    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          ENSURING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
                              IN MICROELECTRONICS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 2, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-40

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    46-150PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
    AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
    DAN KILDEE, Michigan
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                December 2, 2021

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    11
        Written Statement............................................    12

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    15

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Manager of
      Technology Development, Intel
        Oral Statement...............................................    17
        Written Statement............................................    19

    Mr. Manish Bhatia, Executive Vice President, Global Operations,
      Micron Technology, Inc.
        Oral Statement...............................................    32
        Written Statement............................................    34

    Dr. Michael Witherell, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National
      Laboratory
        Oral Statement...............................................    39
        Written Statement............................................    41

    Dr. Mung Chiang, Executive Vice President and Dean of Engineering
      College, Purdue University
        Oral Statement...............................................    66
        Written Statement............................................    68

    Discussion.......................................................    75

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Manager of
      Technology Development, Intel..................................   124

    Mr. Manish Bhatia, Executive Vice President, Global Operations,
      Micron Technology, Inc.........................................   137

    Dr. Michael Witherell, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National
      Laboratory.....................................................   148

    Dr. Mung Chiang, Executive Vice President and Dean of Engineering
      College, Purdue University.....................................   151

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives
        ``Ensuring American Leadership in Microelectronics,'' Tim
          Powderly, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Apple.......   164
        ``Workforce development infrastructure for the U.S.
          microelectronics industry,'' John Dallesasse, et al.,
          American Semiconductor Academy.............................   166

    Document submitted by Representative Paul Tonko, Committee on
      Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
        ``Supporting the Future of US-Based Semiconductor
          Manufacturing: Innovation, Technology Development &
          Translation, And Workforce Enablement,'' F. Shadi
          Shahedipour-Sandvik, Robert Geer, Nathaniel Cady, Nicholas
          Querques, the State University of New York.................   204

                          ENSURING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
                              IN MICROELECTRONICS

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., via
    Zoom, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee]
    presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any
    time.
        Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note today
    that the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to announce a
    couple of reminders to Members about the conduct of this
    hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on as long
    as they are present in the meeting. Members are responsible for
    their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted
    until you are speaking. And finally, if Members have documents
    they wish to submit for the record, please email them to the
    Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
    the hearing.
        Welcome to today's hearing, and welcome to our
    distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing
    your insights on how we can ensure the United States'
    leadership in microelectronics.
        It wasn't news to the experts, but the last 2 years have
    brought into full public view the vulnerabilities in our
    microelectronics supply chains. Chips operate almost every
    piece of technology in our lives, from cell phones to cars.
    They are essential to our national security. Yet, the U.S.
    share of global semiconductor manufacturing decreased from 37
    percent in 1990 to just 12 percent today. Hindsight allows us
    to see that our government and industry suffered a collective
    failure of imagination when we thought we could offshore our
    chips manufacturing capacity without consequences. Today, a
    single chip might go through 1,000 production steps in 70
    countries before reaching its final product. It took a global
    pandemic to expose the weaknesses of that approach. But we
    should not be fooled that this is a once-in-a-100-year problem.
        Fortunately, the semiconductor industry still leads the
    world in research and innovation. In 1954, the very first
    commercial silicon transistor was developed by Gordon Teal at
    Texas Instruments (TI) in Dallas, Texas. In 1958, Jack Kilby of
    TI invented the integrated circuit (IC). And ever since then,
    because of investments by both the U.S. Government and
    industry, we continue to lead in microelectronics innovation.
        However, current technology is approaching certain physical
    limits. Long-term growth will require breakthroughs in
    everything from fundamental materials science to manufacturing
    processes. In the meantime, other countries are stepping up
    their investments. In particular, China is already outspending
    the United States to bolster its domestic semiconductor
    capacity. Moreover, they're investing in research and
    innovation like they never did before. They no longer want to
    just manufacture yesterday's chip. They want to lead in
    innovating tomorrow's chip. That poses both an economic and
    national security risk to us.
        To help maintain U.S. competitiveness in microelectronics,
    Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act. The CHIPS Act would
    make substantial investments in the future of semiconductor R&D
    (research and development). The act also includes incentives to
    bring semiconductor manufacturing back to our shores.
        I support full funding for the CHIPS Act. However, a one-
    time infusion of funding will not be enough to maintain U.S.
    leadership in microelectronics innovation. Advancing U.S.
    leadership in microelectronics will require a long-term, whole-
    of-government strategy. While incentives to re-shore capacity
    now are important, the future will be shaped by how we invest
    in innovation and the technical work force. That is what we
    know and do best in this Committee. The Science, Space, and
    Technology Committee is ready to work with the Administration,
    industry, and the research community to oversee the
    implementation of the CHIPS Act.
        In addition, we will continue to explore opportunities to
    strengthen and expand our investments in microelectronics
    research, including at the Department of Energy (DOE). This
    hearing is the beginning of a long-term effort by our
    Committee.
        I thank you to the expert witnesses that are here today,
    and I look forward to the discussion.
         [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. And welcome to
    our distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing
    your insights on how we can ensure United States leadership in
    microelectronics.
        It wasn't news to the experts, but the last 2 years have
    brought into full public view the vulnerabilities in our
    microelectronics supply chains. Chips operate almost every
    piece of technology in our lives, from cell phones to cars.
    They are essential to our national security. Yet, the U.S.
    share of global semiconductor manufacturing decreased from 37
    percent in 1990 to just 12 percent today. Hindsight allows us
    to see that our government and industry suffered a collective
    failure of imagination when we thought we could offshore our
    chips manufacturing capacity without consequence. Today, a
    single chip might go through 1,000 production steps in 70
    countries before reaching its final product. It took a global
    pandemic to expose the weaknesses of that approach. But we
    should not be fooled that this is a once-in-a-hundred-year
    problem.
        Fortunately, the U.S. semiconductor industry still leads
    the world in research and innovation. In 1954, the very first
    commercial silicon transistor was developed by Gordon Teal at
    Texas Instruments in Dallas TX. In 1958, Jack Kilby of TI
    invented the integrated circuit. And ever since then, because
    of investments by both the U.S. government and industry, we
    have continued to lead in microelectronics innovation. However,
    current technology is approaching certain physical limits. Long
    term growth will require breakthroughs in everything from
    fundamental materials science to manufacturing processes.
        In the meantime, other countries are stepping up their
    investments. In particular, China is already outspending the
    United States to bolster its domestic semiconductor capacity.
    Moreover, they are investing in research and innovation like
    they never did before. They no longer want to just manufacture
    yesterday's chip. They want to lead in innovating tomorrow's
    chip. That poses both an economic and national security risk to
    us.
        To help maintain U.S. competitiveness in microelectronics,
    Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act. The CHIPS Act would
    make substantial investments in the future of semiconductor
    R&D. The Act also includes incentives to bring semiconductor
    manufacturing back to our shores. I support full funding for
    the CHIPS Act. However, a one-time infusion of funding will not
    be enough to maintain U.S. leadership in microelectronics
    innovation.
        Advancing U.S. leadership in microelectronics will require
    a long-term, whole of government strategy. While incentives to
    re-shore capacity now are important, the future will be shaped
    by how we invest in innovation and the technical workforce.
    That is what we know and do best in this Committee. The
    Science, Space, and Technology Committee is ready to work with
    the administration, industry, and the research community to
    oversee the implementation of the CHIPs Act. In addition, we
    will continue to explore opportunities to strengthen and expand
    our investments in microelectronics research, including at the
    Department of Energy. This hearing is the beginning of a long-
    term effort by our Committee.
        Thank you again to the expert witnesses before us today. I
    look forward to the discussion.
        With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Lucas for his
    opening statement.

        Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas for
    his opening statement.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this
    morning's hearing.
        Every American who has tried to buy a car, tractor, or even
    a refrigerator lately, knows that we're facing severe supply
    chain shortages. In many cases, these shortages are being
    driven by global disruption to the supply chain for
    semiconductors or chips, as many of us refer to them.
        Microelectronics, the devices made from semiconductor
    materials, are critical to how we live and work. They power
    phones, make our cars safer, our homes smarter, and help us
    store and protect virtual information. It is also vital to us.
    They are not only essential to our economic security but our
    national security as well.
        The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it clear that it
    wants to dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part
    of their technology strategy is to increase China's share of
    the semiconductor market through both investment and
    acquisition. U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90
    percent of their semiconductor chips from Taiwan, a huge risk
    given the geopolitical situation in the region.
        Microelectronics are necessary for the technologies of the
    future. Harnessing new applications such as artificial
    intelligence, 5G, and quantum sciences, will require
    fundamental breakthroughs in microelectronics technology. While
    the factors that led to today's chip shortage are worthy of
    their own examination, our focus today is forward-looking: How
    do we secure America's leadership in advanced chip design? How
    do we regain our leadership in semiconductor manufacturing? We
    must answer these questions to ensure we never face a chip
    shortage or disruption in the United States again.
        Congress took the first steps to address this issue last
    year by passing the CHIPS for America Act as a part of the
    Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The CHIPS
    Act, which, when introduced, was referred solely to the Science
    Committee for jurisdiction, authorized programs to advance U.S.
    research and development, promote industry, government
    partnerships, and incentivize domestic fabrication of chips.
        Today's hearing should provide critical guidance as
    Congress and the Administration consider how to implement and
    fund the CHIPS Act. I have no doubt this will be a major
    legislative and oversight priority for our Committee for years
    to come.
        To lead in advanced microelectronics, the United States
    will need to make strategic investments along the entire
    innovation pipeline, from fundamental research and education,
    to design, to manufacturing. The Federal Government has a long
    tradition of investing in fundamental research for
    microelectronics, including through academic research
    institutions and Federal laboratories that are supported by the
    National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy,
    and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
        Dr. Witherell will help tell us how DOE and its
    laboratories have worked with industry and academia to drive
    scientific advancements in areas such as materials science,
    energy efficiency, and novel devices. Access to materials,
    including critical minerals, chemicals, and gases will be the
    key to increasing domestic technology production.
    Unfortunately, the United States has limited quantities of many
    of these critical materials, so research into alternative and
    manufactured materials could be the answer to domestically
    producing advanced semiconductors.
        Another challenge, which the CHIPS Act takes steps to
    address, is advanced packaging. Experts believe that
    breakthroughs in packaging will be key to improving chip
    efficiency beyond the regular doubling of computing
    capabilities predicted by Moore's Law. I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses today about what will make a
    national advanced packaging manufacturing program successful.
        Developing a strong work force in the United States to
    support the microelectronics industry is another challenge we
    need to solve. In the next 5 years, companies estimate that
    we'll need at least 42,000 semiconductor engineers nationwide.
    That demand is even higher for the full spectrum of workers
    needed, from skilled technicians and operators with associate
    degrees to those with advanced degrees. I hope our witnesses
    will provide some recommendations on how we can build this work
    force.
        As Congress looks to strengthen U.S. chip manufacturing and
    advance our competitiveness in microelectronics, we must look
    to lessons from the past. We've been here before. In the
    1980's, the Federal Government took strong actions to combat
    Japan's dominance in microelectronics. They included
    establishing a research consortium to support U.S.
    competitiveness in semiconductor technology, also known as
    SEMATECH. This government-industry partnership lasted until
    1994. It helped the United States regain the lead for a time,
    but competing industry interests, waning government support,
    and other factors led to a decline that has put us where we are
    today.
        During this time, IMEC was also established and is still in
    operation today. IMEC has created an international ecosystem
    for more than 600 world-leading industry partners and a global
    academic network focused on developing and testing cutting-edge
    semiconductor innovations. I know several of our witnesses have
    worked with both consortiums, and I look forward to hearing
    what lessons can be taken from each and used to inform the
    establishment of a National Semiconductor Technology Center
    (NSTC) and the Department of Defense's microelectronics
    commons.
        In closing, I'd like to note that yesterday marked 2 weeks
    since the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate announced
    that there would be a conference on the Senate-passed U.S.
    Innovation and Competition Act, (USICA) and the innovation
    bills that our Committee carefully crafted and passed on a
    bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, we're still waiting on the
    details of that conference. Chairwoman Johnson and I are ready
    to go. We've been ready to go for months. It's time for
    leadership to move forward on a bipartisan conference of all of
    the Committees of jurisdiction.
        The Senate bill will include significant funding for the
    CHIPS Act. And while I think there are still details to be
    worked out on exactly how that funding should look, time is in
    short supply to address our future domestic chip needs. We need
    to act now because I can tell you that our competitors aren't
    waiting.
        No matter what the final vehicle is for funding the CHIPS
    Act, I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it
    done as soon as possible.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this morning's
    hearing.
        Every American who has tried to buy a car, tractor, or even
    a refrigerator lately, knows that we are facing severe supply
    chain shortages. In many cases, these shortages are being
    driven by global disruption to the supply chain for
    semiconductors or ``chips''.
        Microelectronics, the devices made from semiconductor
    materials, are critical to how we live and work. They power our
    phones, make our cars safer, our homes smarter, and help us
    store and protect vital information. They are not only
    essential to our economic security but our national security as
    well.
        The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it clear that it
    wants to dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part
    of their strategy is to increase China's share of the
    semiconductor market through both investment and acquisition.
    U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 percent of their
    semiconductor chips from Taiwan, a huge risk given the
    geopolitical situation in the region.
        Microelectronics are necessary for the technologies of the
    future. Harnessing new applications such as artificial
    intelligence, 5G, and quantum sciences, will require
    fundamental breakthroughs in microelectronics technology.
        While the factors that led to today's chip shortage are
    worthy of their own examination, our focus today is forward-
    looking--how do we secure America's leadership in advanced chip
    design and how do we regain our leadership in semiconductor
    manufacturing? We must answer these questions to ensure we
    never face a chip shortage or disruption in the United States
    again.
        Congress took the first steps to address this issue last
    year by passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the FY21
    National Defense Authorization Act. The CHIPS Act--which when
    introduced was referred solely to the Science Committee for
    jurisdiction--authorized programs to advance U.S. research and
    development, promote industry and government partnerships, and
    incentivize domestic fabrication of chips.
        Today's hearing should provide critical guidance as
    Congress and the Administration consider how to implement and
    fund the CHIPS Act. I have no doubt this will be a major
    legislative and oversight priority for our Committee for years
    to come.
        To lead in advanced microelectronics, the United States
    will need to make strategic investments along the entire
    innovation pipeline--from fundamental research and education,
    to design, to manufacturing. The federal government has a long
    tradition of investing in fundamental research for
    microelectronics, including through academic research
    institutions and federal laboratories that are supported by the
    National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE),
    and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
        Dr. Witherell will tell us how DOE and its laboratories
    have worked with industry and academia to drive scientific
    advancements in areas such as materials science, energy
    efficiency, and novel devices. Access to materials, including
    critical minerals, chemicals, and gasses will be a key to
    increasing domestic technology production.
        Unfortunately, the U.S. has limited quantities of many of
    these critical materials. So research into alternative and
    manufactured materials could be the answer to domestically
    producing advanced semiconductors.
        Another challenge, which the CHIPS Act takes steps to
    address, is advanced packaging. Experts believe that
    breakthroughs in packaging will be key to improving chip
    efficiency beyond the regular doubling of computing
    capabilities predicted by Moore's law. I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses today about what will make a
    national advanced packaging manufacturing program successful.
        Developing a strong workforce in the United States to
    support the microelectronics industry is another challenge we
    need to solve. In the next five years, companies estimate that
    we will need at least 42,000 semiconductor engineers
    nationwide. That demand is even higher for the full spectrum of
    workers needed--from skilled technicians and operators with
    associate degrees to those with advanced degrees. I hope our
    witnesses will provide some recommendations on how we can build
    this workforce.
        As Congress looks to strengthen U.S. chip manufacturing and
    advance our competitiveness in microelectronics, we must look
    to lessons from the past. We've been here before. In the 1980s,
    the federal government took strong actions to combat Japan's
    dominance in microelectronics. This included establishing a
    research consortium to support U.S competitiveness in
    semiconductor technology, also known as SEMATECH.
        This government-industry partnership lasted until 1994. It
    helped the U.S. regain the lead for a time, but competing
    industry interests, waning government support, and other
    factors led to a decline that put us where we are today.

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
    witness will be introduced by Ms. Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Johnson. It is
    my pleasure to introduce Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice
    President and General Manager of Technology Development at
    Intel Corporation, which has several hubs or campuses in the
    district I represent, and employs more than 20,000 Oregonians.
    Dr. Kelleher is responsible for the research, development, and
    deployment of next-generation silicon logic, packaging, and
    test technologies that power the future of Intel's innovation.
        Previously, Dr. Kelleher was the General Manager of
    Manufacturing and Operations where she oversaw Intel's
    worldwide manufacturing operations, as well as corporate
    quality assurance and corporate services. Dr. Kelleher joined
    Intel in 1996 as a Process Engineer and has tremendous
    expertise to offer as a witness in this hearing. I want to
    thank her for being here with us this morning and look forward
    to her testimony.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Our next witness
    is Mr. Manish Bhatia. He is the Executive Vice President of
    Global Operations at Micron Technology. In this role, he is
    responsible for driving the vision and direction for Micron's
    end-to-end operations. Prior to joining Micron in 2017, he
    served as Executive Vice President of Silicon Operations at
    Western Digital Corporation. He also served as Executive Vice
    President of Worldwide Operations at SanDisk Corporation when
    it was acquired by Western Digital.
        Our third witness is Dr. Michael Witherell. He is the
    Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), a
    position he has held since January of 2016. Prior to his
    position at Berkeley, he served as the Vice Chancellor of
    Research at the University of California, Santa Barbara from
    2005 to 2016 and was the Director of Fermi National Accelerator
    Laboratory from 1999 to 2005. He is a member of the National
    Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical
    Society and American Association for the Advancement of
    Science.
        Our final witness--somebody----
        Staff. Dr. Baird.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Dr. Baird will introduce. Dr. Baird,
    you're recognized.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's indeed my
    pleasure to introduce to you an individual from Indiana's
    Fourth Congressional District and Purdue University. Dr. Mung
    Chiang currently serves as the Executive Vice President of
    Purdue University for Strategic Initiatives, the John A.
    Edwardson Dean College of Engineering, and the Roscoe H. George
    Distinguished Professor in the Elmore Family School of
    Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Chiang's research on
    communication networks received a 2013 Alan T. Waterman Award,
    the highest honor to scientists and engineers under the age of
    40 in the United States. And he has been the recipient of
    several other awards and distinctions.
        Most recently, Dr. Chiang founded the Center for Tech
    Diplomacy at Purdue, which intends to bring engineering
    expertise to policymakers in a way that demonstrates the
    inextricable links between technology, technology advancements,
    and national interests.
        So, Dr. Chiang, we are very happy to have you here with us
    today, and we really look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
    I yield back.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
    for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
    included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
    your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each
    Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
        We now will start with Dr. Kelleher.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. ANN KELLEHER,

              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER

                    OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, INTEL

        Dr. Kelleher. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
    today. I lead Technology Development at Intel where we research
    and develop process and packaging technologies for Intel's
    products. We also ramp this technology into high-volume
    manufacturing.
        Over the past 10 years, Intel has invested more than $75
    billion in process and packaging R&D and U.S. manufacturing
    capital. Over the next 10 years, Intel anticipates spending
    approximately $150 billion. This will cover our recently
    announced expansions in Arizona, New Mexico, and a U.S.
    greenfield site, as well as our future technology R&D.
        Intel's investments demonstrate our enduring commitment to
    the United States technology leadership where we conduct all of
    our process technology R&D and the majority of our
    manufacturing.
        Semiconductors are fundamental to U.S. technology
    leadership, our economy, and our national security, and we're
    the fourth-largest U.S. export sector in 2020. Recent supply
    chain disruptions due to COVID-19 and widespread chip shortages
    illustrate the risk to our economy and the danger of losing our
    ability to make leading-edge chips in the United States.
        America has lost significant share of semiconductor
    production to Asia over the last 30 years. For decades,
    countries in Asia have provided substantial incentives driving
    a 30 percent cost disadvantage for chipmaking in the United
    States and a corresponding decrease in the U.S. global share of
    manufacturing, and that dropped from 37 percent to 12 percent.
        At the same time, designing and manufacturing leading-edge
    chips has also become increasingly more expensive. A recent
    paper from Boston Consulting Group highlighted the fact that
    investments required to develop the next advance in chipmaking
    has grown 40-fold over the last 20 years. Due to this dramatic
    increase, fewer manufacturers globally are able to make the
    investment required to develop leading-edge semiconductor
    technologies. In 2000, more than 25 companies built leading-
    edge chips, but today only three leading-edge manufacturers of
    logic technology remain, and Intel is the only one left in the
    United States.
        Three essential ingredients are necessary for a strong U.S.
    semiconductor industry: manufacturing process technology,
    including IP (intellectual property) and know-how based in the
    United States; U.S. fab capacity to support the growing demand
    in the United States and worldwide; and advanced packaging
    capability and capacity. But these essential elements are being
    challenged by the 30 percent cost disadvantage and the lack of
    public funding for R&D.
        Forty years ago, Federal investment in semiconductor R&D
    was more than double that of private investment, but today,
    U.S. private investment is nearly 20 times that of public
    funding. Federal investments is urgently needed to level the
    playing field and reverse the erosion of U.S. semiconductor
    industry.
        Congress must enact funding of the new semiconductor
    manufacturing and R&D programs created in the CHIPS for America
    Act as soon as possible. The CHIPS Act has the right framework
    to create a strong U.S. semiconductor industry, and I'm
    confident that, if funded in a robust and sustained manner,
    these programs will significantly contribute to American
    technology leadership. Once funded, the Federal Government will
    need to effectively implement the CHIPS Act most significant
    new R&D program, the National Semiconductor Technology Center,
    or NSTC, and the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing
    Program.
        For the NSTC, Intel recommends priority R&D--prioritizing
    R&D on future breakthrough challenges that align with industry
    goals, leveraging existing industry infrastructure to save time
    and reduce cost. NSTC should be led by a neutral nonprofit that
    can reconcile conflicting needs in the industry.
        For the packaging program, Intel recommends establishing a
    physical location for the participants to work together to
    develop leading-edge cost-effective packaging technologies in
    the United States. The program should encompass packaging
    integration efforts across the semiconductor ecosystem.
        The Committee has an important oversight role regarding the
    CHIPS Act program, and Intel looks forward to working with you
    to provide our perspective on how to effectively implement
    these programs. Thank you for holding this stakeholder hearing,
    and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Kelleher follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bhatia.

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. MANISH BHATIA,

              EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL OPERATIONS,

                        MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

        Mr. Bhatia. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you
    today to discuss the status of U.S. leadership in advanced
    semiconductor development and manufacturing, particularly as it
    relates to memory and storage technology.
        Chairwoman Johnson, please allow me to congratulate you on
    your upcoming retirement, and thank you for your decades of
    distinguished service. My thanks to you and to the Members of
    this Committee who are spearheading the bipartisan effort to
    ensure long-term U.S. leadership in critical semiconductor
    research development and manufacturing capability. With your
    permission, I will submit my full statement for the record.
        I testify today as Executive Vice President of Global
    Operations at Micron, the world's memory and storage technology
    leader. Micron is the only company developing leading-edge
    memory and storage technology in the United States and the only
    firm manufacturing DRAM, dynamic random-access memory (RAM), or
    NAND flash memory in the United States.
        Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, Micron is the world's
    fourth-largest semiconductor integrated device manufacturer and
    the second largest in the United States. We have 43,000 team
    members worldwide and nearly 10,000 of them located in
    facilities across the United States, including in our Manassas,
    Virginia, facility where we manufacture memory and storage
    solutions that are critical to driving growth in the expanding
    automotive, industrial, and networking markets.
        Today, I hope to leave you with two key takeaways. First,
    memory and storage technologies are essential to a digital and
    data-intensive future for the United States. And second, long-
    term substantial investment in leading-edge semiconductor
    research and development and manufacturing is vital for the
    United States to maintain technology leadership across diverse
    end applications from the cloud to the edge and everywhere in
    between.
        Memory and storage are foundational for every computing
    paradigm. Creating a meaningful domestic manufacturing base
    through funding of incentives program such as those included in
    the CHIPS for America Act and implementation of a refundable
    investment tax credit will enable a domestic supply of these
    essential devices.
        Micron designs, develops, and manufactures industry-leading
    semiconductor memory and storage products, the most common of
    which are DRAM, which provides rapid access to data for
    processing, and NAND flash, which provides long-term data
    storage. These products are critical to all sectors of the U.S.
    economy and to national security.
        By providing foundational capability for artificial
    intelligence and 5G across the data center, the intelligent
    edge, and consumer devices, Micron's products unlock innovation
    across industries, including healthcare, automotive, and
    communications. Computing workloads of the future are
    increasingly data-intensive, requiring highly reliable, high-
    performing, and power-efficient advanced memory and storage
    solutions to optimize results.
        Memory and storage have grown from 10 percent of the global
    semiconductor industry revenue in the year 2000 to about 30
    percent of the semiconductor industry revenue today. We expect
    this trend to continue. For example, 5G phones have 50 percent
    more memory and twice the storage content as compared to 4G
    phones. Autonomous vehicles of the future will require as much
    DRAM and NAND storage as today's servers as cars become data
    centers on wheels.
        Conversely, domestic semiconductor manufacturing has
    experienced a steady decline. For example, in 1990 the United
    States had 37 percent of global chip manufacturing capacity and
    now accounts for only 12 percent, and only 2 percent of global
    memory production. Micron has developed and is producing the
    world's most advanced DRAM technology 1-alpha nanometer, as
    well as the most advanced NAND technology, 176-Layer. Our
    technology leadership is based on an unwavering commitment to
    innovation in both research and development with our aggressive
    technology roadmap and manufacturing where we deliver these
    industry-leading technologies at scale.
        We believe Congress should focus on three key areas when
    considering the conditions under which long-term U.S.
    leadership of this--of these critical semiconductor
    technologies can flourish: research and development,
    manufacturing, and work force development. We stand ready to
    work with this Committee and others in Congress and the
    executive branch to ensure the United States achieves and
    maintains the world's leading digital and data-intensive
    economy in the decades ahead.
        Thank you again, Chairwoman and Members of the Committee,
    for the opportunity to participate today, and I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Michael Witherell.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL WITHERELL,

            DIRECTOR, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

        Dr. Witherell. Hello. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
    Lucas, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you
    for holding this important hearing to focus light on this
    critical national challenge. I appreciate the opportunity to
    provide testimony.
        I've been Berkeley Lab's Director since 2016, was
    previously Director of Fermilab. For over a decade I've become
    steadily more concerned about the increasing threat to the
    Nation's leadership in semiconductors. Strengthening the
    Nation's entire microelectronics ecosystem, breakthrough
    research, technology development, and domestic manufacturing at
    scale is imperative for the Nation. I do not need to convince
    people at this hearing how central the advanced semiconductor
    industry is to much of our economy.
        Although industry has the central role, it is increasingly
    clear that our Nation's ability to lead the world in the
    development and deployment of advanced semiconductors will
    require a strong commitment across the entire Federal
    Government. It really is the time for an all-hands-on-deck
    approach that requires new investments across the innovation
    ecosystem, industry, academia, and the Department of Energy
    national laboratories.
        Why should DOE have a major role in the national
    microelectronics initiative? First of all, as you are aware,
    the Department of Energy is the largest supporter in the United
    States of the physical sciences and is the national leader for
    research in the fields that underpin microelectronics: physics,
    chemistry, materials science, and computer science. This
    leadership has led to over 100 Nobel Prizes awarded to DOE-
    affiliated researchers, many for breakthroughs with profound
    impact on society.
        Second, sustained Federal investment at the national labs
    has developed highly managed teams of the world's best
    scientists and built world-class large-scale research
    facilities. These represent a unique combination of assets that
    the labs can bring to the full R&D ecosystem that is needed to
    help meet the current challenge. These lab assets can be
    deployed immediately with appropriate support.
        Third, the continuation of microelectronics evolution along
    the path of business-as-usual would require an unsustainable
    amount of the world's energy budget. We cannot meet the
    national energy goals without addressing the future of
    microelectronics. Conducting research to dramatically improve
    the energy efficiency of microelectronics is a science and
    technology challenge that falls squarely within the DOE's
    energy mission space.
        I want to emphasize that the DOE national labs already have
    a long history of working together with the semiconductor
    industry on precompetitive research that has helped push the
    boundaries of what silicon chips can do. Several facilities
    have been developed at DOE labs to support the semiconductor
    industry's existing capability to fabricate devices with
    feature sizes of several nanometers.
        Semiconductor companies working collaboratively here at
    Berkeley Lab have made over $160 million in investments at a
    specialized facility at our Advanced Light Source to support
    the industry's campaign to shrink the feature size on chips to
    widths and depths of a few dozen atoms using extreme
    ultraviolet UV lithography. This industry investment is even
    larger than stated in my written testimony since we just did a
    full search of the records over the history of that center.
        The DOE Office of Science invests more than this for the
    underlying operation of the x-ray light source facility that
    hosts this center. The investment from industry has been for
    the specialized instrumentation, research, and components that
    enabled the center to leverage the Federal investment.
        For another example, among many, the Center for Nanoscale
    Materials at Argonne National Laboratory offers extreme scale
    device processing, as do all five of the nanoscale research
    centers at DOE labs. And the MESAFab (Microsystems Engineering,
    Science and Applications Fabrications) complex at Sandia
    National Laboratories develops and maintains core semiconductor
    capabilities needed to support the DOE's nuclear security
    mission.
        In addition, the world-leading advanced x-ray sources at
    DOE labs enable researchers to characterize with high-precision
    the new materials and novel devices needed for ultraefficient
    computing. Completing the cycle of technology development
    requires the computer modeling capabilities that the DOE's
    high-performance computing facilities provide with specialized
    software and applications developed for these platforms.
        I would also like to emphasize the importance of developing
    a highly trained work force needed to keep us as the leader.
        So, in conclusion, our Nation's global reputation for
    innovative technology is due in large part to the health of the
    entire ecosystem for research, development, and deployment with
    a focus on establishing a domestic manufacturing base. This
    will require a full science-to-systems approach that leverages
    the national labs to provide the fullest possible support to
    the industry.
        Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Witherell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Our final witness is Dr. Mung Chiang.

                     TESTIMONY OF DR. MUNG CHIANG,

                   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND DEAN

               OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Chiang. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. My name is Mung Chiang, the
    Executive Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at Purdue
    University and the John A. Edwardson Dean of College of
    Engineering. This year Purdue's College of Engineering became
    the largest engineering school to be ranked among top five in
    the United States with over 15,000 students enrolled. It also
    has over 100 faculty members working in microelectronics and
    related fields.
        Our digital economy is built on silicon. It helps to
    visualize the supply chain in five steps. First, it's the raw
    materials and gases needed to make chips. Then there is
    hardware that goes into chip factories. Third is the design of
    chips and the software tools used in such design. And American
    companies continue to lead the world in chip design. Then
    there's manufacturing, taking all of the above into a factory.
    The physical making of a chip goes through many processes. Some
    factories focus on logic chips while others on memory and
    storage chips. And finally, assembly, test, and packaging. Once
    chips are made, they need to be packaged and integrated into
    the market electronic products and eventually find their way
    into phones, cars, fighter jets, and more.
        Much of the discussion these days zooms in on the
    manufacturing step. There are two different types of business
    models. One is to make chips designed by the same company, and
    the other is to make chips designed by other companies, the
    foundry model. With increasing specialization in the
    semiconductors industry over the past 3 decades, many companies
    have chosen to become ``fabless'' and rely on the foundry. This
    in turn enhances the foundry's benefits of scale and sharpens
    its ability to deliver cutting-edge manufacturing under a
    service mindset and trust with the foundry customers.
        For the semiconductor industry in the United States across
    the whole supply chain we are in the critical years now.
    Universities have three unique roles to play in this silicon
    moment. One is to help create synergy with companies large and
    small to bridge the fundamental research advances with
    commercially deployable technologies. The innovation ecosystem
    works best when we create synergy across major companies in
    manufacturing and in design, small to medium disruptors with
    their investors and researchers and teachers at universities.
        Our second role is educating and retraining large numbers
    of engineers, technicians, and operators. Ideally, the
    university can create knowledge and jobs together, generating
    both new positions and the talent needed to fuel the positions.
        And third, universities, especially land-grant institutions
    such as Purdue, have an obligation to serve as an economic
    driver for the State, and there's no greater opportunity today
    than in microelectronics. And Purdue is proud to be a partner
    with the State of Indiana developing strategies and providing a
    talent pool.
        And for the future of chips, the ultimate supply chain is
    that of human talent. In just the next 5 years at least 42,000
    semiconductor engineers need to be trained and ready
    nationwide. The number will continue to climb well into the
    next decade.
        There is a growing gap between the supply and demand for
    microelectronic and semiconductor engineers across the spectrum
    from associate and bachelor degrees to master's and Ph.D.'s.
    And some specific steps need to be made, including revising,
    invigorating, and expanding the microelectronics curricula with
    expanded use of hands-on training, online learning, partnership
    with community colleges and engagement with industry, and also
    to scale up such educational programs and substantially
    increase the number of scholarships for undergrads and
    fellowships for graduate students in the United States.
        And third, to fund research development programs that push
    the boundaries of science and engineering and facilitate the
    translation of new discoveries into applications.
        Action is indeed needed now. Passing the USICA (United
    States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021) and funding the
    CHIPS Act this month will be a crucial and timely win for the
    national security, economic security, and job security in our
    country. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Chiang follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. At this point we
    will begin our first round of questions. And the Chair
    recognizes herself for 5 minutes. I'd like each witness to
    comment. As you all have testified, the United States faces
    several challenges to maintaining U.S. leadership in
    microelectronics. They include a lack of domestic manufacturing
    and packaging capacity, a limited technical work force,
    technology transfer challenges, and multiple scientific
    challenges.
        Given that the availability of resources may never be
    enough to fully address all of the many challenges, how should
    the Federal Government set funding and policy priorities, in
    particular since this is the Science Committee, how should we
    prioritize policies and funding to maintain leadership in
    semiconductor innovation?
        Dr. Kelleher. I will start. So my recommendation is that
    this Committee needs to look at some of the key breakthroughs
    that are needed for the long haul to maintain the overall
    research and development and the future of the industry. The
    funding which comes with the CHIPS Act, once the funding is
    received and arrives, it doesn't have an immediate impact as
    far as the longer haul, so I believe that we as a semiconductor
    industry need to identify the top key areas in terms of that we
    need to continue to develop the--from materials science, from
    lithography, from all the aspects that continues to keep moving
    our research in the 5 to 10--in the 10 to 15 years out so that
    we can set ourselves up for technology leadership for the long
    haul.
        Mr. Bhatia. Chairwoman Johnson, I'll--I can go next. I
    believe that the prioritization should be toward leading-edge
    technologies, whether in research and development or in
    manufacturing. Chairwoman Johnson, as you noted in your
    introductory remarks and as Ranking Member Lucas noted in his,
    from the dawn of the semiconductor era with the mention of the
    integrated chip to--you know, to today, the thing that makes
    the semiconductor industry unique is the rate of change of
    technology and that cadence that continues to move every 18 to
    24 months. New technologies are introduced that are higher
    performance, higher density, and lower power.
        And so the biggest challenge that we face as an industry is
    continuing to maintain that--the leadership in advanced
    leading-edge capability for process technology, for device
    capability, and in manufacturing. So, you know, our
    recommendation is that the funding both for research and
    development, as well as for manufacturing, focus on leading-
    edge technologies because these are the areas that are going to
    ensure American leadership in microelectronics far into the
    future. And both the CHIPS Act and as well as the refundable
    tax incentives that are being proposed are both necessary
    measures to be able to ensure that this can happen.
        Dr. Witherell. So I can go next. And I would say for the
    Federal investment in R&D, I think keeping that focused on the
    laboratories that are best connected with the industry, this
    has to be laser focused on working through the problems that
    industry is facing on developing the new technologies. And so
    there are longstanding partnerships, public-private
    partnerships on working through this, as we have at several of
    the laboratories and at some academic laboratories as well to
    make sure that we're solving the problems that industry needs
    to work our way through this.
        The other thing I would say is that we need a bigger work
    force, a more capable work force working in these hardware
    technologies than we have today. You heard about it from our
    Dean. Supporting the academic environment so we can grow this
    work force is essential, too.
        Dr. Chiang. Of course a mic check to see if you can hear
    me. Great, thank you. I was worried that, you know, I've lost
    my engineer's ability to adjust the volume on my computer, so
    great to know that you can hear me now.
        Well, I want to just echo what my fellow panelists have
    already mentioned. There is the need to fund and prioritize
    ideas for the future, and then there is the need to fund the
    people that are needed today. The ideas for the future, as we
    mentioned, activities in R&D in areas such as advanced
    packaging, heterogenous integration, new material and going
    from two dimensions to three dimensions, are all essential to
    the continued R&D vibrancy of semiconductors industry in the
    United States.
        As to the people that we need today, it will take a grand
    strategy across government, industry, educational institutions,
    K-12, and government national labs to work together, in
    particular, to deploy more online learning for upscaling and
    retraining of existing work force, to substantially increase
    the number of K-12 student pipeline into engineering programs
    in the country, and to increase the use of hands-on learning,
    industry internship opportunities to make sure that they are
    ready for the market. And all of these can be further
    supplemented by increasing the number of scholarships for
    undergraduates and fellowships for Ph.D. students in the
    country.
        And finally, we do need indeed a diversity in the range of
    talents, including those who are in community colleges and also
    inclusivity in the geographic balance. There are many talents
    throughout the country, and they can all be part of the
    solution to the work force shortage problem.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And before I begin my
    questions, can I take a moment to introduce the newest Member
    of the Science Committee?
        Chairwoman Johnson. Yes, you may.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. And I'd like to
    welcome Mike Carey as the newest Member of our Committee. He
    joins us from Ohio's 15th District. He brings decades of
    experience in the energy industry. And I know he's eager to get
    to work helping us strengthen and modernize the American energy
    production with an all-above approach to new energy
    technologies. I know he'll be a valuable Member of the
    Committee. And he's learning the joys of our Wi-Fi and logging
    in on a web meeting right now, so it's a character-building
    experience. Thank you for joining us, Mike, and thank you,
    Madam Chair, for that.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you. Let me just welcome
    you say that you're joining the greatest Committee on the Hill.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Carey. That's what I've heard.
        Mr. Lucas. And the Chairwoman----
        Chairwoman Johnson. Mr.----
        Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Is absolutely correct.
        That said, in the remaining year of the Chair's time, we're
    going to work her really hard as we accomplish great things on
    this Committee.
        Now, that said, Dr. Kelleher and Mr. Bhatia, as I mentioned
    in my opening statement, I'm interested in hearing from both of
    you about the lessons learned, good and bad, from the Federal
    Government's previous efforts to bolster U.S. competitiveness
    in microelectronics and its support of SEMATECH. I would also
    be interested in your insights on how IMEC is successful and
    where it may fall short. In other words, what characteristics
    of these programs should we consider adopting for the NSTC and
    other chips programs? And what should we avoid? Let's talk
    about the lessons we've learned.
        Dr. Kelleher. And maybe I will start with--I'll start with
    IMEC because I myself worked at IMEC earlier in my career, so I
    have firsthand knowledge. I have a lot of respect for IMEC and
    the work that it has done and its ability to make itself self-
    sustaining over the years and the work that it has done
    enabling for the basically research not just for Europe for
    worldwide.
        I think one of the key learnings from IMEC is IMEC works in
    the research in its precompetitive space, and that
    precompetitive space enables it to do the early research that
    feeds into the overall industry as a whole. It feeds--it's in
    parallel to some of the universities, but it also feeds into
    the overall--basically the ecosystem as a whole. It--that
    precompetitive research goes to semiconductor fabs, and it goes
    to work with the equipment vendors and the material vendors, so
    basically it's quite strong.
        I think one of the key things is we have a lot of basically
    discussion on how does one get access to prototyping, et
    cetera. IMEC is not a model that's set up for prototyping. IMEC
    is very much on the precompetitive space. So I think as we go
    forward at least one of the lessons learned is how do we take
    the equivalent of working with the research institutes and
    working with--for precompetitive space and funding that, as
    well as taking it further down the supply chain in terms of how
    we set up so that we enable prototyping and eventually enable
    turning that product into basically leading-edge products here
    within the United States.
        I think I will let--given I'm consuming time, I will let
    Manish take SEMATECH.
        Mr. Lucas. Please.
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Thank you, Dr. Kelleher and Ranking
    Member Lucas.
        As you mentioned, when SEMATECH was founded almost 40 years
    ago, there were more than 20 American companies who were doing
    leading-edge process technology development, as well as
    manufacturing. And today, you know, really the two companies on
    the panel are the ones who are doing that left in the United
    States.
        So the SEMATECH model, while it's served its purpose for a
    prior era, you know, a replication of that would not
    necessarily provide the same benefit that it did now because
    really Intel and Micron are the two companies that are doing
    leading-edge process development research and leading-edge
    manufacturing among the U.S. companies.
        With regard to the--you know, what the focus for this
    Committee can be to help fill a gap that exists, we agree with
    Dr. Kelleher's comment that while focus on university research,
    as well as the national laboratory network has been--have been
    excellent programs and continue to be vital areas for long-term
    foundational research and those, you know, do need to have
    funding increased to be able to maintain our status as the
    leading--as leadership around the world, this transition from
    the labs of those national labs or of those universities to the
    fabs that we operate is the area that we can help to bridge
    with the National Semiconductor Technology Center's approach.
        And rapid prototyping of new technologies to accelerate the
    time from their demonstrated feasibility in laboratories, in
    university or national lab environments until they can be
    commercialized and ramped at scale in high-volume
    manufacturing, this is the area that we should--we see as a
    primary focus for the funding for the NSTC.
        Mr. Lucas. Dr. Chiang, I want to thank you for your
    comments on the need to build a work force to meet the demands
    that will come from a growing domestic semiconductor industry.
    And I'm--especially appreciated your comments on the need to
    train technicians and production workers. Like Indiana, which
    has Ivy Tech, Oklahoma has a remarkable program with
    CareerTech. Tech schools and training offer a tremendous
    opportunity to train, reskill, upskill America's work force.
    Can you please elaborate on how Purdue is working with Ivy Tech
    to develop work force programs focused on skills needed by the
    semiconductor industry and how that potentially could serve as
    a model?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. I would be--
    first of all, again, mic check if I'm still all right with the
    volume. All right, fantastic.
        Mr. Lucas. I can hear you.
        Dr. Chiang. All right. Thank you. Indeed, it takes a whole
    partnership. No university by itself can fulfill the whole
    spectrum of needs. It takes partnership. And I highlight three
    partnerships. One is, as you mentioned, Purdue University has
    been partnering with Ivy Tech, which is our statewide community
    college system with over 70,000 community college students. And
    we also have started deploying a new set of degrees and
    credentials, including a dedicated degree at the master level
    for semiconductor supply chain, from the material and the gases
    needed, to the hardware tools needed to the manufacturing and
    the design and eventually to test, assembly, packaging. And
    third is the use of online learning to share these new spectra
    of curricula with other learning institutions.
        And under President Mitch Daniels, Purdue University's
    leadership, Purdue Global, and Purdue Online for the West
    Lafayette main campus have rolled out a wide variety of online
    learning certificate opportunities so that even those who are
    in the work force today wanting to upskill or those who are
    remote learning and not able to attend the university within
    Indiana will be able to benefit from these results.
        Finally, I will just comment also how the industry and
    academia can work together even in the education space. It
    takes more than just recruiting but also actively participating
    in the design of these curricula and providing hands-on
    learning internship opportunities and providing work force
    training for their own employees through our online degrees.
    And these cut across the bachelor degree and associate degrees,
    as well as more advanced degrees, so that it's not just
    universities generating the supply of talent but truly industry
    and universities working together to design the curricula and
    to educate the work force together.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And thank you, Chair, for
    indulging me on the time. I yield back.
        Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, and thanks to the Chair
    and Ranking Member and our witnesses. And before I turn to my
    questions, I just want to acknowledge the Chairwoman and her
    recent announcement. Chairwoman Johnson, it has been and
    continues to be an honor serving with you and your leadership,
    and I'm looking forward to a very productive upcoming year
    before a more formal farewell.
        It's clear that we have a lot of work to do to expand and
    preserve the role of the United States as a global leader in
    semiconductors. It is also clear that we need to swiftly
    provide funding through the CHIPS Act, as both the Chair and
    the Ranking Member have mentioned, to help reinvigorate our
    Nation's semiconductor industry.
        And we've all heard about the semiconductor shortages,
    primarily pandemic-induced, disrupting countless sectors across
    the global economy. In the district I represent, which is often
    referred to as the Silicon Forest, is particularly vulnerable
    to these supply challenges. Thousands of my constituents, more
    than 40,000 Oregonians, currently work in the semiconductor
    industry, so there's tremendous potential for that number to
    grow.
        And I want to note that every witness here today raised
    work force issues. Workforce readiness is a major limitation to
    expanding U.S. semiconductor leadership. And as a Member of the
    Education and Labor Committee, this is something that I care
    about deeply.
        So, Dr. Kelleher, nice to see you again. Thank you for
    joining us. What on-the-job training program does Intel offer
    to prepare its own work force? And, as an industry leader in
    semiconductor employment, we're really interested in your
    opinion about what steps Congress could take to boost the
    industry's work force pipeline.
        Dr. Kelleher. Thank you very much for the question, and
    it's absolutely my honor to talk about work force development
    because it's very near and dear to my heart. When I was leading
    the manufacturing organization, it was also very important to
    me.
        I was--the span of work force development covers--it covers
    an entire span within our factories. It covers the span from
    skilled technicians to operators right up to the most advanced
    researchers we can hire. Equally well we're building factories,
    and the entire trade availability and the entire trade skill is
    basically--is a declining skill and there's a shortage within
    the trade community. So I would say this entire semiconductor
    industry, the skills that needs to be grown goes anywhere from
    in the construction industry to support the building of our
    factories right up to the most advanced researcher.
        Within Intel ourselves we have quite a lot of training
    programs. We have in-house training programs where we--as we
    hire our technicians, there are in-house training on the
    equipment and a whole--and associated training to get them up
    to a certified level. We hire quite a lot from the military,
    and employees we hire from the military come to us with a
    really good standard, and that makes that training basically
    easier.
        And we also work with the universities and the colleges,
    and over the years we have done many programs with the colleges
    that actually get the programs and the specifics that we need
    in--and is--some to train for folks we've already hired, to set
    up classes and to set up training programs so that we can hire
    from those.
        So across the board I believe there needs to be a generic,
    I would say, focus and look to go anywhere from our supply into
    construction to enable us as an overall industry to build our
    factories.
        And also with the universities and with the--I would say
    the less skilled aspect of it, but there is no low-paying job
    within the semiconductor industry. They're all skilled jobs.
    So----
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut
    you off. I just want to squeeze in a question real quickly for
    Dr. Witherell. Thank you for that comprehensive answer, which
    was really helpful.
        Dr. Witherell, according to your testimony, the
    microelectronics energy consumption is projected to increase
    from 5 percent of the world's energy used today to 25 percent
    by 2030, which, of course, is a significant increase. And you
    recognize that research addresses challenges falls squarely
    within the DOE's mission. So what efforts are underway to
    research how to reduce energy intensity across the
    semiconductor supply chain? And do you have any examples? Thank
    you.
        Dr. Witherell. Well, we are working on new materials and
    new devices to break through that energy barrier in
    semiconductors, and that's something that's actually squarely
    in the energy space of the DOE laboratories but also it's in
    the science and technology space, and so that's why we're
    putting that in the lead.
        And the important thing is actually having--for this
    proprietary research to be doing in the labs but closely tied
    to what the industry is ready to do. And that's why these
    continuing public-private partnerships are important.
        I also want to--as another example of that, Princeton
    Plasma Physics Lab is working on plasma processing with
    industry and academia for processing, which is another
    important thing I didn't have the time to mention in my
    testimony. So taking advantage of these existing partnerships
    is the way to get faster movement from the DOE laboratory into
    industry, which is what I think we're hearing about.
        Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, thank you so much. I'm out of time
    and yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Staff. Mr. Babin is recognized.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
    Member Lucas, and thank you to the witnesses as well for being
    here with us today.
        Demand for semiconductors is at an all-time high, which is
    a trend unlikely to ease off for the foreseeable future in our
    country's evolving reliance on digital infrastructure. From
    smartphones to our defense technologies, semiconductors
    continue to play a critical role in our country, and investing
    in this industry should be a high priority for us.
        Texas alone has seen several investments made in the
    semiconductor industry this year with Samsung announcing just
    last month a $17 billion investment for a new facility in
    Taylor, Texas, not in my district but I'm proud to have them in
    Texas, one of the biggest investments we've seen in many long
    years, maybe the largest.
        It's important that we pursue American competitiveness in
    this industry. We recognize the role of partnering with
    companies abroad which are important players in our supply
    chain. So, Dr. Chiang, in your written testimony, when
    evaluating the semiconductor supply chain, you mentioned the
    three P's: protect, promote, and partner. Recognizing the
    importance of focusing on these key aspects of the supply
    chain, would you please elaborate on how the United States can
    best leverage our valuable taxpayer dollars with our allies to
    ensure the United States remains a leader in the global market?
    And how do we continue to encourage investments in the future
    in domestic growth and in American jobs?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you very much----
        Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
        Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Congressman, for the three P's,
    usually people are referring to public-private partnership,
    which is certainly important. Now, I was referring to the three
    dimensions of protect, promote, and partnership. And on the
    partnership front, we have to recognize that it helps for the
    United States to onshore like-minded nations' private-sector
    success. For example, Congressman, you just highlighted Samsung
    for careers investment----
        Mr. Babin. Right.
        Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Into Austin in Texas.
    Congratulations. And of course we----
        Mr. Babin. Thank you.
        Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Saw in May 2020 TSMC, Taiwan
    Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, one of the largest, the
    leading-edge manufacturer of semiconductor chips coming to the
    United States to Arizona. And we have other like-minded nation
    partners in the design space such as MediaTek, also from
    Taiwan, and we just mentioned some of the partnership with
    European countries as well. I think it is of utmost importance
    to encourage these partners to come to the U.S. shore, to
    create jobs in America, to produce results and intellectual
    property in the United States, and also to work with American
    companies both to create jobs for our students and to help us
    to train such students. And here at Purdue we're proud to work
    both with companies such as Intel and SkyWater and other
    American-headquartered companies, but also with companies such
    as TSMC and MediaTek.
        Mr. Babin. Right, thank you so very much.
        Dr. Chiang, you also mentioned that the United States is
    the largest end-user of semiconductors in the global market but
    yet the U.S. share of semiconductor global fabrication is only
    12 percent, a very low number. And, Dr. Kelleher, you highlight
    the same shocking percentages in your written testimony and
    going on to highlight the danger of losing our ability to make
    advanced chips in the United States. So, both of you, if you
    please would elaborate on what you see as the biggest threat to
    our semiconductor supply chains.
        Dr. Kelleher. Our biggest threat in terms of our
    semiconductor supply chain is our ability to continue to, I
    would say, invest and grow and keep that advanced leading-edge
    R&D and IP growing within the United States. We are at a
    fundamental disadvantage compared to some of the Asian
    countries when it comes to basically developing and
    manufacturing our chips, so if we lose our ability to actually
    continue to maintain that leading-edge manufacturing, it means
    that, as a supply chain, we're completely reliant on the rest
    of the world. And I don't believe that's a good place for the
    United States to be.
        Mr. Babin. No, ma'am. And, Dr. Chiang?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with Dr.
    Kelleher's assessment that indeed we need to make sure that the
    entire supply chain is secure. That includes gas and materials
    needed, including rare-earth minerals. That includes the
    tooling companies. We have companies such as Applied Materials
    here in the United States, and Tokyo Electron, both work with
    Purdue and the State of Indiana. And that includes the
    manufacturing companies, as well as the chip design companies.
    And even more depressing numbers can be found when it comes to
    the final step, advanced packaging. We need to onshore or re-
    shore a lot more on the packaging front as well.
        Here in the State of Indiana, Governor Eric Holcomb, and
    the whole team here have been trying to increase the presence
    of packaging, as well as manufacturing facilities. Some of that
    is upgrading existing ones in universities such as Purdue's
    Birck Nanotechnology Center and the nanoHUB virtual learning
    platform, and new ones.
        And I would wrap up this brief comment and answer by
    highlighting the optimism that I have that, as somebody once
    said, never short on America and the Americans. The ingenuity
    and the creativity of our universities and companies and
    government labs is truly second to none. And as long as we
    continue to look forward to the most innovative R&D ideas and
    run faster than we have ever run before, then there is no limit
    as to what American ingenuity can do.
        Mr. Babin. Great. Thank you both so very much. And I yield
    back, Madam Chair.
        Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
        Ms. Stevens. Dr. Kelleher, what can you tell me about the
    origin of semiconductors, given the company you work for and
    who your founder was, Dr. Gordon Moore?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, let me start with just Gordon Moore,
    Robert Noyce, and Andy Grove are the three founders of Intel.
    Intel was basically incorporated in 1967, 1968, so we're well
    over 50 years old as a company.
        So semiconductors basically are the essence--and I speak
    very much for transistors right now and not memory--the essence
    of semiconductors is basically a switch. The essence of this
    switch is you can switch it on or off from a silicon
    perspective. And the combination of all of these transistors
    put together enable circuits to get designed, which ultimately
    are able to do computation analysis and very complex analysis.
    And as we progress over time, we're moving into the artificial
    intelligence space where there's overall trading in workload.
        So over the years with the industry when it started, it
    was--basically we were working with very large dimensions. And
    not today when we look back we're not complex transistors, nor
    were they really large or complex designs, probably were viewed
    like that at the time but today when we look back, as we
    progressed over time, the nature of the semiconductor to make
    as we continue to advance on the Moore's Law scaling so that
    approximately every 2 years we're doubling the amount of
    transistors so that you can fit in a chip.
        Ms. Stevens. Right. And Dr. Witherell would know that--just
    pardon me on this front--because he would know that--Dr.
    Moore--and I know he wasn't the exclusive founder of Intel--was
    at the university level and then broke off, wasn't--was working
    for a semiconductor company and then joined to--you know, with
    his colleagues to form Intel. And it's quite inspiring, Intel
    and Micron. Mr. Bhatia--you also represent a very large
    employer, and we're very inspired by your companies, and we're
    inspired by the employability, the R&D.
        The question is--and Mr. Bhatia touches on this in his
    testimony--is that at one point, right, we were innovating, we
    were inventing, we were creating these incredible enterprises
    of scale, producing in this country 40 percent of chips. And I
    come from Michigan and we've got an auto sector that relies on
    this, and we're at 12 percent today. And Mr. Bhatia talks about
    this, that, you know, it costs 35 to 45 percent more to have
    chip manufacturing in the United States. Why? Why? Why--can
    you--how do we make this more competitive for you? How do we
    compel you--because it's not just a feel good, right? It's not
    a cute thing to say, oh, we like manufacturing in this country.
    This is our bottom line. This is our economic competitiveness.
        We have an EXIM (Export-Import) Bank in this country that
    gives us a platform to trade globally, to export. Many years
    ago--some of my colleagues might remember this who were here.
    This is on the other side of the aisle. They were going to get
    rid of the EXIM Bank. They were going to get rid of the EXIM
    Bank. And industry said, well, gosh, we won't be able to
    compete. Now here we are, the tide has rolled out billions and
    billions of loss of profit, losses of jobs. How do we bring it
    back? What do we need to do to bring it back here, get people
    back to work, and increase our production capabilities in the
    United States for semiconductors?
        Mr. Bhatia. Well, Representative----
        Ms. Stevens. Go ahead.
        Mr. Bhatia. I'm sorry, was that for--was that question for
    me?
        Ms. Stevens. It can be for you.
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Sure.
        Ms. Stevens. I mean, everyone had a brilliant testimony.
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure.
        Ms. Stevens. I mean, really, these testimonies were
    incredible.
        Mr. Bhatia. So, Representative Stevens, thank you for that.
    I'll touch on that, and then I'll let--you know, let other
    panelists.
        You know, to answer your question, the 35 to 45 percent
    cost gap to build and operate large-scale semiconductor
    manufacturing facilities between lower-cost regions in Asia and
    the United States is really comprised of three elements. The
    first is labor costs both for operating the fabs but also for
    construction of these fabs. These fabrication facilities, each
    one will cost multiple billions of dollars just build the clean
    room facilities before we even start to equip it. And then with
    equipment they become above--more than $15 billion for each
    individual site. So the labor costs for both the construction
    and the operation is the first element.
        The second element is really the scale of the facilities.
    Over the last 20 years, Asian countries have had focused
    policies to be able to grow the ecosystem, to grow
    semiconductor manufacturing, particularly from memory into
    larger and larger scale. So when we're starting from small-
    scale or in some cases no scale, the economies of scale that
    are enjoyed in Asian countries because of the investment over
    the last 20 years drive a substantial cost gap as well.
        And then the third piece is the government incentives that
    are there. And we believe that the CHIPS Act and a refundable
    investment tax credit that has been introduced and proposed,
    these are the right first steps to be able to try to reverse
    this trend and make it more cost-competitive for U.S.
    integrated device manufacturers to build large-scale
    semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
        And the other point that you mentioned about jobs is very
    important. Each of these facilities require--create thousands
    of high-paying, high-value jobs whether you're talking about
    scientists in the labs or engineers operating the fabs or
    skilled trades operating this high-precision equipment and
    these very, very exacting and demanding clean room environments
    at facilities, these are high-paying jobs that are--that create
    long careers and improve the quality of lives for every one of
    the communities where we operate. So investing in the future in
    semiconducting manufacturing has benefits both economically, as
    well as in the local communities and their quality of life.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, I'm egregiously over time, but, Dr.
    Witherell, we're going to do--and, Dr. Chiang, we'll do QFR
    (questions for the record), you know, we'll do a question for
    the record because the public-private partnership component
    here is also incredibly imperative.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
    Lucas, for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for
    joining us this morning.
        I want to take a brief moment to thank Chairwoman Johnson
    for her leadership and commitment to our Committee over these
    many years. I've been a Member for 3 years now. I've announced
    my retirement for a lot of reasons, one of which is this place
    just operates like a--I don't know, junior high is probably
    generous in many respects--with the exception of this
    Committee. And this Committee operates, and this place operates
    in large measure on the cadence of the leadership. As
    leadership goes, so does Congress.
        And my belief is that this Committee is so effective
    because we have such effective leadership. And that starts with
    Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas. And so I am
    enormously grateful for her service. And I'm sad to see her go,
    but it's much earned, and she has certainly served our country
    and her district incredibly well. We will miss her.
        But I'm cautiously optimistic--I'm very optimistic that
    whoever takes over in the coming years will carry on the
    tradition because we've been effective and we need to be
    effective as nothing more important from an economic
    development standpoint in my opinion than reshoring our
    semiconducting manufacturing.
        I'll start with Mr. Manish Bhatia. You were just talking
    about these facilities, and I want you to kind of go a little
    bit deeper and give us a sense of the scale. When a new fab is
    produced, when we come and say, OK, we're going to make major
    investments in a community and increase our manufacturing, what
    does that look like from an economic development standpoint?
    Think of a--and I'm from Ohio. Think of a town in Ohio and what
    that--those sorts of things can mean, what those sorts of
    investments can mean for individual communities.
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Thank you, Representative Gonzalez, and
    thank you also for your service.
        The--you know, as I was starting to stay before, you know,
    to operate a large-scale semiconductor manufacturing facility
    requires thousands of employees of the manufacturer, whether
    they're engineers who are developing process or maintaining the
    process, managing the yields and the quality levels and the
    productivity through the fab who will also have almost an equal
    number if thousands of jobs of indirect employees who are on
    the site every day, whether it's to continue with construction
    or installation of this high-precision equipment, maintenance
    of this high-precision equipment, installation and maintenance
    of the specialized chemicals and gases that we need to operate
    the clean room or to manage the processes on the floor or to
    just operate the overall facility. So we're really talking
    about thousands of direct jobs that are employees of the
    manufacturer and then thousands of employees who are onsite
    that are from the contractors or the equipment companies or the
    chemical and materials companies.
        And then you have the support in the community for those
    large-scale manufacturing operations. We believe that this--
    that, you know, that those thousands of jobs have a 3X
    multiplier in the community to be able to support these large-
    scale investments. As I mentioned, a single fab will cost more
    than--a modern fab today will cost more than $15 billion in
    capital investment. And when we talk about memory fabs and
    minimum-efficient scale, single-site facilities are not
    minimum-efficient scale today. We need multiple fab clusters
    similar to those that have grown up in Asia to be able to be
    cost-competitive. And so you're really talking about massive,
    long-term, decades-long investments that can prop up entire
    communities and can improve the quality of life whether we're
    talking about high-paying jobs but you're also talking about
    the infrastructure in the community, healthcare----
        Mr. Gonzalez. Reclaiming my time just for a second because
    I only have a minute, but I appreciate the enthusiasm. And I
    would commit to everyone on--all of our panelists, Ohio is
    ready. Ohio is ready, willing, and able to support
    semiconductor manufacturing right now. So we are open for
    business. Please come. We will provide the incentives. We will
    do all that we can, I can assure you.
        With my final point, you mentioned government incentives
    and refundable investment. We have to make it more cost-
    competitive. At the end of the day, the companies answer to
    shareholders and have to be more cost-competitive.
        I'm just going to make a brief comment and then yield back.
    My Democratic colleagues are considering massive spending in
    various forms of tax increase through Build Back Better.
    Whatever you do, please, please, please be very cognizant of
    the fact that if you raise corporate taxes or if you do
    something to make us less competitive economically, that's
    going to reverse many of the benefits from the CHIPS Act. So
    buyer beware on that stuff.
        With that, I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Bowman is recognized.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. And, Madam Chairwoman, I
    want to echo the sentiments. Congratulations on your
    retirement. Thank you so much for showing us the way--or
    showing me the way as a freshman in terms of how Congress is
    supposed to work. Thank you for your leadership on this
    Committee.
        My question is for Dr. Kelleher. Thank you for your
    testimony. Intel is a large, very successful company that made
    $21 billion in profits last year and spent over $14 billion on
    stock buybacks. Intel's CEO (Chief Executive Officer) recently
    acknowledged that stock buybacks have undermined the firm's
    competitiveness. I believe Intel has been talking about
    expanding domestic manufacturing capacity for some time now,
    and it strikes me that you already have the ability to do so.
    What material impact would Intel's portion of CHIPS Act
    incentives really have? You touched on this earlier, but I
    wanted to come back to it. Why is a subsidy like this going to
    make the difference in terms of delivering new, leading-edge
    capacity in the United States?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, first of all, I obviously very clearly
    said we have a lot of commitment to the United States and in
    terms of our investment in R&D and manufacturing over our 50-
    year history. This fundamentally, in terms of the CHIPS Act, is
    about enabling us to maintain competitiveness here within the
    United States.
        We are continuing to invest in leading-edge technology
    development and manufacturing for us to continue to compete
    effectively and with competition worldwide. The CHIPS Act is
    absolutely essential for us to be able to do that. So I think
    that is my simple answer to you, Representative Bowman.
        Mr. Bowman. OK, thank you. I may come back to you if time
    allows.
        I had a question about creating pipelines for young people
    who want to go into careers in this sector. It was mentioned by
    a few of the witnesses. I want to focus on--someone mentioned
    K-12. I want to focus on the high school setting. What should
    high school science and technology curriculum look like in
    order to prepare our students for postsecondary opportunities
    in these spaces? And I'll start with Mr. Bhatia if that's OK.
        Mr. Bhatia. Thank you, Representative Bowman. And it's a
    personal passion of mine as well. You know, K through 12 is an
    area that Micron has focused considerably on in the communities
    where we operate, including Boise, Idaho, where we have our
    Research and Development Center of Excellence, and in Manassas,
    Virginia, where we also have tremendous manufacturing
    capability.
        And in terms of K through 12 specifically, we have been
    working to develop STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics) curriculum starting at a very early age and
    including being very inclusive to underrepresented groups who
    normally wouldn't have the opportunity or in the past haven't
    been able to have the opportunity to pursue a path in
    engineering or into semiconductor.
        So the types of curricula that we encourage are of course
    around science and math but specifically around data science
    because the world of semiconductor manufacturing is getting
    more and more complex, really unlike any other manufacturing
    process on the planet. And so you really have to have both
    strong technical knowledge in science and technology but also
    understanding and appreciation of data and data science so that
    we can operate these highly complex manufacturing facilities
    very productively and with high quality and very, very low
    defectivity.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that concise answer.
        Dr. Chiang, can you also jump in and just comment on that,
    please?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman Bowman. And I would just
    supplement Mr. Bhatia's answer with two more points. One is
    that universities also have a responsibility to work with K-12.
    For example, Purdue President Mitch Daniels started three
    Purdue polytechnic high schools throughout the State of
    Indiana, and we just graduated the first class of senior
    students. These are minority-serving high schools focusing a
    lot on STEM capabilities.
        And second is that there is a mindset of problem-solving at
    this early age of education. It's not just about how much we
    cover in the material for high school students, but how much we
    allow them to uncover for themselves, more about their
    curiosity and their ability to learn. And that is fundamentally
    the point of education, especially for engineers. It's
    ultimately a problem-solving mindset that we can start
    instilling in their minds at high school age.
        Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. Dr. Chiang and Mr. Bhatia, I
    would like to followup with my office to continue this
    conversation. This is an issue that's near and dear to my
    heart. And for me it's a priority for us to create pipelines, K
    to 12 pipelines in historically underserved spaces. I believe
    it will take our economy to the next level and ensure that no
    other country can compete with us because we will finally
    invest in equitable ways across our country.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Baird is recognized.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, and thank Chairwoman Johnson. I want
    also express my appreciation for your leadership on this
    Committee. And, you know, I really appreciate you working with
    Ranking Member Lucas and you stayed focused on the issues that
    I think are relevant to our Science Committee.
        And then I always appreciate the witnesses being here. I am
    always intrigued by what I learn, and so I am sure that other
    people feel the same way.
        But, you know, earlier this year I offered an amendment
    that would've allocated about $600 million to the National
    Science Foundation to support the R&D funding for basic
    research. Unfortunately, that didn't pass. But I really have a
    strong affinity for basic research, and I recognize how
    difficult it is to determine what basic research is important
    today that down the road becomes increasingly important or
    provides information essential to our society.
        So, Dr. Chiang, I'm going to start with you. And would you
    mind speaking to the role that basic research and funding for
    the NSF plays in supporting the development of semiconductors
    that will be needed for cutting-edge technologies like
    artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and 5G? So if you
    would care to address that, I would appreciate it.
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you very much
    for your service and leadership in representing our district in
    Indiana.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you.
        Dr. Chiang. I would like to echo what you just said, that
    the National Science Foundation, just like the Department of
    Defense, Department of Energy, and many other agencies of the
    U.S. Government, plays a unique and important role in
    continuing the long tradition of American creativity.
        Now, in particular we need a collection of fundamental
    research often funded through the National Science Foundation,
    along with translational research sometimes funded through
    other agencies who work hand-in-hand together. NSF also funds
    quite a number of scholarships and fellowships, and we need
    more American students to be interested in pursuing STEM
    degrees at undergrad levels. And those with undergrad degrees,
    say, in engineering, would choose to continue to study for a
    master or Ph.D. degree. I know that they often are tempted by
    outstanding offers from the industry, such as leaders like
    Intel and Micron, but also we do want to incentivize and
    encourage a much larger number of them to stay on and pursue a
    graduate degree. And the National Science Foundation plays a
    critical role. And I hope that there will be many more graduate
    fellowships to a diverse population in this country in areas
    related to semiconductors.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you. So, would it be fair to say that one
    of the things I see from this Committee standpoint and from the
    Federal investment or taxpayer dollars invested that some of
    the basic research that's conducting private industry cannot
    really justify so we could start the needle moving early on and
    then industry picks that up? We talk about the public-private
    partnership. Is that--would you say that's a correct analysis
    of this situation or----
        Dr. Chiang. Yes, sir. And I'll give one concrete example.
    There is this so-called valley of death coming from fundamental
    advances into commercially impactful deployable solutions. And
    one way to bridge this so-called valley of death is to create
    and upgrade existing facilities, for example, in
    semiconductors. We talked about two dimensions. One is the
    dimension of the feature size, and it's getting smaller and
    smaller down to 3 nanometers these days. And the other is the
    size of the wafer. And we are looking at 8 inch or 12 inch. And
    we have a substantial lack of 200 millimeter or 8 inch wafer
    production facilities in American universities. By upgrading
    some of those, including possibly here in the Midwest but in
    several regional nodes, that will open up a pathway of
    translation from fundamental research to industry-relevant
    solutions.
        Dr. Witherell. And I'd like to add one thing if I could.
    That's one of the things that the national laboratory centers
    do is work on these concepts that are still not ready for
    commercial production because they're too risky. And by--as
    long as we're working closely with industry and what they want
    to do, we can develop in these centers things to take the risk
    out, and then it's ready to actually move to a profit-making
    organization.
        Dr. Kelleher. I would like to echo support in that, that
    the role in precompetitive research is absolutely critical and
    can feed into industry.
        Mr. Baird. So, Madam Chair, I see that I'm out of time, but
    I could go on for another hour here. And I'm sure you don't
    want that, so thank you. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair. Really, Ms. Johnson,
    Eddie Bernice Johnson, you've shown tremendous leadership over
    the years since I've been here. We're going to have a hard time
    finding a successor to fill your shoes.
        But I also thank the witnesses. This is an important issue
    for the future of our country. And I'm going to take this in a
    slightly different direction. Semiconductor manufacturing does
    use massive amounts of both energy and fresh water. We need to
    increase domestic manufacturing without being susceptible to
    supply chain disruptions, but at the same time, we have to
    balance the resources needed by local communities. And this has
    a bearing on the reliability of the supply chain.
        Dr. Kelleher, Intel has a presence in semiarid Western
    States and broke ground on two new semiconductor fabrication
    facilities in Chandler, Arizona, this year. Meanwhile, a
    multiyear megadrought has caused water shortages across the
    West, a trend that is expected to worsen in the coming decades.
    What steps has Intel taken to improve water efficiency of the
    semiconductor manufacturing process and to reduce the impact of
    the facility on local water systems?
        Dr. Kelleher. So the overall water conservation and reuse
    of water is a key aspect of all our technology development and
    within our manufacturing, our overall manufacturing sites. To
    date we have 90 percent of the water use restored to the
    environment, and we are heading for a path and we've given
    ourselves a very clear goal, which we're working toward to be--
    by 2025 100 percent restoration to the environment. By 2030
    we're aiming to be a net positive. We do--not only do we do a
    significant amount of work in our facilities in terms of water
    reuse, we also work with the communities in terms of water
    restoration. And we've had--we have several projects in the
    Arizona region where we've been working with--overall with the
    communities in terms of water restoration.
        We spend a significant amount of money in our facilities to
    actually help and drive and enable this, so it's a key aspect
    of our overall development and manufacturing, our footprint--
    our water footprint, our climate footprint, our use of
    electricity, and our use of green power. So this is a very
    important aspect to us.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. And I'd like to see the
    information that supports that.
        Dr. Kelleher. Absolutely. I will provide it.
        Mr. McNerney. Very good. Mr. Bhatia, Micron has the same
    issues. Would you respond to the same question?
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. So thank you, Congressman McNerney, and
    agree this is an incredibly important issue for all of us
    everywhere around the world. And Micron has made a strong
    commitment, including a commitment to spend $1 billion over the
    next several years in capital investments to be able to reduce
    our carbon footprint through emissions program reductions to be
    able to increase the utilization of renewable energy. In fact,
    we set a goal to be 100 percent utilization of renewable energy
    in the United States by 2025. We are working to be able to
    reach 100 percent water reuse by 2030 on a global basis, and
    we're also working to reduce waste to landfill in all of our
    locations around the world as well. So we have a--are very
    focused in all of these areas.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, we need to get to sustainability.
        Dr. Witherell, you know, I certainly appreciate the
    national laboratories. I've been to LBNL and Lawrence Livermore
    and Lawrence Berkeley labs several times. But I know you are
    conducting crosscutting research on the causes and impacts of
    the drought. Have the labs devoted any resources to improving
    the water efficiency of semiconductor manufacturing?
        Dr. Witherell. Well, we--first of all, we have the National
    Alliance for Water Innovation here I should say that's actually
    working on the reuse of water and how to reuse it for purposes.
    But in general where we actually are putting most of our
    priorities is how to develop semiconductors that are more
    energy-efficient, which is actually the--as the biggest
    leverage on the environment. And that's something that much of
    our research is doing at the moment.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. I'm concerned about what
    happened in Taiwan this last summer when a manufacturing was
    forced to shut down and tank in water, and that put the whole
    system at risk. Is Intel taking steps in the U.S. plants to
    increase resilience against water shortages?
        Dr. Kelleher. Absolutely. We are constantly looking at our
    water use and working to reduce our water use and overall reuse
    of the water that we use. So yes.
        Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. And I'll yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Webster is next. You're muted, Mr. Webster.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for
    putting together this forum. This is really an excellent dialog
    and also just in the review we're doing some of the things that
    have already passed. I know the--understand to build a foundry
    is about $10 billion. Then I heard later here on this panel
    that it's maybe $15 billion more, and that's getting into real
    money. And so I would ask you, Dr. Kelleher, if you could kind
    of elaborate on what you think is the maximum amount we could
    do with the money we've given to this program that we could do
    as far as foundries? And are you also in agreement with what
    was said before, that the sub foundries are scattered around
    would be an even better way to do it? Is that true?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, first of all, I agree with the numbers,
    and I know my--speaking about the numbers was building the
    facilities, it's anywhere $15-$20 billion, and the amount
    that's spent on a given facility obviously is very much
    dependent on the size of the facility.
        Overall, Intel is--we've been very clear we're opening our
    fabs up for foundry here within the United States, and we're
    opening up for overall from our foundry so that we can open up
    the use of our fabs to basically the fabless designer--the
    fabless companies so that we can make foundry available here
    within the United States.
        I think overall I would go--take us back into the two
    pieces of where we spend our money within--from the CHIPS Act.
    I think we have to focus on R&D in terms of enabling our future
    because that is the long haul, and that's the long building of
    our future. And then there is the building of our overall U.S.
    manufacturing capability. And that I believe we need to
    continue to do. If you diverse--if you spread the money too
    much, then you actually won't end up getting, I would say, an
    overall effective bang for the dollar. But it becomes the
    appropriate and spreading of that money so that we can overall
    grow our foundry industry here within the United States and
    keep moving our leading-edge R&D.
        Mr. Webster. Yes, well, would that--would these foundries
    be focused on advanced semiconductors?
        Dr. Kelleher. Intel is focused on advanced semiconductors.
    Back in July I released our overall roadmap for the--for our--
    the next 4 to 5 years, and these technologies within Intel are
    available for--as foundry technologies. And yes is the answer.
        Mr. Webster. Yes. I've always been an admirer of Intel, and
    I thought it was interesting--how do you know which direction
    to head? I mean, there's a lot of directions that can happen.
    How do you focus in on just the amount you would play in or the
    amount--the few amount that you--the ones you would have?
        Dr. Kelleher. May I clarify the question? When you say how
    do we focus in, how do we focus in from a technology
    development or is it a broader question?
        Mr. Webster. No, it would just be the technology component.
        Dr. Kelleher. So there is--well, there are many aspects in
    terms of feeding the overall pipeline from the technology.
    There is the long-term 5 to 10 years out. There's a lot of
    items which are in the pipeline. We do research internally with
    Intel, but there's also research done in the universities.
    Slowly, as you progress over time, there's a filtering out in
    terms of which are the more likely candidates that would be
    successful for the future. And out of that filtering then there
    is--it's proven at the first level of concepts. Then we take it
    into development. And in that development we actually prove out
    that we can take it from the lab to fab concept, and that would
    be enabled for high-volume manufacturing. So it's a 5- to 6-
    year process in terms of going from the concept of an idea to
    actually showing up in terms of a volume manufacturing. And
    sometimes it can be much longer than that depending on the
    aspect of the technology that is being developed.
        Mr. Webster. OK. So the--so you would be developing a
    component of a machine of some sort, i.e., a minicomputer or
    something like that. You would not be developing something for
    someone else who's building it. You would be developing
    something and someone else would use it. Is that----
        Dr. Kelleher. Correct. Correct. We develop chips, and we
    sell packaged chips, packaged designed to other customers, who
    then use those packaged chips, basically microprocessors, to
    build other products. Similarly, memory goes into those
    packages as well and goes into those products. So we're
    providing either wafers to our customers to the foundry or
    packaged products--packaged microprocessors to our other
    customers.
        Mr. Webster. OK. It just sounds like it's billions of
    dollars to build, so there's this cost for building these
    foundries, but also I assume it takes time to do that, and we
    may not have that time. Is there ways to take existing
    infrastructure and sort of meld them into this process so that
    we use the facilities we have but also are building new
    foundries at the same time?
        Dr. Kelleher. I think time is of the essence, but one of
    the key things that I said in my testimony is that I believe we
    should use existing infrastructure within Intel, Micron, within
    the other U.S. semiconductor companies so that we can shorten
    the time to get--and basically reduce the cost. And thereby,
    then, if we do big challenges across, as a number--as--across
    the industry here in the United States, using as much as
    possible of our existing infrastructure, that will allow us to
    get to results faster.
        Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Chairwoman Eddie Bernice
    Johnson, thank you for the strength that you've brought this
    Committee. I for one appreciate your leadership style and your
    accessibility to myself and our colleagues. It's just a good
    strength and a very important Committee, and you've led it
    masterfully, so thank you. And I look forward to the next year
    where we can continue to get good things done.
        So I thank you and Ranking Member Lucas and our witnesses
    for joining us today for this very important hearing. The
    United States has long been a global leader in the research and
    development of semiconductor technology. In fact, New York's
    capital region that I represent has been home to trailblazers
    in this industry for now over 2 decades. So partnerships
    amongst our academic institutions, our regional industry, and
    government have enabled major breakthroughs in innovation in
    microchip technology. As our reliance on microelectronics in
    everyday life grows, it is critical for us to leverage
    strategic investments across government and industry to sustain
    our Nation's long-term economic and manufacturing
    competitiveness.
        You may be aware that this Committee is currently examining
    ways to elevate DOE's role in the national microelectronics R&D
    effort. I'm working on legislation that would leverage DOE's
    capabilities, including the national labs and their partners in
    industry and academia, to tackle foundational challenges in the
    scientific areas relevant to microelectronics. Such an effort
    would be separate from but complementary to National
    Semiconductor Technology Centers and would involve a broad-
    based research program, as well as a more focused center-based
    effort akin to the National Quantum Centers.
        With that being said, Dr. Witherell, would you support such
    an approach?
        Dr. Witherell. Yes, Congressman, thank you very much for
    your question. And say that if you look in my testimony, it
    makes many of the points that you bring up in the MICRO Act and
    so--which has--so I very strongly support that, especially the
    foundational role that DOE and the laboratories have in
    developing these underlying sciences and engineering that
    underpin our development.
        And Dr. Kelleher said the right thing before. The advantage
    to the United States is to move faster than the other
    countries. That's the only way we're going to win this. We're
    not going to win it by beating them at bulk manufacturing. It's
    to be faster. And part of that faster is getting back to where
    the investment on the Federal side was more in keeping with the
    large investment on the private side so that we could engage
    this in the right way and do the precompetitive things that are
    best done in national laboratories and for the industry.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. And the expertise that's housed
    at the national labs, if we could focus on that, what can that
    expertise contribute to our national effort to leading in
    microelectronics development and production?
        Dr. Witherell. Well, let me take a--one example. We've been
    bringing artificial intelligence to use for advancing science
    faster, how you accelerate the cycle of trying new materials,
    see what works, and do it. You can do that faster in artificial
    intelligence than you can do it in the laboratory at times. So
    we have a materials project, which is designed around actually
    sorting through materials and seeing which are the ones that
    have the right properties faster than we've been able to do it
    in the laboratory. We have many examples like that.
        Mr. Tonko. And how would you see this feeding into an
    effort like the NSTC, which would presumably be more focused on
    later-stage technology development?
        Dr. Witherell. And I think the role, for example, DOE
    centers in this is getting through concepts faster to take the
    risk out and see which are the ones more promising for
    developing to the scale that you would have at an NSTC
    facility. You have more ideas feeding into that central
    facility.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And can the Department of Energy play
    a complementary role to advancing microelectronics R&D?
        Dr. Witherell. Well----
        Mr. Tonko. And----
        Dr. Witherell. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. Tonko. I was going to encourage anyone else to offer
    comments, too, but let's hear from you.
        Dr. Witherell. Well, I do say we have this longstanding
    connection with the industry and how does--how to best serve
    their purposes, and I think it's just finding out how to
    continue that into the new technologies they're developing for
    the future.
        Mr. Tonko. Any other comments from our other panelists?
        Mr. Bhatia. I think I'll just echo the comments that Dr.
    Witherell made that, you know, continuing to have, you know,
    funding into advanced foundational research through the
    existing programs with the universities and the national labs,
    you know, is--you know, is paramount and that we do believe
    this network of decentralized technology centers can help with
    bridging the gap from those university and national laboratory
    environments to mass production by allowing industry consortia
    to leverage existing resources in the ecosystem to accelerate
    that time to market.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. Well, I see my time has
    been used. I don't know if anyone else had a comment. Perhaps
    you can send it in written format to the Committee.
        But with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Garcia is recognized.
        Mr. Garcia. Yes, thank you very much. And to our witnesses,
    thanks for taking the time, very educational and enlightening.
    Obviously, we have a challenge on our hands.
        My first question is geared toward Dr. Kelleher and Mr.
    Bhatia. For your respective companies' chip sector or chip
    divisions, what percentage of the bill of material for your
    products is coming from China? Dr. Kelleher, you can go ahead
    and----
        Dr. Kelleher. I will start with the majority of our
    manufacturing is in the United States.
        Mr. Garcia. Yes, the manufacturing I understand. What about
    the bill of materials? Where are we sourcing products whether
    it's rare-earth material or any sort of elements that buildup
    to your larger assemblies?
        Dr. Kelleher. We source our rare-earth materials and our
    resources worldwide. The precise percentage I would need to
    followup with you on.
        Mr. Garcia. I would appreciate that. I think that's
    important for us as a nation to understand what level of
    dependency we have in this very critical--what's effectively an
    Achilles tendon right now in terms of technology and
    capability. We have to characterize what percentage of the bill
    of materials is actually also coming from China.
        Mr. Bhatia, do you have any idea from a Micron perspective?
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Sure, so I'll echo that, you know, rare-
    earth materials, as you point out, are an area of weakness in
    the global semiconductor supply chain. We do also, as Intel
    does, source those globally. However, there is, as an industry,
    a strong reliance on China for those rare earths. So it's not
    so much the percentage of the bill of materials, but they are
    essential elements for many of the semiconductor processes. And
    so we have been actually working with members of the U.S.
    Government to encourage programs that would allow for
    exploration and mining and economic incentives to encourage
    production of rare-earth materials to be done in other areas
    around the world to increase the supply chain resiliency of
    those.
        With regard to your other question in terms of the total
    bill of materials in China, I will have to get back to you. I
    would just say that the semiconductor manufacturing bill of
    materials is largely driven by the equipment and the precision
    and the specialty chemicals and gases, so that's not so reliant
    on China other than these rare-earth materials. However,
    assembly and packaging, those other lower-value-added portions
    of the manufacturing process, those are areas where China has a
    large role. But there are multiple other areas where we source
    those packaging materials from across Asia.
        Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. And let me just clear, I'm not
    asking this, you know, to point fingers or to attribute fault,
    but I do think that with--just like any other major problem we
    have, the first critical step is self-awareness and
    characterizing where our weaknesses are. So I would appreciate
    if you guys could followup with a sort of bill-of-material
    breakout by whatever metric, whether it's cost, just part,
    assembly, percentage or, you know, weighted dependencies by
    country, though, if we can, just to get a sense of where we are
    dependent, especially with regards to China.
        My other question for the two companies as well is what
    percentage of your revenue in this sector is coming from
    military applications versus just commercial applications?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, I will need to followup with a precise
    number in that. We do support the U.S. Government in certain
    projects, and I will need to followup on that but over----
        Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you, Doctor.
        And, Mr. Bhatia, any idea on yours?
        Mr. Bhatia. I'll have to followup as well. We certainly----
        Mr. Garcia. OK.
        Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Do support the U.S. Government.
    And we do see that memory, both the DRAM and NAND, are
    increasing portions of military applications, as they are with
    multiple other industrial and automotive applications. As well
    the bill of materials portion of those systems, advanced
    systems or advanced products continues to grow with regard to
    DRAM and NAND flash technology.
        Mr. Garcia. OK. Yes, because I think it's very--it's
    critically important that while the big companies and the big
    folks in the room are going down range with this overarching
    chip challenge, we can't forget that there is also a military
    application to a lot of these things that have different
    requirements. And while you're receiving government funding for
    things like the foundries and the R&D that goes into it, you
    need to have still connective tissue to other government
    agencies like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency), IARPA (Intelligence Advanced Research Projects
    Activity), you know, ARL (Army Research Laboratory), NRL (Naval
    Research Laboratory), to make sure you're baking in those
    requirements into your early design and then also partnering
    with small companies that are specializing in these
    applications. And there are several out there, happy to get you
    a list of those if you don't already have them. But we can't do
    these massive investments only to solve the commercial problems
    and then realize that we are still extremely vulnerable on the
    chip applications on the military side. And I think you guys
    will all agree with that. I think we've just got to synergize
    across multiple agencies and the small companies as well.
        With that, I'm out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
        Staff. Ms. Wild is recognized.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. I appreciate this hearing and
    the opportunity to elevate an issue that affects workers and
    businesses in my district, which is Pennsylvania 7th, the
    Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. My community is home to many,
    many manufacturers, and I hear regularly from companies in a
    range of sectors about how the shortage of chips such as has
    been discussed today is affecting their production and their
    ability to regularly schedule workers.
        One auto manufacturer, Mack Trucks, has faced production
    interruptions this year and unneeded complication. And, by the
    way, they have plenty of demand. It's not for lack of demand.
    But it's been a threat to some of their innovative work in
    spaces like zero-emission heavy-duty trucks, exactly the type
    of advances we want America to lead in.
        We know the drivers behind this supply chain crunch are
    varied and largely connected to the pandemic, and I was proud
    to support the CHIPS Act last December. But a year later here
    we are. We need again to take bipartisan action on this urgent
    need and provide the appropriations for this law that the
    Senate has moved, as well as address some specific needs like
    automotive-grade chips. It's about the American economy, it's
    about good-paying jobs across industries, and is about our
    national competitiveness and security.
        So with that said, my first question is for Dr. Chiang. In
    your testimony you discuss some specific partnerships on
    microelectronics in Indiana. We have spent some time in this
    Committee discussing geographic diversity of innovation. In
    July the Committee reported out my bipartisan Regional
    Innovation Act, and we are working to get that enacted as part
    of a larger competitiveness package. But that bill was
    technology-neutral. What do you see as the role of the
    microelectronics in the geographic diversity of innovation?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed, the time to
    act is now. There is a sense of urgency, and this is key to our
    national security, economic security, and job security because
    many other industries in the digital economy depends on the
    access to chips. Otherwise, they will be furloughing employees
    whom they would happily be otherwise paying overtime.
        And I also highly appreciate, Congresswoman, your
    highlighting the importance of being inclusive across different
    communities and diverse in the geographic locations. What we
    need in education and in R&D is a distributed network of many
    different parties. Here in the Midwest, for example, in my home
    State of Indiana, we have an abundance of customers, including
    automotive and medical, electronics industry.
        We also have an abundance of a work force that still
    retains the manufacturing DNA. These semiconductor fabs, they
    are fancy, expensive, important factories. They are the
    factories of the future, and we have the manufacturing DNA in
    spades in Indiana.
        And thirdly, if you look around, the drivable 5-hour
    distance from where I am right now in West Lafayette, Indiana,
    you will see an extremely high concentration of high-caliber
    universities, as well as community colleges, serving an
    incredible number of American students. So, I believe that,
    yes, we should emphasize on the inclusivity and the diversity
    of geographic locations to make sure that all parts of America
    get to benefit from and contribute to the resurgence of
    semiconductors.
        Ms. Wild. Well, you must've read my mind. My district is
    one that is rich in higher education. We have six 4-year
    colleges with graduate programs. We have two unbelievable
    community colleges. And one of the things I'm particularly
    interested in is knowing how universities and community
    colleges can partner with States and local industries to
    capitalize on regional strengths so that we can contribute to
    the domestic microelectronic supply chain. I'd like to know
    whether you or anybody else on the panel would like to comment
    on how universities might go about doing that.
        Dr. Witherell. Let me say one thing, that the user
    facilities at the national labs--I'll take Brookhaven National
    Lab as an example in New York where you have these nanoscale
    centers, they are user facilities that work with every
    university in the country in those providing--in some cases
    providing facilities that those universities can't themselves
    afford and make that available so these university researchers
    can develop their skills.
        Dr. Chiang. I concur with Dr. Witherell, that there are
    facilities such as the Birck Nanotechnology Center, which has
    the largest and cleanest clean room among all American
    universities here at Purdue. If we could upgrade it to be
    producing at the 200 millimeter scale of the wafer and open
    that up as a hub, a regional hub for other universities, for
    community colleges, and for industry partners to come together,
    that would become a very effective bridge for the country and
    for the region between the work force I mentioned and the R&D
    translation dimension of the problem.
        Ms. Wild. Well, thank you for that. I'm out of time, but
    I'm going to ask my team to followup on that with you because
    it's an area that I think my district is in many ways uniquely
    situated to address this issue head-on with this merger or this
    alliance of higher ed and industry. Thank you so much,
    excellent hearing.
        Dr. Chiang. Yes, ma'am.
        Staff. Ms. Kim is recognized.
        Ms. Kim. Well, thank you very much, Chair and Ranking
    Member, for hosting this hearing, and thank you to our
    witnesses.
        I know the Senate and the House is now trying to work on,
    you know, proceeding with the conference process to, you know,
    hash out some of the differences between our two chambers. And
    as we do, I wanted to ask to any panelist what in your opinion
    are the top two or three areas of focus where the U.S.
    Government should invest $52 billion that was included in the
    Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act in order to
    have the greatest sustaining impact to achieve our goal of
    American innovation and competitiveness in the industry?
        Mr. Bhatia. I can start. I can just reiterate----
        Ms. Kim. Mr. Bhatia.
        Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Representative Kim, that, you
    know, the--you know, as was mentioned, the cost of
    semiconductor research and development and the cost of building
    large-scale semiconductor fabrication facilities continues to
    go up and is very, very large. And so I definitely feel that
    the prioritization should go toward leading-edge research and
    development on technologies that will be able to be in
    production for many, many years into the future, as well as
    leading-edge manufacturing fabrication facilities and
    definitely believe that we should be focusing on the
    technologies that will ensure American leadership in
    microelectronics well into the future.
        And with the rate of change of technology being the
    defining characteristic of our industry, every 18 to 24 months
    we introduce new technologies, we need to make sure that we're
    future--that these investments are made with an eye toward the
    future, and also that, as we think about these investments, we
    understand that there will need to be even extended future
    investments to maintain--to keep ourselves on the leading edge.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you.
        Dr. Kelleher. I concur with that as well in terms of first
    focusing on R&D and including--and ensuring that we--our IP is
    developed and maintained in the United States and from a
    leading-edge perspective and then expanding the fab capacity to
    support the growing demand. And also from--we cannot forget
    getting advanced packaging capability and capacity back here
    very clearly in the United States.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you.
        Dr. Chiang. And I will echo that.
        Ms. Kim. Yes----
        Dr. Chiang. Sorry, I----
        Ms. Kim. Dr. Chiang, go ahead. Dr. Chiang, go ahead.
        Dr. Chiang. Yes. Thank you, Representative Kim. I will echo
    that by also highlighting that the ultimate supply chain in
    semiconductors is the supply chain of human talent. And we need
    to substantially invest in the human talent pipeline.
    Otherwise, we'll have hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of
    public-private partnership and the best facilities throughout
    the country and yet not adequate number of engineers to staff
    and operate it.
        And there is also the need to ensure the connection between
    policymaking, and the policy implications to domestic and
    foreign policy is tremendous, and that's why at Purdue we
    launched this year the Center for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue as a
    think tank specialized at the intersection between technology
    and foreign policy. And I believe that the USICA bill and the
    CHIPS for America Act portion of it will be critical if we
    could indeed fund and appropriate that as soon as possible.
        Dr. Witherell. Yes, and I think it's really supporting the
    whole ecosystem and it really is--all the Federal science
    agencies have to be engaged in this for this to work. It's that
    big a problem.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you. Thanks for mentioning that, Dr. Chiang,
    because I was--during the markup, I was successfully able to
    put an amendment in the NSF for the Future Act and NISP
    (National Industrial Security Program) reauthorization related
    to STEM education.
        That leads me to the next question of, you know, if any of
    you can touch on how much the decline in the supply chain or
    anything can be attributed to the work force development issues
    you had mentioned, and what is the role of STEM, high-skilled
    and technical education in the semiconducting industry's work
    force recovery?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, I'll start, Representative Kim. I
    believe maintaining basically an educated work force and the
    supply of the work force so that we can continue to grow our
    industry here in the United States is absolutely critical. To
    this point, we have been with universities and with the various
    colleges have been able to source--with a lot of work, have
    been able to support adequate talent and resources, but it is
    becoming increasingly challenging. So that is absolutely going
    to be critical going forward to maintain the supply so that we
    can continue to resource the work going forward, particularly
    as we want to grow and expand.
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes, and I'll just add--thank you for asking
    that, Representative Kim. You know, in addition to the--you
    know, the focus on university talent and graduate school talent
    for our leading-edge scientists for R&D and innovation, there's
    also--you know, the factories of the future are not like the
    factories of the past. Factories are becoming far more
    automated, far more complex manufacturing processes. We're
    utilizing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big
    data to operate all of these leading-edge facilities to make
    them productive, to maximize the quality levels and the output
    that we're able to get from these facilities. And so the
    training really needs to be also for the skilled trades who are
    working in these factories. We need to be looking at--in
    addition to STEM education, reskilling of those from other
    industries. We need to be looking at reskilling of those with
    military background toward the technologies and the
    capabilities required to operate and maintain these mega-fab
    clusters for semiconductor manufacturing.
        Ms. Kim. Thank you, all of the witnesses, for your
    responses. I know my time has gone significantly above, but
    thank you. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you. Thanks so much to all our witnesses.
        You know, it strikes me that like so much of what our
    economy is seeing right now and all these constraints are--we
    just have these huge supply driven constraints. You know, we
    saw the Texas freeze shut down a bunch of refineries and the
    tightening gas markets. We saw a huge collapse in new rig
    production that's tightening up our natural gas markets. And of
    course a big part of the reason we're here today is because we
    had, you know, a drought in Taiwan that slowed up some
    production capacity there and of course that same Texas freeze
    slowing up capacity. Mr. Bhatia, I see you're nodding your
    head.
        I am delighted we're having this and I'm delighted for all
    the thought you've put into trying to think about how we
    address those supply constraints in the system, but I have this
    nagging concern about the demand side. If I understand it
    right, an electric vehicle (EV) needs about 2,000
    semiconductors, which is roughly twice the number of the non-
    EV, and EVs, which is great from a climate perspective, as an
    EV owner, it's great from a fun-to-drive perspective. There
    were, what, 10 percent of new vehicle sales last quarter, so
    they're surging.
        And I guess I'll start with you, Mr. Bhatia, because I see
    you nodding your head. As we continue that modernization of our
    vehicle fleet and all the good things, we don't want to slow
    that down, what is that going to do to the demand for
    semiconductors? And even if we got rid of the current
    bottlenecks in the system, how big a deal is that in terms of
    the total demand balances?
        Mr. Bhatia. So I think automotive--well, thank you,
    Representative Casten, for asking this question. And, you know,
    for today the automotive sector is not a huge consumer of
    memory or storage. However, it is for Micron the fastest-
    growing market for us as we look forward into the next decade.
    As I mentioned in my prepared comments, the autonomous vehicles
    of the future are really going to be--are going to have as much
    content as a data center does today. Even semiautonomous
    vehicles will have as much--in the next few years will have as
    much content as full-blown servers do today.
        And so what this means, in order to ensure that we're able
    to keep up with this strong demand surge takes careful, long-
    term planning. And as you were describing the supply shortages
    that are plaguing multiple end markets today, you know, with
    automotive being one of the primary ones, I think it's worth
    noting that the memory industry and Micron in particular has
    not really been the primary bottleneck for the industry, and
    that's because the memory industry and we as a primary player
    in that industry plan over a long period of time how much
    capacity we think we need in line with the long-term demand
    trends that we see.
        And that's why it's so important that the CHIPS Act and the
    refundable investment tax credit gets implemented with urgency
    because it's going to allow us to make sure that whether it's
    for logic or whether it's for memory, we're going to be able to
    have long-term investments that can be made to prevent these
    kind of shortages from happening in the future.
        Mr. Casten. Well, thanks. I'd love to hear from others if
    you have thoughts that are contrary otherwise to that, but I
    know that I'm a little bit tight on time here and I want to
    move to Dr. Kelleher quickly.
        We've had these--as I mentioned at the start, we've got
    these two--this plant in Taiwan that, you know, we had a
    drought and a water issue if I understand right. We had these
    plants in Texas that had the Texas freeze that slowed them up.
    The--to what degree--have you been thinking at Intel--should we
    be thinking about how to weatherize the supply chain of our
    chip industry in response to an increasingly volatile weather
    system? Because climate change ain't going away and it ain't
    slowing down. I wish that wasn't true. But to what degree is
    the supply chain is weatherized as it could be, and what could
    we do to improve that?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, I'll start very--for--speaking about
    our--Intel's factories, which is basically from the start of
    the manufacturing of the silicon. We have very active--when
    we're selecting our sites--and this has been true over the last
    30 years--we have a very strict criteria in terms of--on the
    environment or what could actually impact our factories to
    continue to keep running on an ongoing basis.
        We also spend quite a lot of time evaluating our
    facilities' infrastructures themselves, and we invest quite a
    lot of money into the facilities themselves so we can robust
    ourselves against snowstorms, we can robust ourselves against
    all the various aspects that--in terms of--from an environment
    that can go wrong.
        I think across the supply chain overall--one of the key
    things across the supply chain is I truly believe we should
    have no single point of success. I call them single points of
    success rather than single points of failure. But I think we
    truly need to look as an industry and continue to keep working
    that so that we continue to have not single points of success,
    that we can robust ourselves against unique--our environmental
    impacts that--our ecosystem impacts that causes, I would say, a
    continuity risk of keeping the supply chain running.
        Mr. Casten. I see I'm out of time, but thank you so much,
    and I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Feenstra is recognized.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking
    Member Lucas. Chairwoman Johnson, I just wanted to say,
    congratulations on your upcoming retirement, and after a long
    and admirable career in public service. I truly admire all the
    work that you've done, working on a bipartisan basis. I also
    want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony, and
    sharing their extensive research and experience with us.
        This question is for Dr. Kelleher. I understand that most
    advanced semiconductors are currently being manufactured in
    Taiwan. As you know, there is concern that China may eventually
    attempt to invade Taiwan, and take ownership of its
    semiconductor expertise. We've already seen examples of the CCP
    poaching Taiwan's talent and intellectual property. Can you
    please speak to the importance of security IP and semiconductor
    expertise from this uncertainty? How would the Programs and
    CHIPS Act support this endeavor?
        Dr. Kelleher. I'll start with--first of all, I'll start
    with saying that back in July I outlined from Intel our--where
    we get back to overall leadership from a process perspective,
    and we're aiming to get there in 2025, and we're spending--
    pretty significant investment in that happening. One of the key
    things that I think we need to be--and I have said this in my
    testimony on multiple times, as I've been talking about this,
    is maintaining the IP within the United States. I think it's
    absolutely critical for United States leadership in
    semiconductor, our leading edge, that we maintain critical IP
    for that within the United States.
        Then we--all of us have the appropriate policies, in terms
    of protecting that, and how we ensure that that IP maintains
    within the United States. But I think within this work, within
    this overall CHIPS Act, and within this overall--going--funding
    going forward, we need to enable that.
        Mr. Feenstra. Thank you so much for those comments. I
    greatly appreciate it. Dr. Chiang, in my district, we're home
    to Iowa State University, which houses a microelectronics
    research center, which is doing fantastic work in developing
    new materials that could transform the speed and efficiency of
    computing, and increase the production of sustainable
    agriculture. Universities will be crucial to increasing
    domestic microelectronics manufacturing to ensure that we have
    adequate jobs and a skilled work force that can fill these
    jobs. How can industry and universities work together to
    provide support in developing a stronger practice-orientated
    program, and provide necessary research and education
    laboratories for these essential infrastructures, and for
    training that could be appropriately made?
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and
    indeed it is essential for universities of this country, and
    the private sector, to work very closely together, but there
    are three broad lanes. One is R&D collaboration, one is work
    force--not only recruiting, but development together, through
    internship, through upgrade to facilities, and through online
    learning. And the third is co-location, economic development
    that creates knowledge and jobs together, that creates the
    position to be filled, and the talent that can fill them.
        And in this regard, here in my home State of Indiana,
    Governor Holcomb and his team, and Secretary of Commerce in our
    State, Brad Chambers, have been working very closely with
    universities such as Purdue to create that economic development
    engine. And I think that, well, in addition to R&D and work
    force, by co-locating physically, factories of the future,
    along with the work force of the future, that is the best way
    to both develop talent and to develop the manufacturing
    capacity.
        Dr. Witherell. So, Congressman, I'd just like to add to the
    fact, of course, that Ames National Lab at Iowa State is also a
    very important contributor in this, and their Center for
    Critical materials, so let me call out a close partner of ours.
        Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Well, I just wanted to comment on that,
    Dr. Witherell, that, you know, they lead the efforts in
    graphing research, quantum material discovery, and critical
    materials, and quantum materials holds promise for quantum
    computing, which I'm very passionate about, but also next
    generation information storage. How do you see graphing and
    quantum materials enabling the next generation of
    microelectronics?
        Dr. Witherell. Well, I think this is part of the role of
    the National Laboratories, because we don't know which of these
    materials will end up winning the game a few years from now.
    This is a very fast moving thing, and so we need to have these
    laboratories that have the scale and R&D capacity to try these
    things, and find out which of the ones are low risk enough to
    be translated over into industry. That's what our job is.
        Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you so much for your comments,
    everyone. I--really excited about this hearing, and I yield
    back.
        Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible and visible here?
        Staff. Yes, you are, sir.
        Mr. Foster. Great. Well, first I just want to also echo my
    congratulations to our Chairwoman on her pending retirement.
    She has a lot to be proud of in her service to the Science
    Committee, and to our country. And although I am probably best
    known as being Congress's strategic reserve of physicists, I've
    actually had a parallel existence in my career with integrated
    circuits. And when I worked for one of our witnesses today,
    Mike Witherell, when he was Director at Fermi National
    Accelerator Lab, I was still very involved in custom integrated
    circuit design at Fermi Lab, where back in 1989 I had invented
    a type of specialized integrated circuit called the QIE, a
    charge integrator and floating point digitizer that's still
    being developed and used in high energy physics experiments.
    And it's probably been implemented in 10 increasingly advanced
    mixed analogue digital IC processes, so I've stayed a little
    bit current on the incredible advances there.
        But, you know, before that, actually, when my little
    brother and I started our company back when I was 19, our very
    first prototypes were hand-wired using the Intel 8080
    microprocessors, and the Intel 2002 static RAM. And when we
    needed an order of magnitude increase in computing power, we
    chose the Intel Digital Signal processor chip. And when we
    finally got our first production order, and needed an office,
    and an actual factory, we chose as our telephone number one
    ending in 4116, named for the Moss Tech MK-4116 16 kilobit
    dynamic RAM capacity, which seemed infinite at the time. So--
    our company's now been successful, has over 1,300 employees,
    manufactures about 70 percent of the electronic theatre
    lighting equipment in the U.S., and we've kept all those
    manufacturing jobs in the Heartland, which is something I'm
    very proud of.
        But, because of the current chip shortage, at this moment,
    most of our engineering staff is busy not designing new
    products, but on redesigning existing products around chips
    that can actually be purchased on the open or gray markets, and
    trying to understand the massive misallocation of capital,
    where somehow, whoever it was that was running the financial
    operations of our economy generally, and specifically the big
    manufacturers saw, you know, somehow our financial system is
    more interested in speculating in bitcoin than building IC
    bands, and trying to understand how do we deal with that--the
    incentives that led to that misallocation of capital.
        And so my question is--first, for Mr. Bhatia, did you
    really say that there were 176 mask layers in an advanced flash
    product? Is that--did I hear that correctly?
        Mr. Bhatia. Not mask layers. First of all, Representative
    Foster, I congratulate you, and if you want a job, I think, you
    know, we definitely have a few open positions, and that would
    be terrific if you want to come back to our industry.
        Mr. Foster. You need someone with less gray hair----
        Mr. Bhatia. I--it sounds like you're plenty experienced.
    3D--NAND flash technology, several years ago, stopped scaling
    in two--in the X and Y dimensions, and began scaling
    vertically. So we actually have--we stack 106--176 layers of
    NAND flash devices, active NAND flash devices on top of----
        Mr. Foster. Got it.
        Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Each other.
        Mr. Foster. OK--so these----
        Mr. Bhatia. And that's the----
        Mr. Foster [continuing]. Are physical stacking? That's the
    176----
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Foster. OK.
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
        Mr. Foster. Because that was----
        Mr. Bhatia. All monolithic stacking that happens in fab,
    but this is how----
        Mr. Foster. OK.
        Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. The----
        Mr. Foster. So--but a smaller number of mask steps? OK.
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
        Mr. Foster. That's less frightening. Now, you know, there's
    a narrative about commodity products, such as DRAM, and there
    was something that the U.S. somehow cannot, and should not,
    compete in. And I want to congratulate Micron for not buying
    into that narrative, but, obviously, it's been a struggle. And
    I think we have to appreciate that in the unregulated and
    unsubsidized free markets, this subjects commodity
    manufacturers to a huge boom and bust cycle. And so either we
    have to just grit our teeth and say we are going to
    occasionally interfere in the free market, and, you know,
    effectively develop one or two national champions in this
    technology, or we have to just say that's the free market, you
    know, only the fittest survive, only the paranoid survive.
    What's your best thoughts on that? Yes, you had mentioned,
    actually, that you don't think some iteration of the technology
    consortium would work these days just because that really--
    realistically only two U.S. champions of IC process
    development.
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
        Mr. Foster. How do we make that decision?
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes. So, you know, I think the first thing to
    recognize about memory--by the way, I appreciate your
    recognition on the 4K Moss Tech device. That was many of our
    first DRAM devices. Memory is essential to all computing
    environments, and it really is going to continue to grow in
    content, whether you're talking about artificial intelligence
    in a data center, 5G in phones, or autonomous vehicles in the
    future, continue to be central. And, actually, memory
    technology accelerates at the fastest rate in the industry, and
    we're challenging the laws of physics on every single
    generation of DRAM or NAND flat.
        And so, you know, we do believe it's an essential component
    of the semiconductor strategy for the United States, and
    investments do need to be made there, and really technology,
    and leadership in technology, like Micron has achieved, as well
    as high volume manufacturing, and excellence in productive
    smart manufacturing environments, these are the two core areas
    that we need to be investing in as a country, and, of course,
    Micron very focused on, because these are the core elements of
    competitive advantage in the memory industry. So I actually
    encourage that memory is considered to be very strategic as
    part of the CHIPS Act, and the investment tax credits that are
    being considered, unfold.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And, let's see, am I out of time here?
    The--can someone give me a quick estimate on the time? Because
    it's reading zero.
        Staff. Yes, you're out of time----
        Mr. Foster. OK.
        Staff [continuing]. Mr. Foster.
        Mr. Foster. All right. Well, I yield back, and if there's a
    possibility of a second round of questions, I'd be very
    interested.
        Staff. Mr. LaTurner is recognized.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First and
    foremost, I just want to say, no matter how long the good
    people of the Second District in Kansas send me to--back to
    Washington, D.C., I will forever be grateful for being a part
    of this Committee. Not just because of--the subject matter has
    been so fascinating, and been so meaningful to be involved
    with, but because of the incredible example, Chairwoman
    Johnson, you have set, along with Ranking Member Lucas. It's a
    real example of how Washington could, and should, function. And
    so I just want to say that, and congratulate you on your
    retirement, a well-deserved retirement.
        First to Dr. Kelleher, and then to Mr. Bhatia, while the
    purpose of U.S. Government investment in semiconductors is
    American competitiveness and innovation, working with non-U.S.
    companies that play a vital role in the supply chain, such as
    ASML, TSMC, and Samsung will be important. What do you think is
    the role of the National Semiconductor Technology Center, if
    any, in managing the relationships with non-U.S. companies and
    the U.S. government?
        Dr. Kelleher. Maybe I'll kick off with saying within the
    National Semiconductor, in terms of its funding and how it
    allocates, I think, first of all, I believe its governance
    needs to be led by U.S. semiconductors, and ensuring that the
    decisions in terms of priorities which are made within the NSTC
    are truly moving ahead the United States agenda. Within--and
    also that there is a prioritization given to the funding that
    ensures the breakthroughs that moves the research forward
    within the--that enables the United States.
        I--other companies, such as ASML, TSMC, IMEC, all of those
    other companies, they have their potential roles to play. I'm
    not saying they're part of the governance, but they--depending
    on what are the unique challenges and breakthrough if I pick
    ASML? ASML is the unique company that has--providing UV
    lithography, which is absolutely critical for the world--
    semiconductors. So I think that IMEC also has one of the
    world's preeminent research centers, so I think there's an
    opportunity for us to work to enable that, because the supply
    chain is quite complex. But I think it needs to be situational,
    in terms of the challenge that's being worked on, rather than
    an absolute same answer for every project.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Mr. Bhatia?
        Mr. Bhatia. Yes, I'll agree. I mean, the U.S. doesn't have
    leadership in all areas of the semiconductor ecosystem, and
    there's some we don't even have U.S. companies that participate
    in. And so certainly there will, you know, need to be foreign
    company participation in certain areas. However, there is
    some--there are some elements where foreign participation could
    create competitive challenges for U.S. companies, and so I
    agree with Dr. Kelleher that, you know, those situations do
    need to be managed on a--you know, carefully, and on a case by
    case basis in certain areas.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you both. This is for everyone, so feel
    free to--we can start with Dr. Kelleher again. In the past year
    alone we've seen how environmental disasters can disrupt the
    supply of semiconductors. In Taiwan, severe drought has limited
    water availability, leading to production delays. Domestically,
    Winter Storm Yuri created power outages, resulting in a months-
    long backup in production. How can we create a domestic
    semiconductor industry that is more resilient to extreme
    weather, and how can we encourage the same on the international
    stage?
        Dr. Kelleher. I'd start with saying--and I'd go back to a
    point I made earlier. One of the first things that you need to
    do with your facilities is to robust your facilities so that
    your facilities and your supply chain are basically--that you
    have a Plan B when Plan A doesn't work. You need to robust the
    facilities so that they're actually robust against power
    interrupts, robust against environmental, like weather, snow,
    storms--doesn't matter. I--when I was running the factories,
    I've had my pick of environmental, and I also--when I ran a
    factory in Ireland, I knew every storm that was taking place in
    the Atlantic, because our slurries and polish, some of our
    materials, were on ships in the mid-Atlantic.
        So I--one of the things is--it can never be ignored, in
    terms of--I--we call it our business continuity, or our supply
    chain continuity. That has to be built in, and you have to have
    a robustness, and not single points of success or single points
    of where you fail. So there's the facilities being built to
    robust against--I--not--weather and others, but there's also,
    for each of the unique, either equipment, materials, et cetera,
    how do we have alternative sources? Where are those sources
    based? Is there enough of us--of a distribution of where
    they're based so if something happens in one place, that should
    have the supply coming from the rest.
        So it's not a one answer for all, it's quite a complicated
    piece of work. It takes dedicated focus on it to ensure that
    your factories can run seven by 24 for 30, 40, 50 years without
    impact.
        Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Dr. Kelleher. Unfortunately, I've
    run out of time, but I look forward to continuing this
    conversation. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Staff. Ms. Stansbury is recognized.
        Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much. And, Madam Chair, like
    many this morning, I want to add my voice to the chorus of
    grateful Members who are so grateful for your many, many years
    of service, and your advocacy, and your work on behalf of our
    science and technology enterprise. You will be so missed, and
    we wish you all the best in your retirement, so thank you so
    much for your service.
        And I'm excited to be here today to talk about an issue
    that is so important to my home State of New Mexico. You know,
    we're here to talk about semiconductors because they're
    essential to every aspect of our lives, to the functioning of
    our modern world, from powering our phones and our electric
    devices, to powering our grid, and the technologies that will
    help us fight climate change, and help to build the new world
    that we're all working so hard to build. And New Mexico is
    particularly well poised to help lead the charge here, and help
    to ensure American leadership in microelectronics thanks to our
    National Laboratories, and our commercial scientific industry,
    and our private industry, so we are proud to be leaders in this
    field that will determine the direction of technologies for
    years to come.
        At Sandia National Labs, which is in my district, the labs
    have made groundbreaking discoveries for decades, changing
    technology as we know it. Last year Sandia partnered with IBM
    (International Business Machines) to lead the field in research
    and development of next generation transistors, called Gate
    All-Around Nanosheet Field Effective Transistors. They use less
    power, and allow for faster computations. These transistors can
    help us continue Moore's Law long beyond what we had previously
    thought. And Sandia is also working with the private sector to
    develop memory devices that have nearly unlimited endurance,
    and withstand harsh environmental conditions that outperform
    current commercially based memory devices on the market.
        While Sandia has already developed partnerships with
    commercial partners for these projects, a lot of the work that
    happens at our National Labs, as many of you know, actually
    never makes it to market, and so one of the things that we've
    been working on in this Committee, and I've been working with
    my colleague Senator Senator Lujan, and others who sign on to
    our bill, which is the Partnerships for Energy Security and
    Innovation Act, is to create a nonprofit foundation that will
    help to align the R&D that happens at our National Labs with
    the private sector so that we can bring these technologies to
    market, and really bridge the lab to fab gap that we see in our
    science and technology enterprise.
        And once we get those technologies to market, and out of
    the development stage, New Mexico stands ready to manufacture,
    to assemble, and to test those semiconductors, because we are
    proud to host an Intel campus, one of the Nation's leading
    integrated device manufacturers, in Rio Rancho, with is in the
    greater Albuquerque area, which announced earlier this year
    that it is investing $3.5 billion for the manufacturing of
    advanced semiconductor packaging technologies, which is
    expected to create thousands of jobs--so, as we've seen during
    the pandemic, semiconductors impact every aspect of our lives,
    and I look forward to working with the Committee to bring
    manufacturing jobs back to our country, and make sure we are
    leading the way in research and development in these critical
    areas.
        But I think that one of the biggest obstacles that we face
    is the development of our STEM work force, and we see this in
    New Mexico every day, where we have thousands of vacant
    positions in our National Labs, in our engineering firms, in
    our research entities, and so I think one of the things that's
    really important, and I'd like to ask Dr. Witherell about this,
    in your testimony you note the importance of work force
    development to the future of domestic microelectronics, and you
    point out that this is especially relevant for our National
    Labs, who, of course, rely not only on thousands of scientists,
    but also on skilled technicians. And so I wanted to ask you,
    Doctor, if you could talk a little bit about what you think
    Congress can do to help foster that STEM work force so that we
    are prepared for the future?
        Dr. Witherell. Thank you very much, and I will say that we
    at Berkeley also partner with Sandia on our Quantum Systems
    Accelerator Center, where we are pleased to work with them. But
    we--all of the laboratories are working very hard on developing
    the STEM pipeline at every stage. Of course, the obvious thing
    is we have a large faction of the postdocs working in these
    disciplines in the whole country--or at the labs that's
    producing, but we're also trying to help with undergraduate
    education and K to 12. And the fact--New Mexico's a good
    example of this, where the laboratories there can have a very
    large impact on that institutional--but it's also true that,
    for the security laboratories, work force is the lab director's
    biggest problem, actually, just to have the work force to fill
    the pipeline at Sandia, Los Alamos, Livermore, so all of us are
    working on how to develop a large and diverse work force that
    can feed these things because, in the end, the Nation has to go
    faster than other nations.
        Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Thank you so much, Doctor, and I think
    you really put your finger on it, which is that we have to be
    building that pipeline from early childhood education, even,
    through our K through 12 system, but we do have an immediate
    challenge of how do we get more STEM professionals into the
    work force, and working in our labs and our public
    institutions, to ensure that we're at the forefront of this
    work. So I really appreciate your words, and your good work,
    and with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
        Mr. Lamb. Thank you, and I want to join everybody in
    congratulating Madam Chairwoman on her retirement, and thank
    her for the years of service that we have shared together, and
    all that I've learned. I want to start with Dr. Kelleher, to
    talk a little bit about the decisions that go into where to
    locate the manufacturing sites, the factories. I think you
    mentioned in your early testimony your presence throughout
    Arizona, and New Mexico, and your company, and others, I know,
    have talked about Texas. I represent the areas outside of
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that were long the manufacturing hub
    for steel and other specialty metals, and kind of related
    industries, and we're doing everything we can to try to bring
    some of our manufacturing know-how, and particularly our land,
    which is still very well suited for manufacturing, the old--
    have not all been turned--and they're still sort of sitting
    there, waiting to be taken advantage of. And I just wonder if
    you had any insights for regions of the country like mine, to
    talk about what competitive advantage did you see in the
    Southwest, and how could we maybe, you know, look to match that
    or exceed it in a part of the country like Southwestern
    Pennsylvania?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, if I speak, first of all, to part of
    the Southwest, our investments began in the Southwest 30, 40
    years ago, so I was--and once you started an investment in a
    given site, you tend to continue to grow that investment within
    the site, given the level of infrastructure that you have made.
    One of the--so I speak more generically, in terms of our
    overall site selection process.
        What we look for when we're doing--we have a very stringent
    criteria from--looking--from our site selection. We look at
    the--basically the--for the given sites that become available
    in any given State, we look at the--basically the land itself,
    right, and there are many factors you need to take into account
    when you're building a factory, in terms of the site readiness.
    It's its infrastructure, it's the--basically the availabilities
    of utilities in the infrastructure. It's also the--what does
    the supply chain support in a given area, and are you starting
    the supply chain support from scratch? It's also what is the--
    basically what is the work force available in a given area, and
    what is the availability from--anywhere from unskilled work
    force to the skilled work force? And also there's a look at--in
    terms of the overall--I would say the given States in terms of
    their--how much they work with business, so that it becomes
    easy to do business in a given State. So there's an entire set
    of criteria by which we work through as we make our selections.
        Mr. Lamb. I really appreciate that, and I see us having a
    fair amount of advantage on many of those metrics. Supply
    chain, I don't quite know. That might be one we have to work
    on. Any other witnesses want to address that? You know,
    obviously our connection to Carnegie Mellon really helps with
    the talent pipeline, but anyone else have anything else to
    offer for Southwestern Pennsylvania, and kind of the Rust Belt
    overall, as we look to make----
        Mr. Bhatia. Well, I think I'll just amplify Dr. Kelleher's
    comments regarding, you know, infrastructure and work force.
    Those are two key elements. You know, the semiconductor
    manufacturing operation's complexity is, you know, is
    incredible, and it's continuing to get more and more complex.
    Fractions of a second of power loss can create significant
    disruption, and so the utility infrastructure, including
    electricity, availability of water, water treatment, all of
    those are key factors.
        And then, as she mentioned, and as you're noting, the
    availability of, you know, skilled work force. Whether that's
    the proximity to top universities, or vocational schools and
    community colleges that can help us with the training and re-
    skilling of technicians to work on this highly precise
    equipment. These are all of the areas that we think about. And
    then just overall, an industrial backdrop, and an ability to
    have delivered industrial success stories over time, and, you
    know, the know how to be able to do it. Because when we make
    these decisions, they're not 5-year decisions or 10-year
    decisions. They're 30- or 40-year decisions, as Dr. Kelleher
    also noted.
        Mr. Lamb. Right. Well, thank you very much. I think I'm out
    of time, but we have all of that in Southwestern Pennsylvania,
    so all of you listening right now, please keep us in mind in
    the future, and I very much appreciate your joining us for
    today's hearing. Thank you. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. And, at the risk of being
    repetitive, I just want to say what a great opportunity it's
    been for me to serve, and continue to serve for the next year
    or so, with Chairwoman Johnson. She's been an incredible
    leader, and the--as has been said, the example that both the
    Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas have set is an important
    example I think that the rest of Congress would do well to
    heed. We do have our differences, but we work them out in, I
    think, a mostly civil manner, and that's really important, so
    thank you. And thanks for holding this hearing.
        I recently welcomed Secretary--Commerce Secretary Gina
    Raimondo to Michigan for a discussion on the global
    semiconductor shortage with auto workers, with business
    leaders, with other elected officials. And as we know, while
    the semiconductor shortage is affecting a lot of industries, it
    is disproportionately affecting the automotive sector,
    impacting thousands of workers that I represent in my home
    district. We've seen layoffs at General Motors' Flint assembly
    plant over the summer, and some of our factories in Flint have
    been idle--in Michigan, I should say, have been idle since the
    spring. And that's why I've been working with others in the
    House to invest in legacy chips that are commonly used in
    automobiles.
        And I know this has been the focus of this hearing, and it
    might be somewhat repetitive, but I want to make sure we get as
    much information on this as we can. We obviously have to get
    serious about strengthening our domestic semiconductor supply
    chain, and we have to act now to save American jobs, to ensure
    a robust domestic automotive manufacturing industry here in the
    U.S., not in other places.
        So if I could start, Mr. Bhatia, in your testimony you
    advocate for the U.S. to focus on leading edge manufacturing
    capabilities, which makes sense, to maximize the commercial
    success of our investments, but as we know, these cutting edge
    fabs and foundries will take quite some time to build, as
    you've mentioned, even if we immediately fully fund the CHIPS
    Act. So here's the question, how can we leverage the existing
    infrastructure today, across industry, to kickstart
    manufacturing advances while we wait for these fabs to be
    built? What can we do in Congress, specifically, to address
    that issue?
        Mr. Bhatia. Sounds--thank you, Representative Kildee. And,
    you know, first let me just echo your comment that, you know,
    we need to move with urgency now to meet--even though it will
    take years for the CHIPS Act's funding and investment tax
    credits to improve the domestic supply chain for semiconductor
    manufacturing, we do need to move urgently. We need to get
    started now, because other countries around the world are not
    standing still either. So whatever, you know, gap exists today,
    the gap is only growing until we actually are able to start
    reversing that trend. And let me also agree that automotive is
    an incredibly important market for all semiconductor
    manufacturers, but for Micron as well, we're the No. 1 provider
    of memory solutions to the automotive industry globally.
        What we have tried to do with this, and one of the things
    that we've been successful--and to ensure that we are not--
    memory has not been one of the primary bottlenecks for the
    automotive industry is working with our customers to move them
    toward newer technologies. And this is an area where closer
    collaboration between the semiconductor manufacturer, the
    system design houses, and third parties, as well as the Tier
    One OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) together to be able
    to make a concerted effort to qualify newer technologies,
    because investments, whether they come--spurred by the
    government or from industry, they will always lean toward the
    future and toward leading edge.
        And so, in order to really future-proof what we've been
    working with our automotive customers to do is to get their
    engineering resources dedicated toward newer technologies.
    Because if there are requirements they need, we can focus on
    those more, you know, earlier in the process, and be able to
    get them to technology--newer technology sooner.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. And just in the last few
    minutes--or minute or so, Dr. Kelleher, of course, Intel
    produces personal electronics computers, but it's also involved
    in auto--the auto sector. How do we balance the need for--the
    needs of these different industries, of both leading edge chips
    and these legacy chips? What's the approach you take, or you
    think we should take, in terms of trying to find that right
    balance?
        Dr. Kelleher. I concur with Dr. Bhatia said, in terms of--
    at this point, I think working with the auto industry to move
    them to more leading edge nodes, so that, as we invest in the
    infrastructure, that the infrastructure reinvested, and she can
    help enable that industry for many years to come. Right, so I
    think the key part of it--and yes, Intel, we're involved
    working with the auto industry, but the key is to help start
    moving the auto industry from being in the very much older
    nodes, where many of the equipment doesn't exist anymore to
    even manufacturers to--onto the newer nodes so that we can
    continue to keep the auto industry in progression with the rest
    of the semiconductor industry, so then that--and we never then
    get to the point of where we have this level of disparity
    between the support of the auto industry and the rest of the
    industry.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very, very much. I see my time has
    expired. I thank all the witnesses for your excellent
    testimony, and Madam Chair, thank you for this hearing. I yield
    back.
        Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair, for
    holding this hearing. And I just want to say, as a freshman,
    thank you for setting an example of being an outstanding
    Committee Chair, and showing civility, working across the
    aisle, and mentoring the next wave of legislators. So I really
    appreciate all that you've done, and I look forward to working
    with you the next year, as we do even more
        I also want to thank the panelists for joining us today. As
    we've been hearing, these pandemic-driven shortages of
    semiconductors have revealed how dependent the U.S. economy is
    on foreign suppliers. And it's not just in semiconductors, it's
    in so many other things in our supply chain, but we've seen how
    essential semiconductors are to so much of what we do.
        I represent the Research Triangle area of North Carolina,
    and I've seen in my area how these shortages have hurt our
    economy and our innovation ecosystem. And right now I've just--
    I'd like to let you know, if you don't know, in my district,
    it's the home of North Carolina State University, and we're--
    it's a leader in Power America, a public/private partnership
    between industry--or among industry, government, National Labs,
    and academia that's accelerating the commercialization of wide-
    band semiconductor technology. And after 5 years of Department
    of Energy funding, Power America now has 60 members, and is
    completely self-sufficient.
        It's also spawning people to leave and go into startups,
    and so the startup economy is very big in the Research Triangle
    area. But microelectronic startups often find it difficult to
    commercialize their products. Even well-funded startups
    struggle to secure time at fabs and foundries to test their
    products as they compete with larger companies for access, and
    right now we need as many people working on this as possible.
        So, Dr. Chiang and Dr. Witherell, how can we grow a
    semiconductor startup ecosystem here in the United States, and
    do we have the time for it?
        Dr. Chiang. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the
    questions.
        Dr. Witherell. Go ahead.
        Dr. Chiang. Please go ahead, Dr. Witherell.
        Dr. Witherell. Well, I can say one thing--we have--in the
    laboratories, we have systems for doing startups from the
    laboratories, we--at Cyclotron Road here, and included we have
    startups coming out in semiconductor industry that are
    fellowships that are supported by DARPA now. So there is--but I
    will say, to lead to the Dean, the university is a much wider
    space for this, and so we should hear from him.
        Ms. Ross. Please.
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Dr. Witherell, and thank you,
    Congresswoman. Indeed, I am confident that Congress and the
    Cabinet, including Secretary Raimondo, will be very
    comprehensive in the strategies. And we just talked about,
    let's not forget, the legacy nodes that produce a lot of the
    chips needed, for example, for the automotive industry. We
    should also not forget the military needs, including work
    force. For example, Purdue, leads 12 universities working with
    the DOD in the SCALE (Scalable Asymmetric Lifecycle Engagement)
    Program for DOD semiconductor work force development. Let's not
    forget that we also have small enterprises, including startup
    companies.
        But I think there's a reason why there is a lack of
    interest compared to other fields, because the time to generate
    return to the investors tends to be longer for semiconductor
    companies. Unlike fields such as artificial intelligence or
    mobile applications, semiconductor chips, especially at the
    leading nodes, takes hundreds, if not thousands of engineers,
    and hundreds of millions of dollars to go to a mature stage.
    And most of the investors are not patient enough when there are
    competing opportunities for their cash resources.
        So, I think part of the solution could be to encourage more
    of the university/industry collaboration to encourage faculty
    and students to work with industry leaders, and take their
    passions, and take their research articles, into the potential
    translational path so that there's a larger volume of choices
    for the investors. And part of that is indeed, back to the
    CHIPS Act, to restore a free market balance. Not to tip it, but
    to restore it, so that investors will be more confident that
    there is a vibrant future for their investment in the
    semiconductors industry in the U.S. And that's yet another
    reason why the CHIPS Act funding will be so important not only
    to the major players, but also the upcoming small companies.
        Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much. And I see my time has
    expired, so I yield back.
        Staff. Ms. Moore is recognized.
        Ms. Moore. Well, thank you so much, and, of course, I am so
    pleased with myself that I decided to be on the Committee with
    the Honorable Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. I would've
    just killed myself if I didn't have the opportunity to see her
    in action, as she has been such an inspiration.
        You know, I am going to sound repetitive, I'm sure, because
    I want to sort of relate to some of the things that I have
    heard before. Question really for Dr. Kelleher, and maybe--Dr.
    Chiang. You know, I am from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and, of
    course, this is a place that we were known at one time to be
    the machine makers of the world. So I'm wondering, Dr. Chiang,
    when you talked about work force development and all that, we
    start talking about play space strategies to do things, will
    this funding enable a place like Milwaukee to have a level
    playing field by providing funding for training and upgrading--
    because we have a fantastic work force for generations that
    were accustomed to manufacturing? Or are we going to just be
    flyover country, and they're going to run off to California, or
    some of these other places?
        And so I am very, very--you know, I talked to Deputy
    Director of Commerce Don Graves. He indicated he thought that
    the Midwest would be a great place to do this kind of work, and
    I am--I'm wondering, you know, if--you know, because
    Milwaukee's a great place. We've got a port, we've got water,
    there are deals that could be made with local governments
    regarding utilities and so on. Is it foolish to even hope that
    a place like Milwaukee could be a site?
        Dr. Chiang. Congresswoman--well, let me share the Midwest
    enthusiasm that you just expressed so well. And indeed, here in
    the Midwest, whether it's in Indiana, or Wisconsin, or any
    other States here in the middle of the country, we have a lot
    of customers, and I hope companies would want to be closer to
    their customers. We have a lot of talent, and I'm hoping that
    the work force development portion of the NSTC in the CHIPS Act
    will support a nationwide network that access diverse talents,
    and is geographically inclusive.
        Ms. Moore. Well, I appreciate that. Listen, I want to yield
    the rest of my time to Dr. Foster. I can't see my clock, but I
    would like to yield to Dr. Foster.
        Staff. Dr. Foster's not present right now.
        Ms. Moore. OK. Well, I know he was very eager to finish his
    questioning, and so I wanted to accommodate him, so I will
    yield back my time.
        Staff. Thank you. Mr. Pete Meijer is next.
        Mr. Meijer. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for
    the hearing today, and for all of our panelists who are here. I
    want to second Ms. Moore's comment, and just note that--I think
    I haven't been in a private meeting among Members, or in a
    Committee hearing that has all touched on microelectronics
    without all of us making the respective cases for our districts
    on why they are best positioned, so there is strong support in,
    I think, not only recognition in the--how critical this issue
    is, but also on the opportunities that it presents.
        And I guess specifically, you know, in Michigan, the
    semiconductor shortages that we've seen domestically have been
    dramatically impactful on our automotive industry, and not just
    on, you know, the big three, and the largest producers, but
    also in all of the constituent industries and manufacturers
    that are serving in there. As a Member of this Committee, I've
    been particularly engaged and interested in this issue of
    domestic manufacturing, and specifically on semiconductor
    chips, and how we can support new programs within existing
    agencies like NIST to advance additional domestic production.
        I was proud that earlier this year we were able to secure
    additional funding for the Manufacturing U.S.A. Institute,
    which passed unanimously in Committee, but unfortunately was
    not included in the final package passed by the House. These
    dollars would've gone toward research, development, education,
    training for our domestic semiconductor manufacturing pipeline,
    and I'm--retain some optimism that we'll be able to still
    complete that, given the number of tasks ahead of us on the
    Committee.
        I guess my first question would be to Mr. Bhatia. It's my
    understanding that many experts believe, you know,
    breakthroughs in packaging will really be key to improving chip
    efficiency beyond the gains already achieved through Moore's
    Law. Can you share what the role of a Federal supported
    research and development center that's focused on--specifically
    on advanced packaging? You know, what could this bring, in
    terms of uniting stakeholders together to tackle this
    challenge?
        Mr. Bhatia. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Meijer. And, you know, advanced--first of all, I'd like to say
    that, you know, we support the idea that there should be
    national--that the NSTC Center should be focused on specific
    areas and verticals, rather than one monolithic center. So a
    center focused on packaging makes a lot of sense, and where we
    really see the benefit is, as advanced--as the scaling of
    primary logic chips becomes more and more challenging, there
    is--and as memory becomes a larger portion of the semiconductor
    ecosystem, the ability to put heterogeneous packages together
    that combine logic chips from one company, and memory chips
    from another company, and possibly packaging technology from a
    third company together, these are the kinds of breakthroughs
    that are going to be needed to address both the performance
    requirements of computing paradigms of the future, as well as
    power requirements of the computing paradigms of the future.
    And so, you know, there really can be an important role played
    for packaging, where the number of companies coming together
    are from different parts of the industry.
        Mr. Meijer. And then I think that that packaging component,
    you know, with the exception of--I believe it was Dr. Foster,
    who--you know, a lot of us do not have personal experience
    within this industry, and it's obviously a highly complex,
    highly developed one, but I think the role of packaging within
    microelectronics is, you know, again, one of those limiting
    coefficients that is vital to the broader semiconductor
    industry, but sometimes it's a little bit missed when we're
    talking about a congressional--and next, Dr. Kelleher, in your
    written testimony you had described the advances that
    international rivals are making in the global semiconductor
    technology industry. Can you briefly share, you know, what are
    the consequences of having to import such advanced
    semiconductors, and what should that ultimate balance look like
    between, you know, domestic production, but still having
    potentially some international supply?
        Dr. Kelleher. Well, if I look at it over the last 50 years,
    we have done the majority of our manufacturing within the
    United States. I believe for the--or basically going forward,
    our aim is to continue to do that, and I believe that--going
    back to--we were talking about supply robustness, et cetera,
    for the United States we should have a majority of
    manufacturing, or basically a significant increase of where we
    are from today, in terms of having our own independence.
        I'll also loop back to the--your last question, if that's
    OK, around packaging? Intel has leadership in packaging, and
    all our IP and development on packaging is done here in the
    United States. A lot of the packaging right now, all their R&D
    and development work is done in Asia We truly believe that
    establishing a center around advanced package not--will
    continue to help us, continue to push the edge on leading--on
    overall packaging and maintaining that leadership, but we're
    also bringing the rest of the United States so that we'll be in
    ability not just to have the capability of it in the United
    States, but also the ability to manufacture it in the United
    States.
        Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Doctor, and my time is expiring, but
    I just want to thank again the Chairwoman for holding this, and
    our Ranking Member as well, and thank you to our witnesses
    being here today. I think this is a vital topic, and I hope
    that we see legislative progress on this in the short term.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. And I don't want to say
    goodbye to Chairwoman Johnson, because I'm looking forward to
    13 more months of serving with her wonderful leadership, and
    maybe she'll change her mind. But I do want to wish you a very
    happy birthday tomorrow, Eddie Bernice, so congratulations.
    It's wonderful to--I'm glad you were born.
        And to move on, Mr. Bhatia, a long time ago I was
    Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, and, with Governor George
    Allen, we cut the ribbon on the big silicon plant out in
    Manassas, Virginia, and Governor Allen said, we're moving on
    from the Old Dominion to the Silicon Dominion. What happened?
    How did everything end up in Taiwan, rather than in Virginia,
    or in the United States?
        Mr. Bhatia. Representative Beyer, thank you, and thank you
    for participating in that ribbon cutting ceremony. And our
    Manassas, Virginia facility continues to operate, and provide,
    you know, important supply for the automotive industry, and
    networking industry, and other industrial industries. It's
    actually one of the key parts of our global supply chain
    network.
        But what really happened was--I think that event that you
    were referring to was probably in 1998 or so, is that about
    right, roughly? And Micron acquired that site shortly
    thereafter, but in the middle of that, there was 20--it began
    20 years of concerted policy by Asian countries to buildup
    ecosystems and scale to create favorable environments for
    semiconductor manufacturing.
        There also happened to be the transition from the 200
    millimeter technologies that have been talked about on this
    panel to 300 millimeter technology, and that's where Asian
    countries really focused on making sure they were building up
    their ecosystems as the industry transitioned in the early
    2000's from 200 millimeter to 300 millimeter.
        And particularly, in semiconductor memory, the scaling up
    of those facilities just provided tremendous economic
    advantages that, you know, the smaller sites in the United
    States, without the government support, without ecosystem
    development, just couldn't compete. And so the Asian countries,
    particularly around memory, did end up having much larger
    scale, manufacturing in much more cost-effective environments.
        And this trend over the last 20 years, you know, won't be
    reversed overnight. It--you know, and CHIPS, and the investment
    tax credits that are proposed are a good start, and they are--
    you know, they--we need to act with urgency, because, as I
    mentioned before, the gap is only widening because Asian
    countries, many of them, are already outlining policies for
    long term decades of investment with tens or even hundreds of
    billions of investment. So we really do need to move quickly.
        Over time we can see that this gap closes, whether that gap
    is in the production output, or in cost structure, as the scale
    factors start to come together, but we need to act now, and we
    need to get about reversing this trend if we want to have
    leadership in long----
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Going to try to get one more question
    in for Dr. Chiang. You know, when I talk to my friends at
    Micron and Intel, they talk about, you know, billions of
    dollars to get the new plant up. How do we grow the
    semiconductor startup ecosystem? How do we help the little guys
    who are developing all the cool chemistry? I'm sure that when
    Bill Foster was winning his awards 30 years ago, he was
    probably doing it in a small lab.
        Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And
    as we have already observed throughout this hearing, that the
    semiconductors industry is a large and diverse one, as is our
    country, the United States, and there are many different
    components and opportunities. For example, a startup company in
    the design of chips today will face a different kind of
    challenge than those focusing on packaging. And there are
    States whereby the largest factories will be located, and there
    are many other States where smaller fabs, legacy node fabs, or
    packaging centers might be created.
        But, in general, I would say that as SIA (Semiconductor
    Industry Association) or SRC (Semiconductor Research
    Corporation), these industry consortia, have indicated, that we
    need to aid restore a free market balance, and CHIPS Act will
    help to accomplish a big portion of that goal. And second is
    that we need to encourage more students and faculty to work
    with industry in order to be the co-founders, or the first set
    of employees, of these startups. The fundamental root cause, I
    think, is that most of the investors view the investment into
    semiconductor startups not as potentially high return as some
    of the other startup investment opportunities. So, restoring
    market balance, and increasing the volume of the deal flow
    would help to tackle those challenges for the startups.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, and, Madam Chair, I yield
    back.
        Staff. Mr. Obernolte is next.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, and thank you to our
    witnesses for what's been a very fascinating and impactful
    hearing. My first question is for Dr. Kelleher. In your
    testimony you discuss the fact that we have a 30 percent cost
    disadvantage in attempting to do semiconductor manufacturing
    here in the United States versus overseas. I wonder if you
    could just spend a minute and tunnel down on the cost drivers
    for that 30 percent difference, and what can be done to restore
    U.S. competitiveness in that area?
        Dr. Kelleher. I'll break it into probably three portions,
    right? First of all, labor. There's a labor cost difference
    between Asia and the United States. Second of all, the cost of
    building, and the cost of building the fabs in Asia, is less
    expensive than in the United States. And third, there is the
    incentives which are available within Asia from many of the
    countries are also--make it so that the combined of those three
    together is what gives the 30 percent cost disadvantage.
        So I--the work that's going on here through the CHIPS Act,
    in terms of how it will potentially help us as we go--in our
    industry, not just from--and for R&D development, because that
    has also the same cost disadvantage, because it's done on the
    fabs by researchers, they--it will help to address the cost
    disadvantage against those with an--the--which is made within
    Asia, and actually gets us to be in a place to be more
    competitive.
        Mr. Obernolte. OK. I'm sorry, you--the last thing that you
    said, could you say that again? Because----
        Dr. Kelleher. I said----
        Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. That was going to be my next
    question, is what do we do--what can government do to help
    bridge that gap?
        Dr. Kelleher. I think there's two pieces. I'll break it
    down into--first of all, there is, within the CHIPS Act--moving
    forward with the CHIPS Act, and support--and particularly in
    the NSTC, and--basically consistently--and having a structured
    framework to fund into the R&D within the United States. And
    then the greater CHIPS Act, in terms of enabling leading edge,
    to be able to build out, it's basically the manufacturing of
    the leading edge technologies. So this--the CHIPS Act is
    absolutely key, in terms of working, and basically enabling
    that to come into play, so that it enables the industry to be
    able to start eating into that cost disadvantage.
        Mr. Obernolte. OK. So maybe you can tunnel down on this a
    little bit further, because I see this as two different
    problems, right? There's the problem that we are in danger of
    losing our position as the world leaders in the technology, and
    that's certainly something that we can catalyze a solution for,
    but then there's a separate problem that most of the
    manufacturing is not done here in the United States anymore,
    which has national security implications for us, so we want to
    see more of those fabs here, and not just the fabs for the last
    generation of technology, but the fabs for cutting edge
    technology be here.
        So I see the CHIPS Act--I see how what you're saying is
    true for solving the first problem, but I don't see how that
    reduces that 30 percent cost disadvantage that's preventing
    those fabs from being here in the United States.
        Dr. Kelleher. I think through the CHIPS Act, in terms of
    the incentives from the U.S. Government, that will start eating
    into that differential. And, ultimately, the choices where
    companies go to make their--to choose where their--build their
    fabs has--it goes back to what are the incentives available for
    a given country, as well as what is the supply chain, and the
    people, and the skills, and all of that. But the funding coming
    through in the CHIPS Act will start helping to turn the tide,
    and start eliminating the erosion of the manufacturing going
    offsite, and start bringing it back onsite to the U.S.
        Mr. Obernolte. OK.
        Mr. Bhatia. Representative Obernolte, can I add a comment?
        Mr. Obernolte. Sure, go ahead.
        Mr. Bhatia. Sure. I just want to--just had one data point,
    just so that--it's a Micron specific data point, but it's very
    common across the industry. The capital intensity of our
    industry, particularly memory, is tremendous. Micron will spend
    more than 30 percent of its revenue back in capital again every
    year, and so the--in addition to the CHIPS Act, an investment
    tax credit that refunds capital investment is a really key
    element to make sure that we can start to close this--Micron
    sees 35 to 45 percent cost gap, with much larger scale
    operations that are already in place in Asia for our
    competitors.
        Mr. Obernolte. Right. I think we are in complete agreement
    on that, but it would have to be very targeted, and I'm not
    sure what you have just described is sufficiently targeted,
    because, you know, the--we're kind of at cross purposes, where
    industry is pursuing, you know, the commercial incentives,
    where we in government have a national security justification
    for wanting those fabs to be here. So it does us no good if,
    you know, we catalyze further development in cutting edge
    technology if that technology is still manufactured and
    deployed in other countries. We need to solve both problems.
    But it's a fascinating discussion. I think that what you're
    hearing on the Committee is a willingness to work with industry
    in trying to solve both of those. So I want to thank our
    witnesses, and I'll yield back.
        Staff. Mr. Gimenez is recognized.
        Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, thank you, and happy early birthday
    to the Chairwoman. I want to thank you for this hearing, and
    also to our Ranking Member. Thank you. I've got two or three
    questions that--for Ms. Kelleher. Is it true that Intel is
    planning to build new facilities, new manufacturing plants, in
    China?
        Dr. Kelleher. So Intel and the U.S. Government, we share a
    goal of addressing, basically, the ongoing industry-wide
    shortage of microchips, and we have explored a number of
    approaches with the U.S. Government. However, our key focus is
    on the significant ongoing expansion of our existing
    semiconductor manufacturing operations, as we have already
    announced, which work is ongoing in Arizona and New Mexico, and
    we're working on selecting a green-fueled site here in the U.S.
    and in Europe. This will take time, and, again, I urge Congress
    to fund the CHIPS Act so we can accelerate the progress here in
    the U.S.
        Given the urgency of the shortage, we remain open to other
    solutions that would help meet high demand for semiconductors
    essential to innovation and economy, but, basically, we----
        Mr. Gimenez. Ma'am, you're--I've only got a certain amount,
    is it a yes or no?
        Dr. Kelleher. So I'm not going to discuss specific--
    discussions with the U.S. Government here.
        Mr. Gimenez. OK. So do you view China as a competitor, or
    do you use it--do you view it as a place of--it's an
    opportunity or a competitor? What do you view China as?
        Dr. Kelleher. China is part of our world market, but I
    also--I'm very clear on protecting my IP, from a technologies
    perspective, here in the United States.
        Mr. Gimenez. OK. So I'll take that--the answer is you view
    it as an opportunity, it's part of the world market. Do you
    intend to seek grants from CHIPS if it is passed?
        Dr. Kelleher. Given Intel is the leading manufacturing and
    leading edge technology here within the United States, and we
    have had long investment history here in the United States----
        Mr. Gimenez. I'll take that--I'm sorry, I'll take it as a
    yes. Again, I've got some questions, and I really need to go,
    so I'll take that as a yes. OK, you're going to seek funding
    from CHIPS. All right. We talk about--when you talk about
    supply chain, you have the chips themselves, but then what--the
    stuff that makes the chips, all right? And so, you know, the
    testimony is that the rare earth metals, all these metals that
    go into making the chips, they're actually--a lot of them come
    from China. Does the United States have the capacity, does it
    have the resources, the natural resources, to produce this in
    the United States?
        Dr. Kelleher. I think all of it--I don't believe yes, that
    there is, but this is an ongoing work that different parts--I
    know Dr. Bhatia said Micron is working with the United States,
    and Intel is also working with the U.S. Government, because
    this is a piece of work that--supply chain that we have quite a
    bit of work to do.
        Mr. Gimenez. And is it because of regulations, et cetera,
    that we're not producing this stuff here in the United States?
    Is it because of us, we're doing something wrong here,
    Congress, the executive branch is doing something wrong so that
    we don't incentivize that production here in the United States?
    Because, actually, we bring all this manufacturing back, and we
    still don't have the supply chain for the chips themselves,
    we're not going to be anywhere, right? We need to have it all
    basically here. Would you agree with that?
        Dr. Kelleher. Having--basically a significant portion of
    the supply here in the U.S. absolutely will help, right. Your
    question, in terms of is it something legislation is doing, I
    would put it more that I think it needs to be raised in the
    importance in terms of within the supply chain. And I think
    once it raises within the importance of the supply chain, then
    the might of the entire industry works on it to get a better
    answer.
        Mr. Gimenez. Is there any research going on into creating
    chips that don't need these materials, and need something which
    is abundant, or not quite as expensive, maybe not quite as
    exotic? Is there research to creating a chip--a cheaper chip
    that's just as good or better than what we've got right now?
        Dr. Kelleher. If you go back to, say, some of the core
    ingredients of the advanced materials that we use today, I
    think one of the key aspects of--within NSTC and research of
    the future is how do we replace those with alternative
    materials? I mean, the periodic table is actively being used,
    in terms--and as we advance the technology, we typically end up
    using new--basically more elements of the periodic table. So I
    think one of the things I would like to see out of NSTC is an
    ongoing activity in terms of how we actually--and move
    ourselves to be from less dependent on some of those materials.
    And then----
        Mr. Gimenez. All right. And so--and I know that my time is
    up, but my final comment would be that we would--hopefully the
    United States would be helping you develop those materials that
    would make us less reliant on outside sources to create these
    chips. And thank you so much, and again I yield back. Thank
    you.
        Staff. Mr. Waltz is recognized.
        Mr. Waltz. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to build
    on my colleague from Florida, Mr. Gimenez's, I thought very
    thoughtful and timely questions on the supply chain and on
    critical minerals, I've often spoken about, and worked on
    legislation in the Defense Department--on the Armed Services
    Committee for the Defense Department, trying to address the
    United States' heavy reliance on China for access to critical
    minerals. The Chinese Communist Party has openly threatened
    Japan, Australia, and others with withholding these critical
    minerals as part of--you know, and it's been in line with their
    geopolitical interests, and, frankly, in line with the
    dictatorship that the CCP is.
        So I've introduced H.R. 2637, the American Critical Mineral
    Independence Act. It has a number of provisions to support
    research and development. Dr. Witherell, can you speak to what
    it would mean for the semiconductor industry to be able to
    understand and control minerals and to manufacture them, and to
    be able to process them, the role DOE labs, like Berkeley
    National Laboratory, and others play in making this the
    reality?
        And, just to directly address Representative Gimenez's
    questions, I think we need to have an honest conversation about
    our own rules, in terms of mining on Federal lands, in terms of
    NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and our environmental
    restrictions, the fact that it takes on average a mining
    company in the United States 7 to 10 years to get an
    appropriate license, in Australia it's 2 to 4 years. So I think
    this is an interesting kind of academic conversation here, but
    we're not being honest with ourselves about the own--our own
    restrictions that we put on being able to control our own
    supply chain.
        And I can tell you, sitting on the Armed Services
    Committee, we are losing badly, if you look at the trend lines
    of what the Chinese will be able to control, and what we're
    giving up. In fact, Build Back Better, that the House just
    passed, will close down America's largest copper mine, because
    it's on Federal lands. So, Dr. Witherell, can you speak to how
    critical this will be to be able to control the critical
    mineral supply chain?
        Dr. Witherell. Well, there's enormous effort in--across the
    Dewey Laboratories on critical minerals and materials, and on
    developing--and it's everything from--and, of course, it's
    broader than semiconductors, batteries too, cobalt for
    batteries and other things. And we're working on developing--
    No. 1, thinking about the new technologies, being able to use
    certain minerals that are not as rare so that we can actually
    build it. At the same time, there are efforts on how to get
    lithium in this country, how to get other minerals in this
    country, and that's going to be, I think, an increasing
    emphasis among the DOE laboratories in the future.
        Mr. Waltz. Well--no, thank you, I appreciate that. And, you
    know, I mean, it's interesting you mention lithium, which is
    obviously critical for battery manufacturing, which is critical
    for a green economy, which many of us support. However, I don't
    want to increase our dependency on our greatest adversary as
    the cost of having a green economy. And it's also worth noting
    that, in Afghanistan, we had the world's second largest known
    lithium reserve, third largest copper, fifth largest cobalt,
    and we just handed that over to the Taliban, who are now
    actively flirting with Chinese mining companies to exploit
    those resources.
        Dr. Kelleher--so, I mean, the mistakes that we inflict on
    ourselves, and that, frankly, this administration's policies
    are inflicting on this entire effort, again, is something I
    think we need to have an honest conversation about. But, Dr.
    Kelleher, I wanted to--you know, again, I know you've been
    asked, and I apologize if I'm repeating here. You know, I
    applaud the investments made, and that you're looking to make
    in the United States, and I am concerned about Intel's plans to
    expand manufacturing in China.
        Can you--and I know you talked about the cost differential.
    We know much of that is subsidized by the CCP, in terms of
    creating that differential. But, again, sitting on Armed
    Services, we are pulling our hair out trying to keep up
    militarily with Chinese investments, and then to watch American
    companies continue to invest there. I understand the cost
    differential of the United States, but we also have--you know,
    we can make investments into India, happy to help you with
    that. We can make investments into Vietnam, and there's kind of
    allied shoring, in addition to onshoring. So can you talk to
    those efforts?
        Dr. Kelleher. So some of our--we have manufacturing
    facilities within Vietnam. We have also manufacturing
    facilities within Malaysia, and we have--also have
    manufacturing facilities within Costa Rica.
        Mr. Waltz. Just in the interest of time, ma'am--I don't
    mean to cut you off, I'm just out of time. Can--why are we--why
    are you expanding in China, then, rather than those other
    facilities?
        Dr. Kelleher. I didn't say we were expanding in China. I--
    --
        Mr. Waltz. OK.
        Dr. Kelleher [continuing]. Was very clear what we have
    announced is expansions here in the United States. And what we
    have formally announced is expansions here in the United States
    and in Europe. What I did say is I wasn't--directly to the
    question that the--that I got asked earlier is--discussions
    with the U.S. with respect to China, and I said, bottom line
    is, I'm not discussing that.
        Mr. Waltz. OK. Well, there's just been reporting of your
    expansion in Chengdu factory there that the Biden
    Administration has expressed serious concern about. I think
    that's what I was getting at. If you could send an answer for
    the record, I'd appreciate it.
        Dr. Kelleher. Sure.
        Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I think that is
    the end of our witnesses. But before we bring this hearing to a
    close, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the
    Committee today. The record will remain open for 2 weeks for
    additional statements from the Members, and for any additional
    questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses
    now are excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]