[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 73 (Tuesday, May 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2255-S2257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Semiconductors

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over recent decades, globalization--and by 
that, I mean depending on the cheapest producer of a particular good 
and disregarding the vulnerability of supply chains--has characterized 
our global commerce. By and large, that has been a good thing, 
particularly for consumers, if you are talking about toys for your 
children or an appliance, let's say. Everything from ag products to 
innovative technologies can find a place in global markets. And that 
can benefit consumers.
  But this interdependence creates serious risks, as well. Over the 
last couple of years, we have seen how supply chain vulnerabilities can 
bring an entire industry--or perhaps even an entire country--to its 
knees.
  Some of the clearest examples have surfaced during the pandemic. The 
U.S. leans heavily on Chinese manufacturing for masks, gloves, gowns, 
and ventilators, otherwise known as PPE--not the ventilators, but the 
masks and gloves. For a long time, that didn't seem to be a problem. 
Then COVID-19 showed up on our front doorstep. China held most of the 
supply for its own

[[Page S2256]]

healthcare workers, leaving the rest of the world to scramble and 
compete for what little product was available here at home. Suddenly, 
we were unable to protect our healthcare workers with PPE and the 
equipment they needed in order to deal with people sick with the virus.
  As the American people now know all too well, the pandemic taught us 
supply chain lessons that extend far beyond personal protective 
equipment and medical equipment. One of the biggest vulnerabilities 
that came to light was the semiconductor supply chain.
  Now, chips or semiconductors or microcircuits are critical components 
in the most used products here in America, whether it is your 
smartphone, computer, your TV, your car, airplanes that you may fly in, 
cell towers--just about anything with an ``off'' and ``on'' switch. 
That is what semiconductors power. It also includes critical defense 
articles, everything from fighter jets, like the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter, our fifth-generation jet, to the Javelin missiles now being 
used to take out Russian tanks in Ukraine.
  As much as we depend on a strong supply of these microcircuits or 
chips currently, we also depend on other countries to make them. Ninety 
percent of the most advanced semiconductors in the world are made in 
Asia, with the lion's share being made in Taiwan.
  I recently visited Taipei and the Taiwan Semiconductor Company, where 
they manufacture chips designed by other companies all around the 
world. It is a great business model for TSMC, and it is good for the 
designers of the chips because TSMC, being located in Taiwan, can make 
them for about 30 percent less than a fab or manufacturing facility 
here in the United States. But the problem is, we make zero percent of 
the advanced semiconductors in the world right here at home, and that 
is a huge risk.
  In the summer of 2020, I introduced the bipartisan CHIPS for America 
Act with my friend and colleague Mark Warner, the senior Senator from 
Virginia, to incentivize companies to reshore the manufacturing of 
semiconductors here in America.
  It is really chilling to think about how vulnerable we are to the 
semiconductor supply chain. Think if there was another pandemic or a 
natural disaster or, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China 
decides to ``unify'' with Taiwan. That would jeopardize our access to 
these advanced semiconductors. It would have an immediate, negative 
impact on our economy. The Department of Commerce said we would go into 
a recession immediately, and, depending on how long it lasted, it would 
have catastrophic consequences.
  The bill that Senator Warner and I introduced became law at the start 
of last year as part of the national defense authorization bill, and 
for the last 16 months, we have been working on a way to fund this 
CHIPS Program. In the coming days, the House and the Senate will begin 
to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of 
recently passed bills, and I am proud to be serving as a member of that 
conference committee. I am eager to dive into negotiations with our 
colleagues, and there certainly is a lot of urgency.
  Like so many supply chain vulnerabilities, once we realize that 
vulnerability exists, we can't necessarily turn it on a dime. It is 
going to take a lot of investment and perhaps a year or more to develop 
the capacity to manufacture these chips here in America.
  What is more, the global demand for semiconductors is expected to 
increase by 56 percent over the next decade. Think about 5G. Think 
about artificial intelligence, quantum computing. We rely more and more 
on technology and thus more and more on semiconductors every day, and 
we will continue to do so into the future. So it is absolutely critical 
that we start investing in domestic chip manufacturing and do it now to 
ensure that we have the capacity to meet our economic and national 
security needs.
  But, as we all have learned, recent events haven't just taught us 
about the importance of a strong semiconductor supply chain; they have 
also taught us a lesson about energy security, about having reliable 
sources of energy. I don't remember that energy security was much a 
part of the conversation before the Russians invaded Ukraine and Europe 
realized they were solely dependent on Russian oil and gas. So the war 
in Ukraine opened the world's eyes to the dangers of that dependency on 
a single supplier, particularly one like the Russian Federation. And 
then Putin is using the profits from the price of oil, which has gone 
through the roof because of this uncertainty--he is using that money to 
fund his unprovoked war against Ukraine as well as threaten NATO and 
our other allies who don't want to prop up Russia's war machine.
  Here in the United States, we don't rely on Russia to keep the lights 
on. Russia accounts for about 2 percent of our crude oil and petroleum 
imports, allowing us to ban Russian imports without risk of a major 
disruption. But our allies in Europe are not so lucky. They don't just 
rely on Russian oil; they also need Russian gas.
  We have learned that Putin's not afraid to use oil and gas as a 
weapon to tear up, threaten, and intimidate his adversaries. That was 
underscored in January of 2009 when Russia effectively turned off the 
gas to Ukraine for almost 3 weeks. This had an impact on at least 10 
countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled through Ukraine. Today, 
we are seeing that movie replayed again. Russia recently cut off the 
supply of natural gas to Bulgaria and Poland as retaliation for their 
support of the sanctions that we have imposed against Russia because of 
the Ukraine invasion.
  In many ways, the risks that we are seeing with the global energy 
supply today are similar to the supply chain vulnerabilities we have 
with semiconductors. When you rely upon a single country for critical 
products, the decisions made by that country's leader could cause a 
supply to be cut off at a moment's notice.
  This has obviously been a wake-up call for all of us. All countries 
are taking a hard look at where their energy supply comes from and 
trying to find ways to diversify their sources of energy and to 
insulate themselves from geopolitical disruptions, and the United 
States is no exception.
  In recent years, our conversation about energy policy seems to have 
been consumed by debates about what is the impact on the environment of 
fossil fuels, and I think the debate has largely ignored questions 
about how policies that were being proposed would impact energy 
security.
  Many of our Democratic colleagues have proposed everything from 
fracking bans to unfeasible zero-net deadlines, to pie-in-the-sky 
proposals that, frankly, are unlikely to pass. There also are fantasies 
being foisted on the American people clearly not in the interest of our 
economy or our national security.
  But we know the President has the power of the pen, and he has 
repeatedly used it to undermine our domestic oil and gas industry here 
in the United States. Only hours after he was sworn in, President Biden 
canceled the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and halted all new 
energy leasing and permitting on public lands and waters.
  The Biden administration recently announced that it will resume oil 
and gas leases on Federal lands. That was good news, but then it 
undercut that announcement by saying it reduced the amount of land 
available and significantly increased the overhead costs or royalties 
that must be paid to the Federal Government.
  By these kinds of policies, the Biden administration has effectively 
discouraged investments in new production here in America, and the 
American people are paying the price, including at the pump.
  Even when President Biden eventually makes the right decision, it 
seems to always come after a lot of delay. It took weeks, for example, 
and the looming likelihood of congressional action before the President 
banned Russian oil imports.
  The climate-only approach to energy policy isn't going to cut it 
anymore. We can't just look through a soda straw at what our energy 
policy is; we have to look at both the intended and unintended 
consequences. I believe our top priority must be to ensure that the 
United States and our friends and allies around the world have access 
to affordable energy.
  Now, I want to be clear, I support efforts to diversify energy 
sources and reduce emissions, and I think one of

[[Page S2257]]

the best contributions to that has been the move from coal to natural 
gas when it comes to producing electricity--a significant reduction in 
emissions by that move alone.
  Now, back home in Texas, we embrace an ``all of the above'' energy 
strategy that includes oil, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear. ``All of the 
above'' makes sense because you want a diversification of your supply--
something we found out again or were reminded of when we had a big 
freeze I guess about a year and a half ago now which not only shut down 
our renewable sources--the wind turbines and solar panels--but also 
froze the gas pumps that compress natural gas and push it through the 
pipelines. So having a number of options allows you to be nimble and 
more flexible in the case of an emergency.
  We produce more electricity from wind turbines than any other State 
in the Nation--even our friends in California, which may shock some 
people. On top of that, Texas-based companies are making serious 
strides in energy innovation, which I believe ultimately is the key to 
energy security and a cleaner environment and reduced emissions. Texas-
based companies are finding ways to make our most prevalent and 
affordable energy sources cleaner.
  I believe we could do more here in Congress to encourage that kind of 
innovation and diversification of our energy sources, but those efforts 
must come second to energy security, which should be job No. 1.
  The fact of the matter is, renewables are not close to being capable 
of providing all of our electricity needs. In my State, it is about 20 
percent. I think that is roughly the average around the country. But 
renewables account for less than 20 percent, I believe, across the 
board, of our electricity generation. We know the Sun doesn't always 
shine and the wind doesn't always blow, so you need a baseload when 
Mother Nature fails to deliver an adequate supply of energy. We need a 
reliable baseload, which means nuclear, oil and gas, and geothermal and 
hydro where you can get it.
  If the President continues to wage war on American oil and gas 
companies, we will not have the capability to protect ourselves or our 
allies. Energy security is national security. If that fact was ever in 
doubt, Russia's actions have provided complete clarity. Our top 
priority must be to pursue our independence, and we do that by 
diversification and more production here at home. If we are able to 
bolster renewables, invest in carbon capture technologies, and take 
other steps along the way to reduce emissions, that is great, but 
priority No. 1 for the United States and our allies must be energy 
security.
  The sooner the Biden administration views the oil and gas industry as 
friends rather than adversaries, the better off all of us will be.
  We are blessed to live in a resource-rich country, and there is no 
reason to put the energy security of the United States and our allies 
at risk because President Biden is trying to placate a part of his 
political base.
  The war in Ukraine is already highlighting the global energy security 
risk. We don't need to make that problem worse. We don't need to make 
it worse; we need to make it better. Now, I am not suggesting, either, 
that we embrace isolationist energy policies like the 1970s oil export 
ban, but we do need to take decisive action to reduce the world's 
reliance on authoritarian regimes. Just as the pandemic led us to 
reevaluate vulnerabilities in our supply chains for semiconductors and 
personal protective equipment, this war is also pushing us to 
reevaluate global energy security.
  I hope this crisis--if there is anything good that comes out of it--
will serve as a reset button for our energy security efforts and 
discourage those who want to increase our dependency as opposed to 
maintaining and developing our energy security by diversifying our 
energy sources and taking advantage of the natural resources that we 
have been blessed with in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.