Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor, hopefully today will be the day we wrap up debate on the America Competes-Endless Frontier legislation now known as the USICA, United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021. We come to talk about this now, primarily because we know that the research dollars invested today are going to decide the jobs of the future. And we know that we all believe a significant increase in the investment in research and development dollars will help us spur innovation, continue to help us compete, and continue to be competitive in key sectors of our economy that are so important to us.

We know that we have been having this debate literally now for more than a decade, starting with President Bush's 2006 report saying America needed to invest more in the National Science Foundation. And at the time, I am pretty sure we thought we were in a track meet where our competitor was maybe half a lap behind us

I am pretty sure now, as the decade has moved on, we are looking over our shoulder and realizing that the competition is gaining. So we need to make this investment in research and development to stay competitive, to grow jobs for tomorrow, and solve some of our most pressing problems, whether that is climate change, national security on cyber issues, or the advent and usage of artificial intelligence and what that will mean both for our opportunities and for our challenges.

So we are making a renewed commitment to the National Science Foundation. I thank my colleagues again, Senator Schumer and Senator Young, for

their innovative legislation. They are telling us a couple of things. They are saying, one, invest more money in research and development, so this bill not only increases the NSF budget, it increases DOE's budget and increases the Defense Advanced Research Program Agency's funding as well by $17.5 billion.

So it is saying, yes, basic research is still very important. But it is also saying, for the first time, we need to get more out of the research that we do, and we need to have more translational science, that is, taking the basic research and applied research and actually using the applications of that in a more robust way so that we can translate more of that into actual science and manufacturing.

Why is this so important? Because we know that our competitiveness as a nation is suffering from the fact that people are looking at our own research and development. They are looking at our teachings and our publishing at universities and actually going and implementing this. So we need to do better on tech transfer.

This underlying legislation not only helps us do that by helping to help universities who are our No. 1 research partner with Federal dollars, it allows those universities to help us with more tech transfer in innovative ways, that universities not just do the research, but help commercialize it. It also makes investments and helping them protect the patenting of that critical information, so no longer having that patentable information used in other places around the globe, but actually capitalizing on the jobs here in the United States.

It also makes a huge investment in STEM, the science, technology, engineering, and math jobs that we need for the future. And clearly, you can't make a major investment in research and development if you don't have the workforce to carry it out. And we need a workforce to carry it out. So this underlying legislation helps us not only diversify our workforce by a major investment in STEM, going from an annual budget of about $1 billion in the year 2020 to about $4 billion a year by 2026. So we are going to get a more diversified STEM workforce with women and minorities participating.

And we are also trying to distribute more of our engineering and science capacity around the United States. Our colleagues, Senators Schumer and Young, were adamant that we also look at innovation infrastructure happening in more regional places in the United States, where they may not currently have the R&D capability of some of our major institutions.

So this legislation promises 20 percent of the research and investment dollars go to those EPSCoR states, Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, an already identified landmark in how we distribute research dollars, that tries to grow the regional research infrastructure in more places in the United States. Again, I thank my colleagues Senator Wicker for leading the charge on that and helping us make that investment. And it also triples the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, so that we get more out of manufacturing workforce training and resiliency of our supply chain for the future.

As I mentioned before we left, it also includes an authorization for NASA and the Artemis mission and making sure that we are staying competitive. As Senator Nelson said in a House hearing on our mission and challenges, as China has made it clear, they are going to Mars, we are going back to the Moon to ready ourselves to go to Mars, and we think that it, too, deserves the funding and support to make us competitive.

I think the bottom line here is that we know that American innovation drives the economy of the future. In a lot of ways, in passing this legislation today--and just so our colleagues know, we will have a couple of votes here before we get to a final passage--we really are doing our part.

People hopefully will support this legislation enthusiastically, well past the majority of Members, because you believe in the history of the United States research and development that we have achieved innovation goals--whether that was what we did with the internet, whether that was what we have done on biosciences, even on some of our issues as it relates to energy. We have achieved big breakthroughs.

So today's vote is about investing in that innovation economy of the future. I am pretty confident because I have met some of these innovators across the United States. I don't know if everything that we have done so far will be absorbed by universities, our researchers, and our labs, but literally, we are trying to dust off R&D skills and make them more competitive for today.

I guarantee you, though, these dollars that reach American entrepreneurs, who reach American innovators, they are ready and willing to take up this challenge. Give them those collaborative research resources through innovation at universities, through tech hubs, through more collaboration on workforce training, through investments in semiconductors, and I guarantee you these entrepreneurs in America will innovate our economy and create the economies of the future.

And what is at stake? If my colleagues have a better idea, I am willing to hear it. But I know this: Americans want us to lead on their regional economies, on the U.S. economies, and on global economies. They do not want to get left behind. They look at this time and era as a challenge to the leadership we have provided in the past.

So settling for Federal investment being near their lowest point as a percentage of GDP in 60 years won't cut it. What cuts it is making an investment in R&D and empowering those entrepreneurs so they will create those future economies.

I yield the floor.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, and section 4(g)3 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

If I could explain to my colleagues about this vote because it goes far beyond the simplicity of just the debate regarding the semiconductor chips and emergency appropriations.

The way this point of order is drafted, basically, it would gut the bill. Basically, it not only guts the provisions related to the chips emergency appropriations, but it strikes the Foreign Relations Committee's work, it strikes the Homeland Security Committee's work, it strikes the Banking Committee's work, it effectively strikes the HELP Committee's work and the Judiciary's, and most importantly, the Finance Committee's work, which it was the entire Finance Committee's insistence that the GSP, the System of Preferences, be included in the bill.

So all of those things that everybody wishes would be in the bill would no longer be in the bill, including the Department of Energy funding, the increase in STEM funding, and many other provisions.

I ask my colleagues to waive the budget point of order. Vote yes, and let us move this legislation forward.

Mr. President, we have been working for almost a month to review and vet hundreds of amendments filed by my colleagues on both sides. You maybe followed the floor debate here, where we agreed to numerous amendments and had discussions on many more--I think 20, to be exact.

We had been working on a managers' package that was previously objected to before we left for the recess. Since then, we have been working diligently with our colleague Senator Wicker, on the Commerce Committee, to put forth a bipartisan package of amendments to improve the legislation. Many of these provisions have been great bipartisan efforts: Senators Ernst and Hassan's bipartisan amendment to improve transparency of the National Science Foundation grant funding; Senator Collins' amendment to require an update on implementation of the Energy Implementation Act; Senator Blackburn had a technical fix on studying the possible threats to our communications network and fiber optic transmission; Senator Warnock's amendment to clarify the definition of minority-serving institutions on STEM grants; Senator Cortez Masto worked on several bipartisan pieces of legislation to resolve issues on amendments dealing with critical minerals and recycling, something very important to us as a nation.

So, in total, we have 42 amendments--23 led by Republicans, 19 led by Democrats--many of which, as I said, are bipartisan. These amendments would seek to improve the bill and accomplish Member priorities. And this is what happens when you negotiate on the Senate floor in regular order. You vote on amendments; you have some voice vote amendments; and you have a managers' package.

So I hope our colleagues will consider giving our colleagues a chance to have their amendments that have been agreed to accepted into this package.

So I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Collins 1583; Fischer 1637; Johnson 1701; Shaheen 1758; Rubio 1777; Thune 1851; Wicker 1943; Hagerty 1958; Cotton 1964; Blunt 1988; Scott 2000; Ernst-Hassan 2017; Romney-Menendez 2025; Johnson 2048; Lujan 2082; Rosen 1768; Merkley 1823; Warnock 1980; Murray 1981; Hassan 2001; Warren-Rubio 2104; Collins 1622; Wicker 1801; Leahy-Tillis 2093; Van Hollen-Tillis 2049; Blackburn 2085; Cortez Masto 2083, which includes language from Senator Durbin; Lankford 1945; Baldwin-Braun 2026; Hyde-Smith 1933; Hyde-Smith 1841; Merkley-Rubio-Romney 2103; Ossoff 2105; Kennedy 2113; Barrasso 2094; Rubio 2106; Kaine 2090; Barrasso-Cardin 2101; Peters 2112; Cantwell 1905; Baldwin 2081; and Cardin-Wicker, as modified, 1782.

Mr. President, I do believe our colleagues have worked hard to have their legislation considered. I want them to know I am going to continue to promulgate these ideas about competitiveness.

You know, I had a chance to fly home, and for me it is a long way. It is 5\1/2\ hours so you get a lot of reading done. And I read Chris Wallace's new book about 1945 and the number of days that our Nation had to respond to the threat of war, what it took them to go out and develop the Manhattan Project, to get them to go and not only in my State, develop the Hanford site--Los Alamos developed that--and not only that, developed what happened at Oak Ridge and a scientific response to make our Nation more secure. All we are asking for here is a little R&D dollars. So I can tell you that I wish we would find a Leslie Groves of today because those are the people who responded to our Nation when we needed to respond in a competitive fashion.

I am so sorry that our colleagues' amendments are not going to be considered, but if my colleague's underlying premise is that you don't want to respond to the competitive threats to our Nation, you have a right to vote no. But holding up our colleagues' good work, I think, is a mistake.

I will commit to our colleagues that these important things on critical minerals, on transparency, and on moving forward on science, we will continue to work with you.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I think now we have a vote on the substitute amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1502, as Amended

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that myself, Senator Cantwell, Senator Wicker, Senator Young, and Senator Schumer be allowed to speak before the vote.

Mr. President, I just wanted to take a moment to thank, obviously, my colleagues, Senator Schumer and Senator Young, for their hard work on this legislation and thank my counterpart, Senator Wicker, for his tremendous effort in moving this bill.

We have now been on this bill, and we reported it out May 12. I think it came on the calendar May 13, and, literally, we have been working on it since. So this is a very hard effort to produce something very important to today's economy. So I want to thank Senator Schumer's staff, Mike Lynch, Meghan Taira, Gerry Petrella; and John Keast, Crystal Tully, Steven Wall, James Mazol, Cheri Pascoe of Senator Wicker's office.

On my team, David Strickland, Melissa Porter, and Mary Guenther. But, specifically, I want to thank Richard-Duane Chambers, who came to the Senate from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, I think, maybe like a week before we started working on this bill. So, literally, since he joined the Senate Commerce Committee, he has been just knee-deep in the conversation of dusting off our R&D for the Nation, making a new investment, making more translational science. So I really appreciate Richard-Duane's effort.

I also want to thank Gigi Slais, Shawn Bone, John Branscome, Ronce Almond, Alex Simpson, Jared Bomberg, Shannon Smith, John Beezer, Noam Kantor, Tiffany George, Jordan Blue, Kara Fischer, Nikky Teutschel, Matthew Bobbink, Caitlin Warner, Alex Kiles, George Greenwell, Elle Wibisono, Alexis Gutierrez, Eric Vryheid, Brian McDermott, Lucy Koch, Hunter Blackburn, and Alex Hall. So all of these people.

I think my colleagues know that these bills don't come about easily. They come through a lot of hard work. And we thank everybody for participating in a regular order process out here on the Senate floor to produce a bipartisan result for something so important to our Nation's competitiveness.

Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor and talk about one aspect of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act that we haven't had time to fully address out here on the floor, although we had some discussion during the amendment process, and that is that the underlying bill in S. 1260 also reauthorizes NASA and puts support in for the Artemis Program.

On October 5, 1957, our Nation's relationship with space changed forever with the launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik 1. With a rival power's satellite flying overhead, the geostrategic importance of outer space was undeniable, and within a year, the Nation had two new science agencies: the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA.

That launch ignited the American competitive spirit and inspired the Nation to rapidly develop its space capabilities.

Only 12 years later, from that moment, an American was the first man to set foot on the Moon, and the race to the Moon set the stage for the vibrant, commercial space economy we have today. We like the fact that Seattle and the region is now called the ``Silicon Valley of Space.'' I know there are many aspects to our country where space is a key industry, whether that is in Florida, Alabama, Texas, or other Southern States we know, but in the innovation and in the next phases of innovation, a lot is happening in the nexus between software and space in the Pacific Northwest.

So we are here again for a great competition about the future of space. We must again make the strategic investments needed to win. Space is even more geostrategically important today than it was in 1957. There are more countries in the space race, and our competition is more advanced. New NASA Administrator, our former colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, testified before the House Appropriations Committee last week about China's advanced space missions. The United States landed the Perseverance rover on Mars earlier this year and, shortly after, China landed their own rover on Mars.

As Administrator Nelson told the committee, ``they're going to be landing humans on the Moon. That should tell us something about our need to get off our duff''--spoken like our colleague, as we knew him, blunt and to the point.

I personally believe in the power of competition to spur innovation and to push our Nation to get more serious about making investments in space that will also catalyze economic growth. I do believe we should rise to the occasion.

That is why we are trying to be very specific in an innovation and competition bill about what it is going to take to fund the Artemis Program. That means recommitting to the ambitious human space exploration goals like returning Americans to the Moon and sending our astronauts to Mars in partnership with commercial and international partners. These are the candidates here for that Artemis mission. They are like our new colleague, Commander Kelly, who are preparing--and it takes years to prepare--for this mission. I want to give them the certainty that we are going to make the right investments.

That means taking a hard look at whether we are doing enough to protect the intellectual property essential to our leadership in space. We should make sure that where the entrepreneurs for these are concerned, our IP and intellectual property won't be stolen by other countries and, of course, it means providing NASA for the needs that they have to carry out the human exploration, science, and space technology missions.

We can't afford to lose momentum within the Artemis Program. The Chinese, as I mentioned, are making rapid progress on a heavy-lift rocket with its ambitious exploration missions. We, too, I believe, should be doing all we can to understand and harness the power of this market and to make sure that Congress does its proper oversight role.

I recognize that my colleagues and I may have a disagreement about the role of the commercial sector in space. It has been a long time since Congress made this decision, but I certainly respect my colleagues' ability and interest in disputing here.

Commercial programs can deliver lower prices and allow industry to bring about innovation and also help catalyze other ideas. That is why it has been NASA policy, since 1980, to encourage the fullest commercial use of space. That is when we really took off on this concept.

I do understand that some probably have an idea that NASA should still control all of this IP and be in a position of funding all of this ourselves, but I think our policy to move toward the commercialization of space has given us some benefits.

A bill focused on competition and research and development cannot leave NASA out of the conversation. That is why Ranking Member Wicker and I did bipartisan legislation to authorize NASA in the Endless Frontier Act as it came out of committee.

The exploration and science work NASA carries out is important in and of itself, but their capacity to spin off additional inventions and other benefits to us also return investment.

NASA has generated more than 2,000 spinoff technologies since 1976 and, on average, these tech transfers from NASA generate generally $1 million per year for each spinoff enterprise.

The gear that keeps our firefighters safe was originally developed as part of the space program as NASA developed astronaut clothing and gear. LASIK eye surgery, cochlear implants to improve hearing, portable water filtration, cell phone cameras, and even memory foam all came out of NASA programs.

So now let's talk about this next project; that is, the Artemis project that is, obviously, an indication that we plan to send some women to the surface of the Moon. This time, under NASA's Artemis Program, when we return to the Moon, it will be a woman who will take the first step. These are two candidates from this mission who, I am proud to say, are from the State of Washington and, hopefully, will be competing for one of those spots.

Going to the Moon will allow us to develop the assets we need to go to Mars and the assets to reduce the risk of what a crewed Martian mission might look like. So this includes developing the most powerful rocket ever built, the Space Launch System with its Enhanced Upper Stage. That rocket will be able to carry 38 tons of crew and cargo, which NASA needs to enable a sustainable presence on or around the Moon.

NASA will develop an orbiting outpost, like the Gateway, which will be like an International Space Station for the Moon that can serve as a way station for what we need to do to get our astronauts to and from and material to and from the way station, similar to what we would do with Mars. So nuclear power sources for surface operations and human landing systems--all of these things are part of the critical legislation.

We will demonstrate the ability to build and live in a habitat on the surface of another planet. That is what the Artemis project is all about. The Space Launch System and its capabilities will be complemented by commercial rocket launch science experiments essential to our understanding of how to operate on the Moon and components of NASA that are building for things on and around the Moon.

Getting to the Moon will also open up new opportunities for more commercial space industry, and once we set up a camp on the Moon, our astronauts will demonstrate the technology needed to extract resources like fuel, water, oxygen, and opening up new economic opportunities.

The University of Washington has a lab devoted to technologies for extracting water from the Martian atmosphere, and they are ready to do more. And in 2020, NASA challenged the commercial sector to conduct a mission that would set the precedent for mining lunar resources

Our commercial space industry is a critical partner to the Artemis Program. The commercial sector brings their best ideas and the best technology to the table for NASA's programs. Commercial capabilities enable the missions at lower cost with greater capabilities than could have been dreamed of during the Apollo era.

However, NASA should be held accountable for how it manages these commercial programs. President Trump, in his budget, requested $3.4 billion for the lander system. In fact, I think the Vice President at the time, Mike Pence, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Artemis Program and constantly evangelized our need for investment.

The Agency has made it clear they need $10 billion for the human lander system over the next several years. This program investment, I believe, is critical to the mission, but it is also critical that it follows NASA's best practices.

One of the lessons learned from the assembly of the International Space Station is the importance of having multiple space transportation providers. NASA carried out that best practice in programs that developed the commercial space system that carried cargo and crew to the International Space Station.

The American taxpayers invest too much in these space programs not to apply these lessons about the importance of resiliency and redundancy. The same lesson should be applied to the programs developed here as we approach this new project to land people back on the Moon.

These are complex systems with multiple components that need to work together to get astronauts down to the lunar surface and back safely. Building in resiliency and redundancy increases NASA's chances of successfully landing humans on the Moon and bringing them home safely.

The Commercial Cargo Program is a perfect example where building in resiliency and redundancy through competition paid off. The program was created to transport cargo like supplies for astronauts and science missions to the International Space Station. During that program, one company's rocket blew up on the way to the International Space Station and had to be removed from service for a whole year. But because the program built in resiliency and redundancy, the Nation was able to continue to supply the station with the supplies that it needed.

When the second commercial company suffered a launch failure months later, the first company stepped back in. The importance of maintaining competition within NASA programs to protect our investments and maximize our chances of mission success were clearly there, and we were able to keep going.

As a former NASA official put it, ``Technical redundancy and market competition [are] central to the principle of commercial space contracting. Any one system would just leave us with the vulnerabilities that had plagued the space shuttle program.''

And we all know the complexities and challenges and the disaster that could and did happen there.

This is our opportunity now to invest, as we are making this big decision about America's competition and our innovation. Nothing could be a greater symbol than our return to the Moon and our exploration of Mars and the competition we face than galvanizing Americans in support of this, just as we did in the sixties. This is our opportunity to invest in American space capabilities and leadership for decades into the future.

We are going to make sure we get this right. We are going to make sure we protect the taxpayer investment. We are going to make sure we have redundancy now. I think this underlying bill helps us by clarifying to NASA what we expect out of the Artemis Program and what we need to do to make sure that NASA follows best practices in its management program.

Returning Americans to the Moon and landing people on Mars will do wonders, and certainly I am excited about the iconic nature of a woman being the first to return for us to the Moon and all the things that will help us in educating women in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math.

NASA does great work promoting these missions and getting young people interested in the STEM field, and it can inspire a whole generation of women to take up the sciences and to be involved. We saw this during the Apollo era. Many scientific and technical professionals went into their fields because they got excited by watching the Apollo missions.

So as we stare down the potential for millions and millions of unfilled STEM jobs for the future, I think this is the kind of inspiration that can be quite helpful to us.

Also, from Earth science, to solar science, to astrophysics, the scientific work of NASA helps us understand our universe. NASA's climate work is particularly impactful. Their data on sea level rise and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are critical to understanding the ability to fight climate change, and that is why the Earth sciences open up so much data for us that we want to make sure we are moving forward with this NASA authorization.

It will require NASA to make its Earth science data as interactive, interoperable, and accessible as feasible to academics and industry so that they can utilize this information more usefully. I actually think this is a very exciting element of the program and progress that NASA is making. It is a no-brainer that it would allow us to squeeze more value out of the incredible work that NASA already does.

We also can't forget the first ``A'' in ``NASA'': aeronautics. The aviation industry is 5.2 percent of our GDP and

supports over 10 million jobs. Keeping that industry competitive, especially as the Nation comes out of the COVID pandemic, and keeping us on track with meeting our international emissions standards is critical.

NASA's experimental work developing X-planes, in partnership with industry, drives major innovations in aeronautics. Their current work is focused on reducing the noise and emissions of aircraft, developing electronic propulsion, and demonstrating supersonic aircraft that could one day fly over land, among other projects.

Each of these are not incremental changes; they are fundamental changes. I hope that we will move forward on this legislation.

This legislation also requires NASA to continue to collaborate with industry to develop next-generation materials like composites. Composites, lightweight material, are so important, I guarantee you, in the race for aviation, advanced composite manufacturing, and whoever conquers this field best will be the leaders in aviation manufacturing.

The Agency's Advanced Composites Project was a great success in seeking to reduce the time needed to develop and certify new composites. It would be a loss to the Nation if the Agency were to lose momentum on this important work.

So, as the Presiding Officer can see, I believe this NASA provision that is in the underlying legislation is critical.

The Senate passed this NASA authorization last Congress, only to have it fail to be taken up in the House. It is time that we get this legislation through the entire Congress, that we make this Artemis mission a true priority, with true committed resources, to help us be successful and to be proud sometime in the near future to see that woman standing on the face of the Moon.

I thank the President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the Crapo-Wyden amendment No. 1562, as modified with the changes at the desk; and that following disposition of the Rubio amendment No. 1802, the Senate vote on amendment No. 1562 with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption.

Madam President, speaking against this amendment, I know the Senator from Florida probably, given his intelligence work, wants to be well-meaning, but this amendment is not ready for the focus that we need to give on issues of counterintelligence.

This amendment, as drafted, literally says that the Director of National Intelligence should look at and certify whether any of the entities given this money--including NASA, which would be given money under this bill--that they would have to certify for a 10-year period of time.

So, literally, every institution, every organization that gets money under this bill would have to certify for a 10-year period of time that they didn't have anything to do with a Chinese investment.

I am all for investigating theft and intellectual property. In fact, the Senator from Mississippi and I added several provisions to our legislation. Other people have added things to this legislation. But do I want the Director of National Intelligence calling every university in the United States that might get money from this program and asking them to verify for the last 10 years what did they ever take as far as Chinese investment?

I have news for you. I want the Director of National Intelligence to be focusing on cyber security. If somebody didn't see, we have just had a major pipeline incident. It is not the first incident; it is many incidents in which foreign governments have threatened our Nation, our sources of power, basically, by infiltrating our system.

I want the Director of National Intelligence to focus on Iran, to focus on Russia, to focus on North Korea, to focus on Syria, to focus on threats of terrorism. I want them to focus on monitoring our organizations nationwide. I do not want them spending their time calling university presidents and NASA officials asking them what they have done for the last 10 years and to verify before they can get the needed research dollars.

Now, I know the Senator is trying to be well-meaning, and I am happy to work with him on this issue. But I know this: The race is on in semiconductors. The race is on in quantum computing. The race is on in AI. The race is on in other areas of manufacturing. And we cannot afford to have our Director of National Intelligence spending his time calling up these people when we have already implemented the securities in this legislation.

I am happy to keep working with anybody on this issue. But, by God, I am telling you, we are going to be committed to doing more on our international threats on cyber security because, as you can see from this recent pipeline incident, that is where we should be spending our time and our focus, from a security perspective.

I ask my colleagues to table the Rubio amendment.

Motion to Table

Madam President, I ask for the regular order. And I ask to table the Rubio amendment No. 1802 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to follow my colleague from Texas to talk about the very issue that he brought up, which is where is America going with semiconductor manufacturing, design, and development.

On this last point, I am pretty sure we see things differently. I am pretty sure that the majority--probably all of the Democrats would be enthusiastic about supporting both manufacturing in the United States as well as making sure that if Federal dollars are used, prevailing wage should be applied. I am sure we will differ on that point.

But I think that we are, at least on our side of the aisle, supportive of this concept that chip fabrication, chip manufacturing in the United States of America is an important sector and that we are facing a chip shortage and that we should do something about it.

If you think about it, semiconductors are like the oil of the 21st century. They have become an essential aspect. They can be found in children's toys, in appliances, computers, cell phones, our telecommunications networks, and advanced national security technology, as my colleague was mentioning. They enable healthcare, artificial intelligence applications, financial services, and certainly in the area of defense.

They have transformed how we communicate, how we learn, how we socialize. Yet they are so complex and manufacturing so expensive, it can cost anywhere from $5 to almost $20 billion--$20

billion is one number I have heard--just to build these facilities. This is why this issue has become so important.

The United States has had strong leadership in the semiconductor area, but massive investments from other nations put us at a disadvantage when it comes to manufacturing. They are subsidizing and getting tax benefits up to 40 percent to build in Korea than in the United States of America. The Endless Frontier Act tries to address that because it really is a national security and telecommunications policy

In the 1990s, the United States produced over 37 percent of the global chips supply. As you know, here in the United States, we have 48 percent of the world's aircraft production, but now with these challenges, as we look at the chip supply, they are down to 12 percent.

I noticed in the Wall Street Journal they said: Why do we care? Why do we care? They basically are saying that chips in fabrication have become a commodity and that we don't have to worry about it anymore. As long as we are winning on the design side, we don't care where it is manufactured.

Well, if you ask me, that is so 1980s--I mean, the idea that you could design a product here and then have it manufactured somewhere else. Maybe that works with shoes or outdoor clothing, but it doesn't work with something as sophisticated and changing as a high-tech innovation product like semiconductors. In fact, I would say, if you really think that type of thinking works, just look at what happened. It is really pro-COVID thinking. We thought we could have the design done here and, basically, some of these devices that we use here, like ventilators, we will just produce them overseas. What could possibly go wrong? Well, we figured out what could go wrong. If we are not manufacturing ventilators here in the United States, something could go wrong, and it did.

The question is, What is going to go wrong if we don't manufacture chips in the United States of America? The thing I don't think that the Wall Street Journal quite got right is that they don't understand that in today's innovation cycle, having a cluster of design, of manufacturing, of supply chain, of customers--everybody working together is the new way to have an economic advantage.

In fact, there is a recent study done by a Chicago research organization. I am going to read from this report. Basically, it is all about clusters and why clusters are so important:

An industry cluster is a group of firms, related

stakeholders, and supportive institutions that gain

productive advantages from close geographic proximity and

related economies of scale. As groups of related industries

grow and develop, clustering can help lower business costs

and increase the extent of benefits of specialization. Deeper

labor pools, better access to customers and suppliers,

knowledge spillover--these and other advantages are derived

from an environment of balanced competition and

collaboration.

I could go on. I will submit it for the Record. That is what is happening with semiconductors.

The Asian market has, basically, now become the epicenter for this level of production, and the question is, Are we just going to forgo that and end up, basically, with not 12 percent of market share here but 6 percent of market share? Then our suppliers are going to continue to go where the investments and the energy and the ideas are.

That is why in the United States of America, where we still have clusters in various parts of the United States--my colleague from Texas knows this well because he has a cluster in Texas. My colleague from Oregon, who was out here earlier, knows because they have a cluster there. There are clusters in places like Arizona. This is about whether the United States of America is going to continue to make this investment ourselves.

Chips are essential to our national security and to telecommunications. In 1990, we produced over 37 percent of global chip supply, and we need to continue to make sure that we are going to be an investor in chip fabrication today.

Today, as I said, we are at an inflection point because of what is happening in a global basis. According to Goldman Sachs, 169 industries in the United States have products with embedded semiconductors, and there will be a 20-percent shortfall of components needed for those products.

Last month, Caterpillar, headquartered in Illinois, said it anticipated the chip shortage impairing its ability to meet growing demand of construction and mining equipment. We are not just talking about kids' gaming consoles or computers. We are talking about many sectors of our economy that depend on this.

National security experts argue that if there were a greater trade war or military conflict, the United States would not be able to fill its demand for chips for national security and critical infrastructure needs.

That means people like car manufacturers, appliance manufacturers--if you think about 5G and new technology--the post-pandemic economy won't be able to keep moving forward.

The shortage also forced the auto sector to cut 27,000 jobs in April alone. Earlier this year, General Motors temporarily shut down three North American plants due to the shortage. Ford cut back Michigan production of F-150s and the popular Explorer. And Dodge is reducing worker schedules in a Nevada plant producing the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango. These are having real-life impacts on us today.

The question is, We had a ripple of this just because of COVID. What if we had a ripple of this because somebody decided not to supply things to us? These are things we have to worry about just in a national security perspective. You have to worry about whether we are going to get a supply chain that we can depend on. We really are at an inflection point. We are at an inflection point where we need to do something about this sector.

One of the issues also is that chip fabrication and private R&D make huge investments. What we are talking about here represents a very small R&D investment partnership with the private sector as it relates to this. We are talking about trying to get more manufacturing jobs here in the United States.

My colleague was just discussing this sector, overall, and one of the things that people should think about--and I am pretty sure people at home won't be able to see this--but these jobs in production and in various aspects of design and even on some of the other aspects, even in management and computer, these are all well-paying jobs. These are jobs that, literally, are the types of jobs we want to be producing in the United States.

I heard this story about Idaho. Micron, a big company that used to be a major chip fabrication--they are still doing chip fabrication--but the number of jobs in Boise, ID, has fallen off, probably in the thousands, because this production has gone to other places. Now we are replacing them with call center jobs.

The question is whether we are going to make this investment in a key technology critical to our national security--critical to a lot of applications of the technology future, whether it is 5G or AI or various things--and whether we are going to be a competitor in this area of a supply chain and cluster that continues to innovate.

We know for a fact that semiconductor jobs in the production area are literally $94,000 a year. That is why we are fighting for this because it is a sector, in just the production end, that is high-paying jobs.

So are we going to spend time letting things go overseas and basically saying, ``OK, they will allow us to have call centers,'' or are we going to fight for these high-paying jobs in the semiconductor space that we know will help us maintain our expertise and skill in the United States?

I ask my colleagues to just think about the fact that this notion that we design something here and ship it overseas for cheap production does not fit this bill. That is not what we need to do to maintain competitiveness, in the information age, on something as important as semiconductors.

I think our history is rich with people like Thomas Edison and the Edison Park, which is what we established in New Jersey, or Menlo Park, or what now exists in Seattle or in various places. People get that innovation happens in clusters. So, if we are going to innovate, we have to make sure the United States is attracting this investment. We have to make sure that we are doing this here, on our shores, with the expertise and support.

A lot of my colleagues might say: Well, do you know what? Let's just have the private sector do this R&D.

As I said, the private sector spends a lot on R&D. In fact, we think the private sector spends about $377 billion a year on R&D. Yet, as we know, R&D isn't just done by the private sector for its specific interest. Basic science and lots of advanced research and applied science are done by the United States. That is why this bill is plussing up this number here from the National Science Foundation. We had discussions here about plussing up the number from the Department of Energy. Obviously, we had a vote in the Senate of even increasing the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and its dollars.

What works about the United States of America is that we are an ecosystem. We are not a top-down. It is not like we are basically the government, saying: This is what is going to be done. We create an ecosystem that is really based on American know-how--our ingenuity in how to get things done.

What we are asking for, as it relates to not only NSF funding in order to continue the work of R&D as it relates to semiconductors, is also to make sure that we are going to continue the focus of manufacturing and design and R&D and development and clustering and supply chain and companies working together.

I know how important this is because, in the Seattle area, in Washington State, we are a leader in aerospace technology. We are 49 percent, in the United States, of aerospace manufacturing. If you don't keep manufacturing, do you think the supply chain will stay in Seattle? Do you think the supply chain would stay in Seattle forever--all of those companies? We have hundreds of companies that make products for Boeing. Do you think they would stay there if it were not there? They will end up moving where the manufacturing is.

That is what the information age is about, and it is certainly about that when it comes to technology products. The technology products are developed faster, quicker, and with the innovation and the input from their customers. That is why, if you look at these centers around the United States, they are also the places at which you will find the biggest users of this technology. They are there, and they are there because they want to be close to their customers. They want to understand their customers' needs. They want to have interaction. They want to have collaboration.

That is what innovation is today. Innovation is doing design and manufacturing close together. That is how we win. That is why we need to pass this legislation as it relates to an investment in chip design and manufacturing R&D and so we continue to attract manufacturing in the United States.

Back to my colleague from Texas, who I know agrees with this principle in an underlying way, when the Federal Government wants to make an investment in actual construction, we say that we should apply prevailing wage. I have talked to many of these people in the semiconductor manufacturing-design space. They say: Do you see how expensive it is to do these plans? Do you see how expensive the equipment is? It is very expensive; so we need the best workforce. So guess what. We pay prevailing wage.

So we are saying, because we are putting Federal dollars on the table, we should pay prevailing wage. They think we should also pay prevailing wage. I am not speaking for them, but, in general, they feel like that is when they get their best product.

I know where my side of the aisle is. We are going to be here to make an investment in this particular sector. We are going to figure out how to be competitive against Asia in semiconductor manufacturing. We are going to continue, as Andy Grove said, to be paranoid because we know that this is a changing landscape, and we are going to follow our colleagues who have made these decisions and make an investment for the future.

I ask our colleagues to turn down the motion to strike the underlying bill, as the underlying bill already has this provision in it, and let's get about this business of waiving a budget point of order and deciding to make the investment that we need to make to be competitive in a key sector of the U.S. economy. If we do that, I guarantee you we will be well-positioned to continue to move forward, and our national security will be more secure because we will have made this decision.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wanted to commend and thank the Senator from Mississippi for his hard work. I have the great pleasure of working with him on the Commerce Committee, and I can tell you we are here tonight--not at this very moment at 10 o'clock but at the advent of getting to this moment where we can proceed to such important legislation--thanks to him and his great work as the ranking member on the Commerce Committee.

I want to personally thank him for that because I think the Senator described the actual process pretty well. We have two colleagues who have had a lot of foresight and thought about this issue--Senator Schumer, who for a long time has discussed America's competitiveness and what we need to do about it, particularly as it relates to shifting change and demographics on a lot of foreign policy issues, and our colleague from Indiana, who has also in the last 2 years put a lot of work into thinking about the future of AI competitiveness, manufacturing, and what we need to do to be competitive in the United States of America. So the Schumer-Young proposal is not new to this Congress. It was proposed before. And so this is work for many, many, many months I do think, as Senator Wicker stated, that we should thank them for their foresight.

I think, depending on what part of America you are from, you have a perspective about the economy of the future and how we are going to compete. For me, I am very blessed to represent the State of Washington with much innovation and really longtime work to get to the point where we are today.

One thing I would like to depart with is that we didn't get to the Northwest economy overnight. A lot of thought went into the education system and the workforce training issues. Sometimes I just say we are blessed to have people there who stayed and innovated with the companies that they innovated in.

Where we are today represents decades and decades of work, but it also gives you a little bit of foresight into the importance of research and development. The University of Washington is a leader in research and development with NSF and with predecessors here in the Senate who--Warren Magnuson specifically--focused on both NIH and NSF dollars. With the size of an institution with 40,000 students, it is also a premier research institution.

So that has given us a good footing for the future, the work they have done and the advent of Microsoft and so many companies with executives who then also put more into the University of Washington so we could grow our skill set and keep investing. So it is a long-term investment.

Our colleague from Indiana and our colleague from New York basically challenged us to think about what is our R&D investment for the United States of America and are we competing. Senator Wicker knows that this is something the Commerce Committee twice before had considered, in 2007 and 2010. He said: By God, we are going to double the R&D budget, and we are going to compete.

Believe it or not, it was George Bush as President who first authored a report that said America needs to have a more aggressive competitiveness policy. He was probably looking to Asia and seeing what was happening and saying we needed to do more.

The advent of that is, we started down the right road. We tried to make a commitment. We didn't completely follow through because of the downturn in the economy. Instead of doubling that R&D budget in a short period of time--5 to 7 years, and then we thought 11 years--well, it has turned into 22 years, and we really haven't quite done the job.

To our two colleagues, I thank them. I thank the Senator from Indiana. I certainly thank the Senator from New York because I think that without his continued heft behind this issue, saying that it is a priority--I told him he must have read Andy Grove's book ``Only the Paranoid Survive'' because he has clearly adopted that attitude as it relates to America's competitiveness and making sure we make investments in the semiconductor area--an area he knows well. He really does believe it needs the R&D investment and focus. I applaud him because really, without his major push, I don't think we would be here on the Senate floor tonight.

As my colleague Senator Wicker said, this bill includes a massive investment in the NSF budget and in the DOE budget, which is kind of tandem. That is what has happened every time we have had this discussion. NSF and DOE, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, have been our key tools for research and development in key areas that keep manufacturing competitive, keep our energy sector competitive, and keep our technology competitive. They have been major investments.

The challenge that we faced is that we also were asking ourselves-- besides trying to double our investment in these areas, we also said we want to get more out of the investment we have today. We want to basically get more out of the technology that we are creating and get it translated into more innovation right away.

This legislation does that by creating a new Tech Director at the National Science Foundation to, if you will--we have basic research, applied research--to have translational or user research to more quickly aid in the adoption of technologies that will help our economy grow. That was a pretty big step in the legislation.

Of course, Senator Wicker and I believe that investing in the workforce that we would need with STEM education was also a priority. So there was a pretty big, hefty boost in science, technology, engineering, and math in this underlying bill, including saying that women and minorities in the sciences have to be a priority and we have to do more to encourage that.

I want to thank Senator Wicker especially for his insistence on a key provision that I think is also important. Part of this is saying that we need to be competitive and increase the R&D budget. Part of it is saying that we need to have more translational science, get more out of our universities, and have them protect their intellectual property better. But this is also about having all of America better prepared for the economy of the future and compete.

Senator Wicker said: I want 20 percent of this bill, the legislation--the R&D dollars to go to States that are called EPSCoR- qualifying States. They are regions of the country where we have identified that we need to strengthen our research capacity. So the 25 States that are qualified as EPSCoR States know, and it is a program that has been built around strengthening their research and development. Senator Wicker's insistence on this provision will help those States grow their research muscle for the future, their research ecosystem, strengthen their universities, and strengthen the dollars that go to them. I applaud him for that dedication.

The head of the NSF, the National Science Foundation, will tell you that our motto for this bill overall or our goal as a nation is to be for innovation everywhere, connected to opportunities everywhere, connected to universities. With the provision that Senator Wicker proposed, we are literally taking another step towards building that infrastructure everywhere. If you are in Fairbanks, AK, or you are in Mississippi or some other part of the country, those institutions will get an extra focus and push to get more research and development.

I like to say that you never know what is going to come out of that. You never know what is going to come out of one individual at one institution with a great idea that really charges forward in a new area. So I think it is a great provision of the legislation.

We have, I think, with the other provisions our colleagues worked on--Senator Warner and Senator Cornyn--on trying to, in the last NDAA bill, make us crisply focused on the immense competition that we face in the semiconductor industry, we really have, I think, before us the shape of the debate about America's competition. We are not afraid to put research dollars on the table as a country. Our Nation believes in that more than other nations. Our people believe that is what has made our Nation great, and they know that if we keep making that investment, we are going to grow jobs and the economy. So we have made that commitment in this legislation.

We have made the commitment to diversify our research, to get more out of our research and translate that faster. We have made a commitment to skill and educate a workforce, not only with the diversity we like to see in science but the geographic diversity we like to see as well.

We didn't spend a lot of time talking about what is in here for the Department of Energy. It is not specific as to what the Department of Energy will do for this, but it is safe to say the Department of Energy's innovation program and ARPA-E are basically trying to help us with the next generation of energy technology. But it also includes carbon sequestration and a whole variety of other areas, nuclear power and a whole translation of various energy sciences.

I really believe we will be working together. I believe DOE, NSF, our National Laboratories, our universities--the collaboration that we heard about in committee will be the kind of growth that comes out of this legislative effort.

To many Americans at home, all I can say is, we are making another investment in American know-how, the ability to use our scientific skills to help create the next generation of work and effort.

I, too, want to thank our staff. I certainly on my side want to thank our staff director David Strickland and Melissa Porter, Richard-Duane Chambers, Mary Guenther, and Stacy Baird.

I, too, want to thank the Senator's staff--John Keast, Cheri Pascoe, and James Mazol--because they have been a great team to work with.

I also want to thank, on Senator Schumer's staff--Mike Kuiken and Jon Cardinal--because they have been a constant source in all of this.

Of course I thank all the floor team who have been out here working on this. I know there are other people from this room.

I also thank Senator Wicker's staff, Crystal Tully and Steven Wall.

On my staff, I thank Jonathan Hale and David Marten and Amit Ronen, who worked on a lot of the energy stuff that was part of this underlying stuff.

I am sure we will have more to thank later. This is a wish by Senator Wicker that this would be the wrap-up. I know we are not quite at the wrap-up, but we are hoping that we will hotline a managers' proposal. I hope our colleagues will look at that. I hope that our colleagues will allow us to move forward on that. If they are not going to let us move forward on that, I wish they would come down to the floor and tell us that. It is time to move forward on getting the rest of this legislation through the Senate and move to whatever discussions we are going to have with the House.

It is safe to say this represents a lot of work by a lot of people. In the committee, I think we processed before we even got to the legislation something like 52 amendments prior to the actual day. With the substitute, I think we processed another 40 or 50 amendments. I think we had dozens of rollcall votes. That was all in committee.

Out here, we processed lots of legislation to be part of the managers' amendment. It is safe to say that practically every Member of the U.S. Senate has had some part or discussion or legislative suggestions that are a part of this bill. It is, as Senator Wicker said, a very regular order process, albeit quick at times.

I think we have a lot to do. We have been very challenged as a Congress to deal with a lot of issues--COVID specifically--but the competition is not waiting and the competition has different tools. We have a different government and we believe in collaboration, and collaboration, yes, takes a little more time.

I think it is going to strengthen us in our ability to compete because we are going to be on the same page about what we need to get done. I hope our colleagues will indulge us to move ahead. I hope that we can get this next managers' amendment and other things voted on very soon.

I yield the floor.

Quorum Call

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have a package of amendments that have been agreed to by both leaders and by the chairs and ranking members of the relevant committees, so I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Collins 1583, Fischer 1637, Johnson 1701, Shaheen 1758, Rubio 1777, Thune 1851, Wicker 1943, Hagerty 1958, Cotton 1964, Blunt 1988, Scott of Florida 2000, Ernst-Hassan 2017, Romney-Menendez 2025, Johnson 2048, Lujan 2082, Rosen 1768, Merkley 1823, Warnock 1980, Murray 1981, Hassan 2001, Warren-Rubio 2104, Collins 1622, Wicker 1801, Leahy-Tillis 2093, Van Hollen-Tillis 2049, Blackburn 2085, Cortez Masto 2083, Lankford 1945, Baldwin-Braun 2026, Hyde-Smith 1933, Hyde-Smith 1841, Merkley-Rubio-Romney 2103, Ossoff 2105, Barrasso 2094, Rubio 2106, and Kaine 2090.

Mr. President, I know my colleague knows the Commerce process, knows that we went through a very elaborate process in Commerce, and I know that he has amendments in this proposal. Some of these have been available since 11, 12 hours ago. People have been talking about these amendments. So it is time for us to honor the request of our colleagues to move forward on a managers' package worked out by the leaders and the relevant chair and ranking member, so I object to the modification.

Mr. President, my colleague also knows the work of the Commerce Committee because he is on the Commerce Committee, and this bill came out of the Commerce Committee 24 to 4. So I know the Senator knows the work of that legislation.

The remarkable aspect of this legislation is that it did compile product from various committees, and those committees did their regular order process. In fact, this process for the last several--you could say 24 or 48 hours was held up because one committee's product wasn't considered, and your side said it wanted it considered before we could move forward. And, guess what, we accommodated that.

So we now have a work product that is, I think, ready to be voted on--again, in a bipartisan fashion, working together with both leaders and with committee chairs and the ranking members. So I object to the modification.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, to recap this process, I respect every Member's right to express their opinion. That is what regular order is about.

In committee, we had 233 amendments filed. My colleague from Utah filed 130 of those. So, yes, the Commerce Committee staff worked through 130 of Senator Lee's amendments. That is a lot of amendments to work through. I guarantee you, I am sure we probably would have liked a little more crystalized concerns and opposition than 130-plus amendments. We ended up putting 14 of them in the managers' amendment. We ended up voting on five more during the committee process. So, yes, I could have been frustrated with that, but we worked through those amendments.

Now there is this process on the floor where my colleague is concerned and upset over 900 pages that he voted to accept. The moment to be concerned about those 900 pages, he could have objected, but he didn't but now wants to revisit that decision.

So I can propound many requests here, and we can continue to discuss these, but our colleagues--our leadership on both sides of the aisle have worked through a process of regular order with our colleagues on a host of 36 different amendments where--I am looking at this list--many of them are bipartisan, and I think those Members deserve to have a vote on their amendments.

Amendment No. 1527 Withdrawn

Mr. President, I withdraw amendment 1527.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments: Lee, No. 1929; Coons, No. 1588; Braun, No. 1771; Marshall, No. 1973, as modified; and Sasse, No. 2023; further, that at 9:15 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 21, S. 144; Calendar No. 40, S. 325; Calendar No. 52, S. 559.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time en bloc.

I know of no further debate on the bills.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 38, S. 108; Calendar No. 39, S. 314; Calendar No. 41, S. 548; Calendar No. 42, S. 549; and Calendar No. 43, S. 550.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate.

The bills were ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and were read the third time, en bloc.

The bills (S. 108, S. 314, S. 548, S. 549, and S. 550) were passed en bloc, as follows:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 190 and the Senate now proceed to S. Res 190.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 243, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 244, which was introduced earlier today.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, and all nominations on the Secretary's Desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en

bloc with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote threshold for this amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session; that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1260; and that the following amendments be called up and reported by number: Wyden, 1975; Crapo, 1565; Paul, 2003; Ernst, 1507; Daines, 1787; and Lee, 1891; further, that at 4:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to the vote in relation to the amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement for this amendment and yield back time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement for this amendment, and I yield back time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 60-vote requirement for this amendment and yield back all time.