Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks before the vote.

Madam President, I come to the floor tonight happy that the Senate is going to move forward on substituting what is originally the Senate-passed Schumer-Young bill on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. That is what we are going to be voting on and then sending that over to the House of Representatives to basically convey that that is our desire here in the Senate and, hopefully, get this process of going to conference and a response back from the House of Representatives so we can move forward on reinvigorating America's supply chain.

Madam President, I know you know how important this is, but the Senate bill, again, brought to us by Senators Schumer and Young, I think, was quite prescient on the problems that we were going to face as it relates to supply chains. But I don't think that everybody really understands that the Senate position is really about the fact that we need to have technology transfer happen at a faster rate; that other countries, because the United States has been such a prolific publisher of information and content, actually have taken that content and information and been able to turn it into actual commercial applications.

So in the United States we want to do something to create, while still protecting NSF, the National Science Foundation, on basic research and advanced research and the Department of Energy on research, and also work faster at translating the successes of our science into true application and translating that into helping our manufacturers here in the United States of America.

This is so important because we know that in various sectors of our economy, we are seeing much of the supply chain controlled in other parts of the world. We see that Asia now controls much of the supply chain for pharmaceuticals.

We are having a big debate about how we are going to drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals. We are going to invest here in the United States, I think, in more biotechnology and synthetic biology to find new ways to discover and make lifesaving drugs, and it is very important that we do that research here.

In the Senate bill, we are very focused on: In what areas do we want to do faster translational science to help bring the supply chain back to the United States?

As we talked last week, we see that Taiwan makes more than 90 percent of the world's leading-edge chips which drive our national security and our economic security, and we want to do the research here in the United States through the acceleration with the Tech Directorate to invent the next generation of chips and build them here domestically.

And we have heard about the risk of Americans falling behind on advanced communications, like 5G or 6G, and so we have ideas here about how to translate that into faster deployment of technology that could help our manufacturing base.

So I am actually very excited about all of that innovation because if we all work together, we collaborate, we have done the R&D, and we actually work harder at getting it translated, I think there are lots of solutions that we can put before our manufacturers here to help them with their competitiveness on a worldwide basis.

That is what the Tech Directorate does. The Manufacturing USA Institutes, the technology hubs, and the technology centers are all parts of this legislation that would help us move technology out into the world at a faster pace and work collaboratively to solve these problems that, again, would bring the manufacturing and the supply chain back into the United States of America.

I get really excited about the issues related to the automobile sector and the grid. Coming from a State that has had cheap electricity for a long time, it has built our economy over and over and over again; that is, that people want to locate there because the electricity is so affordable.

It is one of the reasons why we have one of the highest deployments of electric vehicles in the country, because it really only costs you about a dollar a gallon to fill up versus the rising, well-above $4 a gallon that we are seeing today.

So people are very excited about an electricity grid and a supply chain here in the United States that would build here the battery technology, implement this faster integration into our economy, and get a grid that works and enables that kind of electrification of the transportation sector.

I guarantee you the United States could be world leaders in the deployment of this if we get this legislation passed and we continue to make investments in the National Science Foundation and the Tech Directorate.

Now, I know some of our colleagues have been concerned that this somehow takes away from the National Science Foundation's focus on basic research. I would tell you that it does both. The Senate bill that we will be voting on does both. It basically continues to invest in the NSF in their traditional role and also gets this idea of a Tech Directorate which focuses on the translational science--again, to help us get more of the supply chain back in the United States. It does both.

This underlying bill, also, as I said, is the Senate version which made the same investment in the Department of Energy, which was so important because the Department of Energy plays such an important aspect in this.

It also does something that my colleague Senator Wicker and I and others worked on, which is trying to make sure that we are getting more technology development in a variety of places; that is, that we are building on STEM and the amount of investment in STEM education--the fact that we want to have innovation everywhere so that opportunity is also anywhere.

And we also make more investments in the idea of our EPSCoR Program, which is helping areas of the United States that may not have as much tech investment, to continue to increase the investment in their institutions.

I hope this is something my colleagues understand, that this is about growing the capacity for us to innovate in many different parts of the United States and across many different sectors of our economy and with increasing the capacity of women and minorities to also participate in the kinds of programs that will help America be competitive.

So I encourage my colleagues to support the underlying Senate bill. Help us get it moved forward and to also send this over on the second vote to the House and continue the process to get us to real negotiations and get us working on these supply chain issues.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair

lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the

clerk will state.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about supply chain issues, but before I do, I wanted to say a word about March Madness.

I am pretty sure that most of my colleagues who know me think the next words out of my mouth are going to be something about a small Jesuit school in the eastern part of our State, but it is not. What I am going to talk about is congratulating the Western Washington University Vikings Women's Basketball team Division II final championship game players.

The Vikings will be playing in the NCAA Division II Championship after defeating North Georgia last night with a score of 74 to 68. It was an outstanding performance by Brooke Walling, Emma Duff, and the entire team that represents people from all over our State--Everson, Tumwater, Monroe, Vancouver, Arlington, Marysville, Napavine, Ferndale, and various other places.

I also want to congratulate Head Coach Carmen Dolfo, who is in, I think, her 31st season leading the Vikings, and the fact that this is such a great accomplishment for the women of Western Washington.

I hope that we will continue to figure out ways to promote women's basketball in the NCAA tournament. I watched this game last night and saw a few people from our State who had made it there to cheer on the Vikings, but the actual pavilion looked pretty empty. Yet I guarantee you it was great basketball.

We need to continue to encourage the NCAA to figure out ways to promote women's NCAA March Madness. They are great players, they are great teams, and they deserve to have the same kind of attention. So we look forward to cheering them on in that final NCAA tournament Division II game.

I come to the floor to talk about the underlying bill that we are trying to get passed. That is the United States Innovation and Competition Act that we passed here in the U.S. Senate about 280 days ago.

One aspect of that bill is a provision that we just had a hearing on in the Commerce Committee today, and that is the funding of what are called semiconductors, the key technology enabling so much of the technology sectors today--from your phones to your smart devices, to automobiles, to the transition we want to make on clean energy, to just about everything that we see that is essential to be smarter, more connected, and to play off some of the advances in technology that allow us to be more efficient.

But we are here to talk about how chips are also a supply chain issue. And the supply chain of this product has definitely been impacted over the last few years, both by the fact that there has been a higher demand for them and because of what has happened during COVID.

In fact, 90 percent of the chips that are most advanced today come from Taiwan. Today's hearing was about how the United States of America needs to do more to produce the next generation of advanced chips for artificial intelligence, automation, and advanced manufacturing, here in the United States, and that an overreliance on the global supply chain--which every American can tell you about the supply chain now because there are products that they are not getting because of the supply chain or the price has gone up because of the supply chain--but we know that this issue of getting this Innovation and Competition Act and getting the funding for more production to be done in the United States on something as critical as semiconductors is a very key issue. So I hope our colleagues will help us get to conference and resolve this issue with our colleagues.

But I would like to talk about a few of those sectors that are really impacting and hurting Americans. First of all, in the automotive sector, thousands of American workers have endured layoffs due to the shortage. The global automobile industry suffered over 200 billion in losses, and Ford was forced to halt or cut production at eight plants as recently as last month.

The cost of a used car has gone up 41 percent, and the price of new cars 12

percent. A lot of this is due to the semiconductor shortage. Let me repeat those numbers: The price of a used car has gone up 41 percent; the price of a new car over here, 12 percent. And this is the price of a 12-percent increase on new equipment.

Well, if you think about it, right now, for most of those people trying to buy the new cars, they might be on a waiting list. But people who can easily afford a new car and need one but can't get it due to the shortage, they are buying used cars instead, and that is what is driving up the price.

So who feels the pain at the pump? It is not the person who has to wait a few extra months for that new car that they wanted. It is the person whose radiator blew out last week who just needs anything to drive to work--anything to get them to and from their job. But now that used car is 41 percent more expensive. That basic used car might have cost $5,000 last year, but if you add the 41 percent to that, it is now costing $7,000.

So where is the extra $2,000 coming from? For that American consumer who has to delay a family trip or do without things for their children or maybe not even be able to pay next month's rent, all of this is due to the impacts that we are seeing from this shortage.

So chips and the semiconductor effort that we are trying to address in the underlying bill are really the ultimate supply chain issue; that is, that some of the networking equipment that I mentioned here--a 12- percent increase--sometimes people are selling chips for a hundred times their regular price just so that people will compete for them to build out the broadband access.

We also are seeing issues of security, now that the source of the chips are so concentrated in Taiwan, that at least 7 different chip manufacturers, people have tried to hack them to steal the designs of these chips. So these are all the reasons why we, today, here need to advance this bill and say to the House: We want to go to conference. We want to move forward on this legislation.

This legislation also supports $2 billion for, specifically, Defense Department efforts to secure the supply chain, as well, and to help us face this increase in demand.

I just want to say this to my colleagues. I know some people think: Well, this issue will be over. It will be down the road. It is not going to be over until we act. Right now, the world needs 1 trillion chips per year. You need 1 trillion chips per year. In 2021, that went up to 1.2 trillion chips per year. In 2031, it is going to be 2 trillion chips per year.

And this is driven by--you can see the demand. So there is a 200- percent increase in what is going to be needed from the automotive sector, a 60-percent increase from the wireless sector, and an 80- percent increase in the consumer electronics sector.

So the question is, Are we just going to wait and see what happens in Taiwan? Or are we going to make an investment here in the United States to jump from that 1.2 trillion a year to 2 trillion a year and make it be leading-edge U.S. technology?

So I am thankful for this underlying bill today, and I thank the witnesses who testified at today's hearing.

One particular industry that was there was PACCAR, a company based in Washington that is leading the way on transportation, automotive, and driverless trucks, and they explained what this has done to impact their business, why we need advanced chips, and why we need to continue as a nation to promote them.

So I definitely hope our colleagues will see forth to move forward on this kind of investment, get the underlying R&D bill onto the President's desk so we can do what we do best in the United States of America and that is invent, make our manufacturers competitive, and grow jobs.

Ocean Shipping Reform Act

Madam President, with that, I would like to turn to another issue. I have been joined here on the floor by my colleague Senator Klobuchar. We very much appreciate her and Senator Thune's efforts on trying to tackle some of the supply chain issues that are at the ports.

Our ports are seeing record amounts of traffic--a 20-some-percent increase in the amount of traffic coming into the United States--and that congestion has caused lots of problems at our ports.

Senators Klobuchar and Thune announced legislation that we marked up in committee earlier this week that I hope will see action on the Senate floor as early as next week. That legislation puts new tools into the hands of the Federal Maritime Commission, whose job it is to make sure that there aren't unreasonable rates or practices that impact negatively shippers in the United States.

And right now, what is happening is particularly our agricultural sector is getting very hard-hit; that is, that literally some of these foreign shippers that were at record profits and record millions have basically been leaving without the U.S. exports. They literally are coming to the United States, dropping product off, leaving less than full, and hurrying back to pick up more product and deliver it to the United States.

And our growers haven't been able to get their products onto those ships, and the result of that is they are left on the docks, without the ability to deliver the product to the customers that they would like to see.

So our farmers need help and solutions on this. One solution by the Biden-Harris administration that Secretary Vilsack has implemented is a popup space at our ports to help defray the cost of freight that has been caused.

I just want our colleagues to know that more needs to be done with the Klobuchar-Thune bill because the container cost has gone from $1,300 per container to $11,000 per container. This is part of data that has been provided to us.

And what has happened is not only the costs that they are facing, as I said, sometimes they are called, and it is said: If your product isn't here, then we are leaving without it. And that is a big problem if you are talking about Washington apples, seafood, any of the other products that are big from our State.

One individual who testified--or came to a press event that we had in Seattle last week said that the dairy industry and supply chain last year and the problems cost U.S. dairy over $1.5 billion. And it means that more containers are leaving the port empty.

We believe that the loss of revenue to the ag sector may be as much as 22 percent; that is, that our ag sector isn't being able to get their product out.

So I want to thank the President for his infrastructure package and putting more money into ports and port development, as we did in a bipartisan way with our colleagues in the Commerce Committee, and also for getting this project up and running here at Terminal 46 in Seattle.

This popup storage helped facilitate and pre-position our agricultural products so that they could be ready to get on those ships and not face a penalty because of the congestion we are seeing.

USDA is providing our exporters with $200 to $400 per container to help with the storage cost, but it is literally getting them in position so that they can be right around the corner and get picked up quickly. So I want to thank the Biden administration for that.

But I also want to encourage our colleagues to move ahead, as I mentioned, on the Klobuchar-Thune bill, which is saying to the major Federal entity whose day job it is to oversee reasonable rates as it relates to shipping in the United States, please, let's get this legislation on the Senate floor. If we care about supply chain issues, if we care about the prices that are impacting consumers, then let's get this legislation on the floor.

Obviously, the amount of costs that we are seeing per container and the amount of increase in those container costs are impacting everyone.

So if those costs are on every container, whether they are coming in or leaving, then we are seeing increased costs to consumers and consumer products all across the board.

So let's get these supply chain issues, like USICA--the United States Innovation and Competition Act--let's get that supply chain moving. Let's get that supply chain of us making legislation with the House moving so we can fix real supply chain problems with our semiconductors. And let's get this Federal Maritime Commission bill on the

floor next week so we can address the supply chain problems that are costing us more with ag and costing us more with imports.

I yield the floor.

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following

nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the

dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the

expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these

nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information

of Senators.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Coast Guard nomination of Min H. Kim, to be Commander.

*Coast Guard nomination of Michael A. Cintron, to be

Captain.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about supply chain issues because we all know that supply chain issues are plaguing us on a variety of fronts, and Congress needs to act to help consumers, to help our industries, and to make sure that supply chains work very well.

I want to start by thanking the Biden administration for their fast action, along with Agricultural Secretary Vilsack, for creating popup space at our ports to make sure that U.S. growers and shippers can get their products to market.

We have seen exorbitant rates now charged in shipping; that is, rates that used to be $1,300 a container have now gone up to either $5,000 a container or $11,000 a container, just depending on where you are talking about products being shipped. So agricultural products are being left on the docks because ships are actually returning empty and not taking our products with them.

Tomorrow, we will try to address this issue in the Senate Commerce Committee, but for now, as I said, last Friday, the administration announced a very innovative plan to make sure that there was dock space at U.S. ports to make sure that U.S. shipments--agriculture specifically--can be waiting and ready on the docks and get out the door. This is so important because there were industry officials there from the lentil association, from the dairy association--they said they had lost billions last year from the impact of not being able to get their products to market.

We know for a fact that there were 24 percent fewer containers that left full last year, and some people say that number has risen to 30 percent this year. So it means that instead of being filled with our U.S. exports to Asia, these containers are being left empty, and they are hurrying back to be filled up with more imports and then running back here to the United States.

We can't allow this cost to impact our growers. Not only does it impact them in not getting the product to market, but what happens is, they actually lose shelf space. No one is going to wait forever for the U.S. product to come; they will just go to another country and give them the shelf space. So the Biden administration is taking quick action to create this space at our ports to make sure that U.S. products are well positioned to get back to these markets as quickly as possible.

Congestion has been part of the problem. We have seen a huge increase in imports coming into the United States. That has caused uncertainty and congestion at these ports, and we need to do--that is why many of us supported the infrastructure bill, to also build more capacity at our ports.

We know that we are going to continue to do everything we can in this area of shipping reform to make sure that U.S. farm agricultural products get to their destination in a timely fashion.

I will have more to say about that tomorrow after we get legislation through our committee, but today, I really wanted to speak to our colleagues and ask them to support moving forward on going to conference on the United States Innovation and Competition Act.

It has been 286 days since the U.S. Senate passed this legislation, and we have an opportunity to help establish on a continued basis American leadership in technology, to employ more people, to help our country compete in the economy of the future. But we can't do that if we don't get legislation passed, and we can't continue to wait for people who don't want to go to conference. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to help us get to conference.

This is so important because by 2030, there could be more than 10 million new jobs in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, communication, and in computing. All of those--guess what--depend on us making sure we do the right amount of R&D and making sure that we help bring U.S. manufacturing back to the United States.

This is so critical as Americans are feeling the pinch from products that they can't get. We all know that we have to help small manufacturers who struggle with the supply chain themselves. That is why this bill invests in the National Institute for Technology to help companies strengthen their supply chain and fend off the threats of

cyber security attacks. We also know that there is money in here to help educate a STEM workforce so that we can train and skill the number of people in STEM jobs that we need. But let's talk specifically about one supply chain crisis that is crippling America's economy right now because we don't have enough semiconductors.

Semiconductors are an integral part of our system in communication, in defense, in healthcare, in transportation. Yet there are zero semiconductor fabrication facilities in the United States that produce the most advanced chips. That is what we are after--the most advanced chips.

The United States must keep its leadership in this area of advanced technology. In fact, over 90 percent of these chips are manufactured in the Pacific, in Taiwan. The rest are made in South Korea. So this is an economic and national security issue. Chip shortages drive up costs, and they also make us less safe.

We know, thanks to a report from the Senate Armed Services Committee 10 years ago, that more than 1 million counterfeit components have been made and made their way into our national security system. So we have been fighting hard to fix that problem.

Just this month, Europol reported that counterfeiters are trying to exploit the semiconductor shortage by introducing fake chips into the market, raising the chances that critical infrastructure like our defense system or other kinds of communication systems could be compromised.

We have also been working hard to ``rip and replace''--a term that has been used--to try to get foreign telecommunication electronics that could be compromised and used as a backdoor to try to make sure that we lower this threat.

According to the telecommunications industry, this effort is compromised by what? Our chip shortage, which now we know that waiting times for some network equipment is now at 50 weeks--50 weeks for something that is so important to our national security.

The cost of some networking equipment has risen by as much as 12 percent. You hear about the cost of everything. We certainly hear about the cost of cars. So 12 percent, and people are selling chips for 100 times their regular price. That is no way to help us build out secure broadband access.

When it comes to clean energy, which requires chips, the prices of solar panels are up 18 percent because of the chip shortage. The cost of a used car has gone up 41 percent and 12 percent for new cars.

So a lot is due to this semiconductor shortage. Yet our colleagues don't know if we want to hurry after 286 days, go to conference, and fix this problem. I am asking my colleagues to vote to help us proceed to conference. Let's not take another 3\1/2\, 4 weeks to figure it out. If you don't like the House bill--I know a lot of my colleagues don't-- let's get a better bill, but let's go to conference to get that done.

We know right now depending on one country largely for chip fabrication is not the best idea, particularly when there are numerous issues. It has just been over 18 months since security researchers found a hacking campaign that compromised at least seven Taiwanese chip manufacturers to steal semiconductor chip designs.

So do we want to continue to rely on these other countries or do we want to manufacture here in the United States of America something so critical to what is critical to the industries of the future and help us by making sure that we have a plan never to have these kinds of price spikes impact us because of shortages?

So I ask my colleagues this. These R&D bills are going to help us with U.S. manufacturing. They are so important. In addition to the semiconductor manufacturing incentives that are in these bills, it specifically has resources for the Department of Defense to secure microelectronic supply chains and help our national security mission. That is what is at stake here. Why are we delaying? If you don't like these ideas, at least let's get on the bill and offer some ideas in conference that you would like to see. We are more than happy to have that discussion.

Industry is taking action to try to resolve the shortages, but investing in semiconductor manufacturing technology will actually help us increase the productivity that is so essential and needed for our foundries.

Our current shortages--some people might think: Well, in a few years, we will catch up, and it will be a thing of the past.

I will tell you, if we don't act, more shortages are to follow. The world needed 1 trillion chips per year by 2018. In 2021, it was nearly 1.2 trillion chips per year. That is how our economy has changed, and everything relies on these semiconductors. In 2031, if total sales match the revenue projection, we will need 2 trillion chips per year. That is why we need to act quickly on something that is impacting, practically every day, parts of our lives. Current projections show that demand for chips will grow in all sectors--especially the automotive sector, where semiconductor content in vehicles could double.

Now, I don't know--I heard a lot of talk as I went home to hear about these issues. Some people are saying that maybe people are even taking semiconductors out of the current designs of automobiles just so they can get the product ready, so they can get it to ship. Now, why do we want that? We don't want that. We want America to have a full supply of semiconductors, produce the best intelligent product that the market wants, and compete internationally. But to do that, we have to get this bill moving, and we have to get support.

That is why on Wednesday we are having members of the semiconductor industry testify before the Senate Commerce Committee--so we can hear about how the United States can have next-generation technology and lead in this critical area. We do not want to rely on someone else to make sure that we have a secure nation, secure communication, and the next generation that is going to move our industry--particularly manufacturers--to be competitive in a global economy.

So the choice in front of us is whether we want the United States to have a leading role in chip fabrication and in R&D and whether we are going to meet that demand. If you are ready to take that, please help us get to conference.

It can take 3 to 5 years from when a foundry is built to when production begins, and every day that we don't move to pass USICA is just another day that U.S. manufacturers are waiting.

This bill means investment in our future, it means investment in securing the supply chain, and it means investments that will protect us from these kinds of price spikes in the future. It is an investment well worth meeting if Congress will act, and I encourage my colleagues to do so.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor this evening to support the nomination of John Chun, who is to serve as judge for the U.S. District Court of Western Washington, and I know that we will be voting later tonight on that nomination.

I was proud to recommend to President Biden Judge Chun, who then was nominated by the President. My colleague Senator Murray and I know what a qualified individual he is to serve our country.

He has spent his entire legal career practicing law in the Western District of Washington, making him deeply knowledgeable of the district that he will serve. He is well-prepared for the Western District and offers a unique perspective to the bench, having served as a superior court judge for 4 years before joining the court of appeals in 2018, as well as his tenure in private practice.

Through his extensive courtroom experience as a former trial judge and current appellate judge, he has had much time as a trial litigator. He will be ready on day one to serve effectively on the Federal district court bench.

Judge Chun has received profound support for his nomination to the U.S. district court. Not only did his nomination receive bipartisan support from the Senate Judiciary Committee; it also received support from the American Bar Association, which unanimously rated him ``well qualified'' to serve in this position.

In addition to the endorsement from the National Asian Pacific American

Bar Association, Judge Chun's nomination has received praise from many organizations in our State, including the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, the Vietnamese American Bar Association of Washington, the South Asian Bar Association of Washington, the Asian Bar Association of Washington, and the Korean American Coalition of Washington.

As I am sure my colleagues can see, Judge Chun is immensely qualified to serve on this court. I urge them to join me and my colleague Senator Murray in supporting his nomination to serve as judge for the U.S. District Court of the Western District of the State of Washington.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Congressional Record.

Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about a couple of items this morning. One is the nomination of Max Vekich to be Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission and also to talk about the very important issue of our colleagues working together on America's innovation investment for the future. But let me just speak first about the nomination of Max Vekich to be a Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission.

The COVID pandemic has caused unprecedented congestion at our ports and supply chain disruptions. Businesses and Americans are feeling the pinch of the rising prices and shortages of products every day. The news is that our colleagues can do something about that this morning. They can do something about that this morning.

At a time when our country is in need of a strong Federal Maritime Commission, it is important that they do their oversight role--that they investigate, that they regulate unfair practices by foreign shipping companies and make sure U.S. shippers, our growers, and manufacturers get a fair deal. The Federal Maritime Commission is particularly important when it comes to ensuring that American products get access to markets around the globe.

While I don't agree with the conclusion of the minority leader on our investment in helping Americans during the pandemic, I know this: Right now, the Federal Maritime Commission should be investigating international shippers who are overcharging U.S. exporters.

Farmers have been hard hit by congestion and shipping challenges. U.S. agriculture exporters have experienced a 22-percent decrease in exports. Agriculture accounts for about one-tenth of America's goods exports, and roughly 20 percent of what U.S. farmers and ranchers produce is sent abroad. That is why they deserve a fair deal on shipping prices.

Many of these products move by containerized freight, and containerized freight costs have more than doubled since the pandemic. Washington hay producers estimate that the freight costs could be three times more expensive by this winter.

In addition to freight costs, ships are returning to Asia with empty containers and stranding U.S. exports at the docks. This is an unprecedented nature of shipping and has had a major impact on American exporters. It is important that we understand that we need to do something about it.

The National Milk Producers Federation estimates that shipping disruption cost the U.S. dairy industry nearly $1 billion in the first half of 2021.

Apples are Washington's most valuable agricultural commodity, with $2.1 billion in sales in 2020. About 30 percent of the State's product is exported. According to the Washington State Apple Commission, port congestion has producers concentrating this year more on North American markets as opposed to overseas markets, cutting into their profit. For every 1 million boxes of fresh apples shifted into the U.S. domestic market, the price drops about 50 cents per box as supply begins to overtake demand. These losses impact real American jobs and the American economy.

But let's look at the other side of the equation. As Washington growers and American growers and American manufacturers struggle, foreign shipping companies are reporting more than $200 billion in profits--more than double the profit they made over the last 20 years combined. That is what these international shippers are profiting. So it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we helped Americans get a paycheck during the pandemic; it has to do with foreign companies that are overcharging U.S. producers of goods.

At this critical time in our country, we need a Federal Maritime Commission to move decisively to put in place practices and regulations to address port congestion and support U.S. exporters and help them not be the target of unfair practices such as exorbitant shipping costs and a lack of access to ships. We need a Commission that will take action and improve the information flow at ports, investigate these illegal practices, and take enforcement action against foreign bad actors who are overcharging U.S. exporters and other shippers. We need a Commission that will stand up to foreign shipping interests and protect American manufacturers, farmers, and other exporters.

So, yes, there is something we can do about our supply chain woes, particularly for States that have big export economies.

That is why American shippers and producers--``American shippers'' meaning the people who are actually shipping product--that is why American shippers and producers are behind the nomination of Max Vekich, because Mr. Vekich knows the ports, knows the shipping community, and has spent more than 40 years working on the waterfront. He spent his life working in the maritime industry and knows the challenges we face in maritime, intermodal transportation, congestion, and continuing to move forward on how we advance our ports.

If you have worked on the docks for 40 years, I guarantee you, you know about every product, and you know what challenges we face from this international competition.

We are on the precipice of moving important competitive legislation, but part of that competitive legislation is getting our products on vessels instead of being stranded at the docks and preventing shipping companies from retaliating against U.S. exporters.

Again, the majority of this product is moved by international shippers. It is an international business. So we need a Commission in place that is willing to act, a Commission that is willing to use their authority to enforce our current laws and to make sure we are protecting American exporters.

That is why exporters like the Idaho Dairy Association support Max Vekich, because they know he knows how to move product.

That is why the American Association of Port Authorities, a trade association representing more than 80 ports across the United States, supports Max Vekich, citing his unique leadership as a longtime maritime worker in the sector.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association represents ports, tug and barge companies, steamship operators, grain elevator operators, agricultural producers, forest products manufacturers, electric utilities, irrigation districts, and other businesses throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This organization does not typically endorse candidates for these Federal offices, but today, they are calling for Mr. Vekich to be confirmed on the basis of his ``firsthand knowledge of maritime industry operations.''

Mr. Vekich knows what it takes to move product from the heartland. He knows that in our Washington ports, we are helping U.S. farmers get their products to market. So I know that whether it is wheat or soybeans or other ag products, he knows what it takes to move them and what it takes for us to continue to improve the efficiency of our ports. Whether it is the Midwest manufactured products like cars and jeeps, he knows what that takes and what it takes to continue to grow a skilled workforce who will help us do that cost-effectively. He knows how to work with industry, like agricultural producers and the waterfront workforce alike.

So at a time when we are asking our dock workers and our longshoremen to work around-the-clock to help elevate our efficiencies and improve port congestion--and, I might say, at the loss of life. The amount of death in the longshoreman community would break your heart. They continued to work during the COVID-19 crisis and literally lost their lives. This is what these people are doing. They are helping us keep our supply chain going. So the least we can do is invest in somebody who is going to help us understand what it takes to do that on a day- to-day basis.

We need to make sure that we have a competitive and fair environment for U.S. companies. So I ask my colleagues to confirm Max Vekich as Commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission this morning.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of supporters I mentioned.

Madam President, now I would like to turn our attention to an issue that is also dealing with our supply chain, and that is the issue of Congress moving forward on the differences between the House and Senate bills on America's investment in R&D and innovation.

As the chart shows, our investment today equals U.S. jobs in our economy tomorrow. So the United States Competition Act or, as we passed it here, the United States Innovation and Competition Act is at a crossroads because we need to get it into conference.

Other countries definitely aren't waiting--I guarantee you that. They are making investments in innovation and technology. Where we are in the United States is we are at a 45-year low in the amount of investment in R&D against our GDP. So we are not keeping pace.

Many times I have been out on the floor here talking about why we are not keeping pace. We tried. Unfortunately, we tried several years ago and then had an economic downturn. So everybody signed up: Let's put more into R&D investment. Then we had an economic downturn, and we never fulfilled that promise. So the real consequences of that are we are now behind in some very key sectors that we need to make investments in.

The good news for us is that people are willing to make those investments, like the Intel company, which just decided recently to make a multibillion-dollar investment in the State of Ohio to grow chip fabrication there. So we have opportunities if we make these investments.

When the world presents a challenge, the American people, the people in our State--they rise to the challenge, and the American spirit has never ceased to amaze me. I guarantee, innovation is in the DNA of Americans. Why? Because we live in a country where you are free to do what you want. You are free to go and start a company and try your skill set. We encourage it. We need to have that same spirit here working collaboratively to get this legislation rectified and onto the President's desk. There isn't a moment to wait for revolutionizing science, creating jobs, and invigorating our new economic centers around the Nation.

My colleague Senator Wicker and I worked on a very important aspect of the bill, which is driving more innovation dollars into research institutions in States that haven't traditionally had large research footprints. This will be an issue of contention, I am sure, with some of our colleagues, but my point is, innovation can happen anywhere, and innovation infrastructure should be everywhere. So if we want that to happen in Reno, NV, we need to make an investment in Reno, NV. I believe in that because I am pretty sure the Sierra company is a very big leader in the aerospace sector, and I think they are headquartered in Reno, if I am not mistaken. This is what I am talking about. You can build.

Guess what. Not everything has to happen in Seattle or San Francisco or Boston or out here on the corridor here in Virginia. That is because the innovation age means that innovation can happen at a very flat level. It can happen anywhere.

So why would we constrict it? We don't want to constrict it. We want to empower it. American leadership can't wait. What we need is to be collaborative here in the U.S. Senate because that collaboration between government, academia, and industry is what drives the next level of innovation.

Just think about what happened with ARPA, DARPA as we made the innovations with the internet. As the Acting President pro tempore knows, because she is a programmer, that innovation allowed us to then build out a commercial aspect of the internet that would not have happened, at least at that moment in time. In 1993, it wouldn't have happened. Look at where we are today with an internet economy, all because we had U.S. innovation.

So technology after technology has been invented, and our U.S. companies have continued to innovate, develop a workforce, and skill people for the opportunities of tomorrow. But that leadership is not guaranteed, and time and time again, history has shown us that while we innovate here, other people are going to follow.

In aviation, the Wright brothers were the first to demonstrate this with the Kitty Hawk in North Carolina, but the United States soon fell behind in aviation as European governments invested and built out this new industry. By 1913, the U.S. military had 6 planes and 14 trained pilots. France had 216 airplanes and 171 trained pilots.

So leadership can't wait. You can't wait. I think people get this. We do a lot of the innovation, and other people take that innovation and implement it. That is why a major section of the bill is about translational science. It is about taking that innovation in the United States and translating it into faster adoption applications for industries.

Congress finally decided to invest in American leadership in 1915 by creating the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which worked with academia and industry to regain America's dominance and find how we build planes that even last today. That is what we are talking about. That is why we feel that NASA is part of this bill. NASA is our R&D Agency for aviation. That is what NASA is. Yes, it deserves a place in this legislation.

A new aviation industry and new aviation supply chains sprung up

across the country in places like Wichita, KS, and Seattle, WA. The story would repeat itself after the Soviet Union challenged U.S. leadership in the 1950s. Almost immediately, Congress recognized that leadership could not wait, and that is when we did NASA. Bringing together government, academia, and industry to create new generations of American expertise and technical advancements is what eventually put a man on the Moon and what will put someone--a woman this time--on the Moon, but America had to choose to lead.

That is what we are going to be asked about with USICA in getting it done. We have to choose to lead, to invest in technology. That technology brought us places like Huntsville, AL, and Houston, TX. In 2020, the aerospace industry supported 2 million good-paying jobs, with an average salary of over $100,000 per year, and generated $900 billion in revenue. That is what the innovation economy did for us.

That is why we want to now upgrade the innovation, particularly as it relates to semiconductors. The availability of these tiny chips is one of the most pressing issues facing our country now. People can't get access to them. It is so bad that, of the people who now have electric cars or hybrids, if you have a used car, you know that your price goes down; that it just continues to go down. Now used car prices are actually going up. So few cars are available that the consumers want in this area that, actually, used cars are getting more money. Prices are going up and not down.

This shortage cost the transportation sector $210 billion last year alone. We can't wait. We can't wait on these issues. We can't wait. The essence of acting now--getting together, communicating with our colleagues, working together in a collaborative spirit--is what is going to get this legislation over the goal line and help us.

The first transistor, as part of this chip industry, was invented in 1947 in New Jersey, representing a collaboration from scientists across physics, electrical engineering, and chemistry, but in the 1980s, the U.S. semiconductor industry faced a serious challenge from an ally of ours--Japan. Leadership did not wait. We did not wait. The government set up a government-industry partnership, Semitech, with specific goals of creating new collaborations and investing in American manufacturing. The United States maintained that leadership role, and in the 1990s, we produced 37 percent of the global chip supply. The semiconductor industry now supports more than a million jobs because people didn't stand around and wait.

But today we see overseas competitors who are investing heavily in the technologies of the future--everything from AI, to composites, to clean energy solutions--and they are trying to do everything from driving their own energy independence to combating climate change. They are investing in the resilience of their supply chains by promoting domestic production. They are training their workforce.

So the aspects of the legislation that we passed that help to skill and keep Americans working and trained for the workforce are very important policies. In fact, the administration just released yesterday another round of investment as part of what was the aerospace and manufacturing jobs program that helped keep the aviation worker in place or actually try to recapture some of them who were laid off during the pandemic.

It is a very important piece of legislation that we have worked on that my colleagues over here, for the most part, didn't support in the final package. Some of them supported it as a concept and as an idea but did not support the final package.

Right now, it is 30 to 50 percent cheaper to build a semiconductor foundry in Asia than in the United States, mostly because of foreign government investment. Moreover, as I said, we are being hard hit by a semiconductor supply chain crisis. Car manufacturers, including Tesla, GM, and others, are removing some of their most advanced and desirable features from their cars just to reduce the number of chips that are needed. Literally, we are cutting our innovation skill set just because we don't have the chips. Ford announced last week that it will either halt or cut production at eight plants.

Are we really going to sit around and wait to get this legislation done? Are we really going to sit around and wait?

We have eight plants that are going to shut down because they don't have chips, and we are going to sit around and wait for another 3 or 4 weeks before we go to conference to resolve these issues. It has been projected that this chip shortage cost the global auto industry, in 2021, $210 billion in revenue and a loss of production of 7.7 million cars. So leadership can't wait. It can't wait.

Fortunately, the United States is showing that we can respond, and we in the Senate did pass legislation. Now we have an opportunity to go to conference and work with our colleagues, but some people want to wait another 3 weeks or 4 weeks to do that. I don't want to wait. I don't want to wait another second. The competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers that are competing on an international basis and that receive the investments that we make in technology just can't wait.

Recent investments from the commercial sector from Intel show that over 10,000 new jobs will bring a domestic semiconductor industry to the Midwest, specifically to Ohio, and our experience has shown us that, if we make the investments that we are talking about in USICA, in the competitiveness act, that we will grow an even larger U.S. semiconductor manufacturing business.

Yet foreign competitors are not sitting still. When it comes to technology leadership, they are, obviously, going to try to do their part. So our solution is simple. All we have to do is work together. All we have to do is be collaborative. As someone once said, collaboration is the next phase of innovation. You can have all the science; you can have all the creativity, but if you can't get it implemented because people don't sit around the table and talk and innovate and work together, then you can't get it implemented.

That is where we are. We know we need to do this investment in R&D. We know that we need to invest in chips, and we are not doing it because some people don't want to move ahead and get this done.

The Senate Commerce Committee passed the legislation, and we, obviously, got and understood the urgency of it. We got and understood the urgency of it. Trust me. There are many other things we thought we were going to put on our agenda. The Acting President pro tempore knows--because she sat through the hundreds of amendments that were marked up--the process that we went through, the regular order, the regular order that we went through here on the Senate floor, and the regular order we are willing to go through. So no one is asking for anything else but for regular order.

Of the people who want to hold up and don't want to move forward, I would ask them to think about our competition that is working very hard at beating us on semiconductors and the issues that it represents as it relates to the investments we should be making.

I want us to make the investments in semiconductors. I want us to make the investments in manufacturing extension programs, in STEM education, in tech hubs, and in making sure that the United States of America maintains its leadership role.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor because this week, hopefully, our House colleagues will be taking up legislation that they have named America COMPETES. My colleague was just here on the Senate floor talking about the legislation we passed last year, and we are glad our colleagues are finally addressing this in the House of Representatives.

I said ``glad'' they are ``addressing''--we are happy about that because, between 1996 and 2015, federally funded research led to over $1 trillion in economic growth and millions of new jobs. So we know that when we invest, we see a big return in our economy.

What we know, however, is that R&D investment is at its lowest point in nearly 45 years, as measured as a percentage of GDP. That is where we have been going. And the rest of the world isn't waiting.

Overall, U.S. R&D spending places us ninth globally, behind advanced economies like South Korea, Japan, and Germany, and far below the fifth place ranking that we held in the 1990s.

So this is why we need to do something, and that is why we passed what was called the United States Innovation and Competition Act last year and why we encouraged our colleagues to take it up. There is a competition for global leadership in technology in a range of areas-- semiconductors, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, low-Earth orbit satellites. And there are countries that are very eager to make investments to try to capture those jobs that I mentioned that come as a result of investment in technology.

We know that we tried to solve this problem before; that is, to stay competitive. We passed an America COMPETES Act in 2007, and we passed one in 2010. And we were trying to stay competitive with changing economies and the information age that we now are in. These acts were intended to double the key research accounts at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, but, unfortunately, the appropriations authorized did not materialize. In large part, we had a 2008 recession and subsequent fiscal sequestration, and we reduced the NSF and DOE budgets.

So we had the right idea. We had a year or so of activity that really tried to get us on the right track, and then fiscal issues put us behind.

So job openings today and the opportunities for us to grow our economy by making this investment are just monumental. And that is why we hope that this is a bipartisan effort by the Senate and, ultimately, a bipartisan effort by the House to come together to make the investments to help fill these jobs of the future.

Job openings in computer science occupations are expected to exceed 1 million in the next few years, nearly 400,000 just in the area of cyber security alone.

The Wall Street Journal reported that planned growth in the U.S. semiconductor industry will require up to 90,000 more workers by 2025-- 90,000 more workers just in that 1 sector. And these are very well- paying jobs.

According to the National Science Board, the only way that the United States can fill the gaps in these STEM workers is to double the number of women in the STEM workforce and double the number of other unrepresented minorities in these jobs. And that is exactly what we are trying to do with this legislation.

On our manufacturing sector--which we have a very large manufacturing sector in the Northwest, driven by aerospace but also other forms of transportation, and it also includes small and medium-sized manufacturing--but one organization estimated that it will take up to $250 billion over 10 years to help us upgrade our existing infrastructure in manufacturing and equipment to be competitive.

So that means we must do our part. Many of these industries will do their part. But on the R&D side, we must continue to do our part.

Other countries are investing heavily. On the semiconductor advanced manufacturing facilities, which are very, very expensive to build, we just heard of a major announcement by Intel a few weeks ago about their investment in the State of Ohio. These facilities can cost $30 billion over 10 years, including $20 billion in just the capital expenses. Other countries are making huge investments to help build cheaper foundries, anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of the investment in Asia.

So, as a result, over the last several decades, the United States has lost a big share of what they had in the semiconductor manufacturing chip sector, going from about 37 percent of the market for production from the United States down to 12 percent today.

So the United States must respond, and we must continue to make investments in these sectors. My colleagues, as we had this floor debate, will remember, we talked about a $52 billion investment--an enormous amount of money. But I asked my colleagues who helped us get this legislation and those who weren't with us at that moment to consider this information: The semiconductor shortage cost vehicle manufacturers, just in 2021, $210 billion. In 1 year, our shortage cost us $210 billion.

So I think making this investment in chip production in the United States is critical. It is time we try again with our House colleagues. It is time that we engage in a bipartisan legislative process to get this legislation to the President's desk.

I know the House will consider many amendments on Friday when they are supposed to take up this bill. We in the Commerce Committee had over 230 amendments filed. We approved 130 amendments. We had a 6-hour markup. We had healthy debate on amendments, and then the Senate proceeded to an open-floor debate and hundreds of amendments were filed here on the Senate floor.

So I encourage our colleagues in the House to have their amendments, to consider these ideas, and to come to an effort with us to get this legislation passed.

We know that this would be the largest 5-year commitment to public R&D in our Nation's history. We need it for the job growth. We need it to stay competitive.

This legislation would also make a $15 billion investment in growing and diversifying that STEM workforce. As I said, given the large amount of job openings in this sector, we are not going to find the people to take them unless we are diversifying our workforce.

This would establish a Senate-confirmed position on improving STEM diversity and make sure that NSF and the investments we would make would help us not only assure diversity but geographic diversity within the United States.

This legislation would also create a first-of-a-kind NSF--National Science Foundation--tech directorate to help accelerate the development and translation of new technologies within the United States to the future and helping those jobs grow more quickly.

Now, I know a lot of people, probably at the beginning: If NSF was already doing a good job, if DOE was already doing a good job, why do we have to do something different?

Well, the issue is the United States is producing a lot of R&D, and that R&D is being used by other people. It is actually documented public information that ends up getting used and translated by somebody else hungrier, faster moving, with opportunity, and thereby getting translated. So this bill addresses that. This bill, with the creation of a tech directorate, is about accelerating the R&D that we do and turning it into real manufacturing at a faster rate.

We call this tech transfer. And if you have any kind of university in your State, you know exactly what I am talking about, and these universities play a key role in tech transfer. In fact, tech transfer in this realm of university has been responsible for about 4 million jobs over the last 20 years, I think it is--the last 20 years. So these are big investments that they have supported. They have supported over 4 million jobs.

So USICA would make an investment of 17 billion in the Department of Energy and authorize the tripling of the manufacturing extension partnership to help with those manufacturing opportunities and also make investments in tech hubs to help create private sector investment and the same kind of workforce opportunities for the future.

As I mentioned, the announcement by Intel in Ohio to build a new foundry and the expensive cost of building a new foundry was interesting news because it wasn't in the same places that

investments in chip fabrication has been done so far. And yet the CEO of the company said, if we pass this legislation, there could be 100 billion in investment.

That is important because we have to understand how important chip fabrication is, semiconductors are, to the information age that we live in today--how important it is that we not lose market share any lower than 12 percent and we actually start going back in the other direction so that we can grow these jobs in the future.

So I just want to emphasize: There is a lot to agree on with House colleagues. Both bills call for a $52 billion investment in the semiconductor industry. Both bills call for major investment, about $160 billion, in critical R&D Agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Both bills recognize the need to invest in creating tech hubs and making investments in the domestic supply chain. Both bills call for growing the diversity of our STEM workforce to meet workforce gaps. Both bills attempt to address disparities in our trade and research policies that I was just mentioning--trying to not let people just grab the R&D that the United States does and translate that, but make sure that we have strong laws in preventing intellectual property theft where it occurs and making investments in American businesses. And we know that there are other provisions that we will be able to agree on as well. So with our investment in R&D reaching a 45-year low, now is the time to grow our economy.

I hope our colleagues in the House will join in a bipartisan effort. We stand ready in the Senate to join a serious discussion to get this legislation onto the President's desk and grow these jobs. It is a very important economic opportunity for the United States and continues our leadership.

I yield the floor.