Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today in support of Mr. Jamar Walker, whom President Biden has nominated to serve as a U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Jamar is a fellow Virginian and outstanding public servant. For the last decade, he has been an invaluable asset to Virginia's legal community, bringing both his zeal for public service and his personal life story.

Jamar is a Virginia native, originally from our Eastern Shore. If you ever look at a map of Virginia, you see this strip that may not be completely connected. It literally goes from Virginia to Maryland and Delaware. It is a strip of land that is very rural. Jamar is from that part of our Commonwealth.

He is a two-time graduate of the University of Virginia. Following his time at both UVA as an undergrad and UVA Law, Jamar began his career in public service clerking for the Honorable Raymond Jackson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, whose same seat he has actually--if we approve him tonight--been nominated to fill.

And for the past 7 years, Jamar has dedicated his professional career in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he currently serves as the Acting Chief of the Financial Crime and Public Corruption Unit.

A testament to his ability to try complex cases, Jamar has received five service awards from the FBI for his excellent work in public correction, wire fraud, and bank fraud cases. His commitment to the Commonwealth spans far beyond his day job. Jamar has volunteered for countless collegiate mock trial tournaments and returned to his alma mater time and again to speak out on guest panels.

Once sworn in, Jamar will also be the first openly gay Federal district judge in Virginia. Jamar's community-oriented mindset, career qualifications, and numerous accolades make him an exceptional nominee for the Eastern District of Virginia, a district that is known as the ``rocket docket'' in terms of moving cases quickly through. His experience, particularly in the U.S. Attorney's office, is well-suited to deal with the ``rocket docket.''

I know he will serve with distinction and make both our country and our Commonwealth proud. I urge my colleagues, when this vote starts in about 10 minutes, to support his nomination. He came out in a bipartisan vote from the Judiciary Committee. He is an exceptional young man, and I know will do a great job.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee.

I ask unanimous consent that the explanatory statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 be printed into the Record.

Madam President, it is with a mixture of sorrow and pride that I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend the senior Senator from North Carolina.

I was thinking about the fact that Senator Blunt, who is sitting in front of you, we were here for his farewell speech the other day, and our good friend Rob Portman, who is behind you, we will be here for his--we are losing a lot of great Members this Congress, and the folks who are going to follow them will not replace them. They have got big shoes to fill.

I mean, we are celebrating Richard's 18 years in the Senate and 10 years in the House--28 years of doing this stuff. Senator Burr and I first got to know each other actually through a mutual friend early on in my Senate career in kind of a strange set of circumstances. I had become really good friends with Saxby Chambliss, and Saxby and Richard were running buddies. I would run along with them sometimes.

And John Thune, as you know, Richard is a pretty open-minded guy. But I got to acknowledge, and I shouldn't probably do this in front of everyone, but I am not sure he initially took to me that well. Now, my staff has occasionally called me slightly intense, and Richard has more than a few times asked whether I was getting my daily meds to stay on that equilibrium. So much for that.

But in contrast, Richard Burr is a low-key kind of guy. As Senator Thune has already mentioned, and every Senator has made mention or noticed or made fun of his lack of socks. We have seen the migration of his Thing from outside the Russell Building to maybe its permanent resting place now in the garage at Hart. I park next to it almost every day, and I hope that you will leave it there in perpetuity.

But despite where we started off, with us being a little bit of an odd couple, we have formed an enormously strong partnership, and for me it was, more importantly, a strong friendship.

For 5 years, Richard preceded me as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He had been on the Intelligence Committee since he came to Congress. I have learned so, so much from him, not only on the substance, which is terribly important, but there are a whole series of issues and extraordinarily important work where I never really got up to speed because I trusted his judgment.

But really what he did is he set the tone for how the committee ought to operate--a committee that frankly doesn't get as much attention as most because so much of what we do is behind closed doors. The reason why the Senate Intelligence Committee has stayed bipartisan, the reason why it is so productive, the reason why we get year after year an intelligence authorization bill out virtually unanimously--never more than one or two votes against--has a lot to do with Richard Burr.

My friend whom he served with in the House, the dean of the Virginia delegation, Congressman Bobby Scott, has often referred to, around Virginia, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is an ``oasis of dignity.'' I think that is a pretty darn good description. And that dignity would not have come about without Richard Burr's leadership.

He has made mention of his staff. I want to echo that, particularly those folks I have had the opportunity to work with on the Intelligence Committee staff. This does not have to be the case. This is not always the model, and I won't make more than a passing reference to HIPSCI in that comparison. If you don't have--you have to have not only Members agreeing, you have to have staff agreeing, and sometimes staff come with their notion that we have got to start with conflict. That was never the way that Richard chaired the committee. He knew my staff as well as he knew his own. Nowhere was that more evident than when he took on one of the greatest challenges and one where we kind of got battle-hardened together on the Russia investigation. And one of the things I know he had pride in and I had pride in, there were an awful lot of folks who had to be interviewed. And without exception, folks who interviewed didn't know whether the interviewees were Republicans or Democrats. It was that kind of professionalism and the notion that we were going to follow the truth, and I think that work product will clearly stand the test of time.

The other thing that I think Richard taught me, and this was something that he has been just relentless about, is to recognize the courage and the patriotism of the men and women who work in the intelligence community. They are never going to get the recognition. Public officials get the recognition but not the men and women who serve in our military. But no matter where you travel with Senator Burr, there were generally two things that you could guarantee would take place. One is that at some moment during the trip he would find a way to get a couple hours at wherever the local bazaar was and go buy stuff until Brooke finally said: No more rugs ever again.

But what was equally important that he taught me, and he taught all of us on the committee who has come in after, is that when you are out in the field, you make sure you go see the station and not just the station chief but make sure you see all the members of the station and personally meet them and thank them. And in every hearing that we have had--and I have tried to continue this tradition--and we may not get along and we may not agree with the briefers--but at the end of that hearing, no matter how tough it may have been, he thanks the briefers, he thanks the folks who are in the back row, oftentimes not getting to the

front table, and he makes sure to say: Go back and tell the men and women you work with back at headquarters, back at station, how much we respect you and will have your back. He has shared with me a little bit in these last few weeks the kind of outpouring of support that he has had from intelligence community members both here and around the world, and we are going to have him back in January with the leadership in the intelligence community to celebrate that again.

The other thing that is a little unusual about Senator Burr--and I will say this for a few of our friends in the press--is that most of us actually like to talk to the press--or at least do it. This has never been high on Senator Burr's list. I have never seen anybody manage with complete politeness to give more nonanswers to the questions in the hallway as the press pool follows after him on so many occasions, but it is because it is all about the work.

Others have mentioned and he has mentioned that he was and has been the leading voice on disease preparedness. If we had listened more to him earlier on on things like COVID, I think part of this tragedy could have been even further averted.

I mentioned already the Russia investigation. We both took incoming on that. Both of our sides wanted us to do it differently. He said: We are going after the truth. I can assure you, there is no one I would rather be in a foxhole with than Richard Burr because when the incoming kept coming in, he said: Let's buckle down, do the work. He empowered the staff to do that in a way that was remarkable, and, again, that product will stand the test of time.

I am sad to lose a colleague. I think his admonitions to us were great. I think his recognition--again, this is so Richard Burr in that he has got so many staff here, and he put the staff not in a passing reference but as one of the major themes of his speech. We all would not be here without the kind of men and women who have supported you and who support each of us who have the honor of standing on this floor.

I am going to be really sad to at least lose the daily back-and-forth as a friend. He is a little bit quirky. He is not shy about giving somebody grief.

I am not sure there will ever be another Senator with the same tastes in footwear or sockwear or lack thereof. He clearly has been one of the Senate's true characters in the best sense of the word.

I have had the occasion to get to know Brooke and his kids. I have seen lots and lots of pictures of the grandkids, and I am glad some of them live in Richmond. We will visit there and on the Outer Banks.

He has a great next chapter in front of him. I think he is going to continue to contribute to this Nation in the business world. I look to see where that path leads, and I look to making sure this friendship that we have built will be maintained long into the future, into our each increasing dotages in going forward.

With that, I yield the floor and salute my dear friend Richard Burr.

Madam President, my apologies to the distinguished senior Senator from Maine.

Senator Burr knows the one thing he was also extraordinarily critical of was whenever members of the Intel Committee were late to an Intel meeting, and we have one at 2:30.

So, Senator Burr, I hope I have your ability, and Senator Collins will give me a rundown on her comments today.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 378 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for Mia Roberts Perez, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 378, PN2367.

I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 379 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 379, PN2366.

I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 380 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for Kai N. Scott, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 380, PN2366.

I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 381 due to a commitment in Henrico, VA, related to the events surrounding the funeral of former Representative Donald A. McEachin. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation for John Frank Murphy, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rollcall vote No. 381, PN2368.

I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 382. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Jeffery Paul Hopkins, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, rollcall vote No. 382, PN2438.

I was unavoidably absent on Wednesday, December 7, 2022, for rollcall vote No. 383. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the confirmation for Jerry W. Blackwell, of Minnesota, to be United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, rollcall vote No. 383,

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a dedicated and well-qualified individual who has been nominated by President Biden to fill an increasingly important role. That person is Elizabeth Bagley, who has been nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil.

Elizabeth Bagley has been involved in public service for decades. Twenty-eight years ago, as a matter of fact, she appeared before the U.S. Senate, then being considered as President Clinton's nominee to be Ambassador to Portugal. She went on to serve in that role from 1994 to 1997, which was a period of growth and positive development in this important bilateral relationship.

For the service in Portugal, she received distinguished awards from the Portuguese Navy and Air Force as well as the Grand Cross of Prince Henry the Navigator, which is the President of Portugal's highest civilian commendation.

She is also the recipient of the Global Democracy Award from the International Women's Democracy Center, the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and the 2013 Secretary of State's Distinguished Honor Award.

In 2013, she served as Alternative Representative of the United States to the United Nations, and prior to that was the first Special Representative to the Secretary of State for Global Partnerships.

In her years of diplomatic service, she has also worked as a senior adviser to Secretaries Kerry, Clinton, and the late Madeleine Albright.

President Biden has nominated her to an especially critical role, and that is to be our Nation's Ambassador to Brazil--the largest economy in South America, a country that is going through dramatic transitions right now. As a matter of fact, Brazil will be inaugurating its new President at the beginning of January. And I believe--frankly, it has been an embarrassment that we have gone almost 2 years without an Ambassador to Brazil--I believe it is critically important that Ambassador Bagley be in Brasilia, having been presented her credentials in time for the inauguration of the new Brazilian President.

As a matter of fact, in terms of north-south relations, our relations with Brazil are as critical as virtually any nation in the Southern Hemisphere. We have got lots and lots of work to do on this important relationship, and it is important that we move forward.

Originally, I was going to come down and ask UC to both have Elizabeth Bagley discharged from committee and also confirmed now on the floor. Working with my Republican friends, I appreciate the fact that I believe they are going to allow us to move forward on the discharge from committee but not move forward on Ms. Bagley's confirmation as Ambassador. I know there may be some holds on all north-south Ambassadors at this point, but I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is a talented, well-suited, appropriately experienced individual. This relationship between the United States and Brazil is absolutely critical now perhaps more than ever, and I hope that we can find some level of accommodation to move past the action we take today and make sure that Elizabeth Bagley is confirmed as our country's Ambassador to Brazil so that she can be in Brasilia by the time the new administration in Brazil comes into power in early January under President Lula.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of PN1691, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, to be Ambassador of the United States to Brazil, and that the nomination be placed on the calendar.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor and, again, hope that we can move on this ambassadorship and many others to make sure that our country is well represented not only in South America but around the world going forward.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend the Senator from Ohio for always being willing to speak out on behalf of important people all across the country. I agree with him that organized labor for literally decades has always protected working people. We need to bear that in mind as we sort through the issues that confront us on a regular basis. So I thank him for his comments.

Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act

Mr. President, I rise today to actually celebrate a major accomplishment for thousands of Americans who have been trapped for, many times, decades in exploitative joint student loans.

This is an issue that is actually near and dear to me because I have been working on it for 7 years, since hearing from a constituent way back in 2015.

Sara from Northern Virginia was part of a group of student loan borrowers who entered into something called a joint consolidation loan, which allowed married couples to combine their student debt into a single loan. The truth was, though, that sounded good, but Congress didn't allow anyone to unwind those loans in the event of a divorce or an abusive relationship.

So finally, in 2006, Congress got rid of the whole program. But when they got rid of the whole program, they didn't retroactively create an option for those folks who had entered into these joint consolidation loans between 1993 and 2006.

So when my constituent Sara had divorced from her husband when she was living in Texas, she was still responsible for this loan. So all of the debt that had originally been his suddenly fell upon her shoulders. The divorced husband stopped paying the debt. Yet she was still responsible, and she, Sara, had to continue facing the consequences.

Now, she was a single mom of two, a public school teacher. Sara was financially on the hook for her defaulting husband's student debts. Her credit suffered dramatically. She even thought she was going to lose her teacher's license.

Now, she did a lot--great researcher. I talked to her a couple times. After looking for a way out, she found that the only way to fix this problem was for an act of Congress.

Well, she contacted my office, and we found out that this was not a one-off circumstance, but, literally, there were thousands of Americans all across the country who had fallen into this trap. A lot of them were domestic violence survivors, who, even though they had gotten out of an abusive relationship, were still stuck with paying off the debts of their abuser. Many of these were people who were victims of financial abuse and, again, completely responsible for a loan, in many cases, that they had never even taken out.

Others were unable to save for retirement, for their kids. We had a lot of teachers who were otherwise eligible for the public service loan forgiveness programs, but because they had entered into the joint consolidated student loans, they suddenly weren't eligible.

So we did some research and spent some time looking into it. In 2017, I introduced the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act to solve this problem and find a way for, oftentimes, innocent borrowers to get out of these consolidations.

Now, starting back in 2015--I have got to acknowledge, it took 7 years. Something that was this much of a no-brainer shouldn't have taken that long, but I am proud to be here today and report that we did get it through Congress on a bipartisan basis.

Here in the Senate, I am grateful for a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am grateful for the Presiding Officer. We actually passed it on a unanimous basis, and in the House we passed it with a broad bipartisan coalition.

That is a testament to what a critical, commonsense fix this is--one that will actually change the lives of thousands of Americans, literally, overnight.

Now, since we introduced this law the first time, my office has heard from so many Americans who are desperate to get this done.

I remember hearing from Chris from Indiana, who said he spent over 16 years thinking about this loan every day and waking up at night trying to create a strategy to pay this loan off.

He got back to us and he said:

For the first time, I may be able to put my mind at peace.

We heard from Sharon, who is a seventh grade teacher, whose former partner was totally unresponsive on meeting their obligations on this joint consolidation. Now, she said:

I don't have to do this anymore. I get to live my life.

She gets to actually retire this year because, once President Biden signs this law, it will immediately relieve her of this obligation.

Or Jessica, who said:

I am finally about to be free . . . of one last way my ex

controls me.

Again, I can't imagine entering into this arrangement and then getting out of a relationship, often sometimes an abusive relationship, and that ex still trying to control this person by not meeting their share of the obligations. It just was wrong.

Next, Amy, who falls into the category of otherwise--because, I believe, she was a teacher, she was able to get public service loan forgiveness and worked for years on something she should qualify for, but if you had entered into one of these joint consolidations, you didn't get this benefit.

So Amy said:

I've never been able to take advantage of a single debt-

relief program.

This bill will change that, obviously in terms of public service loans but also in terms of some of the proposals that President Biden has put forward.

All these people have been asking for is a chance to not unduly bear the joint burden of a program that even the Congress and the Federal Government decided in 2006 wasn't fair, but when we unwound it, we didn't unwind it, literally, for thousands of people who had fallen into this program between 1993 and 2006.

Now, we are through the House. We are through the Senate. We still have to hit one thing. And while the White House has indicated that the President supports this legislation, we have to get it signed right away because, when we think about these teachers and nurses and other folks who met their goal of what they have to qualify in critical areas to qualify for public student debt forgiveness, you know, the truth is, if they are going to get that benefit this year, they have got to make that application by October 31.

So before Halloween, these folks and countless others are waiting for them to simply apply for a right that, in

many cases, they should have been granted 5, 10, 15 years ago.

And as I said, many of the folks in this category are public school teachers. They are government workers. They are nurses. They all have met the otherwise, oftentimes, stringent requirements for public service loan forgiveness, but this law has to be a law in time for them to be able to timely apply for this relief before Halloween.

So I am hoping--the President has indicated he supports this bill, but the President has got to sign this law as soon as possible so borrowers can finally experience freedom from financial and domestic abuse, freedom to control their own financial future, and freedom to enjoy the exact same benefits that other teachers and public servants have across the country.

I would like to close by saying that, this week, I actually had a chance to call Sara, who originally brought this issue to my attention. She told me that, without this law, and even if she had continued making all of her monthly payments for her divorced husband, it would have been impossible for her to get rid of this debt in her lifetime. She would literally have been tied to her ex-husband, and she left Texas to get away from that ex-husband, to move to Virginia. She would literally be tied to that former spouse for the rest of her life.

For Sara and for literally thousands of other borrowers impacted by this program, it is time for the President to sign this law and provide these borrowers the relief they deserve.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator Wyden for clarification regarding a tax provision included in the bill currently before the Senate.

With regard to the advanced manufacturing tax credit, it is the intention that section 45X, as established by section 13502 of the Inflation Reduction Act, is intended to apply to components for which production was completed after December 31, 2022, and are sold to an unrelated party after December 31, 2022?

In other words, the credit should be available to the entirety of eligible components currently underway if those components are concluded after 2022. For example, an offshore wind vessel that began construction in 2019 and was completed at a date after December 31, 2022, would be eligible for the credit applied to the full cost of production of the vessel and not just for the portion completed after December 31, 2022.

Mr. President, I look forward to passing this important piece of legislation that will help fight inflation, invest in domestic energy production and manufacturing, reduce carbon emissions, and lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment, No. 5488, and ask that it be reported by number.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the end is near--I hope. For those of us on this side of the aisle who have worked long and hard, this is the last substantive action we have to take before final passage of a historic piece of legislation.

Recognizing--and I want to thank the Senators on both sides of the aisle for the productive discussions in the last vote on a difficult issue that my amendment would address.

My amendment would simply strike the offset in the previous amendment known as the State and local tax deduction and replace it with a 2-year extension of a so-called loss limitation policy that has bipartisan support over many years.

This was first employed under President Trump, then employed by the Democrats. Everyone on this side of the aisle has voted for this pay- for, $52 billion, which more than offsets the $35 billion that were taken from the previous amendment.

This amendment will allow us to move forward on this historic legislation, on drug prices, climate change,

reform the tax code, and bring down inflation and make sure we have got a true comprehensive energy policy.

I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

Do I have any time remaining?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I am able to speak and followed by Senator Cortez Masto to be able to speak before the Senate adjourns for the weekly caucus lunches.

Mr. President, today we took another giant step on something that has been a lot harder than it should have been and could have been because it actually started last June when I rose before this body--June of 2021--to speak about the critical need to pass the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, as it was known back then, USICA, in order to shore up U.S. investment in research and development and manufacturing of critical technologies.

On this bill--a few name changes later, and, unfortunately, more than a year later--I rise again before this body to express my strong support for this revised CHIPS+ legislation--that we just cleared an important hurdle for over the last hour--and urge my colleagues to pass this bill as quickly as possible so we can get it out of the Senate, get it over to the House, and get it to the President's desk.

We cannot afford to waste any more time because this funding sends a message that the United States is putting a strong down payment on maintaining our edge in the global technology race and preventing global supply chains from being weaponized against the United States or, for that matter, against our allies.

Over the past few years, China has continued to increase investments in its domestic industries and, particularly, in areas that confer long-term strategic influence. This includes the semiconductor industry, which I have been particularly focused on over the past few years.

Now, let me be clear. When I talk about China--let me be clear--my beef is with the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping, and their approach. It is not with the Chinese people; it is not with the Chinese diaspora. As a matter of fact, when people don't make that distinction, you may play exactly into the CCP's agenda that somehow these are all simply anti-Chinese activists. These are not. These are activities against the Government of China and, particularly, the Communist Party of China.

Coming back to semiconductors: Semiconductors, often called chips, are the backbone of our modern lives. They can be found in literally everything with an on-and-off switch: from cars and trucks to washers and dryers to smartphones and laptops. Chips are an essential component in so many of the devices we use today.

The growth in chips is going to be exponential. Many have fought and talked about the whole notion of the internet of things. The internet of things require devices that are connected to the internet. Obviously, autonomous driving would be one example. For every connection, there needs to be a center, most of those requiring a semiconductor chip.

Unfortunately, looking backwards, for many years, American semiconductor companies led the world in both design and manufacturing of this critical technology. But the truth is, our leadership has languished. In recent years, we continue to lose ground, particularly not just to China but to East Asian markets in total.

As a country, we have gone--from 1990, when we produced literally 37 percent of all the chips in the world, to today--in the whole field of microelectronics, we are down to about 12 percent.

On the other hand, China has ramped up its investment in chips, providing an estimated $200 billion in financial support between just 2015 and going forward projection up to 2025. Chinese orders for semiconductor manufacturing equipment rose 58 percent in 2021 in the midst of the COVID crisis. China has a goal to produce at least 70 percent of its use of semiconductors in the country by 2030.

The truth is, it is not just China. This is global competition. Japan recently passed a $6.8 billion investment package that will fund innovative chip manufacturing, as well as research and development. South Korea, which has also been one of the great leaders in this movement for it, has similar-type investments.

Unfortunately, one of the challenges we face is the country or the entity that has evolved some of the fastest has been Taiwan, where, unfortunately, we now rely on many of the most cutting-edge, leading- edge chips coming out of the Taiwan.

As we have seen with President Xi's aggressive--at least indications, about trying to subjugate Taiwan--when we think of it in the context of the Russian-Ukraine battle, the notion that could take place beyond what it would do to the democracy that exists in Taiwan, what it would do in terms of that critical semiconductor production--it would cause not only a recession but depression around the world.

It is not just South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. India has recently passed legislation investing $30 billion in their domestic electronics manufacturing industry, with $10 billion of that dedicated to chips manufacturing and display manufacturing.

The truth is--and this is one of the things I think was the great irony--is that when I spoke about this bill 13 months ago, then, obviously, the Senate, with the leadership of the Presiding Officer and others, we actually passed this bill back in July of last year. Our passage of that bill and raising the expectation that America was going to really get in the game, set off alarm bells, not only in terms of what is coming out of Asia but from some of our allies in Europe.

The truth is, European bureaucrats, particularly coming out of Brussels, are not normally viewed as moving with a great deal of speed. But because we have taken now 12 months to actually get our act together and get this bill to this stage of passage, we have seen European countries--Germany, for example, has already selected 32 semiconductor projects and put $12 billion in draft investments. And even our friends in France recently announced a major U.S. global foundry investment in France.

This has proven out--the lack of investment by the U.S. has had a huge impact. From 2010 to 2020, only 17 major semiconductor plants-- they call them fabs, manufacturing fabs--were built in the United States. Over that same time, we have seen 122 built elsewhere around the world. And the handful of major projects announced in the last year as a direct result of our efforts a year ago to say we are going to put our money where our mouth is in terms of these kind of investments-- major facilities in Ohio, Arizona, and elsewhere, candidly, are very much at risk at this point, unless we can get this legislation to the President's desk.

Right now, the truth is: The cost of new fabs is 25 percent to 50 percent higher in the United States; and that is partially due to the enormous financial incentives offered by our competitive ventures.

The truth is, in a perfect world, we wouldn't want governments subsidizing some of these investments. We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a real world where competitors like China and even our allies around the world are making investments, candidly, that on a per capita basis even make this investment by the United States seem relatively small.

Many ask, so why is it so important for the United States to maintain investment in semiconductor production when on a lot of accounts, the PRC--China--is several generations behind? Because the truth is, U.S. semiconductor firms--and firms in the adjacent areas of lithography, packaging, and metrology--still lead the world.

I can tell you, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you unequivocally that the Communist Party of China and the PRC is acutely aware of that gap and aggressively are working, not just to close it, but to eventually leapfrog the United States and our allies to lead in chip production.

As a matter of fact, just over this past week, there was an extraordinary story coming out of Bloomberg that indicated that the Chinese may have already moved dramatically forward in terms of 7- nanometer production. For those aware, if that is true, that could have a huge, huge effect. We should expect that because last year, President Xi announced a $1.4 trillion commitment through 2025 to develop advanced

technologies, not only in chips, but in next-generation wireless networks and artificial intelligence--technologies that will candidly determine who is not only the economic but the security winner of the 21st century.

I firmly believe that this is the time of technology competition across the series of domains, and China has a plan they articulated in their China 2025 document. We, in this country, are still trying to determine what are those domains.

The truth is, semiconductors--which enable advancements in artificial intelligence or high-performance computing, hypersonics, and everything else, again, with an on-off switch--is arguably the centerpiece of President Xi's effort to ultimately control innovation system development.

Meanwhile, many of the key ingredients to U.S. historical success, including Federal support for R&D, investment in basic research and support for advanced manufacturing, have declined over the last 20 years. Why? I am focusing on chips and the 5G and beyond. Here, there is a whole series of components in this legislation we have advanced today that includes beefing up R&D, advanced manufacturing, and other critical areas.

It brings me down to my closing comments before I turn it over to the Senator from Nevada. That is why the $52 billion in funding for CHIPS for America Act--a bipartisan effort my friend, Senator Cornyn and I, along with Senator Schumer and Senator Cotton--we have been working on this, literally, for years, way beyond the 13 months, when I rose on this topic 13 months ago--is so important and why a parallel effort also in this bill to catalyze U.S. and allied innovation in a more diverse and resilient telecommunications ecosystem is so virtually important.

I would also note this simply isn't an economic competitiveness or security issue. We know, as we see it play out right now in terms of supply chains--vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine, the notion of cutting off advanced semiconductors to Russia will have a huge effect on Russia's military capacity. We also know, as well, this will be a jobs bill in terms of these fabrication facilities and research all across America. And, candidly, as we know, there are literally thousands of cars that already have been produced by American auto manufacturers that are sitting, not getting into the market because they don't have the chips to make the cars actually operate. Over the long haul, bringing that supply chain back here will ultimately deal with inflation issues, as well.

We cannot be held hostage on this critical issue. Most of the focus has been on chips, as appropriate. But this bill also makes important investments in the future of wireless telecommunications. In many ways, this issue first came to the forefront, not on chips, but a few years back--I say this as a former wireless telecom guy--when a Chinese company, Huawei, suddenly started to dominate the market. We raised concerns about Huawei. Many of our allies and others said: That is fine; what is your alternative? What is the Western alternative?

I think we were a little bit slow on making the case; although, now, virtually every nation that invested in Huawei equipment has realized national security concerns that are literally in the process of ripping and replacing that equipment.

We have still got more to do. Huawei penetrated some of our markets in the United States. So this bill that has been called CHIPS also includes funding for the bipartisan Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act, or the USA Act, which fosters U.S. innovation in the race for 5G by providing $1.5 billion to invest in Western- backed alternatives to, again, Chinese equipment providers, like Huawei but also ZTE.

This is a bill that, again, I was proud to work on with many of my Intel colleagues, Senator Burr and Senator Rubio. It will also stand up a new Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund to spur movements toward open-architecture software. That would allow us to fund innovative, ``leap ahead'' technologies in the domestic mobile broadband market.

That approach plays to U.S. strengths, like software and network virtualization, and it means that we will have a wider set of firms, including American, with healthier balance sheets competing against these state-sponsored Chinese vendors, because one thing that has been clear over the past two administrations, our anti-Huawei message, or the things that finally moved, would have moved a lot quicker if we had had other U.S. and Western alternatives.

Again, I will close now. As the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I see examples every day of how China is doubling down on its pursuit of advanced technologies that I think will define the 21st century, and in many ways, the United States has started to fall behind.

Fortunately, it is not too late to change that narrative or to change that result. With the right investments, like the ones that have been provided in this legislation, we can unleash the ingenuity of the American people. We can reinvigorate American innovation and improve our national security while setting the country up to lead the way on technologies that will define our future.

We need to get this passed as quickly as possible, and then I strongly, strongly urge our colleagues in the House to pass it as well and get it to the President's desk.

With that, I yield the floor.

I do want to thank my colleague from Nevada, who has been a leader on this legislation, as well, and knows the importance of getting this done.

Mr. President, I have seven 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:

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend the Senator from Iowa for giving me a moment of personal privilege.

I also want to acknowledge our colleague who has been the Presiding Officer. I want to acknowledge our colleague who was presiding prior to you coming to the chair and acknowledge that it is her birthday today, a great day of celebration across Arizona and elsewhere.

Mr. President, I will only rise for a moment, and I appreciate my friend the senior Senator from Illinois being here for this. I want to acknowledge my youngest daughter, Eliza, and her fellow classmates from the London Business School--not LSE; the London Business School--where, last Wednesday, I attended their graduation. My hope is that every one of these young men and women who are going to be from across the world--the United States, the UK, Nigeria, Lebanon, Israel, India, Singapore, and a host of other countries--one, I wish them all well. I know they are going to contribute to economies and growth around the world.

I also believe that almost all of them now are going to go off their family's payroll at this moment in time after they have received this great, distinguished MBA they received from the London Business School.

I do appreciate, again, my friend the Senator from Iowa giving me the courtesy of this quick acknowledgement and recognition.

With that, I yield the floor and yield to my friend the senior Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. President, I just want to say I know many of us recognized your enormous service yesterday, and we really appreciate it and so much today, the day after your 50th birthday, appreciate the fact that you are presiding over this august body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Vice Chairman Rubio, Senator Blunt, and all members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to recognize the service and accomplishments of VADM Robert D. Sharp and congratulate him on his upcoming retirement. His leadership and vision drove the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency--NGA--to deliver support to a wide array of customers while simultaneously transforming its operating procedures and business practices. As Director of NGA, Vice Admiral Sharp ensured that timely, relevant, and accurate geospatial intelligence was provided to policymakers, warfighters, first responders, the intelligence community, and the congressional intelligence oversight committees.

A veteran of the war in Afghanistan and the Gulf War, Vice Admiral Sharp served our country during a highly decorated 34-year career with the U.S. Navy, receiving two Bronze Stars, the Legion of Merit, two Defense Superior Service Medals, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Vice Admiral Sharp's service included operational deployments with USS Ranger (CV61), Carrier Air Wing 2 embarked on USS Constellation (CV 64), and Carrier Group 2 embarked on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Additionally, in 2016, Vice Admiral Sharp was tasked with serving as commander, Office of Naval Intelligence, and director, National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office.

Vice Admiral Sharp culminated his distinguished career as the seventh director of the NGA. In this capacity he also served as the intelligence community's functional manager for GEOINT, head of the National System for Geospatial Intelligence, and chair of the Allied System for Geospatial Intelligence.

As NGA director, Vice Admiral Sharp led 14,500 military, civilian, and contractor women and men with care, compassion, and resourcefulness during the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the government shifted to maximize telework, NGA found new and innovative ways to meet mission demands while ensuring the safety of the workforce and, simultaneously, significantly improving the morale of the workforce.

Vice Admiral Sharp managed the multibillion-dollar annual operating budget of the Agency, including the construction of a new, state-of- the-art $1.7 billion NGA-West campus in downtown St. Louis, which includes the Senator Roy Blunt Geospatial Learning Center. This innovative facility will be a model for the IC in the future. Under Admiral Sharp's leadership, the agency has maintained a constructive and productive relationship with the city, the local community, academia, and the private sector, marking St. Louis--now alongside Springfield, VA--as a leader in the GEOINT community.

Vice Admiral Sharp also directed the use of new technology and commercial capabilities to meet steadily increasing demands of the customer base for trusted GEOINT with speed, accuracy, and precision-- while working to keep ahead of the speed of change occurring in GEOINT inside and outside government and around the globe. The importance to the Nation--and the world--of the ability to utilize new commercial GEOINT capabilities has recently been made clear during Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Vice Admiral Sharp also refocused investment in great power competition and emphasized the importance of assured positioning, navigation, timing, and targeting.

Throughout his tenure at NGA, Vice Admiral Sharp focused attention on a whole-of-enterprise approach by expanding and deepening relations with partners across the enterprise. In particular, he has fostered increased engagement with colleges and universities and promoted geographic literacy and STEM education in K-12 institutions. NGA has an active CRADA with the University of Virginia and open source intelligence partnerships with William and Mary University and Virginia Tech. NGA has also signed educational partnership agreements with Harris Stowe State University, a historically Black university in St. Louis; University of Missouri St Louis, the most diverse public research institution in the St Louis area; and Gallaudet University, in Washington, DC, the Nation's premier university for deaf and hard of hearing students. These initiatives are representative of Vice Admiral Sharp's career-long commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Vice Admiral Sharp's tenure at NGA was marked by strong leadership and dedication to mission. He inspired a workforce to remain committed to the mission while rapidly transforming with changes in technology and tradecraft during an unprecedented time in the history of the nation. His leadership of NGA and his decades of service to our country displayed honor, courage, and commitment. We congratulate Vice Admiral Sharp on his retirement and thank him for his service to our country.