Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021. I am very grateful to be joined by my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Maine, because on this topic I am about to describe, she was way ahead of the curve, as she is on so many issues. She was so far ahead of the curve as to what we are talking about now, that if the Congress of the United States had adopted her proposals back in 2012--back in 2012--we might not be dealing with, literally, the catastrophic effects of cyber security incidents. We didn't, and that is why we are putting forward the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021. It seems like, every day, Americans wake up to the news of another ransomware attack or cyber intrusion. The SolarWinds breach, which we learned about last December, resulted in the compromise of hundreds of Federal Agencies and private companies. The truth was, as we discovered, the bad guys actually got into 18,000 companies in the SolarWinds hack. Similarly, the ransomware attack on the Colonial Pipeline this past May resulted in gasoline and fuel shortages and price spikes across the entire eastern seaboard, demonstrating how broad the ripple effects of these attacks can be. The truth is these attacks can affect hundreds or even thousands of entities connected to the initial target. Earlier this week, the United States and allied governments publicly accused China's government of conducting an extensive hacking campaign on Microsoft's email systems, which again compromised tens of thousands of computers worldwide, including those used by some of the world's largest companies, contractors, and governments. These events are finally the wake-up call that Senator Collins predicted a decade ago, a wake-up call for many of us in Washington, and even for those individuals who sit on these companies' boards that have to understand now the threats and capabilities possessed by our adversaries. These events also reveal major gaps in our Nation's effort to combat and contain cyber threats with insufficient communication between the private and public sectors. These attacks and hacks demonstrate that our IT and critical infrastructure--much of it operated, appropriately, by the private sector--are under constant daily attack. They also demonstrate that we need to get better insight into cyber incidents as they happen--mid- incident--so that the U.S. Government can bring to bear its most effective capabilities and respond rapidly to protect our critical infrastructure systems. We saw that recently when the FBI and the Department of Justice were able to claw back some of the ransomware from the Colonial Pipeline attack. With the Colonial Pipeline, what happened was we had a responsible private sector company that notified the government, FireEye, but we cannot rely upon the good will of private entities to individually, case by case, decide whether they tell the government. We need quicker and more comprehensive notification. In a sense, when an entity is being attacked, if that sector is being attacked, we can then notify other companies in that sector in realtime. The truth is we should have done this much earlier. In fact, SolarWinds showed us that, when it comes to wide-scale breaches of U.S. networks, nobody is responsible for collecting information on the scope and scale of these attacks. This is alarming because this information allows us to develop a full picture of what was targeted and taken, what was at risk, and the type of techniques and tactics used by our adversaries. These are all issues of critical national security, but as Senator Collins knows, under current law, there is no Federal mandate that companies disclose when they have been breached, even if they operate critical infrastructure. Rather, there is the hodgepodge of guidelines, depending on the industry, which, as we have seen, at least some companies then use as an excuse not to report or literally to create a whole set of legal gymnastics to avoid any level of disclosure. Unfortunately, this leaves our Nation vulnerable to criminal and state- sponsored hacking activity. The bottom line is we cannot just rely on voluntary reporting to protect our critical infrastructure. We need a routine reporting requirement so that vital sectors of our economy that are affected by a cyber breach can have the full resources of the Federal Government and so that the private sector can be mobilized to respond to and fight off these attacks. That is why I have been very proud to work not only with Senator Collins but also the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Rubio, and, in total, 15 of our colleagues, bipartisan, mostly all from the Intel Committee but also the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee and the chairman--on SASC--of the Cyber Committee, to introduce legislation this week that would require Federal Agencies, government contractors, and the owners and operators of critical infrastructure to report cyber intrusions within 24 hours of their discovery. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Federal Government is aware of and can take immediate action to mitigate cyber intrusions that have the impact to affect our national security. Part of that notification will be not just to let the government know but to let others in the private sector know as well. Consequently, the bipartisan Cybersecurity Incident Notification Act of 2021 would require covered entities to notify the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, when a breach is detected so that the U.S. Government can mobilize to protect critical industries across our country. These covered entities include healthcare, transportation, financial services, agriculture, energy, and information technology sectors Now, the executive branch should have the flexibility to respond to shifting threats. The bill leaves some discretion for this and future administrations to determine whether other entities or classes of entities should be included at a later date. To incentivize this information sharing to take place, the bill would grant limited immunity and confidentiality to companies that come forward to report a breach. It would also include data protection procedures to anonymize personally identifiable information and to, again, safeguard privacy. These are not liability protections that would shield network operators, though, from negligence or misconduct. Rather, they would help prevent companies that come forward under this legislation from facing reputational risk just for reporting this vital information to the government. Ultimately, I see this kind of notification as providing value, as I said, to the private sector as well so that we may have this common defense. There is no way we can solve this problem with government alone or with the private sector alone. There should not only be a rapid public notification but, in appropriate cases, swift government action. Ultimately, we need to recognize that the threat landscape has fundamentally changed from even a few years ago. A few years ago, Senator Collins had this approach, and I think the private sector was concerned about undue mandates. The world has changed, and even many of the business organizations now agree that, as long as we grant that limited immunity and confidentiality, we need to put this reporting mechanism in place so that the public sector and the private sector can respond. The truth is there are literally terabytes of sensitive data out there, including intellectual property, personal information, contract details, and others that could be exploited. For that matter, what if the SolarWinds attack had not been one of exploiting and taking out information but had actually been a denial-of-service attack, which we saw with Russia taking place against Ukraine a number of years back? That could have taken place with SolarWinds and completely shut down our economy, and we have all seen recently a dramatic upsurge in ransomware. The truth is every company and virtually every part of government is under daily attack from these cyber criminals and, in some cases, from foreign intelligence services. The Federal Government must have the expertise and the willingness to share this information in realtime to make sure that we can counter this. I think this is a sensible first step in finally putting in place the kind of broad-based cyber strategy our country needs. So I urge my colleagues to join the 15 of us and pass the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021. Again, I note my friend, the Senator from Maine, is here. We have been spending a lot of time together, but I really appreciate her lead sponsorship of this legislation. I will say it on the floor of the Senate, as I have said in so many private settings over the last number of weeks on some other things, if we had just listened earlier to the Senator from Maine, we would have been in a lot better shape today in this country. With that, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Maine.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to echo what my good friend and colleague, Senator Collins, has already said. Let me be clear. She pointed out the virtual unanimous support this legislation has from members of the Intelligence Committee--both sides. Let there be no mistake in terms of who was the relentless driver--some might even say ``persistent-beyond-belief driver'' of this issue. It was Susan Collins, and, once again, her service shows that she is standing up for America's diplomats and the intel community serving our country around the world who, as Senator Collins already indicated, have been involved in dangerous incidents resulting in brain trauma and other unexplained illnesses. We have called it the Havana syndrome The remarkable thing is that for nearly 5 years, we have been aware of these reports, and we have seen, as the Senator mentioned, attacks on U.S. personnel in Cuba, in China, and around the world. We have these reports here in this country, and rather than disappearing or going down in number, they actually appear to be increasing. Five years after the start of this effort, we don't know what happened, we don't know who did it, and we don't know what kind of device was used. This is wrong. Particularly, I want to point out--this is an area where, again, we were in bipartisan agreement--that under the last administration, we just didn't treat these victims from the intel community, the State Department, and DOD with the seriousness they deserved. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know the hardships, sacrifices, and risks our intelligence officers, diplomats, and other personnel serving overseas endure--often anonymously, often without recognition. The fact that some of these brave women and men have been subjected to these serious health issues by unknown attackers is unacceptable. That their own government did not believe them when they were injured or denied them proper medical attention and care is beyond the pale. These are folks who were injured while serving our government and, in some cases, facing lifelong health consequences, and, for a while, we just got blown off. It is inexcusable that they were treated this way, and it is outrageous that we still don't know who did it or what tool was used in these attacks. Their country, after their service, needs to have their backs. With Senator Collins's legislation--now that it has passed the Senate, and our hope is that it will soon pass the House--we will show that the country will have their backs. I also want to give credit to the new CIA Director, Ambassador Burns, for making this a top priority. On the Senate Intelligence Committee, there is complete bipartisan unanimity on this issue. We are going to ensure that the United States gets to the bottom of this, identifies those responsible for those attacks on American personnel, holds them accountable, and ensures that these attacks on American personnel stop once and for all. Let me echo what Senator Collins said. This should be one in an ever growing list of topics that President Biden ought to raise with President Putin. We must protect our people around the globe. At the same time, it is more important than ever that the United States also provides those affected by these attacks with the medical and financial support they deserve. Again, that is why Senator Collins' legislation, the HAVANA Act, is so important. Let me echo again what Senator Collins said. My partner in this, as well, has been Vice Chairman Rubio, and our good friend Senator Shaheen. The fact that this passed this quickly, unanimously, is extraordinarily important, but it is just the first step in having the backs of our diplomats, our intel personnel, our DOD, and, for that matter, anyone who has been a victim of this kind of activity. Again, I want to thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this issue. I can assure you, as Senator Collins said and Senator Rubio and I have repeated a number of number of times, the Intelligence Committee of the Senate is going to get to the bottom of this. We are going to make sure--and we have taken a giant step on this by passing this legislation--that the personnel will get the medical and, if necessary, financial assistance they need; that we are going to find out who did it, we are going to find out what type of device, and we are going to hold them accountable. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to mourn the passing of a statesman, a patriot, a mentor, a friend, and someone who loved this institution as much as anybody I know. It was the passing late last night of Senator John Warner. I am joined here by my friend of 39 years--now maybe 40--Tim Kaine, and we are going to go back and forth a little bit as we talk about someone who played an enormously important role in both of our lives, both, I can say, on a personal basis and on a political basis, and we will get some of the basic facts out. John Warner was 94 years old when he passed. He was born in Washington, DC, into a family from Amherst, VA. He joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 18 in the waning days of World War II. He served from 1945 to 1946. He left the military and then rejoined the Marines in 1950, when the Korean war started. After he left the military, he worked for the U.S. attorney, worked in private practice, and then got involved in Republican politics in Virginia at that point. I think Senator Kaine will probably speak to this. Being involved in Republican politics in the late fifties and early sixties was the progressive party in Virginia. He ended up serving President Nixon as Secretary of the Navy, and he was the head of the Bicentennial. Then, in 1978, in a campaign that Tim will probably comment on, he got elected to the U.S. Senate, where he then served for five terms--30 years. John Warner was a remarkable guy. He was someone--and I say this, again, respectfully--who looked the part, who sounded the part. He could say things that, if they came out of my mouth or even somebody's as eloquent as Senator Kaine, they might sound a little over the top. Coming out of John Warner, they always sounded senatorial, thoughtful, and pretty darned cool. How I got to know John was in really kind of an unusual way. I was a little bit active in Democratic politics in the late eighties, early nineties. Then I had the audacity in 1996 to actually run against John Warner. By the way, you know, John Warner v. Mark Warner managed to confuse the hell out of Virginians. The takeaway from that campaign-- and Tim has had to hear this story many times, and John always used to tell the story as well--is that we had a bumper sticker from the campaign that simply read--and it was our one good idea--``Mark, not John.'' It is the honest-to-goodness truth. I was down in Danville one day, which is near the North Carolina border, and got in the car, and somebody saw the bumper sticker as I was trying to shake hands, for I was not that well-known. He looked at me, and he said: Excuse me. Is that a biblical reference? There was no divine intervention. The right Warner won that race, and John Warner got reelected. The thing that I didn't understand then but that I understand better now is, after you run against somebody, even in a respectful campaign, you bear some scars, some bruises, whatever. You know, I got really close to John Warner in terms of that race. I almost beat him. Afterward, I was thinking about continuing and maybe trying one more time, and I thought about running for Governor. John Warner was willing to become my friend. I got elected Governor. He was a Republican, and I am a Democrat, and anything I tried to do as Governor that was hard, like a transportation referendum up here, John Warner was right there by my side, saying: We are going to do what is right for Virginia. We had a battle in which our budget was way out of whack, and I had a 2-to-1 Republican legislature. I can still remember sneaking him into the State capitol so the press corps wouldn't see him, and he got up on the third floor where the press room was. In a Zeus-like moment, he said: Politics be damned. We are going to do what is right for Virginia. The truth was, we ended up fixing that challenge, and Virginia got named the best managed State and the best State for business, and we made record investments in education. I am not sure we would have gotten there if John Warner had not been willing to use his own personal political capital, but this was at a time when everybody was signing those crazy no-new-tax pledges, and John Warner said: Politics be damned. Let's do what is right for Virginia. Tim will talk, probably, a little bit about this. I mean, his role as chair of the Armed Services Committee was legendary, and there is not a sailor, soldier, marine, or airman anywhere in Virginia--for that matter, anywhere in the country--who doesn't owe a debt of gratitude to John Warner. I live in Alexandria, close to the river. I look out my window each day and see the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which, for those of us who live in this region, was a big bottleneck way in decay. How John Warner got $1.2 billion for that bridge when it was way down the list in terms of getting refurbished was maybe a story that can't be told on the Senate floor. As John got older, I always said--you know, as I had tried my one time against him--if you want to stay in this seat, I think you can stay as long as you want. In 2008, he decided he would go out at the top of his game. I would go see him, and I know Senator Kaine would, as well, to always ask for his advice and counsel. I have two more quick stories, and then I will yield to my friend Senator Kaine, and we can go back and forth a little bit. In 2014, I was so extraordinarily honored when John Warner-- Republican senior Senator John Warner--endorsed Mark Warner for the U.S. Senate. That kind of thing doesn't happen in politics too much these days. I can remember, up and down through the Shenandoah Valley, there was one trip on which Senator Kaine and I were campaigning with John. He was, you know, at that point already in kind of his eighties, with a walking stick. Let me assure you, we had both been former Governors and both had kind of thought we knew our stuff, but whenever John Warner was in the room, we were the junior guys and followed his lead. As a matter of fact, in this last campaign, where he endorsed me again, there was one fundraiser we went to. He introduced me. I did my little talk. Then he kind of took his walking stick and kind of whacked me on the shins and said, ``Sit down, Mark. I've got some more to say,'' and got up and spent 30-plus minutes telling old stories of how the Senate used to work. I have never been at a fundraiser where people got more of their money's worth than that night. John was also very, very disturbed and concerned about where our country was headed, the lack of respect for the rule of law, what was happening to his beloved Republican Party. But he always kept that burning sense of optimism. I saw him 4 or 5 weeks ago, pretty frail, but he still, oftentimes with a pocket square and looking like he had just stepped out of a Hunt Country magazine, but he was asking about how we could get the Senate back on track and how we could always continue to put our country first. I want to say a couple of other things, but let me yield at this point to my dear friend Senator Kaine. We in Virginia were blessed, and our country was blessed, to have him, and I am going to miss him horribly. But I do know this much: When I am wrestling with an issue, I often will think: What would John Warner do? And if I follow that mantra, chances are I am doing the right thing for Virginia and the right thing for our country. I will miss him greatly, and I would be happy to yield to my friend and colleague, the other Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Senator Reed. I see Senator Thune is here. I will be very brief. You mentioned, Senator Reed, about the occasional twinkle in his eye. I am not sure, again, here is the right time or place to tell the stories, but that twinkle really lit up when he would talk about some of his sailing trips with Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Chris Dodd, usually also involving stopping at select locations, at selected moments in time.

Mr. WARNER. And many of them in Rhode Island. There are two other comments I want to make. One was, again--both of our political parties sometimes go a little bit awry. But one of the things that John Warner did--he didn't need to do this. He was a sitting Senator, well respected, senior. There was a fellow in Virginia who was getting into politics who had kind of a checkered history. Sometimes, he was not necessarily always willing to tell the truth. His name was Oliver North. John Warner did not think that Mr. North had the personal characteristics that ought to be in a Senator of Virginia, and at great political risk to himself, he was willing to make that known. He didn't leave the party--his party--but said that, you know, the party, his Republican Party, had to stand for principles, truth, and respect for the rule of law. Again, it is an example of the John Warner that was so special. More recently, as Senator Kaine knows, we, in Virginia, have a very checkered history with race. And in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, there were a number of school divisions that literally shut down rather than letting White children go to school with Black children. And in Prince Edward County, in a little town called Farmville, which was--a group of Black students had literally done a walkout, in their case, on the part of Brown v. Board of Education case. For a couple of years, Black students had no place to go because they took the public money and put it into private academies, and there were no public schools, a great blot on the history of Virginia, leaving these young people--now not so young--when this issue came up about 2002 or 2003, with a big hole in their education. So we thought we could maybe end up providing these individuals an education, give them a couple of years of community college education. It was a fairly audacious idea. The local editor of the newspaper there came up with this. And, at first, the legislature, you know, didn't want to do this. They didn't want to take this on. So John Warner got on the phone and called one of his friends, John Kluge, a very successful business guy, and said: Would you put up the money? It is only a couple of million dollars. And John and I worked out something, where we said: Let's have Kluge put up a million, and we will go back to the legislature and shame them into doing the other million. And we did that. It was one of the most moving days in my life to see these individuals who had been cheated out of their education receive the ability to get an education. And John Warner never wanted an ounce of credit and, I don't think, even to this day, that story has been told too many times. At the close of this, which is--I know I am not supposed to do this, but I will do this briefly. John Warner appropriately got recognized for his service, and there is a submarine named after him. And I remember going to the commissioning. He and his wife Jeanne, they were so proud of the young men and women who were serving on that boat and then carried on the kind of sense of patriotism and public service that he exemplified. As we have both said, we are going to miss him a lot, but I hope we will take that sense of his heart and courage and commitment and maybe rededicate ourselves to trying to follow that kind of example. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Endless Frontier Act--a long overdue, bipartisan effort to invest in our country's innovation and competitiveness. I am pleased to see that Congress is finally taking action to shore up U.S. investment in the research, development, and manufacturing of critical technologies because, without this kind of intervention, China in particular will continue to outpace and outperform us in the global technology race, impacting our country's economic well-being, our global influence, and our national security. Let me note, when I reference China, I think it is important that any policymaker or business leader draw this distinction. I want to make clear that my beef is with the Communist Party of China and the policies of President Xi Jinping, which persecutes its own people in terms of Uighurs, restricts the freedom of the people of Hong Kong, and creates a surveillance state that would make George Orwell blush. My beef is with those policies and that party, not with the Chinese people and obviously not with the Chinese diaspora, particularly Chinese Americans and Asian Americans. In recent years, China has rapidly been executing on a plan. It has been working, particularly, to ramp up its domestic industries around technology that confer potentially to its long-term strategic dominance in a whole host of industries that traditionally the United States or the West has dominated. One of the topics I am going to come back to in a moment is that of semiconductors. China consistently increases its investment in the semiconductor industry, with a commitment to invest $150 billion and a goal to produce at least 70 percent of the semiconductors it consumes-- it is one of the world's fastest growing economies--by 2030. Frankly, on this issue of semiconductors, it is not just China. Look around at South Korea, which has pledged to invest over $130 billion over the next 9 years, while training 36,000 new microelectronics engineers and technicians. Even our allies in Europe--Germany and 18 other EU members--recently announced investments of up to $60 billion in key hardware like semiconductors over the next few years. We look back and see how we are doing in America. By contrast, over the past 10 years, only 17 major semiconductor fabs, or foundries-- these are basically the manufacturing facilities--have been built in the United States, while we have seen over 122 built elsewhere. As a matter of fact, right now, there is not a single new fabrication facility being constructed in America. The total number of facilities-- fabs, foundries--that are in production has gone from 81 down to 76, which are some of our older fabrication facilities. Frankly, the technology has leapt forward, and if you don't continue to make the investment, you end up with a large, empty facility. We even have one right outside of Richmond, in Henrico County. As a country, our share of semiconductor and microelectronic production has gone from 37 percent to just 12 percent today. If you look at China, it is almost the exact inverse, going from single digits to north of 30 percent. The truth is, in the United States, the cost of a new fab is about 25 to 50 percent higher, partially because of the lower financial incentives we provide and the appropriate environmental standards. It does mean that, without incentives, we are not going to be in the game right now, partially because of decisions made right at the beginning of COVID and partially just because of a semiconductor shortage. We have auto factories sitting idle in the United States, not because they don't have workers, not because they don't have demand for those automobiles, but because these plants can't obtain the semiconductors that are integral to automobiles and, for that matter, every device we operate. At the same time, if we look back again at China, it has no plans to take the foot off the pedal anytime soon. As a matter of fact, last year, President Xi Jinping announced a $1.4 trillion commitment to develop new technologies just through 2025--$1.4 trillion. We think about the numbers we are talking about here today, which are big based upon traditional American standards, but they pale in comparison to what China is investing. You don't need to look very far; you only need to look at the Chinese documents themselves--the Made in China 2025 plan and the China 2035 plan in terms of standards and procedures and protocols. Beyond semiconductors, 5G, and some of the things I have talked about in the past, there is a host of other areas in which, if we don't invest, we are not going to be able to stand. Now, it is not all bleak. U.S. semiconductor firms in areas like lithography, packaging, and metrology still lead the world. In machining, we still lead. However, many of the key ingredients to our success, including Federal support for R&D, investment in basic research, and support for advanced manufacturing, have actually declined over the last 20 years. Simply put, we are just not keeping up. Between 1995 and 2018, Chinese R&D investment increased by over 15 percent per year compared to the U.S. increases averaging about 3-percent growth per year. Now, we started with a higher base--I acknowledge that--but on relative and, shortly, on actual real terms, China will soon pass. As a matter of fact, after World War II, the United States funded 69 percent of the annual global R&D. Today, we fund less than 28 percent, with only 7 percent going to nondefense technologies--again, like wireless, which is something I know a little bit about and will speak to again in a moment. To get back to where we once were and reassert U.S. technology leadership, we need to reprioritize foundational technologies to maintain not just our country's economic leadership but to also make sure that our values are built into these increasing technology areas. The truth is, for so many years, not only did we invent many of these breakthrough technologies here, but even if we didn't invent them in the United States, we would then set the rules, the procedures, the protocols, and the standards around these new technology developments. We have seen that in semiconductors for a long time. We saw it in computing. We saw it with the internet. We saw it in wireless. We saw it in satellites. Time and again now, we are suddenly seeing China flood the zone with these standard-setting bodies, and when you set the standards, you also reflect your values. So values that we bring to the table, like transparency and respect for human rights, go out the window when China sets the rules around 5G that basically allow traffic to always pass through Beijing. Even if you are making a phone call between St. Louis and San Francisco, why does that traffic have to be routed through Beijing unless there is a malicious interest at stake? If you set the rules, you drive not only the technology but so many other things. As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have long been banging the drum about the way the PRC has taken advantage of what makes our country's economic system so great--our openness, our transparency, our free markets. The Chinese Government, unfortunately, plays by a different set of rules. The Chinese Government starts with the willingness to use all the tools of its intelligence services, sometimes its student population, which has added so much value to our country, and enormous thefts of intellectual property. Some public estimates are north of $500 billion a year. The Chinese Government, as well, is using all aspects of its society to increase China's dominance, from the intellectual property theft that I talked about to opaque subsidies in financing that always favor a Chinese vendor. And, unfortunately, for many of our trading partners, the deal that is offered by the Chinese firm is often either too good or linked to another development--``I am going to build you a road; I am going to build you a port, but you have to buy at Huawei, as the price of that,'' or because we in America or, for that matter, even in the West have not kept up on a financing basis. That is why in the Endless Frontier bill that we are debating right now, a bill that will make substantial investments in the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, our National Labs-- both great national assets--in this bill, as well, we are actually doing more than authorizing new ideas and new advancements. We are actually finally--finally--putting our money where our mouth is. It is why included in the Endless Frontier bill is the Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act, which, at the end of the day, is basically $2 billion to invest in making sure that in America we have, and in the West we have, a competitor against Huawei. I have come to this floor and talked a lot about the national security threat Huawei presents in America and, for that matter, to our allies. But if you don't have a competitor priced on a fair basis, what do you expect to do? What do you expect of an ally country to do? Or for that matter, what do you expect of many of the rural telecos' decision, which was to buy Huawei equipment, until this vulnerability got exposed. On this bill I was proud to work with two of my great partners on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr and Senator Marco Rubio. What we do with this $2 billion is put up a public wireless supply chain innovation fund to spur investments toward open architecture, innovative, leap-ahead technologies in our domestic mobile market. And what we are really talking about doing--and I know I have talked to the Presiding Officer about this and others--is, in 5G, we are almost so far behind at this point that we have to leapfrog ahead. But one way we can leapfrog ahead is by developing what is called open RAN, or open radio access network. What does that mean in English? Well, it means let's move away from the traditional hardware-based stack of the telephone wireless system and move to a more software-based system. When we do that, we get away from the inherent advantages that the Chinese and Huawei have, and we move to an area where there are a host of American and other enterprises that are software-based, where we are already far ahead. Now, what we also have to do, as well, is combine this investment-- and we have close to $500 million on this--to also invest in a multilateral fund. The truth is, no single American company on its own can take on this enormous challenge that the whole Chinese state, backing their Chinese champion--there is no way we can take that on, on our own. So how do we think, with our other democratic allies around the world, the G7, but also countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and India, Israel, and others, that we can collaborate on this technology development? Think about how we compete on an economic basis and at the same time make sure that we install those values around transparency, respect for human rights, the notion of open and competitive system, that those are built into technology development. The second item is crucially that this bill also addresses the essential need for us to invest in semiconductors. We are finally putting our money where our mouth is. This bill will appropriate on an emergency basis $52 billion for investment in chips in our country and along with our allies. This basically builds upon legislation that we added to the Defense authorization bill last year. It is bipartisan. Senator Cornyn, Senator Schumer, Senator Cotton, Senator Kelly are all working together on this with a host of others because the semiconductor industry, while we have seen some sliding, still represents one of the shining lights of our country's innovation economy. And as a wider array of products and services depend on internet connectivity and software processing, the demand for semiconductors has only grown. But as I outlined at the top unfortunately, that leadership position we have had for so long is at stake. So the CHIPS Act, which is built in now--baked into the Endless Frontier Act--directs and empowers key Agencies, like the Department of Commerce, in consultation with others like our intelligence community, to make investments in microelectronics R&D a priority. It emphasizes the need for multilateral efforts with our allies and close trading partners to bring greater transparency and accountability to subsidies. It aligns policies toward non-transparent, non-market competitors like the Chinese, and it makes sure that we have concerted and coordinated action, both domestically and, again, with our allies, on supply chain security and integrity. It invests billions in basic research related to advanced semiconductors via DOD and a newly created National Semiconductor Technology Center, and it makes an unprecedented investment in trying to build new foundries, fabs, or basic manufacturing facilities, here in the United States so that we have that supply security chain--a secure supply chain for the future. That $39 billion in that fund I believe will help us build 7 to 10 new fabs right here in the United States. And whether they are in the Presiding Officer's State or Virginia or elsewhere, our States will have to invest as well. Many of these facilities cost anywhere from $12 to $15 billion by the time you build them and keep them operating until they have some level of profitability. So some level of American national investment in each of these is needed to make sure that they-- at least some of these--will be built in the United States. And, again, the $39 billion should generate 7 to 10 new fabs over the next 5 to 7 years. And whether it is chips for automotive, aerospace, biomedical, or cell phones--you name it--or the billions of ``internet of things'' devices, almost all rely upon semiconductors. Let's make sure those chips are built, designed, and produced here, and that those elsewhere in the world are often done in countries that are allies. So the Endless Frontier Act, which includes both the investment in 5G and ORAN and, obviously, the semiconductors, serves as a once-in-a- generation opportunity to solidify U.S. leadership in science and tech innovation. It will strengthen our national security and reinvigorate American ingenuity. The truth is, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I know we are supportive of these efforts. I hope next week that we pass this bill with a massive majority, and that then it will be quickly acted upon by the House, because I know our domestic industries are watching us. I know our adversaries are, as well, and it will be wonderful if we can finally move beyond simply talking about the challenges that China presents and actually make the kind of tangible investments that American generations in the past have made. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing a nomination. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing on referral of nominations. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on referral of nominations. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing a nomination. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am sorry that I missed the incredibly thoughtful comments of the Democratic whip, who I think spoke on the topic--one of the topics--that I am going to speak about. I think I have 10 minutes. Is that right? OK. Thank you.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer and thank the--I want to thank the brilliant ruling of the Parliamentarian on that subject.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to touch on two critically important subjects that the Senate is considering today. First, I want to rise in support of Vanita Gupta, President Biden's nominee to serve as the Associate Attorney General, the third highest ranking position in our Justice Department. I think my good friend, the Senator from Illinois, has already spoken about Ms. Gupta. I want to make a personal note. First, that Vanita is a fellow Virginian. I am proud to say that she and her husband, Chinh Le, are raising their two sons in the Commonwealth. They live in Arlington. Ms. Gupta is also an outstanding public servant. She served from 2014 to 2017 as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ. She led the Division, as the Acting Assistant Attorney General, until 2015. Since 2017, she has led one of the country's preeminent civil rights organizations--the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights. This means that, if confirmed, Ms. Gupta will be the first civil rights leader in any of the top three positions at Justice. The sheer depth and breadth of Ms. Gupta's legal and professional experience makes her an outstanding selection to serve as the Associate Attorney General. Perhaps that is why Ms. Gupta's supporters span the political spectrum. My understanding is that my friend, the Senator from Illinois, has already pointed out some of this broad-based bipartisan support. Let me elaborate on some of that support. Grover Norquist calls her an ``honest broker'' in his endorsement letter. Let me just state for the record that I have had interactions with Grover Norquist since before I was Governor, over 20 years, and Grover Norquist has never called me anything close to as nice as he called Vanita Gupta as an ``honest broker.'' Mark Holden, the former general counsel of Koch Industries, writes: ``Ms. Gupta is an exceptional lawyer, and among the most talented lawyers I have worked with in my career.'' Ms. Gupta has spent years and years collaborating with people from across the spectrum to promote a more fair and equal justice system. And let me note for the record, as well, that I have not always agreed with Ms. Gupta. I was very involved in housing finance reform. Ms. Gupta, as chairman of the Conference on Civil Rights, had a different opinion, but I always respected her intellect and her willingness to listen to alternative views and her willingness to really dig into the facts. With that background as a civil rights leader in the thick of issues around policing, race, and criminal justice reform, she actually led the investigations of police departments in Ferguson, Chicago, and Baltimore. At the same time, I have a long list of law enforcement groups that are supporting Ms. Gupta's nomination, including the National Fraternal Order of Police. Again, in terms of the FOP, I think in all my career, one time they endorsed me. Again, her receiving that endorsement is different than myself and perhaps even the Senator from Illinois. Ms. Gupta has also led broad-ranging and robust enforcement and education efforts to combat hate crimes, including the first-ever prosecutions under the newly enacted Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Under her leadership, the Civil Rights Division trained local and Federal law enforcement throughout the country in recognizing, investigating, and proving hate crimes; in educating communities and engaging them in a process of ensuring public safety; and in encouraging better hate crime reporting and data collection. I would like to close on one other timely credential. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have meticulously chronicled the corrosive effects of disinformation and foreign interference into our elections--something the Presiding Officer is also a national leader on. Ms. Gupta has been a leading voice for election integrity, thoughtfully and firmly engaging social media platforms to address disinformation on their platforms, as well as voter suppression, hate, division, and violence. Among the many important roles the Department of Justice has right now, securing our democracy itself is surely near the top of the list. Vanita Gupta is a person of extraordinary ability. She has the right experience for this role, and I am honored to support her in her nomination today and hope that later today, we will get broad bipartisan support to move forward that nomination.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached correspondence be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Rules of Procedure be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1391 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. WARNER. My colleagues, I think this may be the last amendment. It is broadly bipartisan. This amendment simply continues provisions that were included in the earlier COVID relief packages. It was called section 3610, and it ensures that our classified government contracting workforce--a workforce that oftentimes takes many years to receive top-level security clearance--continues to be compensated through the balance of the fiscal year. Failure to do this would lose this workforce to private sector and other competitors and seriously put our national security at risk. I point out this is an independent bill of this nature that cleared unanimously earlier this week on this side of the aisle. I yield the balance of my time to Senator Rubio.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and the Intelligence Committee be discharged from further consideration of PN 78-10, the nomination of Avril Haines to be Director of National Intelligence; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that there be 10 minutes of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate; and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Avril Haines to be Director of National Intelligence. Let me speak for a few moments, but I want to first of all thank members of particularly the Intelligence Committee on both sides of the aisle. My good friend, the Senator from Oregon, the Finance Committee chair, is someone who has deep and passionate concerns about the civil libertarian issues in our country. He is part of the yin; there is some yang on that committee. He raised I think important questions with the nominee, and I appreciate his courtesy in allowing this to move forward. But I also want to thank, at least until tomorrow, the chairman of the committee, Senator Rubio, and my Republican colleagues as well. When we discussed moving on this nomination in a very timely manner, the good Chairman Rubio and Senator Burr worked with all the members of the committee. I thank my friend, the Senator from Idaho, for his courtesy as well. I am very proud of the fact that the first nomination to be considered under the Biden administration is going to be Ms. Haines. I think that reflects the approach of the Intelligence Committee, and again, I see the chair of the committee on the floor now, and I want to thank him personally--Senator Rubio--while he is on the floor for that courtesy. I think part of the reason we were able to move so quickly is because this position is of such critical importance to the country that it is only appropriate that it be the first nomination to be confirmed by the Senate. Avril is extraordinarily qualified for the role, having worked in national security for most of the last two decades. After working for several years at the State Department, Ms. Haines came here to the Senate, where she worked on the Foreign Relations Committee as a deputy chief counsel. Following another stint at State, Ms. Haines moved to the White House, where she served 3 years as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel for National Security. In June of 2013, President Obama chose Ms. Haines to serve as the Deputy Director of the CIA, making her the first woman to hold that office. Ms. Haines served with the Agency until 2015, at which point she moved to academia and the private sector. She was a senior researcher at Columbia University, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, and a member of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. Avril Haines has all the qualifications we would want for a DNI. But more than that, I believe she is firmly committed to rebuilding the office of the Director of National Intelligence and reestablishing the role of that office as not only the coordinator of our Nation's intelligence community but as an adviser to the President and Congress that will not shy away from telling the hard truths. Since Ms. Haines was nominated for this role by President Biden, I spent a fair amount of time talking to her about her future as the Director of National Intelligence and the enormous job that she will be taking on. In our conversations and in her confirmation hearings, Ms. Haines was strong and thoughtful about the future challenges our country will face. My first question to her was about China. Her answer was equally clear-eyed, pointing out the many ways in which China is an adversary to our Nation by stealing IP or hacking our systems and undermining our security, while also pointing out that there are many places where we will have to engage with China as a partner, like on tackling climate change. She had equally focused answers about the role of Iran as a state sponsor of terror and the need to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. For every question she was asked by my colleagues on the committee, she demonstrated that she understood not only the challenges of the coming future but the IC's role in understanding those issues and meeting them head on. I have also been impressed from the beginning--and continue to be impressed--by her understanding of the important role of the DNI and the IC and her commitment to making sure that the IC tells policymakers what they need to hear, not only what they want to hear. The last 4 years have been hard on the intelligence community. You only have to read a newspaper or turn on a TV at some point to know that. Since the 2016 election, the IC has faced false accusations of trying to undermine the then-President and seen many of their leaders fired for simply doing the right thing, speaking truth to power. It should surprise no one that all of this has led to some damage within the IC, particularly to morale. I believe that Avril Haines is the right nominee to repair this damage. She will support the men and women of the IC and protect them from political pressure. She will insist that they tell us their best analysis and not shy away from telling decision makers that their cherished beliefs are wrong. She will insist on telling truth to power. Ultimately, this is why I urge my colleagues to send a strong message of support for the men and women of the IC and to support Avril Haines for DNI. She is capable, qualified, and will undertake the serious responsibilities with a clear-eyed sense of promise. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think like most of us, I am still pretty reeling from what happened today. What I was going to talk about was the work I am most proud of since I have been here, with my good friend Richard Burr and all the members of the Intelligence Committee, about a multiyear report we did into foreign interference in our elections. Probably our top recommendation of that five-volume, bipartisan report was that any official or candidate should use restraint and caution when questioning results of our elections because when you do so, you often carry out the goals of our foreign adversaries. Use caution because, whether knowingly or unknowingly and whether that adversary is in Russia or China or Iran, their goals are pretty simple: They want to make it appear to Americans, to folks around the world, and to their own people that there is nothing special about American democracy. I was going to try in a feeble way, maybe, to reach some of the rhetorical heights of Ben Sasse. I knew I couldn't do that, so instead--I know I am violating rules. Today is the day for violating rules. This is a photo that appears today in one of the most prominent German newspapers. You don't need to draw it up. You can draw up photos from any newspaper or any television feed anywhere across the world. And what is this photo of? It is of thugs--thugs--in the Halls of this Capitol, diminishing everything we say we believe in, in this democracy. When you look at those images, realize that those images are priceless for our adversaries. I am willing, tonight, in an overwhelming way, to take a small step, in a bipartisan way, to start restoring that trust of our people and, hopefully, the billions of people around the world who believe in that notion of American democracy. Remember, these images are still there. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I agree that the report required by the IAA on PPD-28 is critically important and central to the committee's oversight responsibilities. I share the Senator's dismay that this provision was modified in this way and through what I consider to be an unfortunate conference process that should not be repeated. More generally, I oppose legislation that would purport to restrict full committee access and impede the critical oversight provided by the full committee. This provision, as modified, states that the DNI will submit the report to the chairman and vice chairman. It does not, however, preclude its provision to the other members of the committee. As vice chairman of the committee, it is my intent to push for the full committee to get this report. It is also my intent to seek to amend this language so that it is not misinterpreted to limit full committee access.

Mr. WARNER. I agree. I strongly supported each of the five whistleblower protection provisions in the IAA. It is my intent to keep fighting for them so that they are on next year's IAA and are passed into law.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today out of grave concern with the direction of the Senate as an institution and with the choices being made on behalf of the American people. By almost every account, our economy remains severely wounded by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases are still rising. In fact, a record was set just in the last couple of days. Small businesses are, unfortunately, closing at an accelerating rate. Foreclosures and evictions are on the rise. Jobless benefits for many have run out. And our State and local governments are running dangerously low on resources to assist teachers, first responders, firefighters, and so many others. But rather than focusing on the immediate needs of the American people and acting to remove the uncertainty being felt by families across this country and in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Senate is preparing to pursue a partisan exercise to fundamentally alter the composition of our Supreme Court. This comes as we are just a week away from November 3, when Americans will go to the polls to cast their ballots in a Presidential election. In my State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, literally almost 2 million Virginians have already voted. President Trump and the majority leader are jamming through, at this moment, a divisive nominee to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat on the Supreme Court--Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The Senate has never confirmed a Supreme Court nominee this close to election day. The election is in a week. Nearly 60 million people have already voted. And while they eviscerate Senate precedent and rush toward a Supreme Court nomination, they delay passing the kind of critical legislation in terms of additional COVID relief that would help millions of Americans make it through the economic crisis. Think about that. Every day we wait to pass a comprehensive COVID stimulus bill, more people than necessary will get sick, some will die, businesses will be lost. Families will lose their homes, and millions of unemployed workers will continue to wonder how they are going to make ends meet. So why has the President rushed Judge Barrett's nomination through the Senate? The President is jamming through this nomination because there is so much on the line with this Supreme Court vacancy. On November 10, just 1 week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could invalidate the Affordable Care Act and rip healthcare coverage away from more than 20 million Americans--20 million Americans--in the middle of a pandemic. The President and my Republican colleagues here in Congress have already tried--and tried again and tried again--and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act through Congress. Now they have turned to our Nation's Supreme Court in a purely political effort that could devastate our Nation's healthcare system. They have offered no replacement plan that would adequately protect individuals with preexisting conditions, and millions of Americans will then be set to lose their healthcare coverage should the ACA be overturned. I have come to this floor many times and acknowledged that the ACA is not perfect. There are places where it could be improved. But in the years since its passage, I have heard from countless Virginians who have benefited from the law--individuals who have gained access to healthcare coverage for the first time, cancer patients who can no longer be kicked off their plans and denied coverage, 8 million Americans who now have COVID and who now have a preexisting condition. I have talked to small business owners and entrepreneurs who are now able to get coverage on the individual exchange and consequently start that business that otherwise they couldn't take the risk of starting and so many of Virginia's seniors who have seen their drug costs go down thanks to important reforms in the ACA. That, in and of itself, being considered by the Supreme Court a week after election, would be more than enough reason to wait and delay and let the American people first have their say. But that is not all that is at stake in future cases before the Supreme Court. This Court--the Court that would disproportionately be moved out of the mainstream--will be looking at everything from reproductive rights to voting rights, to rights for LGBTQ people. All of these hang in the balance. Given those stakes, the American people have a right to have their voices heard before the confirmation of a new Justice. In 2016, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set a standard when he refused to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee 10 months prior to the election. I strongly objected to the majority leader's actions in 2016, but he is the majority leader. He had the votes. And now that is the precedent by which we should govern this Supreme Court nomination, because the truth is, we can't have one set of rules for Democratic Presidents and a different set of rules for Republican Presidents. Our system of checks and balances has held strong and lasting for more than 200 years, and it was simply not meant to bear the brunt of such cynicism and hypocrisy. The Senate should get to the real needs of the American people--a deal that I know Secretary Mnuchin and Speaker Pelosi are quite close to. Let's split the difference and get it done. We should not be considering a Supreme Court nomination before Inauguration Day. Yet the majority leader is continuing forward with votes on Judge Barrett's nomination. Judge Barrett's record is clear, and so is my vote. I am voting no. There is too much at stake. Thank you With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the career of an outstanding civil servant, Mr. Frank Calvelli, who is one of my constituents. Mr. Calvelli recently announced his plan to retire after 34 years of government service, most recently as the Principal Deputy Director for the National Reconnaissance Office, where he has provided commendable leadership and operational management for the past 8 years. Mr. Calvelli will complete his government service at the end of this year. During Frank's 30-year tenure at the NRO, he has been responsible for leading various internal organizations and overseeing the acquisition and operation of many of our Nation's most vital overhead reconnaissance assets. These platforms perform essential intelligence collection roles to better inform U.S. Government and allied partner nation defense policies and deter potential aggressors. Frank contributed to 11-plus-years of consecutive clean financial audits, an unequaled record within the U.S. intelligence community. Mr. Calvelli has played an important role developing a permanent employee cadre and leading the more than 3,000 people who work at the NRO. When called upon in 2019 to take on the responsibility of acting in the capacity of the Director, he often testified on behalf of the NRO before Congress and specifically the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. While Mr. Calvelli has shouldered the responsibility of overseeing large, complex government acquisition programs, his fondest memories will be of the NRO's people. Like any successful organization, the NRO relies on its talented and skilled workforce to accomplish its national security mission. Their wellbeing and success have always been a top priority for him, and it is especially important that the women and men of the NRO have leadership that backs them in their primary imperative as intelligence professionals: to speak truth to power. I also understand that Frank's love of NASCAR is well known at the NRO. I, too, share an appreciation of NASCAR and hope he has greater opportunities to enjoy racing and more time with his family. On behalf of a grateful nation, as he transitions to future opportunities, I would like to publicly thank Mr. Calvelli for his valuable contributions to the Nation and our national security, and I personally thank the Calvelli family for their critical role in supporting him throughout his service to the Nation.