[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 123 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3619-S3627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  SERGEANT FIRST CLASS HEATH ROBINSON HONORING OUR PROMISE TO ADDRESS 
                    COMPREHENSIVE TOXICS ACT OF 2022

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 
3373, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 3373, a bill to improve the 
     Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen 
     Heroes Grant.

  Pending:

       Schumer motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill.
       Schumer motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill, with Schumer amendment No. 5148 (to the House amendment 
     to the Senate amendment), to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5149 (to Schumer amendment No. 5148), 
     to modify the effective date.
       Schumer motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, with instructions, Schumer amendment No. 
     5150, to add an effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5151 (to the instructions (Schumer 
     amendment No. 5150) of the motion to refer), to modify the 
     effective date.
       Schumer amendment No. 5152 (to amendment No. 5151), to 
     modify the effective date.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                       Business Before the Senate

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senate gavels back in for another 
busy week of an exceedingly busy work period. There is a lot we must 
continue working on to lower costs for the American people; strengthen 
healthcare and prescription drug costs, make sure they are low; confirm 
highly qualified nominees; protect our fundamental rights; and fortify 
U.S. national security interests. None of this is easy, but we are 
moving ahead.
  In a few hours, the Senate will take another important step towards 
finally passing our bipartisan chips and innovation bill by voting to 
invoke cloture.

[[Page S3620]]

After more than a year of hard work on fixing U.S. chip supplies and 
boosting American scientific innovation, we are on the brink of closing 
the book and passing these critical investments into law.
  If cloture is invoked, Members should plan to vote on final passage 
as early as tomorrow evening or Wednesday.
  When signed into law, the impacts of this bipartisan chips and 
innovation bill will last years, if not decades. It will mean an 
increase in American jobs, increased manufacturing here at home, relief 
for our supply chains, and lower costs for the American people.
  Of course, we will also preserve America's security interests. One of 
the most important struggles of this century will be the fight for 
global semiconductor supply. Sadly, America is lagging behind. A recent 
article from the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Chinese 
Communist Party is planning 31 major semiconductor fabs planned over 
the next few years in a bid to become the world's leader in new chip 
factories. American chip producers are working hard to match this 
output, but they are waiting for Congress to finish work on this bill. 
Tens of billions of dollars and countless good-paying jobs are at 
stake. For that reason, I am glad we are close to pushing this bill 
over the goal line.
  Of course, there is a lot more to celebrate about this bill. The 
bipartisan science provisions--many of which I authored in partnership 
with Senator Young under the Endless Frontier Act more than 2 years 
ago--will unleash a new wave of American scientific innovation that 
will last and create millions of good-paying jobs for decades to come.
  We will invest tens of billions to strengthen the National Science 
Foundation and plant seeds to cultivate the tech hubs of tomorrow in 
regions of the country that have tremendous potential but have long 
been overlooked. When we invest in science jobs, that will keep America 
No. 1.
  For decades, the United States was consistently the world leader in 
innovation and scientific research because we made the investments 
necessary to stay on top, and the result was millions and millions of 
good-paying jobs that made us the strongest economy on Earth, the envy 
of the world. In the last decade, unfortunately, we have slipped from 
our place on the mountaintop. This bill will help us recapture that 
goal and that dream.
  The 21st century will be won or lost on the battleground of 
technological innovation. This is perhaps the most competitive era in 
human history. Will American workers, will American tech, will American 
ingenuity shape the world over the next hundred years in the same way 
that we have shaped it in the last hundred?
  I believe we can. I believe we must. When we pass this bill, I 
believe we will. Let's move forward today.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, now on healthcare reforms and reconciliation: Senate 
Democrats continue our work to advance legislation that will lower 
costs and improve the lives of tens of millions of American families.
  Last week, Democrats and Republicans held our bipartisan prescription 
drugs Byrd bath meetings with the Parliamentarian. As a reminder, this 
important preliminary step will clear the way for passing our reforms 
through the reconciliation process. I want to thank Chairs Wyden, 
Sanders, and Murray and the tireless work of their Finance, Budget, and 
HELP Committee staffs for working around the clock on this important 
effort.
  If you want to fight inflation, then you should support passing this 
much needed proposal on lowering prescription drug costs. Here is why: 
For the first time ever, we will empower Medicare to negotiate the 
price of many expensive and vital prescription drugs, directly lowering 
what patients and taxpayers pay for these drugs. We will cap Americans' 
out-of-pocket drug expenses to $2,000 a year. Medicare will offer free 
vaccines and additional support for the low-income elderly. And, 
crucially, we will ensure that millions don't see their healthcare 
premiums skyrocket in the coming months.
  Let me say it again because it is key, and I say it to our Republican 
colleagues across the aisle. If you want to help Americans better 
afford their healthcare and medications, then you should support 
passing this bill.
  United States citizens pay more, on average, for prescription drugs 
than any other people on Earth, all for the exact same medicines that 
other countries use. The Democratic plan will finally help change that.
  Too many in this country find themselves in the confounding indignity 
of having to choose between getting their prescription drugs filled or 
putting food on the table for their families. The Democrats' plan will 
finally help change that.
  And even as working Americans struggle to afford high-quality 
healthcare and medications, the Nation's largest pharmaceutical 
companies face little accountability for jacking up prices on 
consumers. Again, the Democrats' plan will help change that.
  For months, we have heard Republicans complain and complain about the 
need to lower costs for the American people. Well, Democrats will 
present the Senate with a proposal that will do precisely that in a 
very big way. What will they choose on the other side of the aisle? 
Will they work with us to lower the costs for prescription medications? 
Will they shore up our healthcare system and prevent devastating price 
hikes? Will they finally join us holding Big Pharma accountable?
  This isn't complicated. Senators can vote to lower costs, or they can 
vote for higher costs. The American people will be watching.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                               Inflation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for the past year and a half, 
Washington Democrats have continually found new ways to be wrong about 
the U.S. economy. Last springtime, Democrats insisted their plan to 
dump $1.9 trillion onto the economy would not cause inflation.
  Here was the Democratic leader in March of 2021:

       I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the 
     near term, are very real.

  And here was President Biden:

       The biggest risk is not going too big . . . it's if we go 
     too small.''

  Well, obviously, they were entirely wrong. Their reckless spending 
fueled the worst inflation in 40 years. As Ms. Alvarado, a teacher and 
mother of three, explained to a reporter--here is what she said:

       When I say, ``OK, we cannot buy anything this week or else 
     we'll go into overdraft,'' [my husband] says, ``No, what are 
     you talking about? We're both working. That shouldn't 
     happen.''

  Well, it shouldn't have happened, but it is exactly what Democrats' 
policies have inflicted on working families in this country.

       Every time I fill up our van, I'm flabbergasted--

  Ms. Alvarado explains--

       I'm always worrying. . . . I can postpone the mortgage by 
     two weeks, but then it becomes two more weeks, and then all 
     of a sudden they're calling you.

  After Democrats' policies that did cause inflation, they moved on to 
their next wrong prediction. President Biden admitted inflation did, in 
fact, exist but said it was ``expected to be temporary.'' That one 
didn't work out either. That was over a year ago.
  Then, 7 months ago, in early December, President Biden promised 
inflation had peaked--wrong again. It didn't peak in December. It just 
kept getting worse. Inflation set a fresh new 40-year high just last 
month.
  These same folks are preparing for yet another battle against 
reality. In advance of the GDP numbers coming out later this week, the 
Biden administration has begun their latest project: a frantic effort 
to redefine the word ``recession.'' The White House published a whole 
explanation insisting that even if the new data suggested our country 
is in recession, we actually won't be.
  It is almost beyond satire. The White House isn't focusing their 
energies on

[[Page S3621]]

correcting their mistakes and making the economy better for working 
families who are hurting. Instead, their priority is telling everybody 
things aren't as bad as they look or feel. They want working Americans 
like Ms. Alvarado to believe Democrats' spin instead of their own lying 
eyes.
  I guess the whopping 42 percent of Americans who say they are 
struggling to stay where they are financially are supposed to read the 
White House press release and cheer up. The same people who said 
inflation wouldn't happen and then said it would be transitory and then 
said it had peaked last year are now insisting we aren't heading into a 
recession. Well, draw your own conclusions.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Madam President, on another matter, staring down the barrel of the 
economic disaster they have created, Washington Democrats still don't 
appear to be pumping the brakes on their reckless agenda. For example, 
the same Democrats who spent our country into inflation are now angling 
to regulate our medical cures industry into fewer new cures and fewer 
lifesaving treatments.
  American researchers and manufacturers are the driving force behind 
cutting-edge treatments that the entire world relies on. American 
innovators are leading the races to cure terminal illnesses like 
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
  The entire world benefits from our genius, but, in particular, the 
American people get first and fastest access to the latest new 
treatments, cures, and medical marvels. But the Democrats' pursuit of 
prescription drug socialism could put all of this at risk.
  Arbitrary, top-down, government price controls would dry out the 
wells of American innovation to the tune of hundreds of billions of 
dollars in lost research and development, and American patients would 
feel the pain. The cost of breakthrough cures is measured in dollars, 
but the cost of neglecting them would be measured in lost years of 
American life.
  One academic analysis pegged that true cost at a cumulative 331.5 
million years.
  Let me say that again: One expert says the negative effects of 
Democrats' proposal on medical research would cost a collective total 
of 331.5 million cumulative years of life.
  In other words, their proposal would eventually destroy as many years 
of Americans' lives as there are Americans to live them.
  Just 2 years ago, Democrats were lining up with Republicans and the 
rest of the country to cheer the American researchers and innovators 
who were driving the race for a COVID-19 vaccine--a race they finished 
in record time.
  The American people know what it looks like when lifesaving advances 
happen right here at home. Unfortunately, they may be about to find 
what happens when they don't.


                                 Burma

  Madam President, now, on one final matter, over the weekend, Burma's 
long and difficult struggle toward democracy and freedom took another 
dark step backward. The brutal military junta controlling Burma 
executed--executed--four political prisoners, including the well-known 
activist Ko Jimmy and Phyo Zeya Thaw, a former elected official and 
protest musician--yet more innocent bloodshed for the crime of 
dissenting against the junta's illegitimate rule.
  This is yet another atrocity in a long list of horrors committed by 
the junta with no legitimacy, no regard for the sanctity of human life, 
and no respect for its fellow citizens. It provides even further 
evidence that the junta does not fear any consequences for its 
actions--not from internal chaos, not from civil war, not from its 
neighbors, not from the so-called international community.
  The United States has led efforts to support Burma's people and to 
impose costs and consequences on the junta. Clearly, it is time for 
Burma's neighbors to shoulder a larger burden as well. It is time for 
ASEAN states to step up, individually and collectively.
  As the junta plunges Burma deeper into chaos and civil war, the 
turmoil will affect the entire region. It is Burma's neighbors who have 
the most economic influence over the junta, and it is Burma's neighbors 
who have the most at stake.
  Do they want a failed state wracked by civil war like Syria on their 
borders? Do they want a Russian- or Chinese-backed client state in 
their midst?
  If they will not step up and impose meaningful costs on the junta, 
the Biden administration should use authorities already given to it by 
Congress to sanction Burma's energy sector, including Myanmar Oil and 
Gas Enterprise, notwithstanding the concerns of those neighbors.
  The people of Burma are risking their lives and, in some cases, 
losing their lives to defend their freedom. The Biden administration 
claims to prioritize democracy and human rights in its foreign policy. 
Here is an opportunity to demonstrate that it means what it says.
  So in sum, it is time for Burma's neighbors to act. If they do not, 
the Biden administration should sanction Burma's energy and other major 
sources of revenue for the junta.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                           January 6 Hearings

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like 17 million other Americans, I 
watched the January 6 committee in its latest session last Thursday 
night. For 2 hours, I was there watching closely as they presented 
witnesses and evidence of the obvious. It reminded me that our 
committee--the Senate Judiciary Committee--last October released a 
report that showed in alarming detail how former President Donald Trump 
tried to bully the Justice Department into overturning an election 
which he lost.
  Our report showed just how aggressively the defeated President tried 
to hold on to power, how some with the Justice Department were actually 
conspiring to help him, and how hard the Department's leadership had to 
work to prevent Trump's illegal scheme from succeeding.
  We knew when we produced our report that it was just one chapter in 
an intricate plot to subvert America's democracy.
  In eight public hearings over the last 6 weeks, the House Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol has 
laid out in clear and chilling detail more chapters in the plot to 
overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
  The facts are damning. What makes them even more shocking and 
credible is that they have been revealed, under oath, not by former 
President Trump's political foes but by people who once believed in 
him--people who worked with him for years, close aides, advisers, even 
his own family members.
  I am sure you remember January 6, 2021. Those of us who were in this 
Chamber will never forget it.
  We were here in the Senate to count the electoral ballots forwarded 
from the States to the Senate and the House to confirm the results of 
the 2020 Presidential election. We heard the furious mob outside. They 
attacked Capitol Police officers with hockey sticks, iron bars, toxic 
bear spray, flagpoles--whatever weapons they could find. The Trump mob 
was on the march. They smashed windows and doors, broke into this 
Capitol Building.
  Capitol Police officers ordered the Senators to evacuate the Chamber 
immediately. I remember it well. They first told us: Well, wait here. 
This will be a safe room. Ten minutes later, they said: Leave through 
these back doors as quickly as you can; the mob has taken over the 
Capitol. We rushed to a secure location.
  For hours, as the Capitol Police and DC Metropolitan Police battled 
the mob in brutal hand-to-hand combat, we asked the same questions: 
Where is the protection? Where is the National Guard? Where is the 
President? Donald Trump set this carnage in motion by riling up his 
supporters with the Big Lie and ordering them to march on the Capitol. 
We thought to ourselves, Why won't he tell them to stop? This has gone 
too far.
  The public hearings of the January 6 Committee have answered the 
question in frightening detail. Where was the President? We now know 
from last Thursday's hearing, Donald Trump knew within 15 minutes of 
finishing his remarks that the mob was on its way to attack this 
building and the people inside. What did he do? What did Donald Trump 
do for 3 hours 7 minutes? He sat in his private dining room next to the 
Oval Office watching the violence

[[Page S3622]]

on TV. He refused to contact his national security leaders to defend 
the Capitol of the United States of America. He refused pleas from 
congressional leaders of both parties, from his own staff and family, 
from his allies in the media at FOX News to call off the mob. He 
refused to walk less than 60 seconds to the White House briefing room 
to make a simple statement asking for the violence to stop. He was 
silent, and he watched FOX News every second of that 3 hours 7 minutes.
  We learned that members of Vice President Pence's Secret Service 
detail actually thought that they might die as they confronted this 
mob. As some of those agents made what they feared might be their last 
calls to their families to tell them that they loved them, President 
Donald Trump sent out a tweet telling the mob Vice President Pence had 
betrayed them. Instead of calming the riot, Donald Trump poured 
gasoline on the fire.
  Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican member of the 
January 6 Committee, summed it up well. He said:

       Trump didn't fail to act . . . he chose not to act.

  Only when it was clear that his coup had failed did Donald Trump 
reluctantly record a video telling his supporters to leave the Capitol 
and go home. And he carefully chose his words--we can tell from the 
outtakes--not to concede the Big Lie. There was not a word of 
condemnation about the violence, not a word of concern for the police 
officers who battled that mob to protect our safety and our democracy. 
More than 140 police officers--Capitol Police, DC Metropolitan Police--
suffered serious injuries on January 6. Where is this President who 
loved law and order? Silently watching on FOX.
  Over the next few days and weeks, sadly, several officers who 
defended the Capitol died. Not a word from former President Trump.
  In the committee's earlier hearings, we learned how the President had 
ignored his own aides and advisers and relentlessly pressed false 
claims of voter fraud, listening to his ``gifted'' legal counsel, Rudy 
Giuliani, even when he was told repeatedly that these claims were 
wrong.
  We learned how he pressured Vice President Pence to go along with the 
plan to overturn his loss even after he was told by the experts around 
him: President Trump, it would be illegal.
  We learned how President Trump pressed elected leaders in key States 
to change the vote totals in their States. When that failed, he pressed 
allies to send false slates of electors that would make him the winner.
  He learned how to summon a mob to Washington and turned them loose on 
this building, even after being told the mob was carrying weapons. And 
even after all the harm his Big Lie has done to our democracy, he is 
still relentlessly peddling it.
  Outtakes aired by the House committee last week showed on the day of 
insurrection, he still refused to say the election is over. This little 
man just can't bring himself to accept reality.
  Wisconsin's Assembly Speaker, who happens to be a Republican, said 
Donald Trump called him to urge him to overturn the State's vote in the 
2020 election. When did he call him? Two weeks ago. He is still on a 
rampage.
  The Senate will soon consider a bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act 
to make it plain that a Presidential election cannot be overturned by 
wrongful partisan interference by a Vice President or any State or 
congressional officials. I support this effort. Senators Klobuchar, 
King, and I offered our own ideas several months ago on this 
anticipated Electoral Count Act reform. I hope that this bipartisan 
effort can get 60 votes in the Senate.

  I hope that 10 Republicans will join us in modernizing this law so it 
works for today. It was written in haste in the middle of political 
controversy in the 19th century. Some of the sections of that law are 
almost unintelligible. Let's clarify it. Let's give the American people 
an assurance that we learned a lesson on January 6, 2021, and in the 
election that preceded it. And in that lesson, we learned that the 
American people want their votes to count accurately, honestly, and 
fairly.
  Ultimately, however, the only way we can protect our elections and 
our democracy is by respecting the rule of law and the will of the 
American people and telling them the truth. By laying out the truth 
clearly for the American people and for history, the January 6 
Committee is performing an invaluable public service. They deserve our 
respect.
  One closing comment. There wasn't supposed to be a committee in the 
House. Madam President, you remember and I do, too, the proposal was 
for a bipartisan Commission to be created to investigate this travesty 
on January 6 as they investigated 9/11--take politics out of it, take 
elected officials out of it, bring together people who are respected 
from across the political spectrum, and get to the bottom of it. That 
proposal for a bipartisan Commission was stopped by Republican 
leadership in the House and the Senate. After all of the statements 
they made expressing outrage over January 6, when it came time to 
appoint the Commission--bipartisan Commission--they refused. There is 
only one conclusion you can draw: They don't want to face the truth. 
They don't want the truth to be on the record from a bipartisan 
Commission. Luckily, in the House of Representatives, the January 6 
Committee has achieved that, and there is more to come.
  I might add, people say: Why didn't the Senate Judiciary Committee 
take this on? That is a very valid question. The difference is this. In 
order to issue a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee in such a 
committee hearing, we need to have agreement from at least one 
Republican member of the committee. We had no assurance that that 
agreement would be offered. So I supported the January 6 Committee in 
the House, and I am glad that they moved forward as they have.


                                Abortion

  Madam President, it was a month ago the Dobbs decision was handed 
down. One of the most controversial issues in American politics is the 
issue of abortion and reproductive health.
  We know that Justice Alito's opinion, a 6-to-3 decision, overturned 
Roe v. Wade. Since then, we have been trying to sort out the impact of 
that decision on America. There are many things that have happened 
which have been shocking--the fact that they have called into question 
some of the things that we had accepted for 50 years as 
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
  Yes, there was a 10-year-old girl who was viciously raped and turned 
up pregnant in the State of Ohio. And, yes, under the law in the State 
of Ohio because she was 6 weeks 3 days pregnant, she couldn't qualify 
for a procedure to terminate her pregnancy in the State of Ohio. She 
had to go to Indiana, the neighboring State. There were those who 
disputed that it ever happened and denied that such a thing could 
occur. As it turned out, they were wrong. It did happen. I was saddened 
to read that one of the leaders in the right to life movement said she 
should carry that baby to term--a 10-year-old girl.
  Madam President, I am sure you have seen a lot of 10-year-old young 
people. I have seen them, too, even in my household, one of my 
grandchildren. At that age, you are still questioning whether they can 
cross a busy street without help. And to think someone would say she 
should carry that baby to term ignores her own health and ignores the 
reality of that situation. That is the kind of rhetoric we are hearing 
from people who are proposing a national ban on abortions.
  I was reading this morning an article in the New York Times.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this New York Times 
article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             After Roe, Urgent Questions About Cancer Care

                            (By Gina Kolata)

       In April of last year, Rachel Brown's oncologist called 
     with bad news--at age 36, she had an aggressive form of 
     breast cancer. The very next day, she found out she was 
     pregnant after nearly a year of trying with her fiance to 
     have a baby.
       She had always said she would never have an abortion. But 
     the choices she faced were wrenching. If she had the 
     chemotherapy that she needed to prevent the spread of her 
     cancer, she could harm her baby. If she didn't have it, the 
     cancer could spread and kill her. She had two children, ages 
     2 and 11, who could lose their mother.
       For Ms. Brown and others in the unlucky sorority of women 
     who receive a cancer diagnosis when they are pregnant, the 
     Supreme

[[Page S3623]]

     Court decision in June, ending the constitutional right to an 
     abortion, can seem like a slap in the face. If the life of a 
     fetus is paramount, a pregnancy can mean a woman cannot get 
     effective treatment for her cancer. One in a thousand women 
     who gets pregnant each year is diagnosed with cancer, meaning 
     thousands of women are facing a serious and possibly fatal 
     disease while they are expecting a baby.
       Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with 
     cancer was already ``entering a world with tremendous 
     unknowns,'' said Dr. Clifford Hudis, the chief executive 
     officer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Now, 
     not only the women but also the doctors and hospitals that 
     treat them, are caught up in the added complications of 
     abortion bans.
       ``If a doctor can't give a drug without fear of damaging a 
     fetus, is that going to compromise outcomes?'' Dr. Hudis 
     asked. ``It's a whole new world.''
       Cancer drugs are dangerous for fetuses in the first 
     trimester. Although older chemotherapy drugs are safe in the 
     second and third trimesters, the safety of the newer and more 
     effective drugs is unknown and doctors are reluctant to give 
     them to pregnant women.
       About 40 percent of women who are pregnant and have cancer 
     have breast cancer. But other cancers also occur in pregnant 
     women, including blood cancers, cervical and ovarian cancer, 
     gastrointestinal cancer, melanoma, brain cancer, thyroid 
     cancer and pancreatic cancer.
       Women with some types of cancer, like acute leukemia, often 
     can't continue with a pregnancy if the cancer is diagnosed in 
     the first trimester. They need to be treated immediately, 
     within days, and the necessary drugs are toxic to a fetus.
       ``In my view, the only medically acceptable option is 
     termination of the pregnancy so that lifesaving treatment can 
     be administered to the mother,'' said Dr. Eric Winer, the 
     director of the Yale Cancer Center.
       Some oncologists say they are not sure what is allowed if a 
     woman lives in a state like Michigan, which has a law that 
     criminalized most abortions but permits them to save the life 
     of the mother. Does leukemia qualify as a reason for an 
     abortion to save her life?
       ``It's so early we don't know the answer,'' said Dr. N. 
     Lynn Henry, an oncologist at the University of Michigan. ``We 
     can't prove that the drugs caused a problem for the baby, and 
     we can't prove that withholding the drugs would have a 
     negative outcome.''
       In other words, doctors say, complications from a 
     pregnancy--a miscarriage, a premature birth, birth defects or 
     death--can occur whether or not a woman with cancer takes the 
     drugs. If she is not treated and her cancer gallops into a 
     malignancy that kills her, that too might have happened even 
     if she had been given the cancer drugs.
       Administrators of the University of Michigan's medical 
     system are not intervening in cancer treatment decisions 
     about how to treat cancers in pregnant women, saying 
     ``medical decision making and management is between doctors 
     and patients.''
       I. Glenn Cohen, a law professor and bioethicist at Harvard, 
     is gravely concerned.
       ``We are putting physicians in a terrible position,'' Mr. 
     Cohen said. ``I don't think signing up to be a physician 
     should mean signing up to do jail time,'' he added.
       Oncologists usually are part of a hospital system, Mr. 
     Cohen said, which adds a further complication for doctors who 
     treat cancers in states that ban abortions. ``Whatever their 
     personal feelings,'' he asked, ``what are the risks the 
     hospital system is going to face?''
       ``I don't think oncologists ever thought this day was 
     coming for them,'' Mr. Cohen said.
       Behind the confusion and concern from doctors are the 
     stories of women like Ms. Brown.
       She had a large tumor in her left breast and cancer cells 
     in her underarm lymph nodes. The cancer was HER2 positive. 
     Such cancers can spread quickly without treatment. About 15 
     years ago, the prognosis for women with HER2 positive cancers 
     was among the worst breast cancer prognosis. Then a targeted 
     treatment, trastuzumab, or Herceptin, completely changed the 
     picture. Now women with HER2 tumors have among the best 
     prognoses compared with other breast cancers.
       But trastuzumab cannot be given during pregnancy.
       Ms. Brown's first visit was with a surgical oncologist who, 
     she said, ``made it clear that my life would be in danger if 
     I kept my pregnancy because I wouldn't be able to be treated 
     until the second trimester.'' He told her that if she waited 
     for those months her cancer could spread to distant organs 
     and would become fatal.
       Her treatment in the second trimester would be a mastectomy 
     with removal of all of the lymph nodes in her left armpit, 
     which would have raised her risk of lymphedema, an incurable 
     fluid buildup in her arm. She could start chemotherapy in her 
     second trimester but could not have trastuzumab or radiation 
     treatment.
       Her next consult was with Dr. Lisa Carey, a breast cancer 
     specialist at the University of North Carolina, who told her 
     that while she could have a mastectomy in the first 
     trimester, before chemotherapy, it was not optimal. 
     Ordinarily, oncologists would give cancer drugs before a 
     mastectomy to shrink the tumor, allowing for a less invasive 
     surgery. If the treatment did not eradicate the tumor, 
     oncologists would try a more aggressive drug treatment after 
     the operation.
       But if she had a mastectomy before having chemotherapy, it 
     would be impossible to know if the treatment was helping. And 
     what if the drugs were not working? She worried that her 
     cancer could become fatal without her knowing it.
       She feared that if she tried to keep her pregnancy, she 
     might sacrifice her own life and destroy the lives of her 
     children. And if she delayed making her decision and then had 
     an abortion later in the pregnancy, she feared that the fetus 
     might feel pain.
       She and her fiance discussed her options. This pregnancy 
     would be his first biological child.
       With enormous sadness, they made their decision--she would 
     have a medication abortion. She took the pills one morning 
     when she was six weeks and one day pregnant, and cried all 
     day. She wrote a eulogy for the baby who might have been. She 
     was convinced the baby was going to be a girl, and had named 
     her Hope. She saved the ultrasound of Hope's heartbeat.
       ``I don't take that little life lightly,'' Ms. Brown said.
       After she terminated her pregnancy, Ms. Brown was able to 
     start treatment with trastuzumab, along with a cocktail of 
     chemotherapy drugs and radiation. She had a mastectomy, and 
     there was no evidence of cancer at the time of her surgery--a 
     great prognostic sign, Dr. Carey said. She did not need to 
     have all of her lymph nodes removed and did not develop 
     lymphedema.
       ``I feel like it has taken a lot of courage to do what I 
     did,'' Ms. Brown said. ``As a mother your first instinct is 
     to protect the baby.''
       But having gone through that grueling treatment, she also 
     wondered how she could ever have handled having a newborn 
     baby and her two other children to care for.
       ``My bones ached. I couldn't walk more than a few steps 
     without being out of breath. It was hard to get nutrients 
     because of the nausea and vomiting,'' she said.
       The Supreme Court decision hit her hard.
       ``I felt like the reason I did what I did didn't matter,'' 
     she said. ``My life didn't matter, and my children's lives 
     didn't matter.''
       ``It didn't matter if I lost my life because I was being 
     forced to be pregnant,'' she said.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to read this because it tells you the 
complications that have been created by what seemed like a very simple 
decision overturning a previous Supreme Court case. This writer, Gina 
Kolata, wrote an article entitled ``After Roe, Urgent Questions About 
Cancer Care.'' It was in Sunday's New York Times, July 24, 2022. I was 
struck by this article because it suggests the complexity of this issue 
and the real-world impact of this decision:

       In April of last year, Rachel Brown's oncologist called 
     with bad news--at age 36, she had an aggressive form of 
     breast cancer. The very next day, she found out she was 
     pregnant after nearly a year of trying with her fiance to 
     have a baby.
       She had always said she would never have an abortion. But 
     the choices she faced were wrenching. If she had the 
     chemotherapy that she needed to prevent the spread of her 
     cancer, she could harm the baby. If she didn't have it, the 
     cancer could spread and kill her. She had two children, ages 
     2 and 11, who would lose their mother.
       For Ms. Brown and others in the unlucky sorority of women 
     who receive a cancer diagnosis when they are pregnant, the 
     Supreme Court decision in [Dobbs], ending the constitutional 
     right to an abortion, can seem like a slap in the face. If 
     the life of a fetus is paramount, a pregnancy can mean a 
     woman cannot get effective treatment for her cancer. One in a 
     thousand women who gets pregnant each year is diagnosed with 
     cancer, meaning thousands of women are facing a serious and 
     possibly fatal disease while they are expecting a baby.
       Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with 
     cancer was already ``entering a world with tremendous 
     unknowns,'' said Dr. Clifford Hudis, the chief executive 
     officer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Now, 
     not only the women but also the doctors and hospitals that 
     treat them, are caught up in the added complications of 
     abortion bans.
       ``If a doctor can't give a drug without fear of damaging a 
     fetus, is that going to compromise outcomes?'' Dr. Hudis 
     asked. ``It's a whole new world.''
       Cancer drugs are dangerous for fetuses in the first 
     trimester. Although older chemotherapy drugs are safe in the 
     second and third trimesters, the safety of the newer and more 
     effective drugs is unknown and doctors are reluctant to give 
     them to [a] pregnant [woman].

  This woman decided to terminate her pregnancy, take the cancer 
therapy, and save her life. She closes with the following statements:

       But having gone through that grueling treatment, she also 
     wondered how she could ever have handled having a newborn 
     baby and her two other children to care for.
       ``My bones ached, I couldn't walk more than a few steps 
     without being out of breath. It was hard to get nutrients 
     because of nausea and vomiting,'' she said.
       The Supreme Court decision hit her hard.
       ``I felt like the reason I did what I did didn't matter,'' 
     she said. ``My life didn't

[[Page S3624]]

     matter, and my children's lives didn't matter.
       ``It didn't matter if I lost my life because I was being 
     forced to be pregnant,'' she said.

  That is the reality today. I hear my colleagues come to the floor 
with absolute certain moral clarity on this issue. I have learned 
during the course of my life and my public life that there is not that 
element of certainty when it comes down to real life. And to jeopardize 
the health and safety, even the life of the mother in this 
circumstance, to leave doctors wondering if they have criminal 
liability for professional medical care is something this Nation should 
never see. But we face it now, and it is up to us to show leadership 
and come together, I hope, and bring back the constitutional 
protections that have been the case for 50 years in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). The Senator from Texas.


                           CHIPS Act of 2022

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as I was preparing to come to the floor, 
I was going to say we are going to have a vote tonight to proceed to 
fill a major gap in our national security, although it looks like 
Mother Nature and the weather may prevent a vote tonight, and it may be 
tomorrow. But, still, I expect in the next couple of days for us to 
address a major gap in our national security.
  More than a year and a half after the original CHIPS Act became law, 
we are finally approaching the finish line in the race to fund it.
  You may recall that it was June of 2020 that Senator Warner, the 
senior Senator, a Democrat from Virginia, and I introduced the CHIPS 
for America Act to address a frightening supply chain vulnerability 
when it comes to the most advanced semiconductors in the world, 90 
percent of which come from Asia, and 60 percent come from Taiwan.
  Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently wrote a letter to 
congressional leaders saying that ``funding the CHIPS Act is critical 
to our national defense,'' and last week, former Secretary of State and 
CIA Director Mike Pompeo also urged Congress to pass this funding, 
saying:

       The cost of compromise on this bill pales in comparison to 
     the costs we will suffer if we allow the Chinese Communist 
     Party to one day own and control access to our most critical 
     technologies.

  I agree with both of these statements, one by a Democrat appointee, 
another by a Republican appointee.
  Chips underpin virtually all the technology that we use that keeps us 
safe at home and protects our troops around the world. And for those 
not conversant with the role semiconductors play, these microprocessors 
underpin literally everything that has an off-and-on switch, and 
obviously our dependency on that kind of technology will do nothing but 
increase in the days and months and years ahead.
  From our major military assets, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, 
to everyday technologies that keep our troops safe, like advanced body 
armor, semiconductors are key. Keeping a ready and dependable supply 
chain of these defense assets requires a lot of semiconductors, and 
right now, we are mainly looking to other countries to manufacture 
them.
  As a matter of fact, the United States of America makes zero percent 
of the most advanced semiconductors in the world. We depend on 
outsourcing virtually all of the manufacturing to other countries and 
produce none of them here. Roughly 75 percent of the semiconductor 
manufacturing globally is concentrated in China and East Asia, and 100 
percent of the world's most advanced chipmaking capacity is located in 
only two places--Taiwan and South Korea. As I said, Taiwan commands 92 
percent of the world's advanced chipmaking, and the United States makes 
zero.
  You might wonder, How did we find ourselves in this situation? Well, 
I think it was probably the supply chain vulnerabilities that we saw 
from COVID-19 that called into question this assumption that just 
because something could be made cheaper somewhere else in the world, 
that that necessarily checked all the boxes. Well, it does if all you 
are depending on is China to make toys for our children or other 
nonessential items, but when you are talking about the very brains 
behind the technology we need, ranging from our cell phone, as I said, 
to our most sophisticated military weapons, it does not check all the 
boxes to say we will just import those from abroad, where they can be 
made cheaper, because that vulnerable supply chain, if disrupted, could 
cause not only a severe economic depression in America but also 
threaten our national security directly.
  If access to those chips were cut off or restricted, we would be up a 
creek without a paddle. We couldn't produce a stockpile of Javelin 
missiles to supply Ukraine or produce the radios and 
communications devices that keep our troops and our allies connected. 
That is why shoring up this domestic supply, this manufacturing 
capacity, is a key national security priority, and this is the best way 
to protect one of our most critical supply chains and ensure our 
military readiness will not be compromised by the People's Republic of 
China or the Chinese Communist Party, which has threatened, by the way, 
to invade Taiwan, where the vast majority of these advanced 
semiconductors are made. But it wouldn't necessarily require a military 
intervention. It could be another pandemic, it could be a natural 
disaster--anything that might block our access to these advanced 
semiconductors.

  While closing that national security gap is the top priority here, we 
can't ignore major economic consequences that this legislation will 
deliver as well.
  When I introduced this legislation with Senator Warner from Virginia, 
who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I also 
serve, our focus was on national security. Obviously, many of our 
States will be winners when it comes to the economic consequences of 
this legislation as well. Texas has been, for example, a longstanding 
leader in the semiconductor industry and is home to more than 200 chip 
manufacturing facilities that employ 29,000 Texans. For years, our 
State has reaped the benefits of semiconductor manufacturing. Most of 
these are what are called legacy chips. They are the older chips where 
you are not as concerned about miniaturization or compactness or 
power--things that, for example, run our refrigerators or TV sets or 
other consumer electronics or maybe even our cars.
  We are already seeing the types of investments that this chips bill 
will finally bring. Earlier this summer, Texas Instruments, in the 
metroplex in Dallas-Fort Worth, broke ground on the first of four new 
fabs in Sherman, TX, about an hour north of Dallas. This is part of a 
$30 billion investment that is expected to create some 3,000 more jobs. 
The mayor of Sherman, where this is located in Northeast Texas, 
described it as ``a watershed day,'' noting that ``it's hard to have a 
frame of reference for a $30 billion investment in a town of 50,000 
people.''
  Sherman isn't the only town in Texas preparing for a major chips 
boom. Last fall, I joined leaders from Samsung--a South Korean company 
with a large facility already in Austin, TX--when they announced a $17 
billion additional investment in a new chip fab in Taylor, TX, just 
outside of Austin. That facility is expected to directly create more 
than 2,000 high-tech jobs, as well as thousands of other related jobs, 
once it is operational because these fabs, or manufacturing facilities, 
are not stand-alone; they are part of what ultimately will become an 
ecosystem of suppliers and other affiliated industries that will be 
built up around them, creating thousands more jobs.
  But we also learned from Samsung that they are not likely to stop 
there if we pass this CHIPS for America funding this week. Samsung is 
currently considering whether to expand its investment to include 11 
new chipmaking facilities in Central Texas.
  If it moves forward with this plan, which, again, depends on our 
passage of this legislation this week, it could lead to nearly $200 
billion in additional investments and create 10,000 jobs.
  I know that is tough to comprehend--the economic growth and sweeping 
benefits that would come with a $200 billion investment and 10,000 new 
jobs; but as exciting as these potential investments are, there is 
something even better. This is just the beginning.
  Companies around the world are eyeing Texas and the United States for 
new investments in chipmaking. Applied Materials, NXP Semiconductors,

[[Page S3625]]

Infineon, GlobalWafers, GlobiTech, and a number of other companies are 
looking at building or expanding their facilities in Texas or other 
parts of the country.
  GlobalFoundries, for example, is investing $1 billion to boost 
production in New York. Intel plans to build a $20-billion facility of 
two fabs in Ohio. And Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company--TSMC, 
as it is called--is building a $12-billion plant in Arizona. They have 
already broken ground on that plant, but they made it clear that their 
willingness to make that investment and complete that fab will depend 
on our passage of the CHIPS for America Act.
  And once this legislation passes, I expect more good news to follow. 
This is not just good news for our individual States, but also for our 
national economy and our global competitiveness.
  We are not used to providing these kinds of financial incentives to 
businesses, but when it costs 30 percent less to build these 
manufacturing facilities across the seas in Asia and our access to that 
supply chain is potentially jeopardized by very real threats, it is a 
necessary investment for us to make. And we are seeing other places 
around the world providing similar incentives, for example, in the 
European Union. But that doesn't necessarily solve our supply chain 
problem. We need the jobs and that investment here in America for us to 
be truly safe and secure and to reap the economic benefits of this 
investment.
  On the economic front, this funding has the support of many groups on 
the outside, including the bipartisan support that I mentioned earlier; 
in my State, the Texas Association of Business; the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, for example; and we have heard from the National Governors 
Association, which is a bipartisan organization of U.S. Governors; as 
well as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represent State and local 
leaders across the country.
  My Governor, Governor Abbott, called this bill ``an opportunity to 
lock even greater economic potential.''
  So I am proud to support this legislation. After all this time, I 
will be especially glad when the finish line is in sight and we cross 
it successfully later this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, like the Senator from Texas, I wish to 
speak about the so-called chips bill, but my perspective is, to say the 
least, a little bit different.
  To my mind, what the chips bill represents is the question of whether 
or not we will have priorities in this country that represent the needs 
of working families and the middle class or whether this institution, 
the entire Congress, is totally beholden to wealthy and powerful 
corporate interests.
  I do not argue with anyone who makes the point that there is a global 
shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is making it harder 
for manufacturers to produce the cars, the cell phones, the household 
appliances, and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage 
is, in fact, costing American workers good-paying jobs and raising 
prices for families. And that is why I personally strongly support the 
need to expand U.S. microchip production.
  But the question that we should be asking is this: Should American 
taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check--blank 
check--of over $76 billion at the same exact time when semiconductor 
companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying 
their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages?
  That really is one of the questions that we should be asking, and I 
think the answer to that is a resounding no. This is an enormously 
profitable industry.
  According to an Associated Press article that I read today, Senator 
Romney, reflecting the views, I think, of many--I think Senator Cornyn 
made the same point--but Senator Romney was quoted as saying that when 
other countries subsidize the manufacturing of high technology chips, 
the United States must join the club--must join the club.
  ``If you don't play like they play, then you are not going to be 
manufacturing high technology chips, and they are essential for our 
national defense as well as our economy,'' Senator Romney said.

  Now, I find the position of Senator Romney and others to be really 
quite interesting because I personally have been on this floor many, 
many times urging the Senate to look to other countries around the 
world and learn from those countries. And what I have said is that it 
is a bit absurd that here in the United States we are the only major 
country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to all of their people. 
And Senator Romney says ``join the club,'' and I agree. Let's join the 
club and not spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as the 
Canadians, as the British, as the French. Let's join that club and 
guarantee healthcare to all people, rather than making the insurance 
companies billions in profits every single year.
  Senator Romney says ``join the club,'' and I agree. We should join 
the club in terms of higher education. Germany today, and other 
countries around the world, make sure that their young people can go to 
their colleges and universities tuition-free so that they don't have to 
leave school 40, 50, or $100,000 in debt. Let's join the club. Let's do 
what Germany and other countries are doing, which makes eminent sense 
in every sense of the word. Let's guarantee the right of all of our 
kids, regardless of their income, to get a higher education. Let's join 
the club.
  And there is another club that I think we might want to join, among 
many others. We are the only major country--virtually the only country 
on Earth--that does not guarantee paid family and medical leave. There 
are women today in the United States of America having a baby, and they 
will be back at work in a week because they need the income--no 
guaranteed paid family medical leave. There are people getting fired 
today because their kids are sick. They have to make the choice whether 
they hang on to their jobs or take care of their sick kids.
  Let's join the club. Let's do what not only every major country on 
Earth does in terms of guaranteed paid family and medical, but what 
virtually all countries, including some of the poorest, in the world 
do.
  But I gather the problem is that to join those clubs in terms of 
universal healthcare, in terms of paid family and medical leave, in 
terms of free tuition and public colleges and universities, we are 
going to have to take on powerful special interests, and they make 
campaign contributions. And that is not what the Senate does.
  When it comes to joining the club with other countries giving blank 
checks to large corporations, that is a club that, unfortunately, many 
of my colleagues here feel comfortable in joining.
  So, apparently, when corporate America needs a blank check of $76 
billion, we do what other countries are doing.
  There is a lot of talk about the microchip crisis facing this country 
but, amazingly enough, very little discussion about how we got to where 
we are today. One might ask: OK, if there is a crisis, how did it 
happen? Well, let's review some recent history. This is really quite 
amazing.
  Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down over 780 
manufacturing plants and other establishments in the United States and 
eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of its production 
overseas. And, by the way, they did that after they received a Federal 
grant and loans much smaller than what we are talking about today.
  So here is the absurd situation that we are in. The crisis is caused 
by the industry shutting down in America and moving abroad. And today, 
what we are doing is saying: We are going to give you a blank check to 
undo the damage that you did.
  Let me just give you a few examples. We don't have a whole lot of 
information on this. Between 2010 and 2014, Intel laid off 
approximately 1,400 workers from the Rio Rancho, NM, chip facility and 
offshored 1,000 jobs to Israel. According to the Oregon Bureau of Labor 
and Industry, Intel laid off more than 1,000 workers in Oregon between 
2015 and 2016. Texas Instruments outsourced 400 jobs from their Houston 
manufacturing facility to the Philippines in 2013. Micron Technology 
has repeatedly cut jobs in Boise, ID, including 1,100 in 2003 and 
another 1,100 in

[[Page S3626]]

2007; 1,500 in 2008; and in 2009, the company stopped manufacturing 
some types of chips entirely and laid off 2,000 workers.
  In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took 
government money and used it to ship good-paying jobs abroad. Now as 
their reward for causing the crisis that we are in, these same 
companies are in line to receive a massive taxpayer handout to undo the 
damage they did.
  Wow, that is a heck of a policy. You bribe companies to undo the 
damage that they caused.
  It is estimated in total that five major semiconductor companies will 
receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout: Intel, Texas 
Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Boundaries, and Samsung. These 
five companies alone made $70 billion in profits.
  You know, I find it interesting. I have heard Senators here on the 
floor talk about entitlements. When we help working people, when we 
help poor people, there are all kinds of requirements--work 
requirements, reporting requirements, drug testing requirements, you 
name the requirements when the Federal Government helps working people 
or low-income people.
  Well, what are the requirements attached to this handout for large 
profitable corporations? The answer is zero.
  The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer 
assistance is Intel. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion 
in profits.
  You know, it just does astound me. You have heard people come to the 
floor and say: We can't help working parents with their kids. We don't 
believe in those entitlement programs. We can't guarantee healthcare to 
all people. We are not an ``entitlement society.'' But a company that, 
last year, made $20 billion in profits, they are entitled to what we 
estimate will be between $20 and $30 billion in Federal funding. During 
the pandemic and during the last several years, Intel had enough money 
to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on building 
new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its 
executives and wealthy shareholders. So here is the absurd moment that 
we are in. As I mentioned a moment ago, it is estimated that Intel will 
receive between $20 and $30 billion in Federal funding. Yet, within the 
last several years, the same company spent over $16 billion on stock 
buybacks, and there is no guarantee in this bill that they and other 
companies that receive these grants will not continue to do stock 
buybacks.

  This is the way a corrupt political system works, and I hope 
everybody understands it.
  Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying 
and campaign contributions. That is a lot of money, $100 million, but 
this is what a corrupt political system is about. For $100 million in 
lobbying and campaign contributions, they are going to get at least $20 
billion in corporate welfare. That, I would argue, is a pretty good 
investment. That is what goes on here not only with the microchip 
industry but with the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel 
industry, the insurance industry--huge amounts of money in lobbying and 
campaign contributions. The pharmaceutical industry has 1,500 paid 
lobbyists right now, right here in Washington, DC, which is why we pay 
the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
  I find this extraordinary. Maybe I am the only person here who does, 
but, to me, it is rather amazing.
  A little over a week ago, the CEO of Intel, a gentleman named Pat 
Gelsinger, who earns something like $179 million a year in 
compensation--not a bad salary--did an interview on CNBC's ``Squawk 
Box'' program. I think to listen to that interview tells us everything 
we need to know about oligarchy and arrogance and the state of American 
politics.
  This is what Mr. Gelsinger said on TV. I love this.

       My message--

  Mr. Gelsinger's message--

     to congressional leaders is ``Hey, if I'm not done with the 
     job, I don't get to go home. Neither should you. Do not go 
     home for August recess until you have passed the CHIPS Act. 
     Because--

  Now listen to this--

       ``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''--

  The industry--

     ``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.''

  In other words, what he is telling you is, point blank, who is the 
puppet and who is the puppeteer. Don't go home this August until you 
give us $76 billion because, if you don't do that, we are going to go 
to Asia, and we are going to go to Europe.
  That is the state of American politics--and not only of American 
politics, I would say. It is equally true in other countries that are 
also held hostage by large, multinational corporations.
  Let us be clear. The CEO of Intel is saying, if you don't give his 
industry a $76 billion blank check and his particular company up to $30 
billion, that despite, no doubt, their profound love for America--I am 
sure they have got big American flags all over the place and their 
patriotism and their concern for the needs of the military and the 
healthcare industry, which, in fact, need these sophisticated chips. If 
we do not give them this bribe despite their love of America and their 
concern about our national defense--you heard Senator Cornyn talking 
about national defense, and he is right in that this is a national 
defense issue. Despite all of that and all of their love for America, 
they are willing to go to Asia and go to Europe in order to make even 
more money.
  As I said last week, I am, thankfully, not a lawyer, but that sure 
sounds like extortion to me. Mr. Gelsinger's words sure sound like 
extortion. What he is saying is, if you don't give his industry $76 
billion, they are out. They are not going to build in the United 
States, and they are going to go abroad.
  So I have a few questions for Mr. Gelsinger and the other microchip 
CEOs.
  If Intel and the others receive a corporate welfare check from the 
taxpayers of America, are they willing to commit today that they will 
not outsource American jobs overseas? Yes or no?
  If this legislation passes, will Intel and the others commit today 
that they will not spend another penny on stock buybacks to enrich 
wealthy shareholders but will, instead, spend that money to create jobs 
in the United States?
  If this legislation goes into effect, will Intel and the others 
commit today that they will stay neutral in any union organizing 
campaign, like the one being waged at Intel's microchip plant in 
Hillsboro, OR?
  If this legislation goes into effect, will Intel and the others 
commit today that they are prepared to issue warrants for the Federal 
Government so that the taxpayers of America get a reasonable return on 
their investments?
  These grants are going to provide a whole lot of profit for these 
companies. It seems to me the taxpayers should benefit as well.
  If Intel and the others were prepared to say yes to any of these 
questions, I don't think that they would be lobbying against my 
amendment to impose these very same conditions to this legislation.
  Let me simply conclude by saying this: I worry not only about this 
bill; I worry about the precedent that it states, that it allows. What 
the precedent is, is that any company that is prepared to go abroad and 
that has ignored the needs of the American people will then say to the 
Congress: Hey, if you want us to stay here, you had better give us a 
handout.
  We manufacture virtually all of our laptop computers in China. We 
manufacture virtually all of our cell phones in China. Pass this 
legislation, and I expect all of these guys and others will be back 
here, saying: We want for our industry what you did for the microchip 
industry.
  So the bottom line is here: Yes, we need to rebuild the microchip 
industry in the United States but not as a handout. Let us sit down and 
work on intelligent industrial policy. Let us work on a series of 
agreements that protect the American taxpayer and American workers and 
not just wealthy stockholders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           CHIPS Act of 2022

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today, the Senate had planned to move

[[Page S3627]]

forward to end the debate on the bipartisan chips and innovation bill. 
Unfortunately, a number of severe thunderstorms on the East Coast have 
disrupted the travel plans of a significant number of Senators. To give 
Members a chance to get back into town safely, I am going to delay 
tonight's vote on the bipartisan chips and innovation bill until 
tomorrow morning. I remain hopeful that we can remain on track to 
finish this legislation ASAP.


                            PACT Act of 2022

  Madam President, in the meantime, I will now file cloture on another 
bill that will dramatically improve the lives of millions of American 
veterans, the PACT Act, which, when signed into law, will be one of the 
biggest expansions of veterans' healthcare benefits in decades.
  As my colleagues already know, because of a technical error, the 
House of Representatives was unable to take up our version of this bill 
that we passed in the spring. The House has now fixed their error and 
has returned the PACT Act back to the Senate. By filing cloture, we 
should be able to pass this bipartisan piece of legislation before the 
week is done.
  Our nation's veterans have waited long enough to get the benefits 
they need to treat complications from toxic exposure in the line of 
duty. So we have every reason in the world to get this bill done with 
the same bipartisan support as the first time around.
  Again, I want to thank particularly Senators Tester and Moran, who 
led the way to pass this bill earlier this year, thank all of our 
colleagues and our veterans and veterans service organizations for 
helping push this bill through Congress.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4346

  Madam President, now I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to H.R. 4346 occur at a time 
to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with 
the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. For the information of the Senate, we expect the cloture 
vote with respect to the CHIPS and science legislation to occur around 
11 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, July 26.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Madam President, I have a cloture motion to the 
motion to concur at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to S. 3373, a bill to improve 
     the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of 
     Fallen Heroes Grant.
         Charles E. Schumer, Jon Tester, Ben Ray Lujan, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Tina Smith, John W. 
           Hickenlooper, Mazie K. Hirono, Mark R. Warner, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Jack Reed, Tammy Baldwin, Jacky Rosen, 
           Raphael G. Warnock, Tammy Duckworth, Christopher 
           Murphy, Mark Kelly.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
for the cloture motion filed today, July 25, be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________