Floor Statements

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 6; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Merriam nomination; further, that the cloture motion on the Merriam nomination ripen at 11:30 a.m.; that if cloture is invoked on the nomination, all postcloture time expire at 2:15 p.m.; finally, if the nomination is confirmed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senators Barrasso and Collins.

Mr. President, I am going to speak and make a unanimous consent request in a moment, and I am so anxious because a number of my Republican colleagues--I remember being in middle school as well. You don't want to be the first; you don't want to be the last. Unfortunately, that is where we rank right now in terms of comparison to OECD, in terms of raising corporate revenue. I don't think that is fair for hard-working Americans.

And the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee is someone that I have huge, huge respect for and have worked with on many, many items. We are going to have a chance to debate part of these components, I think, going forward. But I would say this. When I first got the note: Well, the Senator from Idaho--it was one of my first times I was a gang member. The Senator from Idaho and I were part of something called the ``Gang of Six,'' and we were audacious enough to think that a proposal put forward by the so-called Simpson-Bowles Commission to take on the debt and deficit issues in our country was worthwhile and worth us both, frankly, offending folks in each of our respective parties.

We were astonished that in the 2010-2011 timeframe, the country was looking at $15 trillion of debt. We, obviously, were not very successful, since we are now at about $27 trillion in debt; and, I would argue, both sides bear lots of responsibility. I believe we cut revenues way too much. In the last year or so alone, we jointly added $5 trillion-plus in terms of spending around COVID.

But the one thing, I think, we both realized was what we shouldn't do is ever mess with the full faith and credit of the United States of America because that is like giving an irresponsible politician a hand grenade and saying: Let that politician pull the pin out at any moment in time.

Well, there may be some folks now who are prepared to pull the pin out and put in jeopardy the full faith and credit of United States of America. If that happens over the next 30 days, the one thing that we can be guaranteed is it will rock the bond markets. It will rock how America views--how the rest of the world views America's ability to honor its commitments.

I fear, unless somebody--and, again, my friend from Idaho, I know, realizes this as well, is that if we mess with this, if we were to see--pull that hand grenade and have it explode on all of us, the American people aren't going to decide whose fault it was or whose responsibility it was. All they are going to end up seeing, I believe, is that interest rates are going to go up because we have not dealt with the debt and deficit. At $27 trillion, if interest rates go up 100 basis point, 1 percent, that is the equivalent of a--call it a tax or spending obligation--of $200 billion a year of additional interest payments. And those interest payments come before Medicare, come before Social Security, and come before payment to our soldiers.

So I know we are rallying against spending, but let's make sure--and we both ought to bear some responsibility on this--we don't mess with the full faith and credit of the United States; because if we do that, in addition to all the things that you are making criticisms of this reconciliation plan, you have just added another $2 trillion of spending--mandatory spending--over the next decade.

So we can agree or disagree on the reconciliation pieces and what parts, but let's guarantee one way or the other we don't mess with the full faith and credit of the United States.

And I thank my good friend from Idaho and all the good work that we have done together and continue to do together. And I am anxious to come back and--you know, some parts of your critique, I agree with; many I don't. I know I am holding up also my colleague and friend from the Intelligence Committee, the Senator from Texas.

Unanimous Consent Request--Calendar No. 347

Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to confirm Mr. Matthew G. Olsen, President Biden's nominee to be the next Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice.

As we all know, America recently marked the 20th anniversary of one of the darkest days in our history: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am privy to the intelligence information being collected from across our IC community, which sets forth the myriad threats our Nation continues to face both at home and abroad. And the Senator from Texas, who is a great member of the Intelligence Committee, is aware of those threats as well.

Our ability to counter these threats and ensure our national security is dependent on having qualified individuals nominated by the President in place so they can do their jobs and, importantly, be held accountable through the confirmation process.

Prior to the attacks of 9/11--and this was one of the things that were pointed out by the commission afterwards--literally 57 percent of the Federal Government's Senate-confirmed top, top national security jobs remain vacant--57 percent. And one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to accelerate the process of national security appointments.

Unfortunately, if we fast-forward 20 years, today you would think we would have learned the lesson, but today the situation is actually worse than it was prior to 9/11. Of the 170 confirmable national security-related positions, only 44 have been filled. That is just 26 percent. You know, my math shows that that means we have got about 74 percent that are unfilled. We have got to do better.

That is why it is essential for the Senate to swiftly confirm every single qualified national security intelligence professional whose nomination is pending on the Senate floor. That is why I strongly support the swift confirmation of Matt Olsen.

The National Security Division, or NSD, at the DOJ has remained without a confirmed senior leader for several months. Created in 2006, the NSD consolidates the Department's primary national security operations and serves as a key link between the Department and the intelligence community. Its mission is to carry out the Department's highest priority: protecting the United States from threats to our national security by pursuing justice through law.

Matt Olsen is eminently qualified for this position, given his years of service at the DOJ; as general counsel for the NSA; and a director of the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, in which capacity he regularly briefed our Intelligence Committee. Matt is a consummate intelligence professional and an effective leader of the highest caliber and personal and professional integrity.

The NSD needs a confirmed leader in place. So I am urging my colleagues to confirm Matt Olsen immediately.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, Calendar No. 347, Matthew G. Olsen, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I just want to make a couple of quick comments in response to my friend from Texas.

We have worked on a number of--or continue to work on a number of important items. But I think it is--various--he is citing a couple of lawyers at the front end of the legal process that have either been arrested or have not gone through the whole judicial process yet.

I don't have the whole list in front of me, but I would be happy to present for the record the list of individuals affiliated with the Trump campaign who have been arrested and convicted and pled guilty because of lying to the FBI or involvement with Russia. I think our investigation, of which I am quite, quite proud--bipartisan, successful--clearly showed Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

We have seen the results of the Mueller investigation. I can't recall the exact number of convictions that arose out of that. And I agree with my friend, the Senator from Texas, that we don't want--the last thing I want is any more partisanship between the intelligence community.

And that is why I just again want to cite for the record the individuals--yes, Mr. Olsen joined a lot of intelligence professionals in raising concerns about the way the previous administration ran the intelligence community. Frankly, I think they ran it, in many ways, disrespectful to the folks who worked in that community.

But, again, talking about Matt Olsen and his career, I have got a letter here that has got literally hundreds of intelligence and DOJ professionals who support Mr. Olsen. Let me just cite a couple of them--all of them individuals, by the way, who have served Republican Presidents: Michael Chertoff, as we all know, Assistant Attorney General, also then subsequently head of DHS; Zach Terwilliger, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, served under President Trump; Kenneth Wainstein, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, 2004 to 2006, under President Bush; Charles Rosenberg, served under President Bush in the Southern District and the Eastern District; Paul McNulty, again, served under President Bush, Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. attorney; Michael Mukasey, Attorney General under President Bush; Jesse Liu, U.S. attorney under President Trump in the District of Columbia. The list goes on and on.

All I am hoping is that we would get a chance to debate Mr. Olsen's qualifications and bring it to the floor for a vote. Instead, we have a whole clump of individuals who have been put on hold, a process that 99.9 percent of Americans don't understand.

I think Mr. Olsen's career and his service to our country deserves a free and fulsome debate. Those individuals who don't want to vote for him, have at it. But we are not getting that opportunity because--and it is not my friend from Texas. Let me be clear. He is not the person who placed holds. That process is taking place, and, unfortunately, I believe Mr. Olsen is not going to have his--not even his day in court but his day on the floor of the Senate, which I think, with his service to our country, he merits and deserves.

Of course.

I would say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you know, we all reflected recently where we were 20 years ago on 9/11. But one of the astounding things that came out of the report after 9/11 was that, at that moment, on 9/11 in 2001, 57 percent of the senior officials in the intelligence community had not been confirmed. Those positions weren't filled. The amazing thing is, 20 years later, 74 percent of those top positions are not filled. I think that is a disservice to the memory of those who perished on 9/11, and I think it is unfortunate, to say the least.

If Members have, in good faith, concerns with Mr. Olsen, let's debate and have at it. But the idea of a large block of intelligence and law enforcement professionals--and we need this position at the Justice Department--sitting unfilled because of an individual Member, on an issue not related to their qualifications, to put a blanket hold on a series of this President's nominees does not make our Nation safer.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio, who has been such a leader on the underlying bill, and I have been proud to work on this clarification on this critical issue on cryptocurrency.

I thank the Senator, who is correct in his understanding.

I would also like to add some additional clarifications.

The bill ensures that digital asset market players who provide a platform to facilitate digital asset trades by taxpayers will be considered brokers required to report information to the IRS and taxpayers about those transactions.

Reporting entities may be digital asset exchanges or hosted wallet providers, often called custodians, or other agents involved in effectuating digital asset transactions.

The bill recognizes that digital assets are different from stocks and bonds. For example, some taxpayers regularly transfer digital assets between digital asset exchanges or to an off-exchange wallet and then back to an exchange.

Those taxpayers need information returns that link the steps in those chains so they have the complete information they need to prepare their tax returns.

This bill treats digital asset businesses that, for consideration--in effect, money--regularly effect transfers of digital assets as brokers and provides for reporting of digital asset transfers to or by a broker, including in cases where transfer is not directly from one broker to another.

Senator Portman, do you have anything further to add on this item?

Mr. President, the Senator is entirely correct in his analysis of the application of the bill, and further, I believe, and Treasury has indicated, that this would also be true for individuals engaged in staking their digital assets for the purpose of validating distributed ledger transactions--proof of stake--which we know to be much more environmentally sustainable.

It would also be true for other validation methods associated with other consensus mechanisms, some of which are just coming to market, while others are still in the developmental stage.

People who solely act to validate transactions will not be treated as brokers for those validation activities.

Mr. President, I think the Senator asked a question that has been queried by a number of folks in the media and elsewhere, and the Senator is entirely correct in his analysis of the application of the bill.

Those persons do not effectuate transfers of digital assets and, therefore, would not be treated as brokers.

If you are selling hardware or software for which the only function is to

permit persons to control private keys which are used for accessing digital assets on a distributed ledger, you will not be considered in the business of being a broker.

I also want to say a word about the bipartisan amendment that I worked on with Senators Portman, Sinema, Toomey, and Lummis.

I am pleased that we were able to file it today, and I would have hoped that we would have gotten a vote, but I thank them for their diligence and hard work to clarify, in concert with the Treasury Department, this critical section of the bill.

We want to ensure that taxes legitimately owed are paid, and full and accurate transaction reporting is a proven way to make that happen.

We don't, however, want to place reporting requirements on individuals who shouldn't have them.

The amendment memorializes the common understanding that the requirements are to apply only to persons who regularly, and for consideration, effectuate transfers of digital assets.

Persons solely engaged in validating distributed ledger transactions will not be covered for those activities, whether they use proof of work, proof of stake or some other new consensus mechanisms.

Nor will they apply to persons solely engaged in selling hardware or software with the sole function of permitting someone to control private keys used to access digital assets.

Of course, if these entities provide additional services for consideration that would qualify as brokerage, the rules would apply to them as any other broker.

This is an exciting new technology that, in theory, could help bring services to the underserved and reduce costs for everyone. We need, however, to strike the appropriate balance between capturing the promised benefits and guarding against the potential for serious abuse and creation of a shadow financial system beyond the reach of established rules to combat illicit finance and tax evasion.

Mr. President, I also want to, first of all, thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Sinema and Senator Portman have taken the lead. I want to thank them both--and Senator Portman for taking at least 40 seconds of my time to enumerate all of our colleagues who were part of this effort.

I also want to thank the staff and acknowledge, as he did, the incredibly important role the White House played. At some point in this process, the White House realized that they couldn't just support this initiative, but they actually had to own it, and they were intimately involved in all of the details, and it is something that I know they will share with all my Democratic colleagues.

I also want to thank the majority leader. He has given us the time we need to get here, to get a 3,000--close to a 3,000-page bill to this floor, this comprehensive. I know it has taken a little more time than, maybe, all of us thought, but the fact is we have been talking about this for 30 years under Democrats, Republicans--both political parties at various times over the last 30 years--because Senator Portman is right. Other nations are now investing at a level much greater than ours. So this record of a $550 billion investment in hard infrastructure over 5 years has never been done before.

Senator Manchin often pointed out, as we were sometimes feuding and fighting over some of the details, that no pothole ever decided it was only going to hit a Democrat or a Republican. It hit everybody's cars.

We all know we have got thousands of bridges that need to be repaired. We all know that, post-COVID, high-speed broadband is not a ``nice to have''; it is a necessity. We all know too many Americans go without access to clean drinking water.

This legislation will be debated and, I hope, passed in a strong bipartisan way. We will show our country, and we will show the world that no country around the world can keep up with us when we make these kind of investments.

I thank my colleagues.

With that, I yield to my great friend, the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I want to thank the majority leader and all of my colleagues. I want to mention two other things briefly.

No. 1, Senator Tester, who has been intimately involved in this effort, could not be here with us to tonight, but he was with us all day and has been up with us for weeks and weeks.

I do think it is really important--the base bill that we will be negotiating will be the EPW bill. That committee is chaired by Tom Carper from Delaware. He has a lifetime record, from the House to his time as Governor, to his time in the Senate, of always working in a bipartisan fashion. He has spent literally decades on infrastructure. He will be carrying the ball for the majority on this. We support him, and we commend him, and we wouldn't be here if he hadn't put together the kind of base bill that we were then able to build upon.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

First of all, Madam President, let me thank you and all of the floor staff and others who are here. I think on a beautiful Saturday at the end of July, we all wish, perhaps, we were somewhere else other than on the floor of the Senate.

For the 30 years that I have been involved in political discussions in Virginia and some on an international level, we have had President after President and Congress after Congress talk about the generational unmet needs in infrastructure. We have seen our roads and bridges start to crumble. The estimates are that close to, depending on the survey, 14,000 bridges are in a decaying state, and in my State, over 700 bridges. We know the potholes in many of our roads and highways. We know our airports resemble third world nations, not the United States of America. We know our ports have not kept up with modern technology. We know that many of our shorelines are dealing with the unprecedented effects of sea level rise. We know after COVID that high-speed internet connectivity is not a nice-to-have but essential. It is something the Presiding Officer has taken a legislative lead on.

We know that it is time to get past talking about infrastructure and finally doing something. That is why I have been proud to be part of this bipartisan effort, working with the White House, to produce a historic piece of legislation, $550 billion of new spending over 5 years that in every category I just mentioned will make historic investments.

I have been a little surprised, to tell you the truth, that some of our colleagues on the other side who were not part of the bipartisan group have suddenly said: No, we can't do infrastructure now. They were all for it when President Trump was in; now they find excuses why not.

I have to also say I have been a little bit surprised even with some of my colleagues on my side of the aisle, when the deal that we have structured is literally twice as much as where the earlier negotiations were between President Biden and some of the Republican committee chairs--committee leaders.

There has been some sense of, well, you know, infrastructure--that shouldn't be that hard to do. If it wasn't hard to do, why has it taken us 30 years to get to this moment?

I hope--and I know we are finalizing the last couple pieces of legislative language--I hope that we will get that finished as soon as possible so we can get this bill on the floor, have amendments, have a debate, but at the end of the day, pass this historic legislation

and finally put our money where our mouths have been in terms of talking about the needs of infrastructure in this country.

Now, I know, Madam President, that we do not have probably a lot of people rushing to the floor today, so I am going to take an extra minute or two. It doesn't mean you have to stay riveted to each moment. But I want to talk about this for a few moments in terms of what this will do for my State, for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, investment in infrastructure has been something that has eluded us for years. I have to acknowledge that when I was Governor, I tried to find funding, the funding needs, particularly in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and put forward bipartisan-supported tax referendums in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads. I was horribly unsuccessful at getting that done.

A number of years later, a subsequent Governor, Governor McDonnell, managed to make a downpayment on some of the infrastructure needs in Virginia but not really address in a more comprehensive way the Commonwealth's needs.

So I am going to take a couple of moments now and talk about, section by section, in Virginia, what this bipartisan, White House-supported, record infrastructure investment will mean to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Let me start with Hampton Roads. Hampton Roads, in a southeast Virginia peninsula, is most at risk from concerns about sea level rise and questions about resiliency, more than any other region in the whole country, with the exception of New Orleans. In Hampton Roads, local leaders, our Navy, nonprofits, and businesses have all come together and said: We need to make sure that we grapple with sea level rise. It is ranked, by most in those communities, as the No. 1 issue.

Well, if we pass this legislation, $47 billion will go into sea level rise prevention and resiliency. That will mean that a whole host of projects in Norfolk, in Portsmouth, in Virginia Beach, and in Chesapeake will all be finally addressed. We have to make sure that Hampton Roads is not subject to this kind of devastating effect of sea level rise.

We also know that Hampton Roads needs more rail. We have opened recently some rail down to the peninsula, but not enough. We have to make sure that the rail that goes from Richmond doesn't leave off, as a cul-de-sac, the peninsula in South Hampton Roads. With a $66 billion investment in rail, we may soon be able to see that become a reality.

Hampton Roads is home to the Port of Virginia. The Port of Virginia is one of the biggest ports on the whole east coast. But if we don't continue to upgrade that port, if we don't continue to deepen the channel, if we don't make the investments in the Craney Island expansion, and if we don't stay competitive, that port, which is the economic engine driver not just of Hampton Roads but, in many ways, of most of the Commonwealth, will not stay competitive. This legislation will provide $17 billion, a record amount of investment, in our ports, and I can promise you the Port of Virginia will get a share of those resources.

And, finally, on just the plain old issue of roads, Hampton Roads is disconnected from what we call the Peninsula in Virginia, and we have gotten two crosslinks, which oftentimes, during the summer months, can lead to multiple-hour backups to our bridge-tunnels. If we make this $110 billion investment in roads and bridges, we can potentially see that third crossing come into reality. But what we could also make sure is that we could finally finish the widening of Interstate 64 between Norfolk and Richmond.

I talked about this when I ran for Governor, and as Governor I said: Wouldn't it be great if in our lifetime we could actually finish this project? Well, if we pass this bipartisan piece of legislation, the I- 64 project widening from Norfolk to Richmond will be finished. This is incredibly important for the people of Hampton Roads, the Eastern Shore peninsula, and the Northern Neck to make these investments.

Let's move up the road to our capital, Richmond, and the Richmond area. Last week, as I was looking at the Mayo Bridge--one of the historic bridges, over 100 years old--I saw how decaying it was. I saw the water damage that was taking place. That bridge, without remediation, could be forced to close if we don't make the needed investments. Well, this bipartisan legislation will commit $110 billion for highway and bridge improvements. Mayo Bridge, and a host of the other 700 bridges in Virginia that are decaying, will get fixed. We need to make that happen.

Richmond, as well, has got one of the most impressive bus transit systems not only in Virginia but in the whole country. We have made huge investments, close to $40 billion, in transit in this legislation, and some of the Richmond bus transit needs will be addressed.

We also know, in the Richmond area and across the Commonwealth, that we have a lot of airports. One of the things we need to continue to do is invest in our airports. The Richmond airport is always in need of additional expansion. There is $25 billion to improve our airports across the country. The Richmond airport, the Norfolk airport, the Newport News airport, and, obviously, the Roanoke airport and others-- Dulles, National--will be improved, as well as a host of smaller regional airports across the Commonwealth, if we make this investment.

We come up to our region here, where I live, in Northern Virginia. I am very proud of working with Tim Kaine and the Senators from Maryland. We made sure this legislation included a full 8-year reauthorization of our Metro system. We made sure that we are making record investments in transit so that we can get Metro back up operating again on a full schedule and we can make the needed safety improvements that have been plaguing Metro for a number of years.

We also know that we have to continue to build out additional Metro stations in Northern Virginia. The one at Potomac Yard will be extraordinarily important to the Innovation Center and the Amazon 2 headquarters.

We have to make sure, as well, because Metro is moving to zero- emission buses--that is good news for our climate and for our community. The question is where are those zero-emission buses going to be built? This legislation, as well, makes record investment in electric and other low-carbon and no-carbon buses, so they can be built here, not in China.

Our record investment in transit will also make dramatic improvements to the VRE for the Manassas Line. Let's get more people out of their cars and into VRE, whether it is the Manassas or Fredericksburg Line. Needed investments will be made if we pass this legislation.

Another project, if we are going to open up rail in Virginia, we have to make sure that we have another rail bridge across the Potomac. So for the Long Bridge Project, which I have been working with Governor Northam and Senator Kaine on, this kind of investment will make that happen.

And as anybody who lives in Northern Virginia knows--where I live, and somebody who lives in Alexandria--traffic is the bane of our existence. There will be a host of improvements that will get done if we pass this legislation. Let me talk about one in particular.

Route 1, from Alexandria through Fairfax and into Prince William County, we know how clogged and congested it has been. We have been looking for additional funding, literally, for decades on Route 1. If we pass this legislation, it will get done.

Let me move a little bit further west in our State, out toward the Shenandoah Valley and Roanoke and Southwest. For years, we have been talking about the danger on I-81. Literally, there have been prayer groups formed to pray for people who would travel on I-81 because there was so much truck traffic there that it has, frankly, impeded the safety of the traveling public. We have been talking about making improvements and expansions to 81 capacity for 20 years. We have been talking about how do we get the trucks off of I-81, and how do we bring more rail down to Southwest and Southside. Well, if we pass this legislation, we will see those 81 corridor improvements that we have all been waiting for. We will see rail not only going from Lynchburg and Roanoke but extend on

down to Blacksburg and Christiansburg and, hopefully, all the way down to Bristol. This is terribly important to make sure that those communities have a multimodal form of transportation opportunities and making sure we get those trucks off of I-81, something we have been talking about for a long time. If we increase the rail capacity, both freight and passenger, we will be able to do that.

We also know in Southside and Southwest, post-COVID, that high-speed internet connectivity is not a ``nice to have'' but an absolute necessity. A top priority of mine, as somebody who has spent more years in the telecommunications industry than I have in politics, is to make sure that we make those connections. This legislation--historic legislation--has $65 billion for broadband. That investment, building on Governor Northam's $700 million investment from Virginia and American Rescue Plan funds, will make sure that every household across the Commonwealth has access to high-speed internet connectivity, not 5 years from now or 10 years from now but in the next couple of years.

And, finally, across Southwest Virginia--and for that matter, across all of Virginia--we still have families in far Southwest that don't have access to clean drinking water on a regular basis, that still have to sometimes haul their water in the back of a pickup truck up to some cistern, and they don't have access to clean drinking water in 2021. Well, $55 billion will go to water projects in this legislation. And whether they be access to clean drinking water on a regular basis or whether it be taking out the lead pipes that haunt too many of our urban communities, or the storm and sewer systems that are, frankly, in some cases, 60, 70, 80 years old and simply wearing out, we can make that investment as well.

Now, there are a series of other areas in this legislation that are equally important, but at the end of the day, I can't think of a bill that I have worked on that will have more direct effect on the lives of every Virginian over the next 5 years in terms of how you get to work, how you get to school, how you manage to take the kids out on the weekends, how our commerce moves, how we get our water, and how we get our internet than this record-setting $550 billion bipartisan investment in infrastructure.

It is time for the Senate to take this bill up. I again commend all of my colleagues who have been working on this legislation, not just the so-called G-10 but the G-22. I thank Leader Schumer for his good work, continuing to push this legislation forward. I want to thank the White House for its constant involvement. I even want to commend Leader McConnell for voting with this bipartisan group to move this legislation along. We have talked about this for 30 years. We are literally days away from this passing the U.S. Senate. We have got to finish the job and get it done.

With that, I hope I have kept you riveted and now you are fully familiar with all the needs of Virginia. I am sure you can address similar needs in Minnesota. But I thank the Presiding Officer and all of the staffs who are here working on this Saturday, the last day in July, in the summer, to get this job done.

With that, I note the absence--I don't yield the floor.

I would have been surprised if the Presiding Officer had asked me to speak for another 30 minutes, but I will choose not to do that because I have great respect for the floor staff.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021.

I am very grateful to be joined by my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Maine, because on this topic I am about to describe, she was way ahead of the curve, as she is on so many issues. She was so far ahead of the curve as to what we are talking about now, that if the Congress of the United States had adopted her proposals back in 2012--back in 2012--we might not be dealing with, literally, the catastrophic effects of cyber security incidents. We didn't, and that is why we are putting forward the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021.

It seems like, every day, Americans wake up to the news of another ransomware attack or cyber intrusion. The SolarWinds breach, which we learned about last December, resulted in the compromise of hundreds of Federal Agencies and private companies. The truth was, as we discovered, the bad guys actually got into 18,000 companies in the SolarWinds hack. Similarly, the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline this past May resulted in gasoline and fuel shortages and price spikes across the entire eastern seaboard, demonstrating how broad

the ripple effects of these attacks can be.

The truth is these attacks can affect hundreds or even thousands of entities connected to the initial target. Earlier this week, the United States and allied governments publicly accused China's government of conducting an extensive hacking campaign on Microsoft's email systems, which again compromised tens of thousands of computers worldwide, including those used by some of the world's largest companies, contractors, and governments.

These events are finally the wake-up call that Senator Collins predicted a decade ago, a wake-up call for many of us in Washington, and even for those individuals who sit on these companies' boards that have to understand now the threats and capabilities possessed by our adversaries. These events also reveal major gaps in our Nation's effort to combat and contain cyber threats with insufficient communication between the private and public sectors.

These attacks and hacks demonstrate that our IT and critical infrastructure--much of it operated, appropriately, by the private sector--are under constant daily attack. They also demonstrate that we need to get better insight into cyber incidents as they happen--mid- incident--so that the U.S. Government can bring to bear its most effective capabilities and respond rapidly to protect our critical infrastructure systems.

We saw that recently when the FBI and the Department of Justice were able to claw back some of the ransomware from the Colonial Pipeline attack. With the Colonial Pipeline, what happened was we had a responsible private sector company that notified the government, FireEye, but we cannot rely upon the good will of private entities to individually, case by case, decide whether they tell the government. We need quicker and more comprehensive notification. In a sense, when an entity is being attacked, if that sector is being attacked, we can then notify other companies in that sector in realtime.

The truth is we should have done this much earlier. In fact, SolarWinds showed us that, when it comes to wide-scale breaches of U.S. networks, nobody is responsible for collecting information on the scope and scale of these attacks. This is alarming because this information allows us to develop a full picture of what was targeted and taken, what was at risk, and the type of techniques and tactics used by our adversaries.

These are all issues of critical national security, but as Senator Collins knows, under current law, there is no Federal mandate that companies disclose when they have been breached, even if they operate critical infrastructure. Rather, there is the hodgepodge of guidelines, depending on the industry, which, as we have seen, at least some companies then use as an excuse not to report or literally to create a whole set of legal gymnastics to avoid any level of disclosure. Unfortunately, this leaves our Nation vulnerable to criminal and state- sponsored hacking activity.

The bottom line is we cannot just rely on voluntary reporting to protect our critical infrastructure. We need a routine reporting requirement so that vital sectors of our economy that are affected by a cyber breach can have the full resources of the Federal Government and so that the private sector can be mobilized to respond to and fight off these attacks.

That is why I have been very proud to work not only with Senator Collins but also the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rubio, and, in total, 15 of our colleagues, bipartisan, mostly all from the Intel Committee but also the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee and the chairman--on SASC--of the Cyber Committee, to introduce legislation this week that would require Federal Agencies, government contractors, and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to report cyber intrusions within 24 hours of their discovery.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Federal Government is aware of and can take immediate action to mitigate cyber intrusions that have the impact to affect our national security. Part of that notification will be not just to let the government know but to let others in the private sector know as well. Consequently, the bipartisan Cybersecurity Incident Notification Act of 2021 would require covered entities to notify the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, when a breach is detected so that the U.S. Government can mobilize to protect critical industries across our country. These covered entities include healthcare, transportation, financial services, agriculture, energy, and information technology sectors

Now, the executive branch should have the flexibility to respond to shifting threats. The bill leaves some discretion for this and future administrations to determine whether other entities or classes of entities should be included at a later date.

To incentivize this information sharing to take place, the bill would grant limited immunity and confidentiality to companies that come forward to report a breach. It would also include data protection procedures to anonymize personally identifiable information and to, again, safeguard privacy.

These are not liability protections that would shield network operators, though, from negligence or misconduct. Rather, they would help prevent companies that come forward under this legislation from facing reputational risk just for reporting this vital information to the government.

Ultimately, I see this kind of notification as providing value, as I said, to the private sector as well so that we may have this common defense. There is no way we can solve this problem with government alone or with the private sector alone. There should not only be a rapid public notification but, in appropriate cases, swift government action.

Ultimately, we need to recognize that the threat landscape has fundamentally changed from even a few years ago. A few years ago, Senator Collins had this approach, and I think the private sector was concerned about undue mandates. The world has changed, and even many of the business organizations now agree that, as long as we grant that limited immunity and confidentiality, we need to put this reporting mechanism in place so that the public sector and the private sector can respond.

The truth is there are literally terabytes of sensitive data out there, including intellectual property, personal information, contract details, and others that could be exploited. For that matter, what if the SolarWinds attack had not been one of exploiting and taking out information but had actually been a denial-of-service attack, which we saw with Russia taking place against Ukraine a number of years back? That could have taken place with SolarWinds and completely shut down our economy, and we have all seen recently a dramatic upsurge in ransomware.

The truth is every company and virtually every part of government is under daily attack from these cyber criminals and, in some cases, from foreign intelligence services. The Federal Government must have the expertise and the willingness to share this information in realtime to make sure that we can counter this. I think this is a sensible first step in finally putting in place the kind of broad-based cyber strategy our country needs. So I urge my colleagues to join the 15 of us and pass the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021.

Again, I note my friend, the Senator from Maine, is here. We have been spending a lot of time together, but I really appreciate her lead sponsorship of this legislation.

I will say it on the floor of the Senate, as I have said in so many private settings over the last number of weeks on some other things, if we had just listened earlier to the Senator from Maine, we would have been in a lot better shape today in this country.

With that, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.

Madam President, I rise today to echo what my good friend

and colleague, Senator Collins, has already said. Let me be clear. She pointed out the virtual unanimous support this legislation has from members of the Intelligence Committee--both sides. Let there be no mistake in terms of who was the relentless driver--some might even say ``persistent-beyond-belief driver'' of this issue. It was Susan Collins, and, once again, her service shows that she is standing up for America's diplomats and the intel community serving our country around the world who, as Senator Collins already indicated, have been involved in dangerous incidents resulting in brain trauma and other unexplained illnesses. We have called it the Havana syndrome

The remarkable thing is that for nearly 5 years, we have been aware of these reports, and we have seen, as the Senator mentioned, attacks on U.S. personnel in Cuba, in China, and around the world. We have these reports here in this country, and rather than disappearing or going down in number, they actually appear to be increasing.

Five years after the start of this effort, we don't know what happened, we don't know who did it, and we don't know what kind of device was used.

This is wrong. Particularly, I want to point out--this is an area where, again, we were in bipartisan agreement--that under the last administration, we just didn't treat these victims from the intel community, the State Department, and DOD with the seriousness they deserved.

As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know the hardships, sacrifices, and risks our intelligence officers, diplomats, and other personnel serving overseas endure--often anonymously, often without recognition.

The fact that some of these brave women and men have been subjected to these serious health issues by unknown attackers is unacceptable. That their own government did not believe them when they were injured or denied them proper medical attention and care is beyond the pale. These are folks who were injured while serving our government and, in some cases, facing lifelong health consequences, and, for a while, we just got blown off. It is inexcusable that they were treated this way, and it is outrageous that we still don't know who did it or what tool was used in these attacks.

Their country, after their service, needs to have their backs. With Senator Collins's legislation--now that it has passed the Senate, and our hope is that it will soon pass the House--we will show that the country will have their backs.

I also want to give credit to the new CIA Director, Ambassador Burns, for making this a top priority. On the Senate Intelligence Committee, there is complete bipartisan unanimity on this issue. We are going to ensure that the United States gets to the bottom of this, identifies those responsible for those attacks on American personnel, holds them accountable, and ensures that these attacks on American personnel stop once and for all.

Let me echo what Senator Collins said. This should be one in an ever growing list of topics that President Biden ought to raise with President Putin.

We must protect our people around the globe. At the same time, it is more important than ever that the United States also provides those affected by these attacks with the medical and financial support they deserve. Again, that is why Senator Collins' legislation, the HAVANA Act, is so important.

Let me echo again what Senator Collins said. My partner in this, as well, has been Vice Chairman Rubio, and our good friend Senator Shaheen. The fact that this passed this quickly, unanimously, is extraordinarily important, but it is just the first step in having the backs of our diplomats, our intel personnel, our DOD, and, for that matter, anyone who has been a victim of this kind of activity. Again, I want to thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I can assure you, as Senator Collins said and Senator Rubio and I have repeated a number of number of times, the Intelligence Committee of the Senate is going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to make sure--and we have taken a giant step on this by passing this legislation--that the personnel will get the medical and, if necessary, financial assistance they need; that we are going to find out who did it, we are going to find out what type of device, and we are going to hold them accountable.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to mourn the passing of a statesman, a patriot, a mentor, a friend, and someone who loved this institution as much as anybody I know. It was the passing late last night of Senator John Warner.

I am joined here by my friend of 39 years--now maybe 40--Tim Kaine, and we are going to go back and forth a little bit as we talk about someone who played an enormously important role in both of our lives, both, I can say, on a personal basis and on a political basis, and we will get some of the basic facts out.

John Warner was 94 years old when he passed. He was born in Washington, DC, into a family from Amherst, VA. He joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 18 in the waning days of World War II. He served from 1945 to 1946. He left the military and then rejoined the Marines in 1950, when the Korean war started.

After he left the military, he worked for the U.S. attorney, worked in private practice, and then got involved in Republican politics in Virginia at that point.

I think Senator Kaine will probably speak to this. Being involved in Republican politics in the late fifties and early sixties was the progressive party in Virginia.

He ended up serving President Nixon as Secretary of the Navy, and he was the head of the Bicentennial. Then, in 1978, in a campaign that Tim will probably comment on, he got elected to the U.S. Senate, where he then served for five terms--30 years.

John Warner was a remarkable guy. He was someone--and I say this, again, respectfully--who looked the part, who sounded the part. He could say things that, if they came out of my mouth or even somebody's as eloquent as Senator Kaine, they might sound a little over the top. Coming out of John Warner, they always sounded senatorial, thoughtful, and pretty darned cool.

How I got to know John was in really kind of an unusual way. I was a little bit active in Democratic politics in the late eighties, early nineties. Then I had the audacity in 1996 to actually run against John Warner. By the way, you know, John Warner v. Mark Warner managed to confuse the hell out of Virginians. The takeaway from that campaign-- and Tim has had to hear this story many times, and John always used to tell the story as well--is that we had a bumper sticker from the campaign that simply read--and it was our one good idea--``Mark, not John.'' It is the honest-to-goodness truth.

I was down in Danville one day, which is near the North Carolina border, and got in the car, and somebody saw the bumper sticker as I was trying to shake hands, for I was not that well-known. He looked at me, and he said: Excuse me. Is that a biblical reference?

There was no divine intervention. The right Warner won that race, and John Warner got reelected.

The thing that I didn't understand then but that I understand better now is, after you run against somebody, even in a respectful campaign, you bear some scars, some bruises, whatever. You know, I got really close to John Warner in terms of that race. I almost beat him.

Afterward, I was thinking about continuing and maybe trying one more time, and I thought about running for Governor. John Warner was willing to become my friend. I got elected Governor. He was a Republican, and I am a Democrat, and anything I tried to do as Governor that was hard, like a transportation referendum up here, John Warner was right there by my side, saying: We are going to do what is right for Virginia.

We had a battle in which our budget was way out of whack, and I had a 2-to-1 Republican legislature. I can still remember sneaking him into the State capitol so the press corps wouldn't see him, and he got up on the third floor where the press room was. In a Zeus-like moment, he said: Politics be damned. We are going to do what is right for Virginia.

The truth was, we ended up fixing that challenge, and Virginia got named the best managed State and the best State for business, and we made record investments in education. I am not sure we would have gotten there if John Warner had not been willing to use his own personal political capital, but this was at a time when everybody was signing those crazy no-new-tax pledges, and John Warner said: Politics be damned. Let's do what is right for Virginia.

Tim will talk, probably, a little bit about this. I mean, his role as chair of the Armed Services Committee was legendary, and there is not a sailor, soldier, marine, or airman anywhere in Virginia--for that matter, anywhere in the country--who doesn't owe a debt of gratitude to John Warner.

I live in Alexandria, close to the river. I look out my window each day and see the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which, for those of us who live in this region, was a big bottleneck way in decay. How John Warner got $1.2 billion for that bridge when it was way down the list in terms of getting refurbished was maybe a story that can't be told on the Senate floor.

As John got older, I always said--you know, as I had tried my one time against him--if you want to stay in this seat, I think you can stay as long as you want. In 2008, he decided he would go out at the top of his game. I would go see him, and I know Senator Kaine would, as well, to always ask for his advice and counsel.

I have two more quick stories, and then I will yield to my friend Senator Kaine, and we can go back and forth a little bit.

In 2014, I was so extraordinarily honored when John Warner-- Republican senior Senator John Warner--endorsed Mark Warner for the U.S. Senate. That kind of thing doesn't happen in politics too much these days. I can remember, up and down through the Shenandoah Valley, there was one trip on which Senator Kaine and I were campaigning with John. He was, you know, at that point already in kind of his eighties, with a walking stick. Let me assure you, we had both been former Governors and both had kind of thought we knew our stuff, but whenever John Warner was in the room, we were the junior guys and followed his lead.

As a matter of fact, in this last campaign, where he endorsed me again, there was one fundraiser we went to. He introduced me. I did my little talk. Then he kind of took his walking stick and kind of whacked me on the shins and said, ``Sit down, Mark. I've got some more to say,'' and got up and spent 30-plus minutes telling old stories of how the Senate used to work. I have never been at a fundraiser where people got more of their money's worth than that night.

John was also very, very disturbed and concerned about where our country was headed, the lack of respect for the rule of law, what was happening to his beloved Republican Party. But he always kept that burning sense of optimism.

I saw him 4 or 5 weeks ago, pretty frail, but he still, oftentimes with a pocket square and looking like he had just stepped out of a Hunt Country magazine, but he was asking about how we could get the Senate back on track and how we could always continue to put our country first.

I want to say a couple of other things, but let me yield at this point to my dear friend Senator Kaine.

We in Virginia were blessed, and our country was blessed, to have him, and I am going to miss him horribly. But I do know this much: When I am wrestling with an issue, I often will think: What would John Warner do? And if I follow that mantra, chances are I am doing the right thing for Virginia and the right thing for our country.

I will miss him greatly, and I would be happy to yield to my friend and colleague, the other Senator from Virginia.

Thank you, Senator Reed. I see Senator Thune is here. I will be very brief.

You mentioned, Senator Reed, about the occasional twinkle in his eye. I am not sure, again, here is the right time or place to tell the stories, but that twinkle really lit up when he would talk about some of his sailing trips with Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Chris Dodd, usually also involving stopping at select locations, at selected moments in time.

And many of them in Rhode Island.

There are two other comments I want to make. One was, again--both of our political parties sometimes go a little bit awry. But one of the things that John Warner did--he didn't need to do this. He was a sitting Senator, well respected, senior. There was a fellow in Virginia who was getting into politics who had kind of a checkered history. Sometimes, he was not necessarily always willing to tell the truth. His name was Oliver North. John Warner did not think that Mr. North had the personal characteristics that ought to be in a Senator of Virginia, and at great political risk to himself, he was willing to make that known. He didn't leave the party--his party--but said that, you know, the party, his Republican Party, had to stand for principles, truth, and respect for the rule of law. Again, it is an example of the John Warner that was so special.

More recently, as Senator Kaine knows, we, in Virginia, have a very checkered history with race. And in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, there were a number of school divisions that literally shut down rather than letting White children go to school with Black children. And in Prince Edward County, in a little town called Farmville, which was--a group of Black students had literally done a walkout, in their case, on the part of Brown v. Board of Education case. For a couple of years, Black students had no place to go because they took the public money and put it into private academies, and there were no public schools, a great blot on the history of Virginia, leaving these young people--now not so young--when this issue came up about 2002 or 2003, with a big hole in their education.

So we thought we could maybe end up providing these individuals an education, give them a couple of years of community college education. It was a fairly audacious idea. The local editor of the newspaper there came up with this. And, at first, the legislature, you know, didn't want to do this. They didn't want to take this on.

So John Warner got on the phone and called one of his friends, John Kluge, a very successful business guy, and said: Would you put up the money? It is only a couple of million dollars. And John and I worked out something, where we said: Let's have Kluge put up a million, and we will go back to the legislature and shame them into doing the other million.

And we did that. It was one of the most moving days in my life to see these individuals who had been cheated out of their education receive the ability to get an education. And John Warner never wanted an ounce of credit and, I don't think, even to this day, that story has been told too many times.

At the close of this, which is--I know I am not supposed to do this, but I will do this briefly. John Warner appropriately got recognized for his service, and there is a submarine named after him. And I remember going to the commissioning. He and his wife Jeanne, they were so proud of the young men and women who were serving on that boat and then carried on the kind of sense of patriotism and public service that he exemplified.

As we have both said, we are going to miss him a lot, but I hope we will take that sense of his heart and courage and commitment and maybe rededicate ourselves to trying to follow that kind of example.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Endless Frontier Act--a long overdue, bipartisan effort to invest in our country's innovation and competitiveness.

I am pleased to see that Congress is finally taking action to shore up U.S. investment in the research, development, and manufacturing of critical technologies because, without this kind of intervention, China in particular will continue to outpace and outperform us in the global technology race, impacting our country's economic well-being, our global influence, and our national security.

Let me note, when I reference China, I think it is important that any policymaker or business leader draw this distinction. I want to make clear that my beef is with the Communist Party of China and the policies of President Xi Jinping, which persecutes its own people in terms of Uighurs, restricts the freedom of the people of Hong Kong, and creates a surveillance state that would make George Orwell blush. My beef is with those policies and that party, not with the Chinese people and obviously not with the Chinese diaspora, particularly Chinese Americans and Asian Americans.

In recent years, China has rapidly been executing on a plan. It has been working, particularly, to ramp up its domestic industries around technology that confer potentially to its long-term strategic dominance in a whole host of industries that traditionally the United States or the West has dominated.

One of the topics I am going to come back to in a moment is that of semiconductors. China consistently increases its investment in the semiconductor industry, with a commitment to invest $150 billion and a goal to produce at least 70 percent of the semiconductors it consumes-- it is one of the world's fastest growing economies--by 2030.

Frankly, on this issue of semiconductors, it is not just China. Look around at South Korea, which has pledged to invest over $130 billion over the next 9 years, while training 36,000 new microelectronics engineers and technicians. Even our allies in Europe--Germany and 18 other EU members--recently announced investments of up to $60 billion in key hardware like semiconductors over the next few years.

We look back and see how we are doing in America. By contrast, over the past 10 years, only 17 major semiconductor fabs, or foundries-- these are basically the manufacturing facilities--have been built in the United States, while we have seen over 122 built elsewhere. As a matter of fact, right now, there is not a single new fabrication facility being constructed in America. The total number of facilities-- fabs, foundries--that are in production has gone from 81 down to 76, which are some of our older fabrication facilities.

Frankly, the technology has leapt forward, and if you don't continue to make the investment, you end up with a large, empty facility. We even have one right outside of Richmond, in Henrico County.

As a country, our share of semiconductor and microelectronic production has gone from 37 percent to just 12 percent today. If you look at China, it is almost the exact inverse, going from single digits to north of 30 percent.

The truth is, in the United States, the cost of a new fab is about 25 to 50 percent higher, partially because of the lower financial incentives we provide and the appropriate environmental standards. It does mean that, without incentives, we are not going to be in the game right now, partially because of decisions made right at the beginning of COVID and partially just because of a semiconductor shortage. We have auto factories sitting idle in the United States, not because they don't have workers, not because they don't have demand for those automobiles, but because these plants can't obtain the semiconductors that are integral to automobiles and, for that matter, every device we operate.

At the same time, if we look back again at China, it has no plans to take the foot off the pedal anytime soon. As a matter of fact, last year, President Xi Jinping announced a $1.4 trillion commitment to develop new technologies just through 2025--$1.4 trillion. We think about the numbers we are talking about here today, which are big based upon traditional American standards, but they pale in comparison to what China is investing. You don't need to look very far; you only need to look at the Chinese documents themselves--the Made in China 2025 plan and the China 2035 plan in terms of standards and procedures and protocols.

Beyond semiconductors, 5G, and some of the things I have talked about in the past, there is a host of other areas in which, if we don't invest, we are not going to be able to stand.

Now, it is not all bleak. U.S. semiconductor firms in areas like lithography, packaging, and metrology still lead the world. In machining, we still lead. However, many of the key ingredients to our success, including Federal support for R&D, investment in basic research, and support for advanced manufacturing, have actually declined over the last 20 years.

Simply put, we are just not keeping up. Between 1995 and 2018, Chinese R&D investment increased by over 15 percent per year compared to the U.S. increases averaging about 3-percent growth per year. Now, we started with a higher base--I acknowledge that--but on relative and, shortly, on actual real terms, China will soon pass. As a matter of fact, after World War II, the United States funded 69 percent of the annual global R&D. Today, we fund less than 28 percent, with only 7 percent going to nondefense technologies--again, like wireless, which is something I know a little bit about and will speak to again in a moment.

To get back to where we once were and reassert U.S. technology leadership, we need to reprioritize foundational technologies to maintain not just our country's economic leadership but to also make sure that our values are built into these increasing technology areas.

The truth is, for so many years, not only did we invent many of these breakthrough technologies here, but even if we didn't invent them in the United States, we would then set the rules, the procedures, the protocols, and the standards around these new technology developments. We have seen that in semiconductors for a long time. We saw it in computing. We saw it with the internet. We saw it in wireless. We saw it in satellites.

Time and again now, we are suddenly seeing China flood the zone with these standard-setting bodies, and when you set the standards, you also reflect your values. So values that we bring to the table, like transparency and respect for human rights, go out the window when China sets the rules around 5G that basically allow traffic to always pass through Beijing. Even if you are making a phone call between St. Louis and San Francisco, why does that traffic have to be routed through Beijing unless there is a malicious interest at stake? If you set the rules, you drive not only the technology but so many other things.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have long been banging the drum about the way the PRC has taken advantage of what makes our country's economic system so great--our openness, our transparency, our free markets.

The Chinese Government, unfortunately, plays by a different set of rules. The Chinese Government starts with the willingness to use all the tools of its intelligence services, sometimes its student population, which has added so much value to our country, and enormous thefts of intellectual property. Some public estimates are north of $500 billion a year.

The Chinese Government, as well, is using all aspects of its society to increase China's dominance, from the intellectual property theft that I talked about to opaque subsidies in financing that always favor a Chinese vendor.

And, unfortunately, for many of our trading partners, the deal that is offered by the Chinese firm is often either too good or linked to another development--``I am going to build you a road; I am going to build you a port, but you have to buy at Huawei, as the price of that,'' or because we in America or, for that matter, even in the West have not kept up on a financing basis.

That is why in the Endless Frontier bill that we are debating right now, a bill that will make substantial investments in the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, our National Labs-- both great national assets--in this bill, as well, we are actually doing more than authorizing new ideas and new advancements. We are actually finally--finally--putting our money where our mouth is.

It is why included in the Endless Frontier bill is the Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act, which, at the end of the day, is basically $2 billion to invest in making sure that in America we have, and in the West we have, a competitor against Huawei.

I have come to this floor and talked a lot about the national security threat Huawei presents in America and, for that matter, to our allies.

But if you don't have a competitor priced on a fair basis, what do you expect to do? What do you expect of an ally country to do? Or for that matter, what do you expect of many of the rural telecos' decision, which was to buy Huawei equipment, until this vulnerability got exposed.

On this bill I was proud to work with two of my great partners on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Marco Rubio.

What we do with this $2 billion is put up a public wireless supply chain innovation fund to spur investments toward open architecture, innovative, leap-ahead technologies in our domestic mobile market.

And what we are really talking about doing--and I know I have talked to the Presiding Officer about this and others--is, in 5G, we are almost so far behind at this point that we have to leapfrog ahead. But one way we can leapfrog ahead is by developing what is called open RAN, or open radio access network. What does that mean in English? Well, it means let's move away from the traditional hardware-based stack of the telephone wireless system and move to a more software-based system.

When we do that, we get away from the inherent advantages that the Chinese and Huawei have, and we move to an area where there are a host of American and other enterprises that are software-based, where we are already far ahead.

Now, what we also have to do, as well, is combine this investment-- and we have close to $500 million on this--to also invest in a multilateral fund.

The truth is, no single American company on its own can take on this enormous challenge that the whole Chinese state, backing their Chinese champion--there is no way we can take that on, on our own. So how do we think, with our other democratic allies around the world, the G7, but also countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and India, Israel, and others, that we can collaborate on this technology development? Think about how we compete on an economic basis and at the same time make sure that we install those values around transparency, respect for human rights, the notion of open and competitive system, that those are built into technology development.

The second item is crucially that this bill also addresses the essential need for us to invest in semiconductors. We are finally putting our money where our mouth is. This bill will appropriate on an emergency basis $52 billion for investment in chips in our country and along with our allies.

This basically builds upon legislation that we added to the Defense authorization bill last year. It is bipartisan. Senator Cornyn, Senator Schumer, Senator Cotton, Senator Kelly are all working together on this with a host of others because the semiconductor industry, while we have seen some sliding, still represents one of the shining lights of our country's innovation economy.

And as a wider array of products and services depend on internet connectivity and software processing, the demand for semiconductors has only grown.

But as I outlined at the top unfortunately, that leadership position we have had for so long is at stake. So the CHIPS Act, which is built in now--baked into the Endless Frontier Act--directs and empowers key Agencies, like the Department of Commerce, in consultation with others like our intelligence community, to make investments in microelectronics R&D a priority. It emphasizes the need for multilateral efforts with our allies and close trading partners to bring greater transparency and accountability to subsidies. It aligns policies toward non-transparent, non-market competitors like the Chinese, and it makes sure that we have concerted and coordinated action, both domestically and, again, with our allies, on supply chain security and integrity.

It invests billions in basic research related to advanced semiconductors via DOD and a newly created National Semiconductor Technology Center, and it makes an unprecedented investment in trying to build new foundries, fabs, or basic manufacturing facilities, here in the United States so that we have that supply security chain--a secure supply chain for the future.

That $39 billion in that fund I believe will help us build 7 to 10 new fabs right here in the United States. And whether they are in the Presiding Officer's State or Virginia or elsewhere, our States will have to invest as well. Many of these facilities cost anywhere from $12 to $15 billion by the time you build them and keep them operating until they have some level of profitability. So some level of American national investment in each of these is needed to make sure that they-- at least some of these--will be built in the United States. And, again, the $39 billion should generate 7 to 10 new fabs over the next 5 to 7 years.

And whether it is chips for automotive, aerospace, biomedical, or cell phones--you name it--or the billions of ``internet of things'' devices, almost all rely upon semiconductors. Let's make sure those chips are built, designed, and produced here, and that those elsewhere in the world are often done in countries that are allies.

So the Endless Frontier Act, which includes both the investment in 5G and ORAN and, obviously, the semiconductors, serves as a once-in-a- generation opportunity to solidify U.S. leadership in science and tech innovation. It will strengthen our national security and reinvigorate American ingenuity.

The truth is, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I know we are supportive of these efforts. I hope next week that we pass this bill with a massive majority, and that then it will be quickly acted upon by the House, because I know our domestic industries are watching us. I know our adversaries are, as well, and it will be wonderful if we can finally move beyond simply talking about the challenges that China presents and actually make the kind of tangible investments that American generations in the past have made.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing a nomination.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on referral of nominations.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on referral of nominations.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing a nomination.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I am sorry that I missed the incredibly thoughtful comments of the Democratic whip, who I think spoke on the topic--one of the topics--that I am going to speak about.

I think I have 10 minutes. Is that right?

OK. Thank you.

I thank the Presiding Officer and thank the--I want to thank the brilliant ruling of the Parliamentarian on that subject.

Mr. President, I want to touch on two critically important subjects that the Senate is considering today. First, I want to rise in support of Vanita Gupta, President Biden's nominee to serve as the Associate Attorney General, the third highest ranking position in our Justice Department.

I think my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, has already spoken about Ms. Gupta. I want to make a personal note. First, that Vanita is a fellow Virginian. I am proud to say that she and her husband, Chinh Le, are raising their two sons in the Commonwealth. They live in Arlington.

Ms. Gupta is also an outstanding public servant. She served from 2014 to 2017 as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ. She led the Division, as the Acting Assistant Attorney General, until 2015.

Since 2017, she has led one of the country's preeminent civil rights organizations--the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights. This means that, if confirmed, Ms. Gupta will be the first civil rights leader in any of the top three positions at Justice.

The sheer depth and breadth of Ms. Gupta's legal and professional experience makes her an outstanding selection to serve as the Associate Attorney General. Perhaps that is why Ms. Gupta's supporters span the political spectrum.

My understanding is that my friend, the Senator from Illinois, has already pointed out some of this broad-based bipartisan support. Let me elaborate on some of that support. Grover Norquist calls her an ``honest broker'' in his endorsement letter.

Let me just state for the record that I have had interactions with Grover Norquist since before I was Governor, over 20 years, and Grover Norquist has never called me anything close to as nice as he called Vanita Gupta as an ``honest broker.''

Mark Holden, the former general counsel of Koch Industries, writes: ``Ms. Gupta is an exceptional lawyer, and among the most talented lawyers I have worked with in my career.''

Ms. Gupta has spent years and years collaborating with people from across the spectrum to promote a more fair and equal justice system.

And let me note for the record, as well, that I have not always agreed with Ms. Gupta. I was very involved in

housing finance reform. Ms. Gupta, as chairman of the Conference on Civil Rights, had a different opinion, but I always respected her intellect and her willingness to listen to alternative views and her willingness to really dig into the facts.

With that background as a civil rights leader in the thick of issues around policing, race, and criminal justice reform, she actually led the investigations of police departments in Ferguson, Chicago, and Baltimore.

At the same time, I have a long list of law enforcement groups that are supporting Ms. Gupta's nomination, including the National Fraternal Order of Police. Again, in terms of the FOP, I think in all my career, one time they endorsed me. Again, her receiving that endorsement is different than myself and perhaps even the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. Gupta has also led broad-ranging and robust enforcement and education efforts to combat hate crimes, including the first-ever prosecutions under the newly enacted Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Under her leadership, the Civil Rights Division trained local and Federal law enforcement throughout the country in recognizing, investigating, and proving hate crimes; in educating communities and engaging them in a process of ensuring public safety; and in encouraging better hate crime reporting and data collection.

I would like to close on one other timely credential. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have meticulously chronicled the corrosive effects of disinformation and foreign interference into our elections--something the Presiding Officer is also a national leader on.

Ms. Gupta has been a leading voice for election integrity, thoughtfully and firmly engaging social media platforms to address disinformation on their platforms, as well as voter suppression, hate, division, and violence.

Among the many important roles the Department of Justice has right now, securing our democracy itself is surely near the top of the list.

Vanita Gupta is a person of extraordinary ability. She has the right experience for this role, and I am honored to support her in her nomination today and hope that later today, we will get broad bipartisan support to move forward that nomination.