[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3353-S3357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Remembering David Belcher

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak of a 
person who took his own life. It was either on Thursday or Friday of 
last week. It happens far too often.
  This guy was an Army veteran. His name was Dave Belcher, and I had 
known Dave for 30 years. Dave worked at White Refrigeration as a 
salesman. I bought TVs from him in the early nineties. I bought the 
first front-loading washer from him and a refrigerator. He was just a 
great guy--just a great guy--but he had a challenge. His challenge was 
that he served his country, and because of that service to this 
country, he ended up with something that we talk about on this floor a 
lot. It is called post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. And because of 
that PTSD, Dave, not to my knowledge at the time when I first met him, 
but he was fighting demons, and he fought demons throughout his life. 
There were issues of depression and guilt that he just couldn't 
overcome and in the end, probably some paranoia involved, but he ended 
up taking his own life.

  I think to myself, back when I first met Dave 30 years ago, how this 
guy was as normal as anybody you would ever meet. He is not somebody 
you would look at and say: You know, he has got a bunch of problems. He 
is not somebody who you could predict, 30 years after the fact, that he 
would have taken his own life, but that is what happened.
  It happens far too often. In fact, it happens 22 times a day to our 
veterans in this country. This time, it happened to somebody whom I 
considered a friend--not somebody I saw a lot, but he is somebody who I 
knew had his struggles in the end. He went through veterans court. He 
was one of the first graduates of the veterans court and was somebody 
who did his best to try to get his life turned around, but it didn't 
happen. The demons got him.
  I just wanted to come to the floor today to say: Dave, you and all 
your friends who have served this country have people in the Senate, 
people in Congress who fight for you every day.
  For those folks who are watching this, who can relate to what I am 
saying, if you have an issue, please get ahold of somebody who can help 
you, like a mental healthcare professional out there, because mental 
health can be fixed. All you need to do is get the tools to be able to 
deal with it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3770

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have broken another record. 
Unfortunately, it is not the kind of record we want to

[[Page S3354]]

boast about. Last week, the latest Consumer Price Index exceeded 
inflation expectations at a staggering 9.1 percent. In Utah, that rate 
is much higher.
  The Biden administration's evolving blame game has shifted. It has 
shifted its focus from the pandemic to the supply chain and then from 
the supply chain to Putin. There is, however, a more coherent answer: 
Government continues to spend more than it has--a lot more. Last year, 
we saw this play out. This Congress spent a stunning $6.8 trillion 
while collecting just over $4 trillion in revenue. With the return of 
legislative earmarks, porkbarrel spending, meanwhile, has increased 
over 1,700 percent.
  Rather than recognizing the problems associated with spending more 
than the government brings in, the government simply prints itself more 
money. Like a child stricken with affluenza, rather than being cut off, 
the government helps itself to more money. It doesn't take long to lose 
the value of a dollar when you are not spending your own money. 
Government is no different.
  While hard-working Americans pinch pennies, lawmakers spend 
carelessly. To pay for their next project, they threaten to raise 
taxes. When they don't have the support to raise taxes, they 
nevertheless continue to spend and drive up inflation. Inflation is 
nothing but an invisible tax on the people--a tax on the people that, I 
would add, disproportionately affects hard-working Americans, the poor 
and middle-class Americans. Sometimes the wealthiest of the wealthy can 
find ways to get even wealthier in times of inflation. Everyone else 
gets hurt.
  With no action, the reckless spending will drive us off a financial 
cliff. But our spending trajectory is such that we cannot afford to 
wait for the consensus needed to pass a constitutional amendment.
  While hard-working Americans wait, I have introduced the Preventing 
Runaway Inflation in Consumer Expenditures Act, or the PRICE Act, to 
stop the bleeding. The PRICE Act requires a three-fifths supermajority 
of Senators to approve new spending measures when the Nation's 
inflation rate is at or above 3 percent.
  The PRICE Act is desperately needed. This insatiable spending machine 
is now costing Utahns $881 a month more than they paid last year, and 
that is on top of what they already pay in taxes. Those are 881 dollars 
every month for which Utahns receive nothing in return. It represents 
money that could be spent toward their home, toward their child's 
college education, toward filling their empty gas tank, but instead, 
millions of Americans will look at the skyrocketing costs of living and 
determine that they must sacrifice their wants and, in many cases, 
their needs just to meet their most basic, fundamental necessities.
  My PRICE Act flips the script. It doesn't altogether prevent 
lawmakers from spending when inflation is above 3 percent, but it 
requires lawmakers to offset that spending with cuts from somewhere 
else. In essence, it puts the impetus on Congress to weigh its 
legislative wants against the legislative needs of the American people. 
That is because for everyone living in reality, a budget means 
something.
  Failure to live within a budget has profound consequences. When Jack 
has to pay an extra $93 a month on food, he begins to doubt his ability 
to feed his family. When Jill has to pay an extra $145 a month for 
housing, she doubts her ability to keep a roof over her child's head. 
When Joe has to pay an extra $404 a month on transportation, he doubts 
his ability to get his child to and from soccer practice.
  So why is it that when inflation is at 9.1 percent, lawmakers are 
still spending and looking for ways to spend even more? As Americans 
are filled with financial fear and doubt, why is it that Senate 
Democrats want to spend an additional trillion dollars for their Build 
Back Better plan?
  Congress is failing to exercise self-restraint during this period of 
unprecedented inflation. As Americans tighten their belts, Congress has 
opened the spigot. If a household ran this disaster of a budget, a 
family would quickly be met with foreclosures, repossessions, and 
ultimately bankruptcy. Ronald Reagan couldn't have been more prescient 
when he described inflation as ``the price we pay for those government 
benefits everyone thought were free.'' While Members tout their shiny 
new pet projects, Americans are footing the bill.
  It is unconscionable that Congress continues to pat itself on the 
back for passing massive spending bills while the country has a 
financial millstone around its neck. It is high time that Congress 
subject itself to the same cutbacks that working-class families are 
facing now.
  Although I wish Members of Congress would self-impose these 
restraints, this latest push for a new trillion-dollar spending plan 
shows that is unlikely to happen. Given our long-demonstrated lack of 
self-restraint, it is time to pass the PRICE Act.
  Congress has become the trust fund baby that doesn't understand the 
value of a dollar. The PRICE Act is the recognition that sometimes you 
need to take away the credit card. So to that end, I would like to 
secure passage of this measure to protect the American people.
  As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Budget 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3770 and that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that 
the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Senator Lee raises important issues about the deficit. I 
hope very much that he will be able to convince his Republican 
colleagues and Democratic colleagues as well that, among many other 
reasons, we should vote against this major corporate welfare bill that 
is coming down the pike, which will add at least $76 billion to the 
deficit. So if we are concerned about the deficit, as Senator Lee is 
and many others are, I hope that will be one of the reasons we vote 
against this massive corporate welfare bill that we will be considering 
later this afternoon.
  I hear a lot of concern about the deficit here in the Senate, and I 
hear people say: We can't afford to feed hungry children. We can't 
afford to deal with climate change. We can't afford to guarantee 
healthcare to all. The deficit is very, very large.
  Well, we are talking about $76 billion--at least that; maybe more--
which will add to the deficit. So when you consider the deficit, you 
might want to also take into account tax breaks and corporate welfare 
for large, profitable corporations.
  I want to say a few words about this so-called chips bill and what it 
says about our national priorities, what it says about our tax 
policies, and basically what it says as to whether or not the U.S. 
Congress is capable of representing the needs of working families or 
whether we are totally beholden to wealthy and powerful corporate 
interests and their campaign contributions.
  Last week, when I spoke about this issue, I expressed deep concern 
that Congress would provide $52 billion to a handful of profitable 
corporations in the microchip industry with no strings attached. Here 
it is, guys, $52 billion. Well, I stand corrected. As a result of some 
new tax-reduction language, the corporate welfare total for the 
microchip industry has gone up; it is now at $76 billion. And the 
corporate lobbyists working on this bill, like pigs at the trough, are 
not yet finished. They want more and more and more. Their needs are 
insatiable.
  Needless to say, I do not usually quote approvingly from the 
editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. They are not my best 
friends. In fact, I think I get attacked on that page more than any 
other Member of the Congress. But, as you know, a broken clock is right 
twice a day, and even the Wall Street Journal got this one right.
  Among the many reasons they urged Congress to vote against this bill 
is one that I think is very relevant. Let me quote. This is from the 
Wall Street Journal editorial page today:

       The chip bill isn't needed to compete with China, and it 
     will set a precedent that other industries will follow. 
     Anybody who can

[[Page S3355]]

     throw up a China competition angle will ask for money. Why 
     Republicans want to sign up for this is a mystery.

  The Wall Street Journal. The point they make is a good one. We should 
be clear that over 90 percent of the cell phones used in this country 
and over 90 percent of the laptops used in this country are made in 
China.
  So you pass this bill, and tomorrow we will hear, no doubt, from the 
cell phone industry, from the computer laptop industry about how they 
need their welfare checks as well. So I think the Wall Street Journal 
every once in a while makes a good point, and today they did.
  Mr. President, I recently came across a very, very interesting 
interview that the CEO of Intel, Mr. Pat Gelsinger, did last Friday on 
CNBC's ``Squawk Box,'' and I think in that interview he did tell us 
everything we want to know about the American oligarchy, about 
corporate arrogance, and the state of American politics. This is what 
Mr. Gelsinger said last Friday--Mr. Gelsinger, head of Intel:

       My message to congressional leaders is, hey, if I'm not 
     done with the job, I don't get to go home. Neither should 
     you.

  He is talking to Congress.

       Do not go home for August recess until you have passed the 
     CHIPS Act because I and others in the industry will make 
     investment decisions, and do you want those investments in 
     the U.S., or are we simply not competitive enough to do them 
     here and we need to go to Europe or Asia for those? Get the 
     job done. Do not go home for August recess without getting 
     these bills passed.

  That is Pat Gelsinger, head of Intel, last Friday.
  In other words, Mr. President, the CEO of a major corporation which 
made nearly $20 billion in profits last year and a CEO who received a 
$179 million compensation package is saying to Congress that if you 
don't give my industry, the microchip industry, $76 billion and my 
company, it is estimated, some $20- or $30 billion, that despite their 
profound love for our country and their respect for American workers 
and their understanding of the needs of the U.S. military and the 
healthcare industry--despite all of that, in order to make more 
profits, they are prepared to go to Europe and Asia.
  Now, Mr. President, I am, thankfully, not a lawyer, but that sure 
sounds like extortion to me. What Mr. Gelsinger is saying is that if 
you don't give the industry a blank check--here is $76 billion--and 
they want more, by the way--despite the needs of the military for 
advanced microchips--and we hear that from the military--despite the 
needs of the medical industry for advanced microchips, despite the 
entire needs of the American economy for advanced microchips, the 
industry is threatening to abandon this country and move abroad. 
Patriotic people, no doubt. Clearly, lovers of America.
  Mr. Gelsinger says we should stay in session, if necessary, through 
August in order to pass his legislation. Well, I think we might want to 
stay in session through August but not necessarily to pass his 
legislation, because what I hear from the people in Vermont and people 
all across this country is that the job they want done is not a massive 
handout to large, profitable corporations; the job they want Congress 
to do is, for a change, to protect the American working class, our 
middle class, and the needs of the most vulnerable people in this 
country.
  What I hear is that the American people want us to guarantee 
healthcare to every man, woman, and child, as every other major country 
on Earth does.
  What I hear is that the American people think it is absurd that some 
of the wealthiest people in this country and largest corporations don't 
pay a nickel in Federal taxes and that we should demand that those 
loopholes be ended.
  What I hear is that the American people want us to deal with the 
existential threat of climate change so that the young people of this 
country can actually have a planet they can grow up with in a healthy 
way.
  What I hear from the elderly people in this country, in my State, is 
they can't make it on the Social Security benefits they are receiving 
now; they want to raise those benefits.
  What I hear from the people back home is they want Congress to do the 
job and protect a woman's right to control her own body, they want to 
see us pass serious gun safety legislation, and they want to protect 
the rights of all Americans to be able to vote.
  That, among many other things, is what I hear from the American 
people in terms of getting the job done. Not too many people that I can 
recall--I have been all over this country--say: Bernie, you go back 
there and you get the job done, and you give enormously profitable 
corporations, which pay outrageous compensation packages to their CEOs, 
billions and billions of dollars in corporate welfare.
  Now, maybe, Mr. President, you hear that. I don't hear that from the 
people in my State.
  By the way, when we talk about an expenditure of $76 billion, yeah, 
we can give it to some large, profitable corporation with no strings 
attached or we can use it--$76 billion--to expand Medicare, to provide 
senior citizens with the high-quality hearing aids and eyeglasses they 
desperately need, and for a bit more, we can provide dental care as 
well.
  For $76 billion, we could eliminate homelessness in America and 
create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs from Maine to 
California, building all of the affordable rental units that this 
country desperately needs. We can end homelessness or give a corporate 
welfare check to profitable corporations.
  Mr. President, for $76 billion, we could make every community college 
in America tuition-free for the next 7 years. Go home and ask the 
people whether they think they would rather spend money on allowing our 
young people to be able to go to community college tuition-free or a 
welfare check to large, profitable corporations.
  And on and on it goes. Seventy-six billion is a lot of money. I know 
Senator Lee would probably prefer to see that go into deficit 
reduction. Fair enough. And I am concerned about deficit reduction, but 
I am making the point that we can invest this in a way that really 
improves lives for millions and millions of working families.
  Mr. President, there is no doubt that there is a serious global 
shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is making it harder 
for manufacturers to produce the cars, the cell phones, and the 
electronic equipment we need. This shortage is costing American workers 
good jobs and raising prices for families, and that is why I strongly 
support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question 
we should be asking is this: Should the American taxpayers provide the 
microchip industry with a blank check of $76 billion at a time when 
semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars a year 
in profits and paying their CEOs very high salaries and compensation 
packages? I think the answer to that is a resounding no.
  It is important, in light of Mr. Gelsinger's remarks and his threat 
to go to Asia or to Europe, to have a little bit of history about this 
issue. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down 
over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 
150,000 American jobs while moving most of its production overseas. 
They did that, by the way, after receiving $9.5 billion in government 
subsidies and loans.
  In other words, we have the absurd situation where we have a crisis 
that is caused precisely by the people we are now attempting to bail 
out. So as a reward for their bad behavior, for shutting down 780 
manufacturing establishments in America, they come back and say: Oh, we 
have a crisis in America. We need your help.
  So they want us to pay to undo the damage they caused. Well, that may 
make sense to someone but not to me.
  In total, Mr. President, it has been estimated that five major 
semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this 
technology handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, 
Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies 
made $70 billion in profits last year.
  The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer 
assistance is Mr. Gelsinger's company, Intel. Now, I have nothing 
against Intel, and I wish them the best, but Intel is not a poor 
company. Last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. During 
the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on 
research and development, not on building new

[[Page S3356]]

plants, but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and 
wealthy shareholders.
  Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying 
and campaign contributions. So $100 million may seem like a lot of 
money, but if you are about to get $20 billion from the taxpayers of 
America, that is a very modest investment. Meanwhile, while they spent 
$100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, they were shipping 
thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. Does this 
really sound like a company that needs a taxpayer handout?
  Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this 
legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made 
$7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, the company spent $2.5 billion buying 
back its own stock.
  Meanwhile, other companies that will receive taxpayer support are the 
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company--and by the way, you would 
be shocked to know that the largest shareholder of the Taiwan 
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is--well, you guessed it; it is the 
Government of Taiwan. So we would be giving money, I guess, directly to 
the Government of Taiwan. And on and on it goes.
  Mr. President, I should be clear in stating that I do believe in 
industrial policy. I think that at times it is absolutely appropriate 
for the government to sit down with the private sector and say: Look, 
we have needs, and we want to work with you to solve those needs. You 
have a right to make a fair profit. We have the need--the right to see 
the needs of the American people addressed. We need a partnership.
  To me, industrial policy means cooperation between the government and 
the private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government 
providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable 
corporations without getting anything in return.
  So the question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial 
policy that benefits all of our society or will we continue to have an 
industrial policy that benefits the wealthy, the powerful, their 
lobbyists, and the campaign contributors?
  In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said:

       The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the 
     rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.

  I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back 
then and is even more accurate today.
  So, Mr. President, the Senate has an important decision to make, and 
that is, do we simply provide a blank check or do we put some 
restrictions on that money? That is why I will be offering an amendment 
which does that.
  It seems to me that if private companies are going to benefit from 
generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these 
companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy 
shareholders. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a 
direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country 
have a right to get a reasonable turn on that investment.
  Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they 
must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource 
American jobs overseas, repeal existing collective bargaining 
agreements, and must remain neutral in any union-organizing effort.
  This is not a radical idea. All of these conditions were imposed on 
companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and 
passed the Senate in the CARES Act by a vote of 96 to 0. That is why I 
will be filing an amendment to impose these conditions to this 
legislation.
  I understand that some language has been inserted into this bill that 
would prohibit microchip companies from using these grants to buy back 
their own stock. Let us be clear: This language is totally meaningless. 
Under this legislation, companies will still be able to use the 
enormous profits that they are making on stock buybacks.
  Bottom line: Let us rebuild the U.S. microchip industry, but let us 
do it in a way that benefits all of our people, not just a handful of 
wealthy profitable and powerful corporations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont and I don't agree on 
every issue. We represent very different States, come from very 
different political backgrounds. While I don't agree with everything he 
just said and while I am disappointed by his objection to my effort to 
pass the PRICE Act, which I regard as necessary to help keep inflation 
under control, I want to echo and applaud so much of what my colleague 
from Vermont just finished saying.
  I don't think it is appropriate, when we have people throughout the 
country struggling just to get by and we have people in Utah shelling 
out an additional $881 a month--every month--not for luxury items, not 
for some wish-list item, but for their basic household monthly 
expenses, every single month because of excessive runaway spending in 
Washington leading to that inflation. Especially in that circumstance, 
I can't fathom why we would want to turn now and devote $75 to $76 
billion to what my colleague from Vermont appropriately described as 
corporate welfare.
  This is industrial policy, which--unlike the Senator from Vermont, I 
don't like industrial policy--but I completely agree with my colleague 
from Vermont. This goes beyond even that. This is corporate welfare.
  There is an editorial in today's copy of the Wall Street Journal by 
the editorial board. It makes some excellent points, which I would like 
to excerpt and present to the Senate today. The editorial starts out as 
follows:

       Industrial policy is back in fashion in Washington, or as 
     it ought to be called, corporate welfare. The semiconductor 
     industry is first in the queue, but it won't be the last. 
     Taxpayers should at least know they'll be subsidizing highly 
     profitable companies that don't need the help and might end 
     up regretting the political handcuffs they're acquiring.
       The bill that will head to the Senate floor as early as 
     Tuesday--

  Meaning today--

     includes $52.2 billion in grants to the computer chip 
     industry. But wait, there's more. Congress is also offering a 
     25% tax credit for semiconductor fabrication, which is 
     estimated to cost about $24 billion over five years. That's 
     $76 billion for one industry.

  The editorial continues:

       Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee point out 
     that for the same money Congress could double the research 
     and development tax credit for all companies through 2025. It 
     could also throw in 100% expensing for companies and allow 
     immediate R&D deductions through 2025. But that would mean 
     the politicians aren't picking favorites, which is what they 
     prefer to do.

  The editorial goes on from there to describe the circumstances that 
led to the introduction of this bill, the fact that there was surging 
demand and diminished capacity to produce the semiconductors during the 
pandemic and that, since the pandemic, a lot of these very same firms 
trying, understandably, to keep up with demand have increased their 
production.
  Meanwhile, 2 years later, they find themselves in a position where, 
due to changing economic circumstances, demand is starting to soften; 
and so they may now be in a position where they have ramped up supply 
only to see that demand is diminishing. All of which starts to beg the 
question, Why would we dump over $76 billion into this industry right 
now when people across America, including these Utahns, are facing some 
of the highest price hikes in the country for a variety of reasons? Why 
would we give money to a small handful of wealthy corporations at a 
time like this, understanding that every dollar we spend here that we 
don't have means that we are inflating the currency even more? And that 
ends up creating all sorts of problems.
  A few paragraphs later the editorial goes on to explain the next line 
of arguments. They point out that those advocating on behalf of the 
CHIPS Act say: But, oh, we have to do this because it is about China. 
We have to do this in order to stop China, and this also can't 
withstand scrutiny.
  Look, as the editorial writers of the editorial board of the Wall 
Street Journal point out:

       Global semiconductor capacity increased 6.7 percent in 2020 
     and 8.6 percent in 2021 and is expected to grow another 8.7 
     percent this year. The risk of over-capacity is growing as 
     China heaps subsidies on its semiconductor industry as part 
     of its Made in China 2025 initiative, and the U.S. and Europe 
     race to compete.
       Some 15,000 new semiconductor firms registered in China in 
     2020. Some have drawn investment from U.S. venture-capital 
     firms. Intel has backed Chinese startups even as CEO Pat 
     Gelsinger lobbies Congress for subsidies to counter Beijing. 
     Intel has threatened to delay a planned Ohio factory unless 
     Congress passes the subsidy bill.


[[Page S3357]]


  I pause here to note that this is troubling. If true, this should be 
a warning to us about why we don't engage in corporate welfare. This is 
wrong. Deep down, we know it is wrong to take from the poor and give to 
the rich. We have no business doing this, nor do we have any business 
voting cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill that doesn't yet exist. 
We don't yet know what is in the bill because it is still being 
transformed significantly, even as we speak.

  The Wall Street Journal editorial board continues:

       The other claim for the bill is that the U.S. must 
     subsidize domestic chipmaking to compete with China, but this 
     also isn't persuasive. The companies like to point out that 
     the U.S. share of the world's chips has fallen to 12 percent 
     from 37 percent in 1990. They don't mention that the U.S. 
     leads in chip design (52 percent) and chipmaking equipment 
     (50 percent). Seven of the world's ten largest semiconductor 
     companies are based in the U.S. China trails American 
     companies by years in semiconductor technology.
       Chip fabrication has moved to South Korea and Taiwan 
     because many chips are commodities with low margins. But chip 
     makers are working to diversify their manufacturing bases to 
     avoid future supply disruptions and have announced $80 
     billion in new U.S. investments through 2025. Samsung plans 
     to build a $17-billion factory in Texas. TSMC has a $12-
     billion plant under construction in Arizona.

  I pause here to note that in meeting with representatives from some 
of these companies, including TSMC, TSMC noted--in my conversations 
with high-ranking executives of that company--that plant isn't made 
contingent on any legislation they are producing. They are doing that 
because it makes good business sense, not because it is their last-gasp 
effort. This is a profitable company doing well, and for the United 
States to be considering giving money--whether to domestic companies or 
foreign ones--under these circumstances in this amount of money makes 
no sense.
  The editorial continues:

       One unfortunate impetus behind this bill is that, for all 
     their talk about competing with China, many politicians 
     believe that Beijing's economic planning is superior to the 
     U.S. free market system. It reminds us of the 1980s when 
     legendary Intel CEO Andrew Grove warned that Japan was going 
     to dominate the chip industry and the future of global 
     technology.
       As former Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers explained 
     on these pages last year, the government set up the Sematech 
     chip consortium that ``was obsolescent when it opened.'' But 
     Intel innovated with more advanced chips, and no one is 
     talking now about Tokyo's central-planning genius.

  The editorial concludes:

       History shows that easy government money can undermine 
     competitiveness. It often leads to inefficient spending and 
     investment. The politicians will also attach their own 
     strings, perhaps with limits on stock buybacks and dividends. 
     Wait until Bernie Sanders is heard from on the Senate floor.

  They forecasted what we have seen today. It closes with the following 
sentences:

       The chip bill isn't needed to compete with China, and it 
     will set a precedent that other industries will follow. 
     Anybody who can throw up a China competitive angle will ask 
     for money. Why Republicans want to sign up for this is a 
     mystery, especially when they might control both Houses of 
     Congress in six months.

  I couldn't agree more with the editorial board of the Wall Street 
Journal on this assessment. This is wrong. We know it is wrong. The 
bill still, as it stands right now, is unknown to most for the entirety 
of this body. We do know it costs over $76 billion. We do know people 
across America, including poor people throughout the State of Utah--not 
just the poor, but most people--again, with inflation, during periods 
of inflation, the extremely wealthy can find ways to become even 
wealthier, but everyone else suffers--literally, everyone else. The 
poorer you are, the more you suffer. Even people well-entrenched in the 
middle class get gouged considerably. Why we would want to take money 
away from them and give it to the wealthy is beyond my ability to 
fathom.
  All of this ties back to the reason I came to the floor today, which 
was to try to pass the PRICE Act by unanimous consent. We didn't 
succeed today, but we are not going away. We are going to keep 
undertaking this effort because the fact is, we do need to impose a 
supermajority requirement for spending, especially when spending levels 
are producing inflation in excess of 3 percent. We are at 9.1 percent 
nationally. And in many of our States, including my own, it is higher 
than that. That is why we need this.
  My colleague pointed out he believes that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
may have contributed to that. Well, that is not exactly how things 
work. When you are passing a tax reform bill--a tax reform bill that 
makes downward adjustments to marginal income tax rates and to 
corporate rates and capital gains rates--yes, it brings in less 
revenue, but the government taking in less revenue doesn't cause 
inflation. It is deficit spending that causes inflation.
  Given that it is deficit spending--particularly deficit spending 
during periods of inflation--that matters, I believe that is where we 
ought to be focused. We ought to be focused on pro-growth 
opportunities. And, frankly, if those adjustments to corporate rates, 
to capital gains rates, and to marginal tax rates are, in fact, pro-
growth, they reduce disincentives to work, they bring more people back 
into the labor market, and that, in turn, produces more tax revenue.
  You can expand, broaden the base, while lowering their rates and, 
ultimately, come out on top and with more robust economic growth. But 
what you can't do is engage in increasingly more aggressive deficit 
spending and expect that is going to do anything but harm the American 
people, especially America's poor and middle class.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me suggest to my friend from Utah that I agree with 
a lot of what he said about this legislation that we are going to be 
voting on within the hour.
  I would simply add that while this bill has had many names--lately, 
they call it the chips bill; it has also been called the China bill and 
so forth--but theoretically, it is supposed to be competing against 
China.
  But I would point out that since 2005, Intel has invested at least 
$700 million in Chinese technology companies, including at least four 
microchip startups. In 2020, 2 years ago, Intel invested in two Chinese 
semiconductor startups, ProPlus and Spectrum Materials, as part of a 
$132 million investment in 11 startups, including 3 in China. So we are 
investing, ostensibly to protect us from China, in a company that, in 
fact, invests in China.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.