[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3513-S3514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               CHIPS Act

  Mr. President, last night, the Senate moved forward on the CHIPS Act. 
As colleagues have heard me talk about this before, this was actually 
filed in 2020.
  Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, a Democrat, and I, 
a Republican from Texas, introduced this bill more than 2 years ago.
  The main concern was that our supply of microcircuits that run 
everything from our cell phones to our laptops, to F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighters--we depended on a vulnerable supply chain from Asia for those 
advanced semiconductors. The United States produces zero percent of the 
advanced semiconductors we need here in America.
  And anybody who has tried to buy a car lately or even a washing 
machine or a laptop or a desktop computer knows that the supply chains 
of semiconductors, and thus these products, are severely constrained 
because our economy has taken off post-COVID-19, but the supply chains 
can't keep up with them and particularly the supply of these 
semiconductors. So that is why this bill is so important.
  Over the last several days, I have worked with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to craft a dramatically slimmed-down version of the 
competitiveness bill we passed here in the Senate last summer.
  The final text of the bill was not released before the procedural 
vote last night, which was a point of frustration for a number of 
colleagues, and I can certainly understand. Here they are, asked to 
vote on a procedural vehicle to get on this bill, and they don't know 
exactly what the bill is going to look like. And that was the reason 
some of them decided to vote no against the motion to proceed. I 
completely understand that.
  But our colleagues will have time to review this bill in the coming 
days, and I hope that support for this legislation will continue to 
grow. After all, it is a matter of our economic and national security.
  The global semiconductor shortage has claimed a lot of attention over 
the last couple of years because of the impact it has had on consumers, 
but these aren't existential threats; these are inconveniences because 
of these constrained supply chains.
  If, for example, there was another pandemic or a natural disaster or 
if, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China decided to forcibly 
unify with Taiwan, this could potentially block access to all of the 
advanced semiconductors that we need in America, and this would be a 
dramatic negative effect.
  First of all, it would create almost instantaneously a recession here 
in America. Thousands of people would be put out of work. But what I 
want to focus on are the national security consequences.
  When we send our troops on any mission--by air, land, sea, or cyber--
we need the very best equipment and technology available. And now more 
than

[[Page S3514]]

ever, this technology cannot function without semiconductors, without 
these chips.
  Just one example is, look at the Javelin missiles that we are sending 
over to Ukraine to defeat the Russian Federation invasion. Each one of 
these Javelin missiles that the Ukrainians are using to such good 
effect requires more than 200 semiconductors in just one Javelin 
missile, and so far we have sent 5,500 of them to Ukraine.
  But it is not just these big items that need chips, it is things like 
the helmets that our fighter pilots use to fly and navigate; 
communications devices like radio sets to call in reinforcements to 
save American lives; smart hand-held cameras that attach to our troops' 
gear that see around the corners to keep them out of harm's way; and 
even advanced body armor uses semiconductors.
  If we ever needed to deploy the full force of the U.S. military and 
ramp up production to replenish our supplies, we would need an 
astronomical number of semiconductor chips.
  That is why bringing that manufacturing capacity back onshore, back 
home to America, is so important.
  This had been a big bipartisan priority, as I said, for the last 
couple of years, and this isn't the first time that semiconductors have 
been regarded as a matter of national security.
  Interestingly, in the 1980s, it was a big priority item for President 
Reagan. At that time, our country was up against the Soviet Union's 
expansive military forces. President Reagan knew that maintaining our 
edge would be a result of smarter military systems, not just bigger 
ones or more of them.
  As two national security and foreign policy experts from the 
University of Texas put it, ``Reagan didn't merely outspend the 
Soviets, he . . . sought to out-innovate them'' as well.
  He pushed to maintain our competitive edge in chips, thereby helping 
us lead in the advanced weapons and airframes that they enabled.
  But this isn't just about what happens tomorrow or 6 months from now; 
we are talking about safeguarding the developments that will underpin 
our national security in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is why so many 
people from diverse political viewpoints support this effort.
  As we all remember, the CHIPS for America Act received broad 
bipartisan support when we first voted on it. It was adopted as an 
amendment to the annual Defense authorization bill by a vote of 96 to 
4. Ninety-six percent of the U.S. Senate supported the bill.
  Since it became law a year and a half ago, we have heard from a range 
of voices and stakeholders who don't typically align.
  For example, former USTR--U.S. Trade Representative--Robert 
Lighthizer, who served in the Trump administration, has been a vocal 
advocate for chips funding.
  At a Senate Finance Committee meeting 2 years ago, he said 
semiconductors are a key part of our economy as well as the future of 
American security.
  Biden officials have shared this same sentiment. The Secretaries of 
Defense and Commerce recently sent a letter to Congress urging swift 
passage of this chips funding, saying it is ``an imperative to our 
national security.''
  Countless organizations, experts, businesses, and industry groups 
have expressed the same point of view. Some of the most respected men 
and women in the national security world wrote a letter to Congress 
urging quick action on this funding. That group included a former 
Secretary of Defense, former CIA Director, and former Director of 
National Intelligence.
  We have also heard from the National Governors Association and the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents State and local leaders 
across the country.
  We have heard from groups that represent automakers, the defense 
industry, consumer electronics, and telecommunications companies as 
well.
  Last month, a group of more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to 
congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation.
  It is rare, especially today, to have such a broad consensus from so 
many different perspectives on a single issue advocating one priority, 
but that is how important this legislation is.
  I am optimistic about where we are at the moment after 2 long years 
of getting here, and I am glad Speaker Pelosi has said the House will 
take up the Senate bill as early as next week.
  The bottom line is, there is a lot at stake here, and I hope we can 
deliver a major win for our national security in the coming days.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.