill, and passing as much of it as we can today. that way we can be assured that we're not going to lose out in this round of investment that is, yes, very challenging on a global basis but we should be really realistic. we have a chip shortage today, and it's costing our economy, and it's increasing inflation. we know that there is going to be a chip demand that is going to be threefold from where we are today in the very near future. so that means, if we don't start

building here, we're not going to catch up. but, more importantly is the national security limits of making -- elements of making sure that the united states making the most advanced semiconductors. so today's vote is to say to our colleagues, we believe in the r&d ecosystem of the united states. we believe in nsf. weave in our universities and r&d and we believe that we can do translational science and help our manufacturing base be more competitive, whether it is out tows or airplanes or other aspects of the tech sector. so this underlying bill invests in ten key technologies areas that we need to make investments in, and it makes sure that we in the united states of america are saying we want to see that innovation here. we want to see these in tech hubs, in tech centers. we want our universities to translate that science faster and keep our patents and make

sure that we are obviously continuing to lead the world in innovation. if we fail to do this, i guarantee you more jobs are going to go overseas. so american r&d can create the hub of innovation that we would like too see for the future. -- to see for the future. we have done it many times over, we just need to proceed to make sure that we are aware of the competition that exists around the globe and the united states is up to it, capable of competing, and this institution is also capable of making decisions and proceeding working together. trust me, that is what people are looking at around the world, whether they're in europe or asia. they want to know whether we know how to get things done. let's show them that american innovation is here to stay. it's the top of the game, and we can compete with anyone given the right investments in stem,

job training, and education, and taking that ecosystem that is so enuke and making an investment in it. i thank the president and yield the floor. mr. president, i'd suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: when a mass shooting takes place

and i would advise you to -- at 2:00 today at the services committee and the chair oversight investigation under the leadership of maxine waters who has sanctioned this hearing and believes this is something that's necessary for us. the lives are important and also the quality of lives after a mass shooting. >> viewers you can see that hearing at 2:00 on c-span and you can follow on her app at c-span now and before you go to calls representative on the another front you've been highly critical of those reports coming from the uvalde shooting. can you explain why? >> yes, i can. but first i do express my sympathies and my concern for the persons who were affect the.

parents expect their children to come home from school and i will never forget as long as i live the young child who was in the room with me who committed this deed and said that he took the blood from another child and she placed it on herself so that she could appear to be wanted in hopes of having him avoid shooting her. that's an indelible memory. we cannot allow this kind of action taken by the killer and by the police and the public safety officers to go without accountability. this is very important. the governor of the state of

texas either wittingly are unwittingly laid the foundation for much of the confusion and for what appears to be a cover-up. a cover-up does not have to be a crime. he can be a serious mistake. it can be something that's -- it doesn't have to be criminality or something that is laced with criminality. the governor when he held a press conference with all of his top agents there representing various police departments all of them there, many of them with knowledge of what actually happened and because i'm -- i'm going to read what he said but the governor said the reality is as as what happened here it could have been.

the reason it was not is because law enforcement officials did what they had to do. they showed amazing courage running towards gun violence with a singular purpose of trying to save lives. and it is a fact that because of their quick response getting on the scene, being able to respond to the gunman and limited the gunman's they were able to save lives. well, when the governor said that he set the tone and tenor for this whole fiasco and the set up by sending a message wittingly are unwittingly that the officers should be held to esteem and held his heroes. i don't agree with this.

the governor has said since that he didn't use the term duped, he said he was given bad information. and he had said this but i have not found where he had indicated who told them this and if that person is interviewed we need to know who told that person because that comment is an insidious verification of the magnitude. when you see this video you understand what actually happened and one can. imagine if the video had never surfaced. that video had not surfaced this would be a completely different ending. the video tells the story and the truth of what happened there and the governor needs to come clean. he's the point person of this cover up and he needs to tell

the truth about who told him so we can get to the bottom of it for the families and for justice for those babies who died and i stand on this in the governor needs to stand up and take some responsibility. >> we have called signed up for you guys are with carmen in new york on the republican line with representative all the rain. carmen, go ahead. >> good evening congressman green. well said, sir. congressman i know a little bit about schools he and fire doors and just last evening i saw this come into the school by way of a fire door from the outside. congressman it can't be done unless something was wrong. you cannot enter by way of a fire door when it's closed on the outside. it's meant for exit only for safety reasons and for fire protocol. by that i mean the mechanism

that is set on the inside it's never a key locked on the inside because of some children were trying to escape all they'd have to do is push the bar and the door automatically opens and the children can run to safety. that is the way a fire door is set up. there something wrong with that door congressmen that we are not being told if it was cropped up or the mechanism wasn't working properly what i just heard last night, and i'm amazed that nobody is bringing this up but also congressmen you cannot block a fire door. you cannot key lock it from the inside. it defeats the purpose. let's go that's, thank you carmen. representative green. >> guest: i think the caller makes a significant statement

about the door. we have evidence of a person using the doors to run out to perhaps some other location and coming back in quickly. there's certain things that a culture can develop when you don't have the right tone or tenor from atop. all the doors should be functioning and if the lock did not function properly there needs to be accountability. you have to make sure you make not only the proper request that the demand from persons who could help get that and the person in charge has to make the demand that is being corrected and those door should never have an easily accessed. >> host: from david in new mexico albuquerque on the democrats line. >> caller: yes sir. with all due respect sir to me a politician is a politician

whether democrat or republican black or white. my problem is sir with the democrats. i'm a registered democrat. we are being flooded on the south border and democrats are happy with this and trust me sir no disrespect. you and other people of color don't -- and i agree but we say we have to get wages up to be in better living conditions. i agree that you let these people come in and work certainly for less than american should and that there is not helping the blacks or the and one more thing sir we are letting them in because they are afraid in their country and they can't survive and we have that here. sir being a black person black

people say they don't like to come out of their own neighborhoods after dark because they are frayed. so to me america and americans first we feel sorry for the other people and i do. sir my family my country my american people should be first and if we can help others as much as we think we should we have to apologize sometimes because you know we do all we can when we can. let's go got your point. thank you. >> guest: thank you caller. let me start with this. i love my country. i say the pledge of allegiance and i sang the national anthem but i also defend those who choose not to sing the national anthem or say the pledge of allegiance. as a lover of my country i respect the laws of my country.

right now as i speak persons can't come to this country seeking asylum and they can make a claim for it. it's as if they are being persecuted in their home country. based upon fear of harm in their own country and that's a legitimate claim for people who come here and for us to then have to sort through. i think we have to have comprehensive immigration reform. i'm not for open borders. i believe we need to know who's coming in and out of our country but we have do have some reform of the law. we can decide will handle it however we choose which means you'll have different circumstances in terms of how the law will be enforced and that another party will enforce them differently. i don't think that's the way to

do it. i think individually there have to be m. comprehensive immigration reform. i think ultimately the two sides democrats and republicans are going to have a talk to each other about at least two issues. one, a wall. the discussion has to take place. two, we have to talk about the people who were here already and they are going to be inculcated into society to the extent that they will be. these two issues are preeminent in the debate and until we decide we are going to sit at the table and negotiate and not tate, when negotiation becomes

tatian it -- we have got to negotiate in those issues had to be dealt with are then prepared to deal with those two issues. i think persons can apply for asylum from their home country. i think we have to make sure it's done -- but it can be done. it's important to make change but you can't make change by yourself. you've got to have a willing partner who is willing to negotiate and not tate and sir i respect you greatly for the disrespect you have for politicians, believe me. >> host: out green democrat from texas talking to william in north hollywood on the independent line. thanks for waiting. go ahead. >> caller: how are you doing? i called on me independent line because i'm a lifelong as long as i could but i was a democrat.

i'mes a part of a large group of individuals. the senator from wan state. the senator from wan ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask that the senate vote on the confirmation of executive calendar number 968, the nomination of julianna michelle childs under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will begin consideration of the nomination with a special report. ms. cantwell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. julianna michelle childs to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. the presiding officer: the senator from washington.

ms. cantwell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: