[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1276-S1280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AMERICA CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANUFACTURING, PRE-EMINENCE IN 
   TECHNOLOGY, AND ECONOMIC STRENGTH ACT OF 2022--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


         Nominations of Cristina D. Silva and Anne Rachel Traum

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, this week, the Senate considers 
two outstanding nominees to the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Nevada. They have my full support and the support of Senator Rosen, and 
I urge the Senate to confirm them.
  Nevada's Federal bench has had vacancies since 2016 and 2018, so the 
need is urgent. Senator Rosen and I have carefully reviewed the records 
of the President's nominees, Judge Cristina Silva and Professor Anne 
Traum, in cooperation with the bipartisan judicial commissions in our 
State.
  Both of these women have the skill, the dedication, and knowledge of 
the law to serve Nevadans and the Nation as district court judges. 
Judge Cristina Silva held leadership positions at the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the District of Nevada, where she became the first woman and 
Latina to serve as chief of the criminal division and worked on the 
investigation into the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting in Las Vegas.
  Since 2019, she has been a judge on the Eighth Judicial District 
Court in Las Vegas. Nevada has benefited immensely from Judge Silva's 
public service, and I am confident she will continue that service on 
the Federal bench.
  Professor Anne Traum has served as an attorney for civil courts in 
the U.S. Attorney's Office, as an assistant Federal public defender, 
and as a practitioner who has argued more than 30 cases before the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  She currently teaches at UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law, where 
she directs the law school's appellate clinic in working on cases 
before the Ninth Circuit and the Nevada Supreme Court.
  Professor Traum's record, as both a practitioner and as an academic, 
will make her a strong addition to the U.S. District Court.
  These two nominees have received the support of many in Nevada's 
legal community, including former Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, a 
former Federal judge himself. They have demonstrated their commitment 
to justice, the law, and to their community.
  They represent the best of Nevada, and I will vote for them 
enthusiastically, and I ask and call on my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                  Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as anybody who has been watching C-SPAN 
knows, the confirmation process for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is well 
underway.
  Over the last few weeks, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
on which I am honored to serve, have conducted a meticulous review of 
Judge Jackson's record and qualifications.
  During this week's hearing, though, we have an opportunity to dig 
deeper and to hear directly from the nominee about her ability to serve 
as a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice--somebody without an 
agenda, somebody who doesn't dabble in politics,

[[Page S1277]]

and somebody who doesn't use this position to enact policies that they 
prefer.
  Many of our colleagues are familiar with Judge Jackson's experience 
because she was recently confirmed to the District of Columbia's 
Circuit Court just 9 months ago. She received her undergraduate degree 
and law degree from Harvard, certainly sterling credentials, and she 
worked for Justice Steve Breyer, who is the judge that she is 
succeeding on the Court.
  She has had varied experience, which I think is to her credit. She 
has been a public defender. She later served on the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission. And she has spent the last 9 years as a trial court judge 
on the Federal bench. Judge Jackson is obviously smart, and she is 
quite accomplished.
  But we know that a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court requires 
more than just an impressive resume. Our democracy requires that judges 
rule based on the law. To use the words that Judge Jackson used this 
morning in the Judiciary Committee hearing, she said, Judges need to 
stay in their lane, which I actually appreciate, because under the 
separation of powers, obviously, a lifetime-tenured Federal judge who 
does not stand for election should not be making policy. That should be 
left to those of us in the electoral process to make those decisions, 
and then, of course, the Courts determine the constitutionality and 
legality of those policy choices. It is not appropriate for them to 
impose their own preferences instead.

  Unlike previous nominees who had no experience on the bench, we don't 
have to make assumptions about Judge Jackson's decisions; we have the 
ability to examine hundreds of prior opinions that she has issued and 
to ask for clarity from the nominee herself.
  In addition to her time on the Federal bench, we have a 
responsibility to dive into Judge Jackson's record as both a prosecutor 
and as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  Despite what some of our colleagues have suggested, none of these 
lines of questioning are out of bounds. It is really amazing to me that 
even though the President has a constitutional right to nominate 
whomsoever he chooses, we have a constitutional duty to provide what is 
called ``advice and consent.''
  And so that means asking tough, but respectful, questions about her 
record and background. The Senate is not here to rubberstamp the White 
House's nominee. We have a responsibility to scrutinize her record, 
understand her thinking, her judicial philosophy, and, ultimately, to 
determine whether she has the right qualities to serve as a member of 
the Court.
  That is exactly what advice and consent involves, and Judge Jackson's 
record--including her work at every point of her career--should be 
examined, and none of it should be out of bounds.
  Beyond a thorough review of Judge Jackson's record, we also need to 
gain a clear picture of how she approaches her job of judging--what 
some people call judicial philosophy, what I call who decides. There 
are some questions that are decided by judges that should be decided by 
judges and not elected Representatives, like Members of Congress.
  Conversely, there are some areas, as I suggested, where we should be 
making the decisions and be held accountable for those decisions, and 
the judge ought to be making a more narrow and focused review of those 
decisions for constitutionality and legality.
  But that does not give her permission to impose her policy 
preferences over those of a majority of Congress when a bill is passed 
and signed into law by the President.
  Judge Jackson previously suggested that she didn't really have a 
judicial philosophy--something I find very difficult to believe.
  Today, she did not provide a lot of clarity beyond offering vague 
statements about the methodology by which she decides cases. I find it 
very hard to believe a judge with this kind of experience says she 
doesn't have a judicial philosophy, and I hope we can gain more clarity 
as the hearings continue. Again, she did talk about staying in her 
lane, not making political or policy decisions, which is a good start. 
But there is a lot more we need to hear about and a lot more 
commitments we need to get from the judge before she is confirmed to 
the Federal bench.
  Judicial philosophy has always been of the central points of inquiry 
by the Judiciary Committee. And never more so than at this particular 
moment is it important.
  The Framers of the Constitution, we know, had the wisdom to establish 
one branch that made policy decisions. And that would be the executive 
branch and the legislative branch--actually two branches of 
government--and another that would operate free of politics and 
elections and be given lifetime tenure.
  Ultimately, all legitimacy of government comes from consent of the 
governed and so we don't have a group of nine overlords or wise men and 
women on the Potomac who are going to tell us how to live our lives. 
That is a decision that we the people make through our elected 
Representatives and through our Constitution and other laws.
  In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said that the courts would have 
``no influence on either the sword or the purse.'' In other words, they 
wouldn't be responsible for national security or public safety or for 
spending tax dollars.
  And he went on to say, ``It may truly be said to have neither force 
nor will, but merely judgment.'' That is another way of saying that 
judges decide cases and controversies. They don't make broad policy 
pronouncements. That is our job here in Congress for which we are held 
accountable every time we stand for election.
  We do not need--nor do I want--a judge who will decide at the front 
end the result they want to reach and then cherry-pick the law and the 
facts in order to justify that decision. So it is important to 
understand the process by which Judge Jackson makes her legal 
decisions, and we got a little bit of a glimpse this morning, but over 
the next couple of days, we will have further opportunity to ask more 
questions about that.

  One of the things I am concerned about is some of the outside groups 
that are advocating for Judge Jackson's confirmation. We are seeing 
activists that demand judges reach a particular result, regardless of 
the facts, or what the law prescribes.
  Some of these outside rabble-rousers believe judges should deliver 
results that their party can't seem to accomplish through the 
deliberation, compromise, and rough-and-tumble of the legislative 
process.
  And when the Court does not deliver these results, many of these 
outside groups will attack the integrity and legitimacy of the Court as 
an institution.
  In recent years, these radical views have made it into the 
mainstream. In the summer of 2019, five of our Democratic colleagues--
including the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee--filed a 
``Friend of the Court'' brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on gun rights. 
These Senators, in their brief, made a not-so-subtle threat that unless 
the Court ruled a particular way, the entire institution would be 
restructured.
  Several months later, the leader of the Senate--the majority leader--
fired his own warning shot. He actually went to the Supreme Court steps 
and threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name if they did 
not rule in a particular fashion.
  But the Senate isn't the only place we are seeing these sorts of 
irresponsible attacks. Liberal dark money groups, like Demand Justice, 
have paid millions of dollars to promote Court packing and sow public 
distrust in the legitimacy of the Court.
  And even the White House appears to be open to a Supreme Court 
overhaul. On the campaign trail, for example, President Biden refused 
to disavow reforming the Supreme Court. His administration even 
established a commission to study the issue.
  The courts were not designed and are not designed to be a roundabout 
way to deliver certain results or invent new rights out of whole cloth. 
That is illegitimate, in my view, and I am not the only one who thinks 
that. That is why it is imperative that we gain a clear understanding 
of Judge Jackson's approach to judging and what she regards as in her 
lane and what she understands to be out of her lane in terms of 
policymaking or political decision making.

[[Page S1278]]

  We need to know that if confirmed, she will rule without fear or 
favor; that she will follow the law as written, not as what she wants 
it to be, but what it actually is; and that she will defend the Supreme 
Court as an institution, as Justice Breyer has and Justice Ginsburg had 
when asked about Court packing.
  The Senate's duty is to provide advice and consent, and it is 
absolutely critical to the integrity of the High Court and the health 
of our democracy. Judges, after all, don't have term limits. They don't 
serve for 2 years and stand for reelection or 6 years as we do here in 
the Senate.
  They are not accountable in elections. They wield tremendous power as 
defenders of the Constitution and the last word in resolving contested 
lawsuits in the courts.
  So we have a responsibility to the American people to get this right, 
to thoroughly evaluate Judge Jackson's qualifications, and do our best 
to ensure that, if confirmed, she will be an impartial and fair judge, 
not just for the people who nominated her, not just for the outside 
groups that are cheering on her confirmation, but for all Americans.
  Before Judge Jackson was named to fill this vacancy and before there 
was even a vacancy to fill, President Biden promised to nominate an 
African-American woman to fill this bench. While the historic nature of 
Judge Jackson's nomination has been heavily reported, there has been 
far less attention paid to the fact that she is not the first African 
American who was considered for the Supreme Court--African-American 
woman.
  When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in 2005, 
one of the top names floated as a potential successor was Judge Janice 
Rogers Brown.
  And, as we now know, Democrats filibustered Judge Brown, and she was 
ultimately never even given the opportunity to be nominated to serve on 
the Supreme Court. But that wasn't because of opposition by 
Republicans; it was because our Democratic colleagues, led by then-
Senator Joe Biden, derailed her nomination. Janice Rogers Brown had the 
opportunity to make history by being the first African-American woman 
nominated for and confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court, but it is 
very clear that then-Senator Joe Biden led the effort to derail that 
nomination and denied her that historic opportunity.
  I understand and appreciate the historic nature of Judge Jackson's 
nomination, but I hope our colleagues and members of the media do not 
lose sight of the mistreatment of the many nominees and should-have-
been nominees who came before Judge Jackson. What the American people 
have seen over the last 2 days is a far cry from the way we have seen 
people like Justice Gorsuch or Justice Kavanaugh treated by our friends 
across the aisle.
  Judge Jackson has been treated with courtesy, with civility, dignity, 
and respect, and I expect that trend to continue through the remainder 
of this process. As Republicans have said all along, this process will 
be thorough and exhaustive, but it will be respectful.
  We have a busy week ahead of us, and I am eager to learn more about 
Judge Jackson, her judicial philosophy, and the qualifications she 
would bring if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Corporate Welfare

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive and growing income 
and wealth inequality, the American people are outraged at the 
unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around 
them.
  Today, while the working class of this country is struggling with 
higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher housing prices, the 
billionaire class and large corporations are doing phenomenally well 
and, in fact, have never ever had it so good.
  In the United States today, while the average worker is making $44 a 
week less in inflation-accounted-for dollars than he or she made nearly 
50 years ago, corporate profits are at an alltime high, and CEOs have 
seen huge increases in their compensation packages. We have never seen 
in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right 
now--unprecedented.
  Now, let me just give you a few examples. While the price of gas has 
soared--it is now $4.25 a gallon on average--ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, 
and Shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone--just 
last quarter. Meanwhile, Big Oil CEOs are on track to spend $88 billion 
this year--not to produce more oil, not to address the crisis of 
climate, but to buy back their own stock and hand out dividends to 
enrich their wealthy stockholders.
  Here is more corporate greed. In fact, it is never-ending. Amazon 
raised the price of its Prime membership by 16.8 percent while it 
increased its profits by 75 percent to a recordbreaking $35 billion--
and, by the way, managed to avoid paying $5.2 billion in taxes. 
Meanwhile, the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, became $81 billion richer 
during the pandemic and is now worth some $186 billion. That is his 
worth.

  More corporate greed: The price of beef is up 32 percent; the price 
of chicken is up 20 percent; and the price of pork is up 13 percent. 
Meanwhile, Tyson Foods, a major producer of chicken, beef, and hot 
dogs, increased its profits by 140 percent last quarter to $1.1 billion 
and gave its CEO a 22-percent pay raise last year to $14 million. 
Meanwhile, the owner of the company, John Tyson, nearly doubled his 
wealth during the pandemic and is now worth some $3 billion.
  Do you want more corporate greed? Here it is. We are looking at 
outrageously high prices for prescription drugs, and, in fact, we pay 
by far the highest prices in the world.
  Last year, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, three giant 
pharmaceutical companies, increased their profits by over 90 percent--a 
90-percent increase in profits--to $54 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of 
just eight prescription drug companies made $350 million in total 
compensation in 2020.
  When we talk about corporate greed, we are also talking about massive 
levels of income and wealth inequality. In our country today, the 2 
wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of our 
population, and that is more than 130 million people. Two people own 
more wealth than 130 million Americans.
  The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. 
Since the Wall Street crash of 2008, about 45 percent of all new income 
has gone to the top 1 percent. In other words, over the last many 
decades, there has been in this country a massive redistribution of 
wealth. Unfortunately, that redistribution has gone in the wrong 
direction: It has gone from the middle class and working families to 
the top 1 percent.
  Now, I understand that is not an issue we talk about much here on the 
floor of the Senate, and that is not an issue we talk about much in the 
media, but it is an issue that must be talked about and, more 
importantly, must be dealt with.
  Now, listen to this, which I think really says it all: During this 
terrible pandemic when many thousands of essential workers died on the 
job--they went to work in order to feed their families; they contracted 
the virus; and thousands of them died. During that same period of time, 
over 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer. 
Working people die on the job because they have to feed their families, 
and 700 people--not a whole lot of people--became $2 trillion richer. 
So that is where we are today. Desperate workers are dying because they 
are forced to go to work to provide for their families while the people 
on top are doing unbelievably well.
  Today, billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson 
are zooming off in their spaceships to outer space; they are buying 
$500 million superyachts; and they are buying mansions with 25 
bathrooms while half of our people live paycheck to paycheck. Is that 
really what America is supposed to be about?
  We are discussing now, in the midst of this horrific, horrific war in 
Ukraine--there has been a lot of discussion about the Russian 
oligarchy,

[[Page S1279]]

and that is absolutely appropriate because in Russia, you have a 
handful of billionaires attached to Putin who own unbelievable wealth. 
But what do we think we have now in this country? It is an American 
oligarchy, as the distribution of wealth and income becomes worse and 
worse every day.
  The American people want those of us in Congress to take action to 
address the unprecedented level of corporate greed and income and 
wealth inequality that we are seeing right now. They are sick and tired 
of large corporations making record profits and in a given year paying 
nothing--zero--in Federal taxes. They are sick and tired of 
billionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, 
a truckdriver, or a firefighter.
  The American people want Congress to address corporate greed and make 
certain that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay 
their fair share of taxes. Yet, this week, right now, what are we 
debating here on the floor of the Senate? We are debating legislation 
to provide some $53 billion--billion dollars--in corporate welfare, 
with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry.
  And, yes, if you can believe it--and I suspect there are people out 
there who really don't believe it, but I am telling you the truth--this 
legislation also provides a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos so that 
his company, Blue Origin, can launch a rocket ship to the Moon.
  In terms of the microchip industry, let us be very clear. We are 
talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing 
plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over 
the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas. In 
other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down 
plants in the United States and hired cheap labor abroad.
  And now, believe it or not, these very same companies that sold the 
American worker out, they are now in line to receive $53 billion in 
corporate welfare to undo the damage that they themselves caused.
  Do we need to expand the enormously important microchip industry in 
this country so that we become less dependent on foreign nations? The 
answer is, yes, absolutely. But we can accomplish that goal without 
throwing huge sums of money at these companies with zero, no 
protections, for the taxpayer--just here it is; take the money.
  We are the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee 
healthcare to all of our people. Apparently, the American people are 
not entitled to healthcare.
  We have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on 
Earth, which has gone up by 41 percent since January because of the 
refusal of some to extend the child tax credit. Apparently, our working 
families are not entitled to raise their kids in security and dignity.
  We have 45 million Americans struggling with student debt because of 
the outrageous cost of higher education. Apparently, our young people 
are not entitled to quality education without undergoing financial 
distress or, in some cases, decades.
  Those people are not entitled, but here we are today on the floor of 
the Senate because many of my colleagues think that the enormously 
profitable microchip industry is entitled to a massive amount of 
corporate welfare.
  My guess is that five major semiconductor companies will likely 
receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. They will likely be 
Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and 
Samsung. These five companies, in line for a massive welfare check, 
made over $75 billion in profits last year--made $75 billion in 
profits--and now they are in line for $53 billion in corporate welfare.
  My understanding is that the company that will likely benefit the 
most from this taxpayer handout is Intel, and let us be clear, Intel is 
not a poor company. It is not going broke. It is not in a desperate 
financial condition; quite the contrary, in 2021, Intel made nearly $20 
billion in profit. We are talking about a company that had enough money 
to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and 
development but on buying back its own stock to reward their executives 
and wealthy shareholders. We are talking about a company in line for a 
major welfare check that could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a 
$116 million compensation package last year.
  There are working-class people all over this country working 50 or 60 
hours a week trying to keep their families afloat, paying their fair 
share of taxes, and providing $53 billion in corporate welfare, a lot 
of which will go to a company that pays its CEO $116 million in 
compensation and provided billions in stock paybacks.
  We are talking about a company, Intel, whose CEO in 2003, Andy Grove, 
said that he had ``no choice'' but to continue to move jobs overseas as 
he predicted the United States would lose the bulk of its information 
technology jobs to China and India--which we have.
  Now, do we really think that a highly profitable corporation like 
Intel needs a taxpayer bailout worth many billions of dollars with no 
strings attached?

  But it is not just Intel. Another company that will likely receive 
taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last 
year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, this 
company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has 
outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries 
and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past 2 years.
  But it is not just Intel. It is not just Texas Instruments. It goes 
on and on and on.
  Providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to an industry that has 
outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to low-wage countries and spent 
hundreds of billions on stock buybacks with no strings attached may 
make sense to some people, but it does not make sense to me--nor do I 
think it makes sense to the American people.
  Now, I understand that there will be a major effort to pass this bill 
as quickly as possible in order to move it to a conference committee 
and send it to the President's desk. So let me be very clear. I will 
not support any unanimous consent request to speed up the passage of 
this bill unless I receive a rollcall vote on two extremely important 
amendments that I have introduced.
  The first amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving 
taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity 
stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to 
benefit from over $53 billion in corporate welfare, the financial gains 
made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not 
just wealthy shareholders. In other words, all this amendment says is 
that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, we are not going to 
socialize all of the risks and privatize all of the profits. If these 
investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these 
Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a 
return on that investment. That is not complicated nor is it a radical 
idea.
  These exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received 
taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan CARES Act, which passed the 
Senate 96 to zero. In other words, every Member of the U.S. Senate has 
already voted for the conditions that are in my amendment.
  Further, the CARES Act was not the first time that Congress passed 
warrants and equity stakes tied to government assistance. During the 
2008 financial crisis, Congress required all companies taking TARP 
funds to issue warrants and equity stakes to the Federal Government.
  In addition, this amendment would also require these highly 
profitable companies not to buy back their own stock, not to outsource 
American jobs, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements 
and to remain neutral in any union organizing effort. Again, this is 
not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on companies 
that received funding from the CARES Act and passed the Senate by a 96-
to-zero vote.
  The second amendment that I have introduced would simply eliminate 
the $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. If Mr. Bezos 
wants to go to the Moon, good for him. He has $186 billion in personal 
wealth. He became $81 billion richer during the pandemic. He is the 
second wealthiest person in America. In a given year, Mr. Bezos has 
paid nothing in Federal income taxes.

[[Page S1280]]

  If Mr. Bezos wants to go to the Moon, let him use his own money, not 
the taxpayers'.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                               H.R. 4521

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, for generations, manufacturing was the 
lifeblood of communities across Ohio and throughout the country. It was 
heavily unionized, and the jobs paid well. It is not a coincidence that 
those two things go together. These jobs allowed generations of 
Americans to build a middle-class life.
  I walked the halls at Mansfield Senior High School and Johnny 
Appleseed Junior High School with the sons and daughters of 
steelworkers and ironworkers and carpenters and machinists and auto 
workers and electricians. Workers, the parents of kids in my school--
those workers--innovated on the shop floor. They propelled our economy 
to new heights. They allowed us to lead the world in developing new 
industries.
  But Ohioans know all too well what happened next. Beginning in the 
1970s and the 1980s, we stopped making things in our country.
  Look at places like my hometown in Mansfield, OH. It is an industrial 
city of about 50,000 people, halfway between Cleveland and Columbus. 
Companies like Westinghouse, Tappan Stove, Ohio Brass, and General 
Motors closed down, one after another, after another.
  Go to any town in Ohio, and people can name a similar list. They will 
measure, oftentimes, their local history in lost plants and lost jobs.
  All over America, companies were moving production elsewhere in the 
name of efficiency. ``Efficiency'' was business speak for lower wages. 
Corporate America always wanted cheaper labor wherever they could find 
it.
  First, they went to anti-union, anti-worker, low-wage States, often 
in the South. Then, when those wages weren't low enough, they moved 
overseas, first to Mexico and then to China.
  When those companies moved out, they weren't replaced by new 
investment. The market fundamentalists would talk about creative 
destruction, but it wasn't followed by any construction, creative or 
otherwise.
  That corporate greed was aided by decades of underinvestment, by bad 
trade policies, which these corporations lobbied this body for--
successfully, unfortunately--in NAFTA, PNTR with China, and the Central 
American Free Trade Agreement. Then it was also followed by even worse 
tax policy, which these special interests also lobbied this institution 
for.
  It all drove production overseas. It left us relying on other 
countries, too often our economic competitors. It exposed us to supply 
shocks. It gutted--ultimately gutted--the middle class in Mansfield, 
OH, and communities all over this country.
  Ohioans and workers in historic industrial towns felt it first. Now, 
the whole country feels it in the form of higher prices and empty 
shelves and months-long waits for products people need.
  We need to make more things in America. It is not going to happen on 
its own, not when the economy of the last four decades was built on 
corporations hopping the globe in search of workers to exploit, not 
when countries like China prop up state-owned enterprises and steal our 
ideas and monetize them and use them to compete and often cheat against 
American businesses and American workers.
  We need a concerted, coordinated effort to invest in our greatest 
assets: American workers and American innovation. That is what we do 
with this competition and jobs bill. We need to negotiate a final bill 
and pass this now. Ohioans needed this a year ago, a decade ago, a 
generation ago.
  Look at what is happening even today in Bucyrus, OH.
  There are few innovations more quintessentially American than the 
light bulb. Every elementary schooler learns that Thomas Edison, from 
Milan, OH, invented the light bulb at his lab in Menlo Park, NJ, and 
Ohio became the center of the light bulb industry.
  But we have seen plants close across Ohio in Ravenna and Warren. We 
are told these plants are old and dated. They made the old-fashioned 
incandescent bulbs. Instead, now, they told us, Americans would make 
new, next-generation-type technology like LED bulbs. That is not 
exactly what happened--promises, promises.
  We learned that two Ohio factories that were part of the LED light 
bulb supply chain in Ohio, in Bucyrus and in Logan, OH, were closing 
their operations.
  Get this. They promised LED bulbs would be made in the United States. 
Today, 99--99, actually more than 99; 99 point something--percent of 
LED light bulb production is in China.
  Think about that: 99 percent of this quintessential American 
invention is made in China.
  When you move the entire production overseas, you move the shop floor 
innovation right along with it. Think about that. Much of our 
innovation comes because workers on the shop floor think about--as they 
are doing their work, they think about--better ways to produce this, 
and they think about making a better product. But corporate America, of 
course, underestimated the ingenuity of American workers or they just 
didn't care. So when plants moved overseas, the innovation of shops or 
innovation in America simply stopped.

  Look at the semiconductor shortage. American research and development 
created the chips, and American companies did most of the 
manufacturing. Yet, over time, production, often fueled by incentives 
from foreign countries and sellout by politicians lobbied by corporate 
interests, moved those jobs overseas.
  During the pandemic, companies across Ohio and the rest of the 
country shut down production lines and laid off workers because they 
couldn't get enough semiconductors. Whether you are the Ford Motor 
Company in Lima, OH; Whirlpool in Clyde, OH; Kenworth in Chillicothe, 
OH; Navistar in Springfield, OH, you needed those chips. In the 
semiconductor industry, we see the problem; we see the solution.
  In the end of January, Senator Portman and I flew to Columbus to join 
Intel to announce the largest ever investment in semiconductor 
manufacturing. It will create 10,000 good-paying jobs. Union 
tradespeople--5,000 over the next 10 years--will build this entire 
facility. It is possible because we are on the verge of passing a 
historic investment in American innovation and manufacturing.
  The Senate called it the Innovation and Competition Act. The House 
calls it the COMPETES Act. Call it for what it is: It is the ``Make It 
in America Act.''
  The bill includes the CHIPS Act to make investments like Intel in 
Ohio possible and to position us to lead the world again in this 
industry. It expands advanced manufacturing hubs and will create more 
of these hubs around the country, and it is a real coordinated strategy 
to invest in R&D.
  We know our competitors like China spend billions propping up state-
owned enterprises and investing in research and development. China has 
gotten pretty good at taking our ideas, monetizing them, and using them 
to compete against American businesses while paying their workers less 
and giving them fewer worker protection rights.
  That is why, in the Banking and Housing Committee, we worked to make 
sure the bill includes powerful new sanctions for Chinese actors who 
steal trade secrets. It is why Senator Portman and I are working to 
include our Leveling the Playing Field Act 2.0--to give American 
businesses updated and effective tools to fight back. We know that when 
we have a level playing field and when we harness the ingenuity of 
American workers, we can outcompete anyone.
  It is time to make things in America again. Ohio has buried the term 
``Rust Belt.'' It is time for our whole country to bury the term ``Rust 
Belt.'' It is long past time to pass a final ``Make It in America'' 
bill and send it to the President's desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________