[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                      ENSURING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
                          IN MICROELECTRONICS

=======================================================================

                                     
                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 2, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-40

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

                                     
                                     
                                     
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
				                                       
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov  
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
46-150PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas   


















                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                            December 2, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    11
    Written Statement............................................    12

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    15

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Manager of 
  Technology Development, Intel
    Oral Statement...............................................    17
    Written Statement............................................    19

Mr. Manish Bhatia, Executive Vice President, Global Operations, 
  Micron Technology, Inc.
    Oral Statement...............................................    32
    Written Statement............................................    34

Dr. Michael Witherell, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National 
  Laboratory
    Oral Statement...............................................    39
    Written Statement............................................    41

Dr. Mung Chiang, Executive Vice President and Dean of Engineering 
  College, Purdue University
    Oral Statement...............................................    66
    Written Statement............................................    68

Discussion.......................................................    75

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice President and General Manager of 
  Technology Development, Intel..................................   124

Mr. Manish Bhatia, Executive Vice President, Global Operations, 
  Micron Technology, Inc.........................................   137

Dr. Michael Witherell, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National 
  Laboratory.....................................................   148

Dr. Mung Chiang, Executive Vice President and Dean of Engineering 
  College, Purdue University.....................................   151

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives
    ``Ensuring American Leadership in Microelectronics,'' Tim 
      Powderly, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Apple.......   164
    ``Workforce development infrastructure for the U.S. 
      microelectronics industry,'' John Dallesasse, et al., 
      American Semiconductor Academy.............................   166

Document submitted by Representative Paul Tonko, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    ``Supporting the Future of US-Based Semiconductor 
      Manufacturing: Innovation, Technology Development & 
      Translation, And Workforce Enablement,'' F. Shadi 
      Shahedipour-Sandvik, Robert Geer, Nathaniel Cady, Nicholas 
      Querques, the State University of New York.................   204

 
                      ENSURING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP 
                          IN MICROELECTRONICS 

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] 
presiding.  



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at any 
time.
    Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note today 
that the Committee is meeting virtually. I want to announce a 
couple of reminders to Members about the conduct of this 
hearing. First, Members should keep their video feed on as long 
as they are present in the meeting. Members are responsible for 
their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted 
until you are speaking. And finally, if Members have documents 
they wish to submit for the record, please email them to the 
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to 
the hearing.
    Welcome to today's hearing, and welcome to our 
distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing 
your insights on how we can ensure the United States' 
leadership in microelectronics.
    It wasn't news to the experts, but the last 2 years have 
brought into full public view the vulnerabilities in our 
microelectronics supply chains. Chips operate almost every 
piece of technology in our lives, from cell phones to cars. 
They are essential to our national security. Yet, the U.S. 
share of global semiconductor manufacturing decreased from 37 
percent in 1990 to just 12 percent today. Hindsight allows us 
to see that our government and industry suffered a collective 
failure of imagination when we thought we could offshore our 
chips manufacturing capacity without consequences. Today, a 
single chip might go through 1,000 production steps in 70 
countries before reaching its final product. It took a global 
pandemic to expose the weaknesses of that approach. But we 
should not be fooled that this is a once-in-a-100-year problem.
    Fortunately, the semiconductor industry still leads the 
world in research and innovation. In 1954, the very first 
commercial silicon transistor was developed by Gordon Teal at 
Texas Instruments (TI) in Dallas, Texas. In 1958, Jack Kilby of 
TI invented the integrated circuit (IC). And ever since then, 
because of investments by both the U.S. Government and 
industry, we continue to lead in microelectronics innovation.
    However, current technology is approaching certain physical 
limits. Long-term growth will require breakthroughs in 
everything from fundamental materials science to manufacturing 
processes. In the meantime, other countries are stepping up 
their investments. In particular, China is already outspending 
the United States to bolster its domestic semiconductor 
capacity. Moreover, they're investing in research and 
innovation like they never did before. They no longer want to 
just manufacture yesterday's chip. They want to lead in 
innovating tomorrow's chip. That poses both an economic and 
national security risk to us.
    To help maintain U.S. competitiveness in microelectronics, 
Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act. The CHIPS Act would 
make substantial investments in the future of semiconductor R&D 
(research and development). The act also includes incentives to 
bring semiconductor manufacturing back to our shores.
    I support full funding for the CHIPS Act. However, a one-
time infusion of funding will not be enough to maintain U.S. 
leadership in microelectronics innovation. Advancing U.S. 
leadership in microelectronics will require a long-term, whole-
of-government strategy. While incentives to re-shore capacity 
now are important, the future will be shaped by how we invest 
in innovation and the technical work force. That is what we 
know and do best in this Committee. The Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee is ready to work with the Administration, 
industry, and the research community to oversee the 
implementation of the CHIPS Act.
    In addition, we will continue to explore opportunities to 
strengthen and expand our investments in microelectronics 
research, including at the Department of Energy (DOE). This 
hearing is the beginning of a long-term effort by our 
Committee.
    I thank you to the expert witnesses that are here today, 
and I look forward to the discussion.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to today's hearing. And welcome to 
our distinguished panel of witnesses. I look forward to hearing 
your insights on how we can ensure United States leadership in 
microelectronics.
    It wasn't news to the experts, but the last 2 years have 
brought into full public view the vulnerabilities in our 
microelectronics supply chains. Chips operate almost every 
piece of technology in our lives, from cell phones to cars. 
They are essential to our national security. Yet, the U.S. 
share of global semiconductor manufacturing decreased from 37 
percent in 1990 to just 12 percent today. Hindsight allows us 
to see that our government and industry suffered a collective 
failure of imagination when we thought we could offshore our 
chips manufacturing capacity without consequence. Today, a 
single chip might go through 1,000 production steps in 70 
countries before reaching its final product. It took a global 
pandemic to expose the weaknesses of that approach. But we 
should not be fooled that this is a once-in-a-hundred-year 
problem.
    Fortunately, the U.S. semiconductor industry still leads 
the world in research and innovation. In 1954, the very first 
commercial silicon transistor was developed by Gordon Teal at 
Texas Instruments in Dallas TX. In 1958, Jack Kilby of TI 
invented the integrated circuit. And ever since then, because 
of investments by both the U.S. government and industry, we 
have continued to lead in microelectronics innovation. However, 
current technology is approaching certain physical limits. Long 
term growth will require breakthroughs in everything from 
fundamental materials science to manufacturing processes.
    In the meantime, other countries are stepping up their 
investments. In particular, China is already outspending the 
United States to bolster its domestic semiconductor capacity. 
Moreover, they are investing in research and innovation like 
they never did before. They no longer want to just manufacture 
yesterday's chip. They want to lead in innovating tomorrow's 
chip. That poses both an economic and national security risk to 
us.
    To help maintain U.S. competitiveness in microelectronics, 
Congress passed the CHIPS for America Act. The CHIPS Act would 
make substantial investments in the future of semiconductor 
R&D. The Act also includes incentives to bring semiconductor 
manufacturing back to our shores. I support full funding for 
the CHIPS Act. However, a one-time infusion of funding will not 
be enough to maintain U.S. leadership in microelectronics 
innovation.
    Advancing U.S. leadership in microelectronics will require 
a long-term, whole of government strategy. While incentives to 
re-shore capacity now are important, the future will be shaped 
by how we invest in innovation and the technical workforce. 
That is what we know and do best in this Committee. The 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee is ready to work with 
the administration, industry, and the research community to 
oversee the implementation of the CHIPs Act. In addition, we 
will continue to explore opportunities to strengthen and expand 
our investments in microelectronics research, including at the 
Department of Energy. This hearing is the beginning of a long-
term effort by our Committee.
    Thank you again to the expert witnesses before us today. I 
look forward to the discussion.
    With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Lucas for his 
opening statement.

    Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this 
morning's hearing.
    Every American who has tried to buy a car, tractor, or even 
a refrigerator lately, knows that we're facing severe supply 
chain shortages. In many cases, these shortages are being 
driven by global disruption to the supply chain for 
semiconductors or chips, as many of us refer to them.
    Microelectronics, the devices made from semiconductor 
materials, are critical to how we live and work. They power 
phones, make our cars safer, our homes smarter, and help us 
store and protect virtual information. It is also vital to us. 
They are not only essential to our economic security but our 
national security as well.
    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it clear that it 
wants to dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part 
of their technology strategy is to increase China's share of 
the semiconductor market through both investment and 
acquisition. U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 
percent of their semiconductor chips from Taiwan, a huge risk 
given the geopolitical situation in the region.
    Microelectronics are necessary for the technologies of the 
future. Harnessing new applications such as artificial 
intelligence, 5G, and quantum sciences, will require 
fundamental breakthroughs in microelectronics technology. While 
the factors that led to today's chip shortage are worthy of 
their own examination, our focus today is forward-looking: How 
do we secure America's leadership in advanced chip design? How 
do we regain our leadership in semiconductor manufacturing? We 
must answer these questions to ensure we never face a chip 
shortage or disruption in the United States again.
    Congress took the first steps to address this issue last 
year by passing the CHIPS for America Act as a part of the 
Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The CHIPS 
Act, which, when introduced, was referred solely to the Science 
Committee for jurisdiction, authorized programs to advance U.S. 
research and development, promote industry, government 
partnerships, and incentivize domestic fabrication of chips.
    Today's hearing should provide critical guidance as 
Congress and the Administration consider how to implement and 
fund the CHIPS Act. I have no doubt this will be a major 
legislative and oversight priority for our Committee for years 
to come.
    To lead in advanced microelectronics, the United States 
will need to make strategic investments along the entire 
innovation pipeline, from fundamental research and education, 
to design, to manufacturing. The Federal Government has a long 
tradition of investing in fundamental research for 
microelectronics, including through academic research 
institutions and Federal laboratories that are supported by the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy, 
and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
    Dr. Witherell will help tell us how DOE and its 
laboratories have worked with industry and academia to drive 
scientific advancements in areas such as materials science, 
energy efficiency, and novel devices. Access to materials, 
including critical minerals, chemicals, and gases will be the 
key to increasing domestic technology production. 
Unfortunately, the United States has limited quantities of many 
of these critical materials, so research into alternative and 
manufactured materials could be the answer to domestically 
producing advanced semiconductors.
    Another challenge, which the CHIPS Act takes steps to 
address, is advanced packaging. Experts believe that 
breakthroughs in packaging will be key to improving chip 
efficiency beyond the regular doubling of computing 
capabilities predicted by Moore's Law. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses today about what will make a 
national advanced packaging manufacturing program successful.
    Developing a strong work force in the United States to 
support the microelectronics industry is another challenge we 
need to solve. In the next 5 years, companies estimate that 
we'll need at least 42,000 semiconductor engineers nationwide. 
That demand is even higher for the full spectrum of workers 
needed, from skilled technicians and operators with associate 
degrees to those with advanced degrees. I hope our witnesses 
will provide some recommendations on how we can build this work 
force.
    As Congress looks to strengthen U.S. chip manufacturing and 
advance our competitiveness in microelectronics, we must look 
to lessons from the past. We've been here before. In the 
1980's, the Federal Government took strong actions to combat 
Japan's dominance in microelectronics. They included 
establishing a research consortium to support U.S. 
competitiveness in semiconductor technology, also known as 
SEMATECH. This government-industry partnership lasted until 
1994. It helped the United States regain the lead for a time, 
but competing industry interests, waning government support, 
and other factors led to a decline that has put us where we are 
today.
    During this time, IMEC was also established and is still in 
operation today. IMEC has created an international ecosystem 
for more than 600 world-leading industry partners and a global 
academic network focused on developing and testing cutting-edge 
semiconductor innovations. I know several of our witnesses have 
worked with both consortiums, and I look forward to hearing 
what lessons can be taken from each and used to inform the 
establishment of a National Semiconductor Technology Center 
(NSTC) and the Department of Defense's microelectronics 
commons.
    In closing, I'd like to note that yesterday marked 2 weeks 
since the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate announced 
that there would be a conference on the Senate-passed U.S. 
Innovation and Competition Act, (USICA) and the innovation 
bills that our Committee carefully crafted and passed on a 
bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, we're still waiting on the 
details of that conference. Chairwoman Johnson and I are ready 
to go. We've been ready to go for months. It's time for 
leadership to move forward on a bipartisan conference of all of 
the Committees of jurisdiction.
    The Senate bill will include significant funding for the 
CHIPS Act. And while I think there are still details to be 
worked out on exactly how that funding should look, time is in 
short supply to address our future domestic chip needs. We need 
to act now because I can tell you that our competitors aren't 
waiting.
    No matter what the final vehicle is for funding the CHIPS 
Act, I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it 
done as soon as possible.
    Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this morning's 
hearing.
    Every American who has tried to buy a car, tractor, or even 
a refrigerator lately, knows that we are facing severe supply 
chain shortages. In many cases, these shortages are being 
driven by global disruption to the supply chain for 
semiconductors or ``chips''.
    Microelectronics, the devices made from semiconductor 
materials, are critical to how we live and work. They power our 
phones, make our cars safer, our homes smarter, and help us 
store and protect vital information. They are not only 
essential to our economic security but our national security as 
well.
    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it clear that it 
wants to dominate the globe in key technology areas, and part 
of their strategy is to increase China's share of the 
semiconductor market through both investment and acquisition. 
U.S. technology companies obtain as much as 90 percent of their 
semiconductor chips from Taiwan, a huge risk given the 
geopolitical situation in the region.
    Microelectronics are necessary for the technologies of the 
future. Harnessing new applications such as artificial 
intelligence, 5G, and quantum sciences, will require 
fundamental breakthroughs in microelectronics technology.
    While the factors that led to today's chip shortage are 
worthy of their own examination, our focus today is forward-
looking--how do we secure America's leadership in advanced chip 
design and how do we regain our leadership in semiconductor 
manufacturing? We must answer these questions to ensure we 
never face a chip shortage or disruption in the United States 
again.
    Congress took the first steps to address this issue last 
year by passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the FY21 
National Defense Authorization Act. The CHIPS Act--which when 
introduced was referred solely to the Science Committee for 
jurisdiction--authorized programs to advance U.S. research and 
development, promote industry and government partnerships, and 
incentivize domestic fabrication of chips.
    Today's hearing should provide critical guidance as 
Congress and the Administration consider how to implement and 
fund the CHIPS Act. I have no doubt this will be a major 
legislative and oversight priority for our Committee for years 
to come.
    To lead in advanced microelectronics, the United States 
will need to make strategic investments along the entire 
innovation pipeline--from fundamental research and education, 
to design, to manufacturing. The federal government has a long 
tradition of investing in fundamental research for 
microelectronics, including through academic research 
institutions and federal laboratories that are supported by the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), 
and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).
    Dr. Witherell will tell us how DOE and its laboratories 
have worked with industry and academia to drive scientific 
advancements in areas such as materials science, energy 
efficiency, and novel devices. Access to materials, including 
critical minerals, chemicals, and gasses will be a key to 
increasing domestic technology production.
    Unfortunately, the U.S. has limited quantities of many of 
these critical materials. So research into alternative and 
manufactured materials could be the answer to domestically 
producing advanced semiconductors.
    Another challenge, which the CHIPS Act takes steps to 
address, is advanced packaging. Experts believe that 
breakthroughs in packaging will be key to improving chip 
efficiency beyond the regular doubling of computing 
capabilities predicted by Moore's law. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses today about what will make a 
national advanced packaging manufacturing program successful.
    Developing a strong workforce in the United States to 
support the microelectronics industry is another challenge we 
need to solve. In the next five years, companies estimate that 
we will need at least 42,000 semiconductor engineers 
nationwide. That demand is even higher for the full spectrum of 
workers needed--from skilled technicians and operators with 
associate degrees to those with advanced degrees. I hope our 
witnesses will provide some recommendations on how we can build 
this workforce.
    As Congress looks to strengthen U.S. chip manufacturing and 
advance our competitiveness in microelectronics, we must look 
to lessons from the past. We've been here before. In the 1980s, 
the federal government took strong actions to combat Japan's 
dominance in microelectronics. This included establishing a 
research consortium to support U.S competitiveness in 
semiconductor technology, also known as SEMATECH.
    This government-industry partnership lasted until 1994. It 
helped the U.S. regain the lead for a time, but competing 
industry interests, waning government support, and other 
factors led to a decline that put us where we are today.

    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
    If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 
point.
    At this time I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 
witness will be introduced by Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Johnson. It is 
my pleasure to introduce Dr. Ann Kelleher, Executive Vice 
President and General Manager of Technology Development at 
Intel Corporation, which has several hubs or campuses in the 
district I represent, and employs more than 20,000 Oregonians. 
Dr. Kelleher is responsible for the research, development, and 
deployment of next-generation silicon logic, packaging, and 
test technologies that power the future of Intel's innovation.
    Previously, Dr. Kelleher was the General Manager of 
Manufacturing and Operations where she oversaw Intel's 
worldwide manufacturing operations, as well as corporate 
quality assurance and corporate services. Dr. Kelleher joined 
Intel in 1996 as a Process Engineer and has tremendous 
expertise to offer as a witness in this hearing. I want to 
thank her for being here with us this morning and look forward 
to her testimony.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Our next witness 
is Mr. Manish Bhatia. He is the Executive Vice President of 
Global Operations at Micron Technology. In this role, he is 
responsible for driving the vision and direction for Micron's 
end-to-end operations. Prior to joining Micron in 2017, he 
served as Executive Vice President of Silicon Operations at 
Western Digital Corporation. He also served as Executive Vice 
President of Worldwide Operations at SanDisk Corporation when 
it was acquired by Western Digital.
    Our third witness is Dr. Michael Witherell. He is the 
Director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), a 
position he has held since January of 2016. Prior to his 
position at Berkeley, he served as the Vice Chancellor of 
Research at the University of California, Santa Barbara from 
2005 to 2016 and was the Director of Fermi National Accelerator 
Laboratory from 1999 to 2005. He is a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical 
Society and American Association for the Advancement of 
Science.
    Our final witness--somebody----
    Staff. Dr. Baird.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Dr. Baird will introduce. Dr. Baird, 
you're recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's indeed my 
pleasure to introduce to you an individual from Indiana's 
Fourth Congressional District and Purdue University. Dr. Mung 
Chiang currently serves as the Executive Vice President of 
Purdue University for Strategic Initiatives, the John A. 
Edwardson Dean College of Engineering, and the Roscoe H. George 
Distinguished Professor in the Elmore Family School of 
Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Chiang's research on 
communication networks received a 2013 Alan T. Waterman Award, 
the highest honor to scientists and engineers under the age of 
40 in the United States. And he has been the recipient of 
several other awards and distinctions.
    Most recently, Dr. Chiang founded the Center for Tech 
Diplomacy at Purdue, which intends to bring engineering 
expertise to policymakers in a way that demonstrates the 
inextricable links between technology, technology advancements, 
and national interests.
    So, Dr. Chiang, we are very happy to have you here with us 
today, and we really look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 
I yield back.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
    As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes 
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be 
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed 
your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each 
Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel.
    We now will start with Dr. Kelleher.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. ANN KELLEHER,

          EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER

                OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, INTEL

    Dr. Kelleher. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 
today. I lead Technology Development at Intel where we research 
and develop process and packaging technologies for Intel's 
products. We also ramp this technology into high-volume 
manufacturing.
    Over the past 10 years, Intel has invested more than $75 
billion in process and packaging R&D and U.S. manufacturing 
capital. Over the next 10 years, Intel anticipates spending 
approximately $150 billion. This will cover our recently 
announced expansions in Arizona, New Mexico, and a U.S. 
greenfield site, as well as our future technology R&D.
    Intel's investments demonstrate our enduring commitment to 
the United States technology leadership where we conduct all of 
our process technology R&D and the majority of our 
manufacturing.
    Semiconductors are fundamental to U.S. technology 
leadership, our economy, and our national security, and we're 
the fourth-largest U.S. export sector in 2020. Recent supply 
chain disruptions due to COVID-19 and widespread chip shortages 
illustrate the risk to our economy and the danger of losing our 
ability to make leading-edge chips in the United States.
    America has lost significant share of semiconductor 
production to Asia over the last 30 years. For decades, 
countries in Asia have provided substantial incentives driving 
a 30 percent cost disadvantage for chipmaking in the United 
States and a corresponding decrease in the U.S. global share of 
manufacturing, and that dropped from 37 percent to 12 percent.
    At the same time, designing and manufacturing leading-edge 
chips has also become increasingly more expensive. A recent 
paper from Boston Consulting Group highlighted the fact that 
investments required to develop the next advance in chipmaking 
has grown 40-fold over the last 20 years. Due to this dramatic 
increase, fewer manufacturers globally are able to make the 
investment required to develop leading-edge semiconductor 
technologies. In 2000, more than 25 companies built leading-
edge chips, but today only three leading-edge manufacturers of 
logic technology remain, and Intel is the only one left in the 
United States.
    Three essential ingredients are necessary for a strong U.S. 
semiconductor industry: manufacturing process technology, 
including IP (intellectual property) and know-how based in the 
United States; U.S. fab capacity to support the growing demand 
in the United States and worldwide; and advanced packaging 
capability and capacity. But these essential elements are being 
challenged by the 30 percent cost disadvantage and the lack of 
public funding for R&D.
    Forty years ago, Federal investment in semiconductor R&D 
was more than double that of private investment, but today, 
U.S. private investment is nearly 20 times that of public 
funding. Federal investments is urgently needed to level the 
playing field and reverse the erosion of U.S. semiconductor 
industry.
    Congress must enact funding of the new semiconductor 
manufacturing and R&D programs created in the CHIPS for America 
Act as soon as possible. The CHIPS Act has the right framework 
to create a strong U.S. semiconductor industry, and I'm 
confident that, if funded in a robust and sustained manner, 
these programs will significantly contribute to American 
technology leadership. Once funded, the Federal Government will 
need to effectively implement the CHIPS Act most significant 
new R&D program, the National Semiconductor Technology Center, 
or NSTC, and the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing 
Program.
    For the NSTC, Intel recommends priority R&D--prioritizing 
R&D on future breakthrough challenges that align with industry 
goals, leveraging existing industry infrastructure to save time 
and reduce cost. NSTC should be led by a neutral nonprofit that 
can reconcile conflicting needs in the industry.
    For the packaging program, Intel recommends establishing a 
physical location for the participants to work together to 
develop leading-edge cost-effective packaging technologies in 
the United States. The program should encompass packaging 
integration efforts across the semiconductor ecosystem.
    The Committee has an important oversight role regarding the 
CHIPS Act program, and Intel looks forward to working with you 
to provide our perspective on how to effectively implement 
these programs. Thank you for holding this stakeholder hearing, 
and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kelleher follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bhatia.

                TESTIMONY OF MR. MANISH BHATIA,

          EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL OPERATIONS,

                    MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.

    Mr. Bhatia. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, I am honored to appear before you 
today to discuss the status of U.S. leadership in advanced 
semiconductor development and manufacturing, particularly as it 
relates to memory and storage technology.
    Chairwoman Johnson, please allow me to congratulate you on 
your upcoming retirement, and thank you for your decades of 
distinguished service. My thanks to you and to the Members of 
this Committee who are spearheading the bipartisan effort to 
ensure long-term U.S. leadership in critical semiconductor 
research development and manufacturing capability. With your 
permission, I will submit my full statement for the record.
    I testify today as Executive Vice President of Global 
Operations at Micron, the world's memory and storage technology 
leader. Micron is the only company developing leading-edge 
memory and storage technology in the United States and the only 
firm manufacturing DRAM, dynamic random-access memory (RAM), or 
NAND flash memory in the United States.
    Headquartered in Boise, Idaho, Micron is the world's 
fourth-largest semiconductor integrated device manufacturer and 
the second largest in the United States. We have 43,000 team 
members worldwide and nearly 10,000 of them located in 
facilities across the United States, including in our Manassas, 
Virginia, facility where we manufacture memory and storage 
solutions that are critical to driving growth in the expanding 
automotive, industrial, and networking markets.
    Today, I hope to leave you with two key takeaways. First, 
memory and storage technologies are essential to a digital and 
data-intensive future for the United States. And second, long-
term substantial investment in leading-edge semiconductor 
research and development and manufacturing is vital for the 
United States to maintain technology leadership across diverse 
end applications from the cloud to the edge and everywhere in 
between.
    Memory and storage are foundational for every computing 
paradigm. Creating a meaningful domestic manufacturing base 
through funding of incentives program such as those included in 
the CHIPS for America Act and implementation of a refundable 
investment tax credit will enable a domestic supply of these 
essential devices.
    Micron designs, develops, and manufactures industry-leading 
semiconductor memory and storage products, the most common of 
which are DRAM, which provides rapid access to data for 
processing, and NAND flash, which provides long-term data 
storage. These products are critical to all sectors of the U.S. 
economy and to national security.
    By providing foundational capability for artificial 
intelligence and 5G across the data center, the intelligent 
edge, and consumer devices, Micron's products unlock innovation 
across industries, including healthcare, automotive, and 
communications. Computing workloads of the future are 
increasingly data-intensive, requiring highly reliable, high-
performing, and power-efficient advanced memory and storage 
solutions to optimize results.
    Memory and storage have grown from 10 percent of the global 
semiconductor industry revenue in the year 2000 to about 30 
percent of the semiconductor industry revenue today. We expect 
this trend to continue. For example, 5G phones have 50 percent 
more memory and twice the storage content as compared to 4G 
phones. Autonomous vehicles of the future will require as much 
DRAM and NAND storage as today's servers as cars become data 
centers on wheels.
    Conversely, domestic semiconductor manufacturing has 
experienced a steady decline. For example, in 1990 the United 
States had 37 percent of global chip manufacturing capacity and 
now accounts for only 12 percent, and only 2 percent of global 
memory production. Micron has developed and is producing the 
world's most advanced DRAM technology 1-alpha nanometer, as 
well as the most advanced NAND technology, 176-Layer. Our 
technology leadership is based on an unwavering commitment to 
innovation in both research and development with our aggressive 
technology roadmap and manufacturing where we deliver these 
industry-leading technologies at scale.
    We believe Congress should focus on three key areas when 
considering the conditions under which long-term U.S. 
leadership of this--of these critical semiconductor 
technologies can flourish: research and development, 
manufacturing, and work force development. We stand ready to 
work with this Committee and others in Congress and the 
executive branch to ensure the United States achieves and 
maintains the world's leading digital and data-intensive 
economy in the decades ahead.
    Thank you again, Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, 
for the opportunity to participate today, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Michael Witherell.

              TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL WITHERELL,

        DIRECTOR, LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

    Dr. Witherell. Hello. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 
Lucas, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you 
for holding this important hearing to focus light on this 
critical national challenge. I appreciate the opportunity to 
provide testimony.
    I've been Berkeley Lab's Director since 2016, was 
previously Director of Fermilab. For over a decade I've become 
steadily more concerned about the increasing threat to the 
Nation's leadership in semiconductors. Strengthening the 
Nation's entire microelectronics ecosystem, breakthrough 
research, technology development, and domestic manufacturing at 
scale is imperative for the Nation. I do not need to convince 
people at this hearing how central the advanced semiconductor 
industry is to much of our economy.
    Although industry has the central role, it is increasingly 
clear that our Nation's ability to lead the world in the 
development and deployment of advanced semiconductors will 
require a strong commitment across the entire Federal 
Government. It really is the time for an all-hands-on-deck 
approach that requires new investments across the innovation 
ecosystem, industry, academia, and the Department of Energy 
national laboratories.
    Why should DOE have a major role in the national 
microelectronics initiative? First of all, as you are aware, 
the Department of Energy is the largest supporter in the United 
States of the physical sciences and is the national leader for 
research in the fields that underpin microelectronics: physics, 
chemistry, materials science, and computer science. This 
leadership has led to over 100 Nobel Prizes awarded to DOE-
affiliated researchers, many for breakthroughs with profound 
impact on society.
    Second, sustained Federal investment at the national labs 
has developed highly managed teams of the world's best 
scientists and built world-class large-scale research 
facilities. These represent a unique combination of assets that 
the labs can bring to the full R&D ecosystem that is needed to 
help meet the current challenge. These lab assets can be 
deployed immediately with appropriate support.
    Third, the continuation of microelectronics evolution along 
the path of business-as-usual would require an unsustainable 
amount of the world's energy budget. We cannot meet the 
national energy goals without addressing the future of 
microelectronics. Conducting research to dramatically improve 
the energy efficiency of microelectronics is a science and 
technology challenge that falls squarely within the DOE's 
energy mission space.
    I want to emphasize that the DOE national labs already have 
a long history of working together with the semiconductor 
industry on precompetitive research that has helped push the 
boundaries of what silicon chips can do. Several facilities 
have been developed at DOE labs to support the semiconductor 
industry's existing capability to fabricate devices with 
feature sizes of several nanometers.
    Semiconductor companies working collaboratively here at 
Berkeley Lab have made over $160 million in investments at a 
specialized facility at our Advanced Light Source to support 
the industry's campaign to shrink the feature size on chips to 
widths and depths of a few dozen atoms using extreme 
ultraviolet UV lithography. This industry investment is even 
larger than stated in my written testimony since we just did a 
full search of the records over the history of that center.
    The DOE Office of Science invests more than this for the 
underlying operation of the x-ray light source facility that 
hosts this center. The investment from industry has been for 
the specialized instrumentation, research, and components that 
enabled the center to leverage the Federal investment.
    For another example, among many, the Center for Nanoscale 
Materials at Argonne National Laboratory offers extreme scale 
device processing, as do all five of the nanoscale research 
centers at DOE labs. And the MESAFab (Microsystems Engineering, 
Science and Applications Fabrications) complex at Sandia 
National Laboratories develops and maintains core semiconductor 
capabilities needed to support the DOE's nuclear security 
mission.
    In addition, the world-leading advanced x-ray sources at 
DOE labs enable researchers to characterize with high-precision 
the new materials and novel devices needed for ultraefficient 
computing. Completing the cycle of technology development 
requires the computer modeling capabilities that the DOE's 
high-performance computing facilities provide with specialized 
software and applications developed for these platforms.
    I would also like to emphasize the importance of developing 
a highly trained work force needed to keep us as the leader.
    So, in conclusion, our Nation's global reputation for 
innovative technology is due in large part to the health of the 
entire ecosystem for research, development, and deployment with 
a focus on establishing a domestic manufacturing base. This 
will require a full science-to-systems approach that leverages 
the national labs to provide the fullest possible support to 
the industry.
    Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you 
today.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Witherell follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Our final witness is Dr. Mung Chiang.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. MUNG CHIANG,

               EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND DEAN

           OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Chiang. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today. My name is Mung Chiang, the 
Executive Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at Purdue 
University and the John A. Edwardson Dean of College of 
Engineering. This year Purdue's College of Engineering became 
the largest engineering school to be ranked among top five in 
the United States with over 15,000 students enrolled. It also 
has over 100 faculty members working in microelectronics and 
related fields.
    Our digital economy is built on silicon. It helps to 
visualize the supply chain in five steps. First, it's the raw 
materials and gases needed to make chips. Then there is 
hardware that goes into chip factories. Third is the design of 
chips and the software tools used in such design. And American 
companies continue to lead the world in chip design. Then 
there's manufacturing, taking all of the above into a factory. 
The physical making of a chip goes through many processes. Some 
factories focus on logic chips while others on memory and 
storage chips. And finally, assembly, test, and packaging. Once 
chips are made, they need to be packaged and integrated into 
the market electronic products and eventually find their way 
into phones, cars, fighter jets, and more.
    Much of the discussion these days zooms in on the 
manufacturing step. There are two different types of business 
models. One is to make chips designed by the same company, and 
the other is to make chips designed by other companies, the 
foundry model. With increasing specialization in the 
semiconductors industry over the past 3 decades, many companies 
have chosen to become ``fabless'' and rely on the foundry. This 
in turn enhances the foundry's benefits of scale and sharpens 
its ability to deliver cutting-edge manufacturing under a 
service mindset and trust with the foundry customers.
    For the semiconductor industry in the United States across 
the whole supply chain we are in the critical years now. 
Universities have three unique roles to play in this silicon 
moment. One is to help create synergy with companies large and 
small to bridge the fundamental research advances with 
commercially deployable technologies. The innovation ecosystem 
works best when we create synergy across major companies in 
manufacturing and in design, small to medium disruptors with 
their investors and researchers and teachers at universities.
    Our second role is educating and retraining large numbers 
of engineers, technicians, and operators. Ideally, the 
university can create knowledge and jobs together, generating 
both new positions and the talent needed to fuel the positions.
    And third, universities, especially land-grant institutions 
such as Purdue, have an obligation to serve as an economic 
driver for the State, and there's no greater opportunity today 
than in microelectronics. And Purdue is proud to be a partner 
with the State of Indiana developing strategies and providing a 
talent pool.
    And for the future of chips, the ultimate supply chain is 
that of human talent. In just the next 5 years at least 42,000 
semiconductor engineers need to be trained and ready 
nationwide. The number will continue to climb well into the 
next decade.
    There is a growing gap between the supply and demand for 
microelectronic and semiconductor engineers across the spectrum 
from associate and bachelor degrees to master's and Ph.D.'s. 
And some specific steps need to be made, including revising, 
invigorating, and expanding the microelectronics curricula with 
expanded use of hands-on training, online learning, partnership 
with community colleges and engagement with industry, and also 
to scale up such educational programs and substantially 
increase the number of scholarships for undergrads and 
fellowships for graduate students in the United States.
    And third, to fund research development programs that push 
the boundaries of science and engineering and facilitate the 
translation of new discoveries into applications.
    Action is indeed needed now. Passing the USICA (United 
States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021) and funding the 
CHIPS Act this month will be a crucial and timely win for the 
national security, economic security, and job security in our 
country. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Chiang follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. At this point we 
will begin our first round of questions. And the Chair 
recognizes herself for 5 minutes. I'd like each witness to 
comment. As you all have testified, the United States faces 
several challenges to maintaining U.S. leadership in 
microelectronics. They include a lack of domestic manufacturing 
and packaging capacity, a limited technical work force, 
technology transfer challenges, and multiple scientific 
challenges.
    Given that the availability of resources may never be 
enough to fully address all of the many challenges, how should 
the Federal Government set funding and policy priorities, in 
particular since this is the Science Committee, how should we 
prioritize policies and funding to maintain leadership in 
semiconductor innovation?
    Dr. Kelleher. I will start. So my recommendation is that 
this Committee needs to look at some of the key breakthroughs 
that are needed for the long haul to maintain the overall 
research and development and the future of the industry. The 
funding which comes with the CHIPS Act, once the funding is 
received and arrives, it doesn't have an immediate impact as 
far as the longer haul, so I believe that we as a semiconductor 
industry need to identify the top key areas in terms of that we 
need to continue to develop the--from materials science, from 
lithography, from all the aspects that continues to keep moving 
our research in the 5 to 10--in the 10 to 15 years out so that 
we can set ourselves up for technology leadership for the long 
haul.
    Mr. Bhatia. Chairwoman Johnson, I'll--I can go next. I 
believe that the prioritization should be toward leading-edge 
technologies, whether in research and development or in 
manufacturing. Chairwoman Johnson, as you noted in your 
introductory remarks and as Ranking Member Lucas noted in his, 
from the dawn of the semiconductor era with the mention of the 
integrated chip to--you know, to today, the thing that makes 
the semiconductor industry unique is the rate of change of 
technology and that cadence that continues to move every 18 to 
24 months. New technologies are introduced that are higher 
performance, higher density, and lower power.
    And so the biggest challenge that we face as an industry is 
continuing to maintain that--the leadership in advanced 
leading-edge capability for process technology, for device 
capability, and in manufacturing. So, you know, our 
recommendation is that the funding both for research and 
development, as well as for manufacturing, focus on leading-
edge technologies because these are the areas that are going to 
ensure American leadership in microelectronics far into the 
future. And both the CHIPS Act and as well as the refundable 
tax incentives that are being proposed are both necessary 
measures to be able to ensure that this can happen.
    Dr. Witherell. So I can go next. And I would say for the 
Federal investment in R&D, I think keeping that focused on the 
laboratories that are best connected with the industry, this 
has to be laser focused on working through the problems that 
industry is facing on developing the new technologies. And so 
there are longstanding partnerships, public-private 
partnerships on working through this, as we have at several of 
the laboratories and at some academic laboratories as well to 
make sure that we're solving the problems that industry needs 
to work our way through this.
    The other thing I would say is that we need a bigger work 
force, a more capable work force working in these hardware 
technologies than we have today. You heard about it from our 
Dean. Supporting the academic environment so we can grow this 
work force is essential, too.
    Dr. Chiang. Of course a mic check to see if you can hear 
me. Great, thank you. I was worried that, you know, I've lost 
my engineer's ability to adjust the volume on my computer, so 
great to know that you can hear me now.
    Well, I want to just echo what my fellow panelists have 
already mentioned. There is the need to fund and prioritize 
ideas for the future, and then there is the need to fund the 
people that are needed today. The ideas for the future, as we 
mentioned, activities in R&D in areas such as advanced 
packaging, heterogenous integration, new material and going 
from two dimensions to three dimensions, are all essential to 
the continued R&D vibrancy of semiconductors industry in the 
United States.
    As to the people that we need today, it will take a grand 
strategy across government, industry, educational institutions, 
K-12, and government national labs to work together, in 
particular, to deploy more online learning for upscaling and 
retraining of existing work force, to substantially increase 
the number of K-12 student pipeline into engineering programs 
in the country, and to increase the use of hands-on learning, 
industry internship opportunities to make sure that they are 
ready for the market. And all of these can be further 
supplemented by increasing the number of scholarships for 
undergraduates and fellowships for Ph.D. students in the 
country.
    And finally, we do need indeed a diversity in the range of 
talents, including those who are in community colleges and also 
inclusivity in the geographic balance. There are many talents 
throughout the country, and they can all be part of the 
solution to the work force shortage problem.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And before I begin my 
questions, can I take a moment to introduce the newest Member 
of the Science Committee?
    Chairwoman Johnson. Yes, you may.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. And I'd like to 
welcome Mike Carey as the newest Member of our Committee. He 
joins us from Ohio's 15th District. He brings decades of 
experience in the energy industry. And I know he's eager to get 
to work helping us strengthen and modernize the American energy 
production with an all-above approach to new energy 
technologies. I know he'll be a valuable Member of the 
Committee. And he's learning the joys of our Wi-Fi and logging 
in on a web meeting right now, so it's a character-building 
experience. Thank you for joining us, Mike, and thank you, 
Madam Chair, for that.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you. Let me just welcome 
you say that you're joining the greatest Committee on the Hill. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Carey. That's what I've heard.
    Mr. Lucas. And the Chairwoman----
    Chairwoman Johnson. Mr.----
    Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Is absolutely correct.
    That said, in the remaining year of the Chair's time, we're 
going to work her really hard as we accomplish great things on 
this Committee.
    Now, that said, Dr. Kelleher and Mr. Bhatia, as I mentioned 
in my opening statement, I'm interested in hearing from both of 
you about the lessons learned, good and bad, from the Federal 
Government's previous efforts to bolster U.S. competitiveness 
in microelectronics and its support of SEMATECH. I would also 
be interested in your insights on how IMEC is successful and 
where it may fall short. In other words, what characteristics 
of these programs should we consider adopting for the NSTC and 
other chips programs? And what should we avoid? Let's talk 
about the lessons we've learned.
    Dr. Kelleher. And maybe I will start with--I'll start with 
IMEC because I myself worked at IMEC earlier in my career, so I 
have firsthand knowledge. I have a lot of respect for IMEC and 
the work that it has done and its ability to make itself self-
sustaining over the years and the work that it has done 
enabling for the basically research not just for Europe for 
worldwide.
    I think one of the key learnings from IMEC is IMEC works in 
the research in its precompetitive space, and that 
precompetitive space enables it to do the early research that 
feeds into the overall industry as a whole. It feeds--it's in 
parallel to some of the universities, but it also feeds into 
the overall--basically the ecosystem as a whole. It--that 
precompetitive research goes to semiconductor fabs, and it goes 
to work with the equipment vendors and the material vendors, so 
basically it's quite strong.
    I think one of the key things is we have a lot of basically 
discussion on how does one get access to prototyping, et 
cetera. IMEC is not a model that's set up for prototyping. IMEC 
is very much on the precompetitive space. So I think as we go 
forward at least one of the lessons learned is how do we take 
the equivalent of working with the research institutes and 
working with--for precompetitive space and funding that, as 
well as taking it further down the supply chain in terms of how 
we set up so that we enable prototyping and eventually enable 
turning that product into basically leading-edge products here 
within the United States.
    I think I will let--given I'm consuming time, I will let 
Manish take SEMATECH.
    Mr. Lucas. Please.
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Thank you, Dr. Kelleher and Ranking 
Member Lucas.
    As you mentioned, when SEMATECH was founded almost 40 years 
ago, there were more than 20 American companies who were doing 
leading-edge process technology development, as well as 
manufacturing. And today, you know, really the two companies on 
the panel are the ones who are doing that left in the United 
States.
    So the SEMATECH model, while it's served its purpose for a 
prior era, you know, a replication of that would not 
necessarily provide the same benefit that it did now because 
really Intel and Micron are the two companies that are doing 
leading-edge process development research and leading-edge 
manufacturing among the U.S. companies.
    With regard to the--you know, what the focus for this 
Committee can be to help fill a gap that exists, we agree with 
Dr. Kelleher's comment that while focus on university research, 
as well as the national laboratory network has been--have been 
excellent programs and continue to be vital areas for long-term 
foundational research and those, you know, do need to have 
funding increased to be able to maintain our status as the 
leading--as leadership around the world, this transition from 
the labs of those national labs or of those universities to the 
fabs that we operate is the area that we can help to bridge 
with the National Semiconductor Technology Center's approach.
    And rapid prototyping of new technologies to accelerate the 
time from their demonstrated feasibility in laboratories, in 
university or national lab environments until they can be 
commercialized and ramped at scale in high-volume 
manufacturing, this is the area that we should--we see as a 
primary focus for the funding for the NSTC.
    Mr. Lucas. Dr. Chiang, I want to thank you for your 
comments on the need to build a work force to meet the demands 
that will come from a growing domestic semiconductor industry. 
And I'm--especially appreciated your comments on the need to 
train technicians and production workers. Like Indiana, which 
has Ivy Tech, Oklahoma has a remarkable program with 
CareerTech. Tech schools and training offer a tremendous 
opportunity to train, reskill, upskill America's work force. 
Can you please elaborate on how Purdue is working with Ivy Tech 
to develop work force programs focused on skills needed by the 
semiconductor industry and how that potentially could serve as 
a model?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. I would be--
first of all, again, mic check if I'm still all right with the 
volume. All right, fantastic.
    Mr. Lucas. I can hear you.
    Dr. Chiang. All right. Thank you. Indeed, it takes a whole 
partnership. No university by itself can fulfill the whole 
spectrum of needs. It takes partnership. And I highlight three 
partnerships. One is, as you mentioned, Purdue University has 
been partnering with Ivy Tech, which is our statewide community 
college system with over 70,000 community college students. And 
we also have started deploying a new set of degrees and 
credentials, including a dedicated degree at the master level 
for semiconductor supply chain, from the material and the gases 
needed, to the hardware tools needed to the manufacturing and 
the design and eventually to test, assembly, packaging. And 
third is the use of online learning to share these new spectra 
of curricula with other learning institutions.
    And under President Mitch Daniels, Purdue University's 
leadership, Purdue Global, and Purdue Online for the West 
Lafayette main campus have rolled out a wide variety of online 
learning certificate opportunities so that even those who are 
in the work force today wanting to upskill or those who are 
remote learning and not able to attend the university within 
Indiana will be able to benefit from these results.
    Finally, I will just comment also how the industry and 
academia can work together even in the education space. It 
takes more than just recruiting but also actively participating 
in the design of these curricula and providing hands-on 
learning internship opportunities and providing work force 
training for their own employees through our online degrees. 
And these cut across the bachelor degree and associate degrees, 
as well as more advanced degrees, so that it's not just 
universities generating the supply of talent but truly industry 
and universities working together to design the curricula and 
to educate the work force together.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And thank you, Chair, for 
indulging me on the time. I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, and thanks to the Chair 
and Ranking Member and our witnesses. And before I turn to my 
questions, I just want to acknowledge the Chairwoman and her 
recent announcement. Chairwoman Johnson, it has been and 
continues to be an honor serving with you and your leadership, 
and I'm looking forward to a very productive upcoming year 
before a more formal farewell.
    It's clear that we have a lot of work to do to expand and 
preserve the role of the United States as a global leader in 
semiconductors. It is also clear that we need to swiftly 
provide funding through the CHIPS Act, as both the Chair and 
the Ranking Member have mentioned, to help reinvigorate our 
Nation's semiconductor industry.
    And we've all heard about the semiconductor shortages, 
primarily pandemic-induced, disrupting countless sectors across 
the global economy. In the district I represent, which is often 
referred to as the Silicon Forest, is particularly vulnerable 
to these supply challenges. Thousands of my constituents, more 
than 40,000 Oregonians, currently work in the semiconductor 
industry, so there's tremendous potential for that number to 
grow.
    And I want to note that every witness here today raised 
work force issues. Workforce readiness is a major limitation to 
expanding U.S. semiconductor leadership. And as a Member of the 
Education and Labor Committee, this is something that I care 
about deeply.
    So, Dr. Kelleher, nice to see you again. Thank you for 
joining us. What on-the-job training program does Intel offer 
to prepare its own work force? And, as an industry leader in 
semiconductor employment, we're really interested in your 
opinion about what steps Congress could take to boost the 
industry's work force pipeline.
    Dr. Kelleher. Thank you very much for the question, and 
it's absolutely my honor to talk about work force development 
because it's very near and dear to my heart. When I was leading 
the manufacturing organization, it was also very important to 
me.
    I was--the span of work force development covers--it covers 
an entire span within our factories. It covers the span from 
skilled technicians to operators right up to the most advanced 
researchers we can hire. Equally well we're building factories, 
and the entire trade availability and the entire trade skill is 
basically--is a declining skill and there's a shortage within 
the trade community. So I would say this entire semiconductor 
industry, the skills that needs to be grown goes anywhere from 
in the construction industry to support the building of our 
factories right up to the most advanced researcher.
    Within Intel ourselves we have quite a lot of training 
programs. We have in-house training programs where we--as we 
hire our technicians, there are in-house training on the 
equipment and a whole--and associated training to get them up 
to a certified level. We hire quite a lot from the military, 
and employees we hire from the military come to us with a 
really good standard, and that makes that training basically 
easier.
    And we also work with the universities and the colleges, 
and over the years we have done many programs with the colleges 
that actually get the programs and the specifics that we need 
in--and is--some to train for folks we've already hired, to set 
up classes and to set up training programs so that we can hire 
from those.
    So across the board I believe there needs to be a generic, 
I would say, focus and look to go anywhere from our supply into 
construction to enable us as an overall industry to build our 
factories.
    And also with the universities and with the--I would say 
the less skilled aspect of it, but there is no low-paying job 
within the semiconductor industry. They're all skilled jobs. 
So----
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to cut 
you off. I just want to squeeze in a question real quickly for 
Dr. Witherell. Thank you for that comprehensive answer, which 
was really helpful.
    Dr. Witherell, according to your testimony, the 
microelectronics energy consumption is projected to increase 
from 5 percent of the world's energy used today to 25 percent 
by 2030, which, of course, is a significant increase. And you 
recognize that research addresses challenges falls squarely 
within the DOE's mission. So what efforts are underway to 
research how to reduce energy intensity across the 
semiconductor supply chain? And do you have any examples? Thank 
you.
    Dr. Witherell. Well, we are working on new materials and 
new devices to break through that energy barrier in 
semiconductors, and that's something that's actually squarely 
in the energy space of the DOE laboratories but also it's in 
the science and technology space, and so that's why we're 
putting that in the lead.
    And the important thing is actually having--for this 
proprietary research to be doing in the labs but closely tied 
to what the industry is ready to do. And that's why these 
continuing public-private partnerships are important.
    I also want to--as another example of that, Princeton 
Plasma Physics Lab is working on plasma processing with 
industry and academia for processing, which is another 
important thing I didn't have the time to mention in my 
testimony. So taking advantage of these existing partnerships 
is the way to get faster movement from the DOE laboratory into 
industry, which is what I think we're hearing about.
    Ms. Bonamici. Terrific, thank you so much. I'm out of time 
and yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Staff. Mr. Babin is recognized.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking 
Member Lucas, and thank you to the witnesses as well for being 
here with us today.
    Demand for semiconductors is at an all-time high, which is 
a trend unlikely to ease off for the foreseeable future in our 
country's evolving reliance on digital infrastructure. From 
smartphones to our defense technologies, semiconductors 
continue to play a critical role in our country, and investing 
in this industry should be a high priority for us.
    Texas alone has seen several investments made in the 
semiconductor industry this year with Samsung announcing just 
last month a $17 billion investment for a new facility in 
Taylor, Texas, not in my district but I'm proud to have them in 
Texas, one of the biggest investments we've seen in many long 
years, maybe the largest.
    It's important that we pursue American competitiveness in 
this industry. We recognize the role of partnering with 
companies abroad which are important players in our supply 
chain. So, Dr. Chiang, in your written testimony, when 
evaluating the semiconductor supply chain, you mentioned the 
three P's: protect, promote, and partner. Recognizing the 
importance of focusing on these key aspects of the supply 
chain, would you please elaborate on how the United States can 
best leverage our valuable taxpayer dollars with our allies to 
ensure the United States remains a leader in the global market? 
And how do we continue to encourage investments in the future 
in domestic growth and in American jobs?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you very much----
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Congressman, for the three P's, 
usually people are referring to public-private partnership, 
which is certainly important. Now, I was referring to the three 
dimensions of protect, promote, and partnership. And on the 
partnership front, we have to recognize that it helps for the 
United States to onshore like-minded nations' private-sector 
success. For example, Congressman, you just highlighted Samsung 
for careers investment----
    Mr. Babin. Right.
    Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Into Austin in Texas. 
Congratulations. And of course we----
    Mr. Babin. Thank you.
    Dr. Chiang [continuing]. Saw in May 2020 TSMC, Taiwan 
Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, one of the largest, the 
leading-edge manufacturer of semiconductor chips coming to the 
United States to Arizona. And we have other like-minded nation 
partners in the design space such as MediaTek, also from 
Taiwan, and we just mentioned some of the partnership with 
European countries as well. I think it is of utmost importance 
to encourage these partners to come to the U.S. shore, to 
create jobs in America, to produce results and intellectual 
property in the United States, and also to work with American 
companies both to create jobs for our students and to help us 
to train such students. And here at Purdue we're proud to work 
both with companies such as Intel and SkyWater and other 
American-headquartered companies, but also with companies such 
as TSMC and MediaTek.
    Mr. Babin. Right, thank you so very much.
    Dr. Chiang, you also mentioned that the United States is 
the largest end-user of semiconductors in the global market but 
yet the U.S. share of semiconductor global fabrication is only 
12 percent, a very low number. And, Dr. Kelleher, you highlight 
the same shocking percentages in your written testimony and 
going on to highlight the danger of losing our ability to make 
advanced chips in the United States. So, both of you, if you 
please would elaborate on what you see as the biggest threat to 
our semiconductor supply chains.
    Dr. Kelleher. Our biggest threat in terms of our 
semiconductor supply chain is our ability to continue to, I 
would say, invest and grow and keep that advanced leading-edge 
R&D and IP growing within the United States. We are at a 
fundamental disadvantage compared to some of the Asian 
countries when it comes to basically developing and 
manufacturing our chips, so if we lose our ability to actually 
continue to maintain that leading-edge manufacturing, it means 
that, as a supply chain, we're completely reliant on the rest 
of the world. And I don't believe that's a good place for the 
United States to be.
    Mr. Babin. No, ma'am. And, Dr. Chiang?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with Dr. 
Kelleher's assessment that indeed we need to make sure that the 
entire supply chain is secure. That includes gas and materials 
needed, including rare-earth minerals. That includes the 
tooling companies. We have companies such as Applied Materials 
here in the United States, and Tokyo Electron, both work with 
Purdue and the State of Indiana. And that includes the 
manufacturing companies, as well as the chip design companies. 
And even more depressing numbers can be found when it comes to 
the final step, advanced packaging. We need to onshore or re-
shore a lot more on the packaging front as well.
    Here in the State of Indiana, Governor Eric Holcomb, and 
the whole team here have been trying to increase the presence 
of packaging, as well as manufacturing facilities. Some of that 
is upgrading existing ones in universities such as Purdue's 
Birck Nanotechnology Center and the nanoHUB virtual learning 
platform, and new ones.
    And I would wrap up this brief comment and answer by 
highlighting the optimism that I have that, as somebody once 
said, never short on America and the Americans. The ingenuity 
and the creativity of our universities and companies and 
government labs is truly second to none. And as long as we 
continue to look forward to the most innovative R&D ideas and 
run faster than we have ever run before, then there is no limit 
as to what American ingenuity can do.
    Mr. Babin. Great. Thank you both so very much. And I yield 
back, Madam Chair.
    Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
    Ms. Stevens. Dr. Kelleher, what can you tell me about the 
origin of semiconductors, given the company you work for and 
who your founder was, Dr. Gordon Moore?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, let me start with just Gordon Moore, 
Robert Noyce, and Andy Grove are the three founders of Intel. 
Intel was basically incorporated in 1967, 1968, so we're well 
over 50 years old as a company.
    So semiconductors basically are the essence--and I speak 
very much for transistors right now and not memory--the essence 
of semiconductors is basically a switch. The essence of this 
switch is you can switch it on or off from a silicon 
perspective. And the combination of all of these transistors 
put together enable circuits to get designed, which ultimately 
are able to do computation analysis and very complex analysis. 
And as we progress over time, we're moving into the artificial 
intelligence space where there's overall trading in workload.
    So over the years with the industry when it started, it 
was--basically we were working with very large dimensions. And 
not today when we look back we're not complex transistors, nor 
were they really large or complex designs, probably were viewed 
like that at the time but today when we look back, as we 
progressed over time, the nature of the semiconductor to make 
as we continue to advance on the Moore's Law scaling so that 
approximately every 2 years we're doubling the amount of 
transistors so that you can fit in a chip.
    Ms. Stevens. Right. And Dr. Witherell would know that--just 
pardon me on this front--because he would know that--Dr. 
Moore--and I know he wasn't the exclusive founder of Intel--was 
at the university level and then broke off, wasn't--was working 
for a semiconductor company and then joined to--you know, with 
his colleagues to form Intel. And it's quite inspiring, Intel 
and Micron. Mr. Bhatia--you also represent a very large 
employer, and we're very inspired by your companies, and we're 
inspired by the employability, the R&D.
    The question is--and Mr. Bhatia touches on this in his 
testimony--is that at one point, right, we were innovating, we 
were inventing, we were creating these incredible enterprises 
of scale, producing in this country 40 percent of chips. And I 
come from Michigan and we've got an auto sector that relies on 
this, and we're at 12 percent today. And Mr. Bhatia talks about 
this, that, you know, it costs 35 to 45 percent more to have 
chip manufacturing in the United States. Why? Why? Why--can 
you--how do we make this more competitive for you? How do we 
compel you--because it's not just a feel good, right? It's not 
a cute thing to say, oh, we like manufacturing in this country. 
This is our bottom line. This is our economic competitiveness.
    We have an EXIM (Export-Import) Bank in this country that 
gives us a platform to trade globally, to export. Many years 
ago--some of my colleagues might remember this who were here. 
This is on the other side of the aisle. They were going to get 
rid of the EXIM Bank. They were going to get rid of the EXIM 
Bank. And industry said, well, gosh, we won't be able to 
compete. Now here we are, the tide has rolled out billions and 
billions of loss of profit, losses of jobs. How do we bring it 
back? What do we need to do to bring it back here, get people 
back to work, and increase our production capabilities in the 
United States for semiconductors?
    Mr. Bhatia. Well, Representative----
    Ms. Stevens. Go ahead.
    Mr. Bhatia. I'm sorry, was that for--was that question for 
me?
    Ms. Stevens. It can be for you.
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Sure.
    Ms. Stevens. I mean, everyone had a brilliant testimony.
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure.
    Ms. Stevens. I mean, really, these testimonies were 
incredible.
    Mr. Bhatia. So, Representative Stevens, thank you for that. 
I'll touch on that, and then I'll let--you know, let other 
panelists.
    You know, to answer your question, the 35 to 45 percent 
cost gap to build and operate large-scale semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities between lower-cost regions in Asia and 
the United States is really comprised of three elements. The 
first is labor costs both for operating the fabs but also for 
construction of these fabs. These fabrication facilities, each 
one will cost multiple billions of dollars just build the clean 
room facilities before we even start to equip it. And then with 
equipment they become above--more than $15 billion for each 
individual site. So the labor costs for both the construction 
and the operation is the first element.
    The second element is really the scale of the facilities. 
Over the last 20 years, Asian countries have had focused 
policies to be able to grow the ecosystem, to grow 
semiconductor manufacturing, particularly from memory into 
larger and larger scale. So when we're starting from small-
scale or in some cases no scale, the economies of scale that 
are enjoyed in Asian countries because of the investment over 
the last 20 years drive a substantial cost gap as well.
    And then the third piece is the government incentives that 
are there. And we believe that the CHIPS Act and a refundable 
investment tax credit that has been introduced and proposed, 
these are the right first steps to be able to try to reverse 
this trend and make it more cost-competitive for U.S. 
integrated device manufacturers to build large-scale 
semiconductor manufacturing facilities.
    And the other point that you mentioned about jobs is very 
important. Each of these facilities require--create thousands 
of high-paying, high-value jobs whether you're talking about 
scientists in the labs or engineers operating the fabs or 
skilled trades operating this high-precision equipment and 
these very, very exacting and demanding clean room environments 
at facilities, these are high-paying jobs that are--that create 
long careers and improve the quality of lives for every one of 
the communities where we operate. So investing in the future in 
semiconducting manufacturing has benefits both economically, as 
well as in the local communities and their quality of life.
    Ms. Stevens. Well, I'm egregiously over time, but, Dr. 
Witherell, we're going to do--and, Dr. Chiang, we'll do QFR 
(questions for the record), you know, we'll do a question for 
the record because the public-private partnership component 
here is also incredibly imperative.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Lucas, for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for 
joining us this morning.
    I want to take a brief moment to thank Chairwoman Johnson 
for her leadership and commitment to our Committee over these 
many years. I've been a Member for 3 years now. I've announced 
my retirement for a lot of reasons, one of which is this place 
just operates like a--I don't know, junior high is probably 
generous in many respects--with the exception of this 
Committee. And this Committee operates, and this place operates 
in large measure on the cadence of the leadership. As 
leadership goes, so does Congress.
    And my belief is that this Committee is so effective 
because we have such effective leadership. And that starts with 
Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas. And so I am 
enormously grateful for her service. And I'm sad to see her go, 
but it's much earned, and she has certainly served our country 
and her district incredibly well. We will miss her.
    But I'm cautiously optimistic--I'm very optimistic that 
whoever takes over in the coming years will carry on the 
tradition because we've been effective and we need to be 
effective as nothing more important from an economic 
development standpoint in my opinion than reshoring our 
semiconducting manufacturing.
    I'll start with Mr. Manish Bhatia. You were just talking 
about these facilities, and I want you to kind of go a little 
bit deeper and give us a sense of the scale. When a new fab is 
produced, when we come and say, OK, we're going to make major 
investments in a community and increase our manufacturing, what 
does that look like from an economic development standpoint? 
Think of a--and I'm from Ohio. Think of a town in Ohio and what 
that--those sorts of things can mean, what those sorts of 
investments can mean for individual communities.
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Thank you, Representative Gonzalez, and 
thank you also for your service.
    The--you know, as I was starting to stay before, you know, 
to operate a large-scale semiconductor manufacturing facility 
requires thousands of employees of the manufacturer, whether 
they're engineers who are developing process or maintaining the 
process, managing the yields and the quality levels and the 
productivity through the fab who will also have almost an equal 
number if thousands of jobs of indirect employees who are on 
the site every day, whether it's to continue with construction 
or installation of this high-precision equipment, maintenance 
of this high-precision equipment, installation and maintenance 
of the specialized chemicals and gases that we need to operate 
the clean room or to manage the processes on the floor or to 
just operate the overall facility. So we're really talking 
about thousands of direct jobs that are employees of the 
manufacturer and then thousands of employees who are onsite 
that are from the contractors or the equipment companies or the 
chemical and materials companies.
    And then you have the support in the community for those 
large-scale manufacturing operations. We believe that this--
that, you know, that those thousands of jobs have a 3X 
multiplier in the community to be able to support these large-
scale investments. As I mentioned, a single fab will cost more 
than--a modern fab today will cost more than $15 billion in 
capital investment. And when we talk about memory fabs and 
minimum-efficient scale, single-site facilities are not 
minimum-efficient scale today. We need multiple fab clusters 
similar to those that have grown up in Asia to be able to be 
cost-competitive. And so you're really talking about massive, 
long-term, decades-long investments that can prop up entire 
communities and can improve the quality of life whether we're 
talking about high-paying jobs but you're also talking about 
the infrastructure in the community, healthcare----
    Mr. Gonzalez. Reclaiming my time just for a second because 
I only have a minute, but I appreciate the enthusiasm. And I 
would commit to everyone on--all of our panelists, Ohio is 
ready. Ohio is ready, willing, and able to support 
semiconductor manufacturing right now. So we are open for 
business. Please come. We will provide the incentives. We will 
do all that we can, I can assure you.
    With my final point, you mentioned government incentives 
and refundable investment. We have to make it more cost-
competitive. At the end of the day, the companies answer to 
shareholders and have to be more cost-competitive.
    I'm just going to make a brief comment and then yield back. 
My Democratic colleagues are considering massive spending in 
various forms of tax increase through Build Back Better. 
Whatever you do, please, please, please be very cognizant of 
the fact that if you raise corporate taxes or if you do 
something to make us less competitive economically, that's 
going to reverse many of the benefits from the CHIPS Act. So 
buyer beware on that stuff.
    With that, I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Bowman is recognized.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. And, Madam Chairwoman, I 
want to echo the sentiments. Congratulations on your 
retirement. Thank you so much for showing us the way--or 
showing me the way as a freshman in terms of how Congress is 
supposed to work. Thank you for your leadership on this 
Committee.
    My question is for Dr. Kelleher. Thank you for your 
testimony. Intel is a large, very successful company that made 
$21 billion in profits last year and spent over $14 billion on 
stock buybacks. Intel's CEO (Chief Executive Officer) recently 
acknowledged that stock buybacks have undermined the firm's 
competitiveness. I believe Intel has been talking about 
expanding domestic manufacturing capacity for some time now, 
and it strikes me that you already have the ability to do so. 
What material impact would Intel's portion of CHIPS Act 
incentives really have? You touched on this earlier, but I 
wanted to come back to it. Why is a subsidy like this going to 
make the difference in terms of delivering new, leading-edge 
capacity in the United States?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, first of all, I obviously very clearly 
said we have a lot of commitment to the United States and in 
terms of our investment in R&D and manufacturing over our 50-
year history. This fundamentally, in terms of the CHIPS Act, is 
about enabling us to maintain competitiveness here within the 
United States.
    We are continuing to invest in leading-edge technology 
development and manufacturing for us to continue to compete 
effectively and with competition worldwide. The CHIPS Act is 
absolutely essential for us to be able to do that. So I think 
that is my simple answer to you, Representative Bowman.
    Mr. Bowman. OK, thank you. I may come back to you if time 
allows.
    I had a question about creating pipelines for young people 
who want to go into careers in this sector. It was mentioned by 
a few of the witnesses. I want to focus on--someone mentioned 
K-12. I want to focus on the high school setting. What should 
high school science and technology curriculum look like in 
order to prepare our students for postsecondary opportunities 
in these spaces? And I'll start with Mr. Bhatia if that's OK.
    Mr. Bhatia. Thank you, Representative Bowman. And it's a 
personal passion of mine as well. You know, K through 12 is an 
area that Micron has focused considerably on in the communities 
where we operate, including Boise, Idaho, where we have our 
Research and Development Center of Excellence, and in Manassas, 
Virginia, where we also have tremendous manufacturing 
capability.
    And in terms of K through 12 specifically, we have been 
working to develop STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) curriculum starting at a very early age and 
including being very inclusive to underrepresented groups who 
normally wouldn't have the opportunity or in the past haven't 
been able to have the opportunity to pursue a path in 
engineering or into semiconductor.
    So the types of curricula that we encourage are of course 
around science and math but specifically around data science 
because the world of semiconductor manufacturing is getting 
more and more complex, really unlike any other manufacturing 
process on the planet. And so you really have to have both 
strong technical knowledge in science and technology but also 
understanding and appreciation of data and data science so that 
we can operate these highly complex manufacturing facilities 
very productively and with high quality and very, very low 
defectivity.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that concise answer.
    Dr. Chiang, can you also jump in and just comment on that, 
please?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman Bowman. And I would just 
supplement Mr. Bhatia's answer with two more points. One is 
that universities also have a responsibility to work with K-12. 
For example, Purdue President Mitch Daniels started three 
Purdue polytechnic high schools throughout the State of 
Indiana, and we just graduated the first class of senior 
students. These are minority-serving high schools focusing a 
lot on STEM capabilities.
    And second is that there is a mindset of problem-solving at 
this early age of education. It's not just about how much we 
cover in the material for high school students, but how much we 
allow them to uncover for themselves, more about their 
curiosity and their ability to learn. And that is fundamentally 
the point of education, especially for engineers. It's 
ultimately a problem-solving mindset that we can start 
instilling in their minds at high school age.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. Dr. Chiang and Mr. Bhatia, I 
would like to followup with my office to continue this 
conversation. This is an issue that's near and dear to my 
heart. And for me it's a priority for us to create pipelines, K 
to 12 pipelines in historically underserved spaces. I believe 
it will take our economy to the next level and ensure that no 
other country can compete with us because we will finally 
invest in equitable ways across our country.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Baird is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and thank Chairwoman Johnson. I want 
also express my appreciation for your leadership on this 
Committee. And, you know, I really appreciate you working with 
Ranking Member Lucas and you stayed focused on the issues that 
I think are relevant to our Science Committee.
    And then I always appreciate the witnesses being here. I am 
always intrigued by what I learn, and so I am sure that other 
people feel the same way.
    But, you know, earlier this year I offered an amendment 
that would've allocated about $600 million to the National 
Science Foundation to support the R&D funding for basic 
research. Unfortunately, that didn't pass. But I really have a 
strong affinity for basic research, and I recognize how 
difficult it is to determine what basic research is important 
today that down the road becomes increasingly important or 
provides information essential to our society.
    So, Dr. Chiang, I'm going to start with you. And would you 
mind speaking to the role that basic research and funding for 
the NSF plays in supporting the development of semiconductors 
that will be needed for cutting-edge technologies like 
artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and 5G? So if you 
would care to address that, I would appreciate it.
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you very much 
for your service and leadership in representing our district in 
Indiana.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you.
    Dr. Chiang. I would like to echo what you just said, that 
the National Science Foundation, just like the Department of 
Defense, Department of Energy, and many other agencies of the 
U.S. Government, plays a unique and important role in 
continuing the long tradition of American creativity.
    Now, in particular we need a collection of fundamental 
research often funded through the National Science Foundation, 
along with translational research sometimes funded through 
other agencies who work hand-in-hand together. NSF also funds 
quite a number of scholarships and fellowships, and we need 
more American students to be interested in pursuing STEM 
degrees at undergrad levels. And those with undergrad degrees, 
say, in engineering, would choose to continue to study for a 
master or Ph.D. degree. I know that they often are tempted by 
outstanding offers from the industry, such as leaders like 
Intel and Micron, but also we do want to incentivize and 
encourage a much larger number of them to stay on and pursue a 
graduate degree. And the National Science Foundation plays a 
critical role. And I hope that there will be many more graduate 
fellowships to a diverse population in this country in areas 
related to semiconductors.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. So, would it be fair to say that one 
of the things I see from this Committee standpoint and from the 
Federal investment or taxpayer dollars invested that some of 
the basic research that's conducting private industry cannot 
really justify so we could start the needle moving early on and 
then industry picks that up? We talk about the public-private 
partnership. Is that--would you say that's a correct analysis 
of this situation or----
    Dr. Chiang. Yes, sir. And I'll give one concrete example. 
There is this so-called valley of death coming from fundamental 
advances into commercially impactful deployable solutions. And 
one way to bridge this so-called valley of death is to create 
and upgrade existing facilities, for example, in 
semiconductors. We talked about two dimensions. One is the 
dimension of the feature size, and it's getting smaller and 
smaller down to 3 nanometers these days. And the other is the 
size of the wafer. And we are looking at 8 inch or 12 inch. And 
we have a substantial lack of 200 millimeter or 8 inch wafer 
production facilities in American universities. By upgrading 
some of those, including possibly here in the Midwest but in 
several regional nodes, that will open up a pathway of 
translation from fundamental research to industry-relevant 
solutions.
    Dr. Witherell. And I'd like to add one thing if I could. 
That's one of the things that the national laboratory centers 
do is work on these concepts that are still not ready for 
commercial production because they're too risky. And by--as 
long as we're working closely with industry and what they want 
to do, we can develop in these centers things to take the risk 
out, and then it's ready to actually move to a profit-making 
organization.
    Dr. Kelleher. I would like to echo support in that, that 
the role in precompetitive research is absolutely critical and 
can feed into industry.
    Mr. Baird. So, Madam Chair, I see that I'm out of time, but 
I could go on for another hour here. And I'm sure you don't 
want that, so thank you. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair. Really, Ms. Johnson, 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, you've shown tremendous leadership over 
the years since I've been here. We're going to have a hard time 
finding a successor to fill your shoes.
    But I also thank the witnesses. This is an important issue 
for the future of our country. And I'm going to take this in a 
slightly different direction. Semiconductor manufacturing does 
use massive amounts of both energy and fresh water. We need to 
increase domestic manufacturing without being susceptible to 
supply chain disruptions, but at the same time, we have to 
balance the resources needed by local communities. And this has 
a bearing on the reliability of the supply chain.
    Dr. Kelleher, Intel has a presence in semiarid Western 
States and broke ground on two new semiconductor fabrication 
facilities in Chandler, Arizona, this year. Meanwhile, a 
multiyear megadrought has caused water shortages across the 
West, a trend that is expected to worsen in the coming decades. 
What steps has Intel taken to improve water efficiency of the 
semiconductor manufacturing process and to reduce the impact of 
the facility on local water systems?
    Dr. Kelleher. So the overall water conservation and reuse 
of water is a key aspect of all our technology development and 
within our manufacturing, our overall manufacturing sites. To 
date we have 90 percent of the water use restored to the 
environment, and we are heading for a path and we've given 
ourselves a very clear goal, which we're working toward to be--
by 2025 100 percent restoration to the environment. By 2030 
we're aiming to be a net positive. We do--not only do we do a 
significant amount of work in our facilities in terms of water 
reuse, we also work with the communities in terms of water 
restoration. And we've had--we have several projects in the 
Arizona region where we've been working with--overall with the 
communities in terms of water restoration.
    We spend a significant amount of money in our facilities to 
actually help and drive and enable this, so it's a key aspect 
of our overall development and manufacturing, our footprint--
our water footprint, our climate footprint, our use of 
electricity, and our use of green power. So this is a very 
important aspect to us.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. And I'd like to see the 
information that supports that.
    Dr. Kelleher. Absolutely. I will provide it.
    Mr. McNerney. Very good. Mr. Bhatia, Micron has the same 
issues. Would you respond to the same question?
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. So thank you, Congressman McNerney, and 
agree this is an incredibly important issue for all of us 
everywhere around the world. And Micron has made a strong 
commitment, including a commitment to spend $1 billion over the 
next several years in capital investments to be able to reduce 
our carbon footprint through emissions program reductions to be 
able to increase the utilization of renewable energy. In fact, 
we set a goal to be 100 percent utilization of renewable energy 
in the United States by 2025. We are working to be able to 
reach 100 percent water reuse by 2030 on a global basis, and 
we're also working to reduce waste to landfill in all of our 
locations around the world as well. So we have a--are very 
focused in all of these areas.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, we need to get to sustainability.
    Dr. Witherell, you know, I certainly appreciate the 
national laboratories. I've been to LBNL and Lawrence Livermore 
and Lawrence Berkeley labs several times. But I know you are 
conducting crosscutting research on the causes and impacts of 
the drought. Have the labs devoted any resources to improving 
the water efficiency of semiconductor manufacturing?
    Dr. Witherell. Well, we--first of all, we have the National 
Alliance for Water Innovation here I should say that's actually 
working on the reuse of water and how to reuse it for purposes. 
But in general where we actually are putting most of our 
priorities is how to develop semiconductors that are more 
energy-efficient, which is actually the--as the biggest 
leverage on the environment. And that's something that much of 
our research is doing at the moment.
    Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. I'm concerned about what 
happened in Taiwan this last summer when a manufacturing was 
forced to shut down and tank in water, and that put the whole 
system at risk. Is Intel taking steps in the U.S. plants to 
increase resilience against water shortages?
    Dr. Kelleher. Absolutely. We are constantly looking at our 
water use and working to reduce our water use and overall reuse 
of the water that we use. So yes.
    Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. And I'll yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Webster is next. You're muted, Mr. Webster.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
putting together this forum. This is really an excellent dialog 
and also just in the review we're doing some of the things that 
have already passed. I know the--understand to build a foundry 
is about $10 billion. Then I heard later here on this panel 
that it's maybe $15 billion more, and that's getting into real 
money. And so I would ask you, Dr. Kelleher, if you could kind 
of elaborate on what you think is the maximum amount we could 
do with the money we've given to this program that we could do 
as far as foundries? And are you also in agreement with what 
was said before, that the sub foundries are scattered around 
would be an even better way to do it? Is that true?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, first of all, I agree with the numbers, 
and I know my--speaking about the numbers was building the 
facilities, it's anywhere $15-$20 billion, and the amount 
that's spent on a given facility obviously is very much 
dependent on the size of the facility.
    Overall, Intel is--we've been very clear we're opening our 
fabs up for foundry here within the United States, and we're 
opening up for overall from our foundry so that we can open up 
the use of our fabs to basically the fabless designer--the 
fabless companies so that we can make foundry available here 
within the United States.
    I think overall I would go--take us back into the two 
pieces of where we spend our money within--from the CHIPS Act. 
I think we have to focus on R&D in terms of enabling our future 
because that is the long haul, and that's the long building of 
our future. And then there is the building of our overall U.S. 
manufacturing capability. And that I believe we need to 
continue to do. If you diverse--if you spread the money too 
much, then you actually won't end up getting, I would say, an 
overall effective bang for the dollar. But it becomes the 
appropriate and spreading of that money so that we can overall 
grow our foundry industry here within the United States and 
keep moving our leading-edge R&D.
    Mr. Webster. Yes, well, would that--would these foundries 
be focused on advanced semiconductors?
    Dr. Kelleher. Intel is focused on advanced semiconductors. 
Back in July I released our overall roadmap for the--for our--
the next 4 to 5 years, and these technologies within Intel are 
available for--as foundry technologies. And yes is the answer.
    Mr. Webster. Yes. I've always been an admirer of Intel, and 
I thought it was interesting--how do you know which direction 
to head? I mean, there's a lot of directions that can happen. 
How do you focus in on just the amount you would play in or the 
amount--the few amount that you--the ones you would have?
    Dr. Kelleher. May I clarify the question? When you say how 
do we focus in, how do we focus in from a technology 
development or is it a broader question?
    Mr. Webster. No, it would just be the technology component.
    Dr. Kelleher. So there is--well, there are many aspects in 
terms of feeding the overall pipeline from the technology. 
There is the long-term 5 to 10 years out. There's a lot of 
items which are in the pipeline. We do research internally with 
Intel, but there's also research done in the universities. 
Slowly, as you progress over time, there's a filtering out in 
terms of which are the more likely candidates that would be 
successful for the future. And out of that filtering then there 
is--it's proven at the first level of concepts. Then we take it 
into development. And in that development we actually prove out 
that we can take it from the lab to fab concept, and that would 
be enabled for high-volume manufacturing. So it's a 5- to 6-
year process in terms of going from the concept of an idea to 
actually showing up in terms of a volume manufacturing. And 
sometimes it can be much longer than that depending on the 
aspect of the technology that is being developed.
    Mr. Webster. OK. So the--so you would be developing a 
component of a machine of some sort, i.e., a minicomputer or 
something like that. You would not be developing something for 
someone else who's building it. You would be developing 
something and someone else would use it. Is that----
    Dr. Kelleher. Correct. Correct. We develop chips, and we 
sell packaged chips, packaged designed to other customers, who 
then use those packaged chips, basically microprocessors, to 
build other products. Similarly, memory goes into those 
packages as well and goes into those products. So we're 
providing either wafers to our customers to the foundry or 
packaged products--packaged microprocessors to our other 
customers.
    Mr. Webster. OK. It just sounds like it's billions of 
dollars to build, so there's this cost for building these 
foundries, but also I assume it takes time to do that, and we 
may not have that time. Is there ways to take existing 
infrastructure and sort of meld them into this process so that 
we use the facilities we have but also are building new 
foundries at the same time?
    Dr. Kelleher. I think time is of the essence, but one of 
the key things that I said in my testimony is that I believe we 
should use existing infrastructure within Intel, Micron, within 
the other U.S. semiconductor companies so that we can shorten 
the time to get--and basically reduce the cost. And thereby, 
then, if we do big challenges across, as a number--as--across 
the industry here in the United States, using as much as 
possible of our existing infrastructure, that will allow us to 
get to results faster.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Chairwoman Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, thank you for the strength that you've brought this 
Committee. I for one appreciate your leadership style and your 
accessibility to myself and our colleagues. It's just a good 
strength and a very important Committee, and you've led it 
masterfully, so thank you. And I look forward to the next year 
where we can continue to get good things done.
    So I thank you and Ranking Member Lucas and our witnesses 
for joining us today for this very important hearing. The 
United States has long been a global leader in the research and 
development of semiconductor technology. In fact, New York's 
capital region that I represent has been home to trailblazers 
in this industry for now over 2 decades. So partnerships 
amongst our academic institutions, our regional industry, and 
government have enabled major breakthroughs in innovation in 
microchip technology. As our reliance on microelectronics in 
everyday life grows, it is critical for us to leverage 
strategic investments across government and industry to sustain 
our Nation's long-term economic and manufacturing 
competitiveness.
    You may be aware that this Committee is currently examining 
ways to elevate DOE's role in the national microelectronics R&D 
effort. I'm working on legislation that would leverage DOE's 
capabilities, including the national labs and their partners in 
industry and academia, to tackle foundational challenges in the 
scientific areas relevant to microelectronics. Such an effort 
would be separate from but complementary to National 
Semiconductor Technology Centers and would involve a broad-
based research program, as well as a more focused center-based 
effort akin to the National Quantum Centers.
    With that being said, Dr. Witherell, would you support such 
an approach?
    Dr. Witherell. Yes, Congressman, thank you very much for 
your question. And say that if you look in my testimony, it 
makes many of the points that you bring up in the MICRO Act and 
so--which has--so I very strongly support that, especially the 
foundational role that DOE and the laboratories have in 
developing these underlying sciences and engineering that 
underpin our development.
    And Dr. Kelleher said the right thing before. The advantage 
to the United States is to move faster than the other 
countries. That's the only way we're going to win this. We're 
not going to win it by beating them at bulk manufacturing. It's 
to be faster. And part of that faster is getting back to where 
the investment on the Federal side was more in keeping with the 
large investment on the private side so that we could engage 
this in the right way and do the precompetitive things that are 
best done in national laboratories and for the industry.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. And the expertise that's housed 
at the national labs, if we could focus on that, what can that 
expertise contribute to our national effort to leading in 
microelectronics development and production?
    Dr. Witherell. Well, let me take a--one example. We've been 
bringing artificial intelligence to use for advancing science 
faster, how you accelerate the cycle of trying new materials, 
see what works, and do it. You can do that faster in artificial 
intelligence than you can do it in the laboratory at times. So 
we have a materials project, which is designed around actually 
sorting through materials and seeing which are the ones that 
have the right properties faster than we've been able to do it 
in the laboratory. We have many examples like that.
    Mr. Tonko. And how would you see this feeding into an 
effort like the NSTC, which would presumably be more focused on 
later-stage technology development?
    Dr. Witherell. And I think the role, for example, DOE 
centers in this is getting through concepts faster to take the 
risk out and see which are the ones more promising for 
developing to the scale that you would have at an NSTC 
facility. You have more ideas feeding into that central 
facility.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And can the Department of Energy play 
a complementary role to advancing microelectronics R&D?
    Dr. Witherell. Well----
    Mr. Tonko. And----
    Dr. Witherell. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Tonko. I was going to encourage anyone else to offer 
comments, too, but let's hear from you.
    Dr. Witherell. Well, I do say we have this longstanding 
connection with the industry and how does--how to best serve 
their purposes, and I think it's just finding out how to 
continue that into the new technologies they're developing for 
the future.
    Mr. Tonko. Any other comments from our other panelists?
    Mr. Bhatia. I think I'll just echo the comments that Dr. 
Witherell made that, you know, continuing to have, you know, 
funding into advanced foundational research through the 
existing programs with the universities and the national labs, 
you know, is--you know, is paramount and that we do believe 
this network of decentralized technology centers can help with 
bridging the gap from those university and national laboratory 
environments to mass production by allowing industry consortia 
to leverage existing resources in the ecosystem to accelerate 
that time to market.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. Well, I see my time has 
been used. I don't know if anyone else had a comment. Perhaps 
you can send it in written format to the Committee.
    But with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Garcia is recognized.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, thank you very much. And to our witnesses, 
thanks for taking the time, very educational and enlightening. 
Obviously, we have a challenge on our hands.
    My first question is geared toward Dr. Kelleher and Mr. 
Bhatia. For your respective companies' chip sector or chip 
divisions, what percentage of the bill of material for your 
products is coming from China? Dr. Kelleher, you can go ahead 
and----
    Dr. Kelleher. I will start with the majority of our 
manufacturing is in the United States.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, the manufacturing I understand. What about 
the bill of materials? Where are we sourcing products whether 
it's rare-earth material or any sort of elements that buildup 
to your larger assemblies?
    Dr. Kelleher. We source our rare-earth materials and our 
resources worldwide. The precise percentage I would need to 
followup with you on.
    Mr. Garcia. I would appreciate that. I think that's 
important for us as a nation to understand what level of 
dependency we have in this very critical--what's effectively an 
Achilles tendon right now in terms of technology and 
capability. We have to characterize what percentage of the bill 
of materials is actually also coming from China.
    Mr. Bhatia, do you have any idea from a Micron perspective?
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. Sure, so I'll echo that, you know, rare-
earth materials, as you point out, are an area of weakness in 
the global semiconductor supply chain. We do also, as Intel 
does, source those globally. However, there is, as an industry, 
a strong reliance on China for those rare earths. So it's not 
so much the percentage of the bill of materials, but they are 
essential elements for many of the semiconductor processes. And 
so we have been actually working with members of the U.S. 
Government to encourage programs that would allow for 
exploration and mining and economic incentives to encourage 
production of rare-earth materials to be done in other areas 
around the world to increase the supply chain resiliency of 
those.
    With regard to your other question in terms of the total 
bill of materials in China, I will have to get back to you. I 
would just say that the semiconductor manufacturing bill of 
materials is largely driven by the equipment and the precision 
and the specialty chemicals and gases, so that's not so reliant 
on China other than these rare-earth materials. However, 
assembly and packaging, those other lower-value-added portions 
of the manufacturing process, those are areas where China has a 
large role. But there are multiple other areas where we source 
those packaging materials from across Asia.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. And let me just clear, I'm not 
asking this, you know, to point fingers or to attribute fault, 
but I do think that with--just like any other major problem we 
have, the first critical step is self-awareness and 
characterizing where our weaknesses are. So I would appreciate 
if you guys could followup with a sort of bill-of-material 
breakout by whatever metric, whether it's cost, just part, 
assembly, percentage or, you know, weighted dependencies by 
country, though, if we can, just to get a sense of where we are 
dependent, especially with regards to China.
    My other question for the two companies as well is what 
percentage of your revenue in this sector is coming from 
military applications versus just commercial applications?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, I will need to followup with a precise 
number in that. We do support the U.S. Government in certain 
projects, and I will need to followup on that but over----
    Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you, Doctor.
    And, Mr. Bhatia, any idea on yours?
    Mr. Bhatia. I'll have to followup as well. We certainly----
    Mr. Garcia. OK.
    Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Do support the U.S. Government. 
And we do see that memory, both the DRAM and NAND, are 
increasing portions of military applications, as they are with 
multiple other industrial and automotive applications. As well 
the bill of materials portion of those systems, advanced 
systems or advanced products continues to grow with regard to 
DRAM and NAND flash technology.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. Yes, because I think it's very--it's 
critically important that while the big companies and the big 
folks in the room are going down range with this overarching 
chip challenge, we can't forget that there is also a military 
application to a lot of these things that have different 
requirements. And while you're receiving government funding for 
things like the foundries and the R&D that goes into it, you 
need to have still connective tissue to other government 
agencies like DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency), IARPA (Intelligence Advanced Research Projects 
Activity), you know, ARL (Army Research Laboratory), NRL (Naval 
Research Laboratory), to make sure you're baking in those 
requirements into your early design and then also partnering 
with small companies that are specializing in these 
applications. And there are several out there, happy to get you 
a list of those if you don't already have them. But we can't do 
these massive investments only to solve the commercial problems 
and then realize that we are still extremely vulnerable on the 
chip applications on the military side. And I think you guys 
will all agree with that. I think we've just got to synergize 
across multiple agencies and the small companies as well.
    With that, I'm out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
    Staff. Ms. Wild is recognized.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. I appreciate this hearing and 
the opportunity to elevate an issue that affects workers and 
businesses in my district, which is Pennsylvania 7th, the 
Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. My community is home to many, 
many manufacturers, and I hear regularly from companies in a 
range of sectors about how the shortage of chips such as has 
been discussed today is affecting their production and their 
ability to regularly schedule workers.
    One auto manufacturer, Mack Trucks, has faced production 
interruptions this year and unneeded complication. And, by the 
way, they have plenty of demand. It's not for lack of demand. 
But it's been a threat to some of their innovative work in 
spaces like zero-emission heavy-duty trucks, exactly the type 
of advances we want America to lead in.
    We know the drivers behind this supply chain crunch are 
varied and largely connected to the pandemic, and I was proud 
to support the CHIPS Act last December. But a year later here 
we are. We need again to take bipartisan action on this urgent 
need and provide the appropriations for this law that the 
Senate has moved, as well as address some specific needs like 
automotive-grade chips. It's about the American economy, it's 
about good-paying jobs across industries, and is about our 
national competitiveness and security.
    So with that said, my first question is for Dr. Chiang. In 
your testimony you discuss some specific partnerships on 
microelectronics in Indiana. We have spent some time in this 
Committee discussing geographic diversity of innovation. In 
July the Committee reported out my bipartisan Regional 
Innovation Act, and we are working to get that enacted as part 
of a larger competitiveness package. But that bill was 
technology-neutral. What do you see as the role of the 
microelectronics in the geographic diversity of innovation?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congresswoman. Indeed, the time to 
act is now. There is a sense of urgency, and this is key to our 
national security, economic security, and job security because 
many other industries in the digital economy depends on the 
access to chips. Otherwise, they will be furloughing employees 
whom they would happily be otherwise paying overtime.
    And I also highly appreciate, Congresswoman, your 
highlighting the importance of being inclusive across different 
communities and diverse in the geographic locations. What we 
need in education and in R&D is a distributed network of many 
different parties. Here in the Midwest, for example, in my home 
State of Indiana, we have an abundance of customers, including 
automotive and medical, electronics industry.
    We also have an abundance of a work force that still 
retains the manufacturing DNA. These semiconductor fabs, they 
are fancy, expensive, important factories. They are the 
factories of the future, and we have the manufacturing DNA in 
spades in Indiana.
    And thirdly, if you look around, the drivable 5-hour 
distance from where I am right now in West Lafayette, Indiana, 
you will see an extremely high concentration of high-caliber 
universities, as well as community colleges, serving an 
incredible number of American students. So, I believe that, 
yes, we should emphasize on the inclusivity and the diversity 
of geographic locations to make sure that all parts of America 
get to benefit from and contribute to the resurgence of 
semiconductors.
    Ms. Wild. Well, you must've read my mind. My district is 
one that is rich in higher education. We have six 4-year 
colleges with graduate programs. We have two unbelievable 
community colleges. And one of the things I'm particularly 
interested in is knowing how universities and community 
colleges can partner with States and local industries to 
capitalize on regional strengths so that we can contribute to 
the domestic microelectronic supply chain. I'd like to know 
whether you or anybody else on the panel would like to comment 
on how universities might go about doing that.
    Dr. Witherell. Let me say one thing, that the user 
facilities at the national labs--I'll take Brookhaven National 
Lab as an example in New York where you have these nanoscale 
centers, they are user facilities that work with every 
university in the country in those providing--in some cases 
providing facilities that those universities can't themselves 
afford and make that available so these university researchers 
can develop their skills.
    Dr. Chiang. I concur with Dr. Witherell, that there are 
facilities such as the Birck Nanotechnology Center, which has 
the largest and cleanest clean room among all American 
universities here at Purdue. If we could upgrade it to be 
producing at the 200 millimeter scale of the wafer and open 
that up as a hub, a regional hub for other universities, for 
community colleges, and for industry partners to come together, 
that would become a very effective bridge for the country and 
for the region between the work force I mentioned and the R&D 
translation dimension of the problem.
    Ms. Wild. Well, thank you for that. I'm out of time, but 
I'm going to ask my team to followup on that with you because 
it's an area that I think my district is in many ways uniquely 
situated to address this issue head-on with this merger or this 
alliance of higher ed and industry. Thank you so much, 
excellent hearing.
    Dr. Chiang. Yes, ma'am.
    Staff. Ms. Kim is recognized.
    Ms. Kim. Well, thank you very much, Chair and Ranking 
Member, for hosting this hearing, and thank you to our 
witnesses.
    I know the Senate and the House is now trying to work on, 
you know, proceeding with the conference process to, you know, 
hash out some of the differences between our two chambers. And 
as we do, I wanted to ask to any panelist what in your opinion 
are the top two or three areas of focus where the U.S. 
Government should invest $52 billion that was included in the 
Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act in order to 
have the greatest sustaining impact to achieve our goal of 
American innovation and competitiveness in the industry?
    Mr. Bhatia. I can start. I can just reiterate----
    Ms. Kim. Mr. Bhatia.
    Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Representative Kim, that, you 
know, the--you know, as was mentioned, the cost of 
semiconductor research and development and the cost of building 
large-scale semiconductor fabrication facilities continues to 
go up and is very, very large. And so I definitely feel that 
the prioritization should go toward leading-edge research and 
development on technologies that will be able to be in 
production for many, many years into the future, as well as 
leading-edge manufacturing fabrication facilities and 
definitely believe that we should be focusing on the 
technologies that will ensure American leadership in 
microelectronics well into the future.
    And with the rate of change of technology being the 
defining characteristic of our industry, every 18 to 24 months 
we introduce new technologies, we need to make sure that we're 
future--that these investments are made with an eye toward the 
future, and also that, as we think about these investments, we 
understand that there will need to be even extended future 
investments to maintain--to keep ourselves on the leading edge.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you.
    Dr. Kelleher. I concur with that as well in terms of first 
focusing on R&D and including--and ensuring that we--our IP is 
developed and maintained in the United States and from a 
leading-edge perspective and then expanding the fab capacity to 
support the growing demand. And also from--we cannot forget 
getting advanced packaging capability and capacity back here 
very clearly in the United States.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you.
    Dr. Chiang. And I will echo that.
    Ms. Kim. Yes----
    Dr. Chiang. Sorry, I----
    Ms. Kim. Dr. Chiang, go ahead. Dr. Chiang, go ahead.
    Dr. Chiang. Yes. Thank you, Representative Kim. I will echo 
that by also highlighting that the ultimate supply chain in 
semiconductors is the supply chain of human talent. And we need 
to substantially invest in the human talent pipeline. 
Otherwise, we'll have hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of 
public-private partnership and the best facilities throughout 
the country and yet not adequate number of engineers to staff 
and operate it.
    And there is also the need to ensure the connection between 
policymaking, and the policy implications to domestic and 
foreign policy is tremendous, and that's why at Purdue we 
launched this year the Center for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue as a 
think tank specialized at the intersection between technology 
and foreign policy. And I believe that the USICA bill and the 
CHIPS for America Act portion of it will be critical if we 
could indeed fund and appropriate that as soon as possible.
    Dr. Witherell. Yes, and I think it's really supporting the 
whole ecosystem and it really is--all the Federal science 
agencies have to be engaged in this for this to work. It's that 
big a problem.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you. Thanks for mentioning that, Dr. Chiang, 
because I was--during the markup, I was successfully able to 
put an amendment in the NSF for the Future Act and NISP 
(National Industrial Security Program) reauthorization related 
to STEM education.
    That leads me to the next question of, you know, if any of 
you can touch on how much the decline in the supply chain or 
anything can be attributed to the work force development issues 
you had mentioned, and what is the role of STEM, high-skilled 
and technical education in the semiconducting industry's work 
force recovery?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, I'll start, Representative Kim. I 
believe maintaining basically an educated work force and the 
supply of the work force so that we can continue to grow our 
industry here in the United States is absolutely critical. To 
this point, we have been with universities and with the various 
colleges have been able to source--with a lot of work, have 
been able to support adequate talent and resources, but it is 
becoming increasingly challenging. So that is absolutely going 
to be critical going forward to maintain the supply so that we 
can continue to resource the work going forward, particularly 
as we want to grow and expand.
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes, and I'll just add--thank you for asking 
that, Representative Kim. You know, in addition to the--you 
know, the focus on university talent and graduate school talent 
for our leading-edge scientists for R&D and innovation, there's 
also--you know, the factories of the future are not like the 
factories of the past. Factories are becoming far more 
automated, far more complex manufacturing processes. We're 
utilizing artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big 
data to operate all of these leading-edge facilities to make 
them productive, to maximize the quality levels and the output 
that we're able to get from these facilities. And so the 
training really needs to be also for the skilled trades who are 
working in these factories. We need to be looking at--in 
addition to STEM education, reskilling of those from other 
industries. We need to be looking at reskilling of those with 
military background toward the technologies and the 
capabilities required to operate and maintain these mega-fab 
clusters for semiconductor manufacturing.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you, all of the witnesses, for your 
responses. I know my time has gone significantly above, but 
thank you. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Casten is recognized.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you. Thanks so much to all our witnesses.
    You know, it strikes me that like so much of what our 
economy is seeing right now and all these constraints are--we 
just have these huge supply driven constraints. You know, we 
saw the Texas freeze shut down a bunch of refineries and the 
tightening gas markets. We saw a huge collapse in new rig 
production that's tightening up our natural gas markets. And of 
course a big part of the reason we're here today is because we 
had, you know, a drought in Taiwan that slowed up some 
production capacity there and of course that same Texas freeze 
slowing up capacity. Mr. Bhatia, I see you're nodding your 
head.
    I am delighted we're having this and I'm delighted for all 
the thought you've put into trying to think about how we 
address those supply constraints in the system, but I have this 
nagging concern about the demand side. If I understand it 
right, an electric vehicle (EV) needs about 2,000 
semiconductors, which is roughly twice the number of the non-
EV, and EVs, which is great from a climate perspective, as an 
EV owner, it's great from a fun-to-drive perspective. There 
were, what, 10 percent of new vehicle sales last quarter, so 
they're surging.
    And I guess I'll start with you, Mr. Bhatia, because I see 
you nodding your head. As we continue that modernization of our 
vehicle fleet and all the good things, we don't want to slow 
that down, what is that going to do to the demand for 
semiconductors? And even if we got rid of the current 
bottlenecks in the system, how big a deal is that in terms of 
the total demand balances?
    Mr. Bhatia. So I think automotive--well, thank you, 
Representative Casten, for asking this question. And, you know, 
for today the automotive sector is not a huge consumer of 
memory or storage. However, it is for Micron the fastest-
growing market for us as we look forward into the next decade. 
As I mentioned in my prepared comments, the autonomous vehicles 
of the future are really going to be--are going to have as much 
content as a data center does today. Even semiautonomous 
vehicles will have as much--in the next few years will have as 
much content as full-blown servers do today.
    And so what this means, in order to ensure that we're able 
to keep up with this strong demand surge takes careful, long-
term planning. And as you were describing the supply shortages 
that are plaguing multiple end markets today, you know, with 
automotive being one of the primary ones, I think it's worth 
noting that the memory industry and Micron in particular has 
not really been the primary bottleneck for the industry, and 
that's because the memory industry and we as a primary player 
in that industry plan over a long period of time how much 
capacity we think we need in line with the long-term demand 
trends that we see.
    And that's why it's so important that the CHIPS Act and the 
refundable investment tax credit gets implemented with urgency 
because it's going to allow us to make sure that whether it's 
for logic or whether it's for memory, we're going to be able to 
have long-term investments that can be made to prevent these 
kind of shortages from happening in the future.
    Mr. Casten. Well, thanks. I'd love to hear from others if 
you have thoughts that are contrary otherwise to that, but I 
know that I'm a little bit tight on time here and I want to 
move to Dr. Kelleher quickly.
    We've had these--as I mentioned at the start, we've got 
these two--this plant in Taiwan that, you know, we had a 
drought and a water issue if I understand right. We had these 
plants in Texas that had the Texas freeze that slowed them up. 
The--to what degree--have you been thinking at Intel--should we 
be thinking about how to weatherize the supply chain of our 
chip industry in response to an increasingly volatile weather 
system? Because climate change ain't going away and it ain't 
slowing down. I wish that wasn't true. But to what degree is 
the supply chain is weatherized as it could be, and what could 
we do to improve that?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, I'll start very--for--speaking about 
our--Intel's factories, which is basically from the start of 
the manufacturing of the silicon. We have very active--when 
we're selecting our sites--and this has been true over the last 
30 years--we have a very strict criteria in terms of--on the 
environment or what could actually impact our factories to 
continue to keep running on an ongoing basis.
    We also spend quite a lot of time evaluating our 
facilities' infrastructures themselves, and we invest quite a 
lot of money into the facilities themselves so we can robust 
ourselves against snowstorms, we can robust ourselves against 
all the various aspects that--in terms of--from an environment 
that can go wrong.
    I think across the supply chain overall--one of the key 
things across the supply chain is I truly believe we should 
have no single point of success. I call them single points of 
success rather than single points of failure. But I think we 
truly need to look as an industry and continue to keep working 
that so that we continue to have not single points of success, 
that we can robust ourselves against unique--our environmental 
impacts that--our ecosystem impacts that causes, I would say, a 
continuity risk of keeping the supply chain running.
    Mr. Casten. I see I'm out of time, but thank you so much, 
and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Feenstra is recognized.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking 
Member Lucas. Chairwoman Johnson, I just wanted to say, 
congratulations on your upcoming retirement, and after a long 
and admirable career in public service. I truly admire all the 
work that you've done, working on a bipartisan basis. I also 
want to thank each of the witnesses for their testimony, and 
sharing their extensive research and experience with us.
    This question is for Dr. Kelleher. I understand that most 
advanced semiconductors are currently being manufactured in 
Taiwan. As you know, there is concern that China may eventually 
attempt to invade Taiwan, and take ownership of its 
semiconductor expertise. We've already seen examples of the CCP 
poaching Taiwan's talent and intellectual property. Can you 
please speak to the importance of security IP and semiconductor 
expertise from this uncertainty? How would the Programs and 
CHIPS Act support this endeavor?
    Dr. Kelleher. I'll start with--first of all, I'll start 
with saying that back in July I outlined from Intel our--where 
we get back to overall leadership from a process perspective, 
and we're aiming to get there in 2025, and we're spending--
pretty significant investment in that happening. One of the key 
things that I think we need to be--and I have said this in my 
testimony on multiple times, as I've been talking about this, 
is maintaining the IP within the United States. I think it's 
absolutely critical for United States leadership in 
semiconductor, our leading edge, that we maintain critical IP 
for that within the United States.
    Then we--all of us have the appropriate policies, in terms 
of protecting that, and how we ensure that that IP maintains 
within the United States. But I think within this work, within 
this overall CHIPS Act, and within this overall--going--funding 
going forward, we need to enable that.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you so much for those comments. I 
greatly appreciate it. Dr. Chiang, in my district, we're home 
to Iowa State University, which houses a microelectronics 
research center, which is doing fantastic work in developing 
new materials that could transform the speed and efficiency of 
computing, and increase the production of sustainable 
agriculture. Universities will be crucial to increasing 
domestic microelectronics manufacturing to ensure that we have 
adequate jobs and a skilled work force that can fill these 
jobs. How can industry and universities work together to 
provide support in developing a stronger practice-orientated 
program, and provide necessary research and education 
laboratories for these essential infrastructures, and for 
training that could be appropriately made?
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and 
indeed it is essential for universities of this country, and 
the private sector, to work very closely together, but there 
are three broad lanes. One is R&D collaboration, one is work 
force--not only recruiting, but development together, through 
internship, through upgrade to facilities, and through online 
learning. And the third is co-location, economic development 
that creates knowledge and jobs together, that creates the 
position to be filled, and the talent that can fill them.
    And in this regard, here in my home State of Indiana, 
Governor Holcomb and his team, and Secretary of Commerce in our 
State, Brad Chambers, have been working very closely with 
universities such as Purdue to create that economic development 
engine. And I think that, well, in addition to R&D and work 
force, by co-locating physically, factories of the future, 
along with the work force of the future, that is the best way 
to both develop talent and to develop the manufacturing 
capacity.
    Dr. Witherell. So, Congressman, I'd just like to add to the 
fact, of course, that Ames National Lab at Iowa State is also a 
very important contributor in this, and their Center for 
Critical materials, so let me call out a close partner of ours.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Well, I just wanted to comment on that, 
Dr. Witherell, that, you know, they lead the efforts in 
graphing research, quantum material discovery, and critical 
materials, and quantum materials holds promise for quantum 
computing, which I'm very passionate about, but also next 
generation information storage. How do you see graphing and 
quantum materials enabling the next generation of 
microelectronics?
    Dr. Witherell. Well, I think this is part of the role of 
the National Laboratories, because we don't know which of these 
materials will end up winning the game a few years from now. 
This is a very fast moving thing, and so we need to have these 
laboratories that have the scale and R&D capacity to try these 
things, and find out which of the ones are low risk enough to 
be translated over into industry. That's what our job is.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you so much for your comments, 
everyone. I--really excited about this hearing, and I yield 
back.
    Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible and visible here?
    Staff. Yes, you are, sir.
    Mr. Foster. Great. Well, first I just want to also echo my 
congratulations to our Chairwoman on her pending retirement. 
She has a lot to be proud of in her service to the Science 
Committee, and to our country. And although I am probably best 
known as being Congress's strategic reserve of physicists, I've 
actually had a parallel existence in my career with integrated 
circuits. And when I worked for one of our witnesses today, 
Mike Witherell, when he was Director at Fermi National 
Accelerator Lab, I was still very involved in custom integrated 
circuit design at Fermi Lab, where back in 1989 I had invented 
a type of specialized integrated circuit called the QIE, a 
charge integrator and floating point digitizer that's still 
being developed and used in high energy physics experiments. 
And it's probably been implemented in 10 increasingly advanced 
mixed analogue digital IC processes, so I've stayed a little 
bit current on the incredible advances there.
    But, you know, before that, actually, when my little 
brother and I started our company back when I was 19, our very 
first prototypes were hand-wired using the Intel 8080 
microprocessors, and the Intel 2002 static RAM. And when we 
needed an order of magnitude increase in computing power, we 
chose the Intel Digital Signal processor chip. And when we 
finally got our first production order, and needed an office, 
and an actual factory, we chose as our telephone number one 
ending in 4116, named for the Moss Tech MK-4116 16 kilobit 
dynamic RAM capacity, which seemed infinite at the time. So--
our company's now been successful, has over 1,300 employees, 
manufactures about 70 percent of the electronic theatre 
lighting equipment in the U.S., and we've kept all those 
manufacturing jobs in the Heartland, which is something I'm 
very proud of.
    But, because of the current chip shortage, at this moment, 
most of our engineering staff is busy not designing new 
products, but on redesigning existing products around chips 
that can actually be purchased on the open or gray markets, and 
trying to understand the massive misallocation of capital, 
where somehow, whoever it was that was running the financial 
operations of our economy generally, and specifically the big 
manufacturers saw, you know, somehow our financial system is 
more interested in speculating in bitcoin than building IC 
bands, and trying to understand how do we deal with that--the 
incentives that led to that misallocation of capital.
    And so my question is--first, for Mr. Bhatia, did you 
really say that there were 176 mask layers in an advanced flash 
product? Is that--did I hear that correctly?
    Mr. Bhatia. Not mask layers. First of all, Representative 
Foster, I congratulate you, and if you want a job, I think, you 
know, we definitely have a few open positions, and that would 
be terrific if you want to come back to our industry.
    Mr. Foster. You need someone with less gray hair----
    Mr. Bhatia. I--it sounds like you're plenty experienced. 
3D--NAND flash technology, several years ago, stopped scaling 
in two--in the X and Y dimensions, and began scaling 
vertically. So we actually have--we stack 106--176 layers of 
NAND flash devices, active NAND flash devices on top of----
    Mr. Foster. Got it.
    Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. Each other.
    Mr. Foster. OK--so these----
    Mr. Bhatia. And that's the----
    Mr. Foster [continuing]. Are physical stacking? That's the 
176----
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Foster. OK.
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. Because that was----
    Mr. Bhatia. All monolithic stacking that happens in fab, 
but this is how----
    Mr. Foster. OK.
    Mr. Bhatia [continuing]. The----
    Mr. Foster. So--but a smaller number of mask steps? OK.
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. That's less frightening. Now, you know, there's 
a narrative about commodity products, such as DRAM, and there 
was something that the U.S. somehow cannot, and should not, 
compete in. And I want to congratulate Micron for not buying 
into that narrative, but, obviously, it's been a struggle. And 
I think we have to appreciate that in the unregulated and 
unsubsidized free markets, this subjects commodity 
manufacturers to a huge boom and bust cycle. And so either we 
have to just grit our teeth and say we are going to 
occasionally interfere in the free market, and, you know, 
effectively develop one or two national champions in this 
technology, or we have to just say that's the free market, you 
know, only the fittest survive, only the paranoid survive. 
What's your best thoughts on that? Yes, you had mentioned, 
actually, that you don't think some iteration of the technology 
consortium would work these days just because that really--
realistically only two U.S. champions of IC process 
development.
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes.
    Mr. Foster. How do we make that decision?
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes. So, you know, I think the first thing to 
recognize about memory--by the way, I appreciate your 
recognition on the 4K Moss Tech device. That was many of our 
first DRAM devices. Memory is essential to all computing 
environments, and it really is going to continue to grow in 
content, whether you're talking about artificial intelligence 
in a data center, 5G in phones, or autonomous vehicles in the 
future, continue to be central. And, actually, memory 
technology accelerates at the fastest rate in the industry, and 
we're challenging the laws of physics on every single 
generation of DRAM or NAND flat.
    And so, you know, we do believe it's an essential component 
of the semiconductor strategy for the United States, and 
investments do need to be made there, and really technology, 
and leadership in technology, like Micron has achieved, as well 
as high volume manufacturing, and excellence in productive 
smart manufacturing environments, these are the two core areas 
that we need to be investing in as a country, and, of course, 
Micron very focused on, because these are the core elements of 
competitive advantage in the memory industry. So I actually 
encourage that memory is considered to be very strategic as 
part of the CHIPS Act, and the investment tax credits that are 
being considered, unfold.
    Mr. Foster. Yes. And, let's see, am I out of time here? 
The--can someone give me a quick estimate on the time? Because 
it's reading zero.
    Staff. Yes, you're out of time----
    Mr. Foster. OK.
    Staff [continuing]. Mr. Foster.
    Mr. Foster. All right. Well, I yield back, and if there's a 
possibility of a second round of questions, I'd be very 
interested.
    Staff. Mr. LaTurner is recognized.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First and 
foremost, I just want to say, no matter how long the good 
people of the Second District in Kansas send me to--back to 
Washington, D.C., I will forever be grateful for being a part 
of this Committee. Not just because of--the subject matter has 
been so fascinating, and been so meaningful to be involved 
with, but because of the incredible example, Chairwoman 
Johnson, you have set, along with Ranking Member Lucas. It's a 
real example of how Washington could, and should, function. And 
so I just want to say that, and congratulate you on your 
retirement, a well-deserved retirement.
    First to Dr. Kelleher, and then to Mr. Bhatia, while the 
purpose of U.S. Government investment in semiconductors is 
American competitiveness and innovation, working with non-U.S. 
companies that play a vital role in the supply chain, such as 
ASML, TSMC, and Samsung will be important. What do you think is 
the role of the National Semiconductor Technology Center, if 
any, in managing the relationships with non-U.S. companies and 
the U.S. government?
    Dr. Kelleher. Maybe I'll kick off with saying within the 
National Semiconductor, in terms of its funding and how it 
allocates, I think, first of all, I believe its governance 
needs to be led by U.S. semiconductors, and ensuring that the 
decisions in terms of priorities which are made within the NSTC 
are truly moving ahead the United States agenda. Within--and 
also that there is a prioritization given to the funding that 
ensures the breakthroughs that moves the research forward 
within the--that enables the United States.
    I--other companies, such as ASML, TSMC, IMEC, all of those 
other companies, they have their potential roles to play. I'm 
not saying they're part of the governance, but they--depending 
on what are the unique challenges and breakthrough if I pick 
ASML? ASML is the unique company that has--providing UV 
lithography, which is absolutely critical for the world--
semiconductors. So I think that IMEC also has one of the 
world's preeminent research centers, so I think there's an 
opportunity for us to work to enable that, because the supply 
chain is quite complex. But I think it needs to be situational, 
in terms of the challenge that's being worked on, rather than 
an absolute same answer for every project.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Mr. Bhatia?
    Mr. Bhatia. Yes, I'll agree. I mean, the U.S. doesn't have 
leadership in all areas of the semiconductor ecosystem, and 
there's some we don't even have U.S. companies that participate 
in. And so certainly there will, you know, need to be foreign 
company participation in certain areas. However, there is 
some--there are some elements where foreign participation could 
create competitive challenges for U.S. companies, and so I 
agree with Dr. Kelleher that, you know, those situations do 
need to be managed on a--you know, carefully, and on a case by 
case basis in certain areas.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you both. This is for everyone, so feel 
free to--we can start with Dr. Kelleher again. In the past year 
alone we've seen how environmental disasters can disrupt the 
supply of semiconductors. In Taiwan, severe drought has limited 
water availability, leading to production delays. Domestically, 
Winter Storm Yuri created power outages, resulting in a months-
long backup in production. How can we create a domestic 
semiconductor industry that is more resilient to extreme 
weather, and how can we encourage the same on the international 
stage?
    Dr. Kelleher. I'd start with saying--and I'd go back to a 
point I made earlier. One of the first things that you need to 
do with your facilities is to robust your facilities so that 
your facilities and your supply chain are basically--that you 
have a Plan B when Plan A doesn't work. You need to robust the 
facilities so that they're actually robust against power 
interrupts, robust against environmental, like weather, snow, 
storms--doesn't matter. I--when I was running the factories, 
I've had my pick of environmental, and I also--when I ran a 
factory in Ireland, I knew every storm that was taking place in 
the Atlantic, because our slurries and polish, some of our 
materials, were on ships in the mid-Atlantic.
    So I--one of the things is--it can never be ignored, in 
terms of--I--we call it our business continuity, or our supply 
chain continuity. That has to be built in, and you have to have 
a robustness, and not single points of success or single points 
of where you fail. So there's the facilities being built to 
robust against--I--not--weather and others, but there's also, 
for each of the unique, either equipment, materials, et cetera, 
how do we have alternative sources? Where are those sources 
based? Is there enough of us--of a distribution of where 
they're based so if something happens in one place, that should 
have the supply coming from the rest.
    So it's not a one answer for all, it's quite a complicated 
piece of work. It takes dedicated focus on it to ensure that 
your factories can run seven by 24 for 30, 40, 50 years without 
impact.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Dr. Kelleher. Unfortunately, I've 
run out of time, but I look forward to continuing this 
conversation. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
    Staff. Ms. Stansbury is recognized.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much. And, Madam Chair, like 
many this morning, I want to add my voice to the chorus of 
grateful Members who are so grateful for your many, many years 
of service, and your advocacy, and your work on behalf of our 
science and technology enterprise. You will be so missed, and 
we wish you all the best in your retirement, so thank you so 
much for your service.
    And I'm excited to be here today to talk about an issue 
that is so important to my home State of New Mexico. You know, 
we're here to talk about semiconductors because they're 
essential to every aspect of our lives, to the functioning of 
our modern world, from powering our phones and our electric 
devices, to powering our grid, and the technologies that will 
help us fight climate change, and help to build the new world 
that we're all working so hard to build. And New Mexico is 
particularly well poised to help lead the charge here, and help 
to ensure American leadership in microelectronics thanks to our 
National Laboratories, and our commercial scientific industry, 
and our private industry, so we are proud to be leaders in this 
field that will determine the direction of technologies for 
years to come.
    At Sandia National Labs, which is in my district, the labs 
have made groundbreaking discoveries for decades, changing 
technology as we know it. Last year Sandia partnered with IBM 
(International Business Machines) to lead the field in research 
and development of next generation transistors, called Gate 
All-Around Nanosheet Field Effective Transistors. They use less 
power, and allow for faster computations. These transistors can 
help us continue Moore's Law long beyond what we had previously 
thought. And Sandia is also working with the private sector to 
develop memory devices that have nearly unlimited endurance, 
and withstand harsh environmental conditions that outperform 
current commercially based memory devices on the market.
    While Sandia has already developed partnerships with 
commercial partners for these projects, a lot of the work that 
happens at our National Labs, as many of you know, actually 
never makes it to market, and so one of the things that we've 
been working on in this Committee, and I've been working with 
my colleague Senator Senator Lujan, and others who sign on to 
our bill, which is the Partnerships for Energy Security and 
Innovation Act, is to create a nonprofit foundation that will 
help to align the R&D that happens at our National Labs with 
the private sector so that we can bring these technologies to 
market, and really bridge the lab to fab gap that we see in our 
science and technology enterprise.
    And once we get those technologies to market, and out of 
the development stage, New Mexico stands ready to manufacture, 
to assemble, and to test those semiconductors, because we are 
proud to host an Intel campus, one of the Nation's leading 
integrated device manufacturers, in Rio Rancho, with is in the 
greater Albuquerque area, which announced earlier this year 
that it is investing $3.5 billion for the manufacturing of 
advanced semiconductor packaging technologies, which is 
expected to create thousands of jobs--so, as we've seen during 
the pandemic, semiconductors impact every aspect of our lives, 
and I look forward to working with the Committee to bring 
manufacturing jobs back to our country, and make sure we are 
leading the way in research and development in these critical 
areas.
    But I think that one of the biggest obstacles that we face 
is the development of our STEM work force, and we see this in 
New Mexico every day, where we have thousands of vacant 
positions in our National Labs, in our engineering firms, in 
our research entities, and so I think one of the things that's 
really important, and I'd like to ask Dr. Witherell about this, 
in your testimony you note the importance of work force 
development to the future of domestic microelectronics, and you 
point out that this is especially relevant for our National 
Labs, who, of course, rely not only on thousands of scientists, 
but also on skilled technicians. And so I wanted to ask you, 
Doctor, if you could talk a little bit about what you think 
Congress can do to help foster that STEM work force so that we 
are prepared for the future?
    Dr. Witherell. Thank you very much, and I will say that we 
at Berkeley also partner with Sandia on our Quantum Systems 
Accelerator Center, where we are pleased to work with them. But 
we--all of the laboratories are working very hard on developing 
the STEM pipeline at every stage. Of course, the obvious thing 
is we have a large faction of the postdocs working in these 
disciplines in the whole country--or at the labs that's 
producing, but we're also trying to help with undergraduate 
education and K to 12. And the fact--New Mexico's a good 
example of this, where the laboratories there can have a very 
large impact on that institutional--but it's also true that, 
for the security laboratories, work force is the lab director's 
biggest problem, actually, just to have the work force to fill 
the pipeline at Sandia, Los Alamos, Livermore, so all of us are 
working on how to develop a large and diverse work force that 
can feed these things because, in the end, the Nation has to go 
faster than other nations.
    Ms. Stansbury. Yes. Thank you so much, Doctor, and I think 
you really put your finger on it, which is that we have to be 
building that pipeline from early childhood education, even, 
through our K through 12 system, but we do have an immediate 
challenge of how do we get more STEM professionals into the 
work force, and working in our labs and our public 
institutions, to ensure that we're at the forefront of this 
work. So I really appreciate your words, and your good work, 
and with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
    Mr. Lamb. Thank you, and I want to join everybody in 
congratulating Madam Chairwoman on her retirement, and thank 
her for the years of service that we have shared together, and 
all that I've learned. I want to start with Dr. Kelleher, to 
talk a little bit about the decisions that go into where to 
locate the manufacturing sites, the factories. I think you 
mentioned in your early testimony your presence throughout 
Arizona, and New Mexico, and your company, and others, I know, 
have talked about Texas. I represent the areas outside of 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that were long the manufacturing hub 
for steel and other specialty metals, and kind of related 
industries, and we're doing everything we can to try to bring 
some of our manufacturing know-how, and particularly our land, 
which is still very well suited for manufacturing, the old--
have not all been turned--and they're still sort of sitting 
there, waiting to be taken advantage of. And I just wonder if 
you had any insights for regions of the country like mine, to 
talk about what competitive advantage did you see in the 
Southwest, and how could we maybe, you know, look to match that 
or exceed it in a part of the country like Southwestern 
Pennsylvania?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, if I speak, first of all, to part of 
the Southwest, our investments began in the Southwest 30, 40 
years ago, so I was--and once you started an investment in a 
given site, you tend to continue to grow that investment within 
the site, given the level of infrastructure that you have made. 
One of the--so I speak more generically, in terms of our 
overall site selection process.
    What we look for when we're doing--we have a very stringent 
criteria from--looking--from our site selection. We look at 
the--basically the--for the given sites that become available 
in any given State, we look at the--basically the land itself, 
right, and there are many factors you need to take into account 
when you're building a factory, in terms of the site readiness. 
It's its infrastructure, it's the--basically the availabilities 
of utilities in the infrastructure. It's also the--what does 
the supply chain support in a given area, and are you starting 
the supply chain support from scratch? It's also what is the--
basically what is the work force available in a given area, and 
what is the availability from--anywhere from unskilled work 
force to the skilled work force? And also there's a look at--in 
terms of the overall--I would say the given States in terms of 
their--how much they work with business, so that it becomes 
easy to do business in a given State. So there's an entire set 
of criteria by which we work through as we make our selections.
    Mr. Lamb. I really appreciate that, and I see us having a 
fair amount of advantage on many of those metrics. Supply 
chain, I don't quite know. That might be one we have to work 
on. Any other witnesses want to address that? You know, 
obviously our connection to Carnegie Mellon really helps with 
the talent pipeline, but anyone else have anything else to 
offer for Southwestern Pennsylvania, and kind of the Rust Belt 
overall, as we look to make----
    Mr. Bhatia. Well, I think I'll just amplify Dr. Kelleher's 
comments regarding, you know, infrastructure and work force. 
Those are two key elements. You know, the semiconductor 
manufacturing operation's complexity is, you know, is 
incredible, and it's continuing to get more and more complex. 
Fractions of a second of power loss can create significant 
disruption, and so the utility infrastructure, including 
electricity, availability of water, water treatment, all of 
those are key factors.
    And then, as she mentioned, and as you're noting, the 
availability of, you know, skilled work force. Whether that's 
the proximity to top universities, or vocational schools and 
community colleges that can help us with the training and re-
skilling of technicians to work on this highly precise 
equipment. These are all of the areas that we think about. And 
then just overall, an industrial backdrop, and an ability to 
have delivered industrial success stories over time, and, you 
know, the know how to be able to do it. Because when we make 
these decisions, they're not 5-year decisions or 10-year 
decisions. They're 30- or 40-year decisions, as Dr. Kelleher 
also noted.
    Mr. Lamb. Right. Well, thank you very much. I think I'm out 
of time, but we have all of that in Southwestern Pennsylvania, 
so all of you listening right now, please keep us in mind in 
the future, and I very much appreciate your joining us for 
today's hearing. Thank you. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. And, at the risk of being 
repetitive, I just want to say what a great opportunity it's 
been for me to serve, and continue to serve for the next year 
or so, with Chairwoman Johnson. She's been an incredible 
leader, and the--as has been said, the example that both the 
Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas have set is an important 
example I think that the rest of Congress would do well to 
heed. We do have our differences, but we work them out in, I 
think, a mostly civil manner, and that's really important, so 
thank you. And thanks for holding this hearing.
    I recently welcomed Secretary--Commerce Secretary Gina 
Raimondo to Michigan for a discussion on the global 
semiconductor shortage with auto workers, with business 
leaders, with other elected officials. And as we know, while 
the semiconductor shortage is affecting a lot of industries, it 
is disproportionately affecting the automotive sector, 
impacting thousands of workers that I represent in my home 
district. We've seen layoffs at General Motors' Flint assembly 
plant over the summer, and some of our factories in Flint have 
been idle--in Michigan, I should say, have been idle since the 
spring. And that's why I've been working with others in the 
House to invest in legacy chips that are commonly used in 
automobiles.
    And I know this has been the focus of this hearing, and it 
might be somewhat repetitive, but I want to make sure we get as 
much information on this as we can. We obviously have to get 
serious about strengthening our domestic semiconductor supply 
chain, and we have to act now to save American jobs, to ensure 
a robust domestic automotive manufacturing industry here in the 
U.S., not in other places.
    So if I could start, Mr. Bhatia, in your testimony you 
advocate for the U.S. to focus on leading edge manufacturing 
capabilities, which makes sense, to maximize the commercial 
success of our investments, but as we know, these cutting edge 
fabs and foundries will take quite some time to build, as 
you've mentioned, even if we immediately fully fund the CHIPS 
Act. So here's the question, how can we leverage the existing 
infrastructure today, across industry, to kickstart 
manufacturing advances while we wait for these fabs to be 
built? What can we do in Congress, specifically, to address 
that issue?
    Mr. Bhatia. Sounds--thank you, Representative Kildee. And, 
you know, first let me just echo your comment that, you know, 
we need to move with urgency now to meet--even though it will 
take years for the CHIPS Act's funding and investment tax 
credits to improve the domestic supply chain for semiconductor 
manufacturing, we do need to move urgently. We need to get 
started now, because other countries around the world are not 
standing still either. So whatever, you know, gap exists today, 
the gap is only growing until we actually are able to start 
reversing that trend. And let me also agree that automotive is 
an incredibly important market for all semiconductor 
manufacturers, but for Micron as well, we're the No. 1 provider 
of memory solutions to the automotive industry globally.
    What we have tried to do with this, and one of the things 
that we've been successful--and to ensure that we are not--
memory has not been one of the primary bottlenecks for the 
automotive industry is working with our customers to move them 
toward newer technologies. And this is an area where closer 
collaboration between the semiconductor manufacturer, the 
system design houses, and third parties, as well as the Tier 
One OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) together to be able 
to make a concerted effort to qualify newer technologies, 
because investments, whether they come--spurred by the 
government or from industry, they will always lean toward the 
future and toward leading edge.
    And so, in order to really future-proof what we've been 
working with our automotive customers to do is to get their 
engineering resources dedicated toward newer technologies. 
Because if there are requirements they need, we can focus on 
those more, you know, earlier in the process, and be able to 
get them to technology--newer technology sooner.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. And just in the last few 
minutes--or minute or so, Dr. Kelleher, of course, Intel 
produces personal electronics computers, but it's also involved 
in auto--the auto sector. How do we balance the need for--the 
needs of these different industries, of both leading edge chips 
and these legacy chips? What's the approach you take, or you 
think we should take, in terms of trying to find that right 
balance?
    Dr. Kelleher. I concur with Dr. Bhatia said, in terms of--
at this point, I think working with the auto industry to move 
them to more leading edge nodes, so that, as we invest in the 
infrastructure, that the infrastructure reinvested, and she can 
help enable that industry for many years to come. Right, so I 
think the key part of it--and yes, Intel, we're involved 
working with the auto industry, but the key is to help start 
moving the auto industry from being in the very much older 
nodes, where many of the equipment doesn't exist anymore to 
even manufacturers to--onto the newer nodes so that we can 
continue to keep the auto industry in progression with the rest 
of the semiconductor industry, so then that--and we never then 
get to the point of where we have this level of disparity 
between the support of the auto industry and the rest of the 
industry.
    Mr. Kildee. Thank you very, very much. I see my time has 
expired. I thank all the witnesses for your excellent 
testimony, and Madam Chair, thank you for this hearing. I yield 
back.
    Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair, for 
holding this hearing. And I just want to say, as a freshman, 
thank you for setting an example of being an outstanding 
Committee Chair, and showing civility, working across the 
aisle, and mentoring the next wave of legislators. So I really 
appreciate all that you've done, and I look forward to working 
with you the next year, as we do even more
    I also want to thank the panelists for joining us today. As 
we've been hearing, these pandemic-driven shortages of 
semiconductors have revealed how dependent the U.S. economy is 
on foreign suppliers. And it's not just in semiconductors, it's 
in so many other things in our supply chain, but we've seen how 
essential semiconductors are to so much of what we do.
    I represent the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, 
and I've seen in my area how these shortages have hurt our 
economy and our innovation ecosystem. And right now I've just--
I'd like to let you know, if you don't know, in my district, 
it's the home of North Carolina State University, and we're--
it's a leader in Power America, a public/private partnership 
between industry--or among industry, government, National Labs, 
and academia that's accelerating the commercialization of wide-
band semiconductor technology. And after 5 years of Department 
of Energy funding, Power America now has 60 members, and is 
completely self-sufficient.
    It's also spawning people to leave and go into startups, 
and so the startup economy is very big in the Research Triangle 
area. But microelectronic startups often find it difficult to 
commercialize their products. Even well-funded startups 
struggle to secure time at fabs and foundries to test their 
products as they compete with larger companies for access, and 
right now we need as many people working on this as possible.
    So, Dr. Chiang and Dr. Witherell, how can we grow a 
semiconductor startup ecosystem here in the United States, and 
do we have the time for it?
    Dr. Chiang. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for the 
questions.
    Dr. Witherell. Go ahead.
    Dr. Chiang. Please go ahead, Dr. Witherell.
    Dr. Witherell. Well, I can say one thing--we have--in the 
laboratories, we have systems for doing startups from the 
laboratories, we--at Cyclotron Road here, and included we have 
startups coming out in semiconductor industry that are 
fellowships that are supported by DARPA now. So there is--but I 
will say, to lead to the Dean, the university is a much wider 
space for this, and so we should hear from him.
    Ms. Ross. Please.
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Dr. Witherell, and thank you, 
Congresswoman. Indeed, I am confident that Congress and the 
Cabinet, including Secretary Raimondo, will be very 
comprehensive in the strategies. And we just talked about, 
let's not forget, the legacy nodes that produce a lot of the 
chips needed, for example, for the automotive industry. We 
should also not forget the military needs, including work 
force. For example, Purdue, leads 12 universities working with 
the DOD in the SCALE (Scalable Asymmetric Lifecycle Engagement) 
Program for DOD semiconductor work force development. Let's not 
forget that we also have small enterprises, including startup 
companies.
    But I think there's a reason why there is a lack of 
interest compared to other fields, because the time to generate 
return to the investors tends to be longer for semiconductor 
companies. Unlike fields such as artificial intelligence or 
mobile applications, semiconductor chips, especially at the 
leading nodes, takes hundreds, if not thousands of engineers, 
and hundreds of millions of dollars to go to a mature stage. 
And most of the investors are not patient enough when there are 
competing opportunities for their cash resources.
    So, I think part of the solution could be to encourage more 
of the university/industry collaboration to encourage faculty 
and students to work with industry leaders, and take their 
passions, and take their research articles, into the potential 
translational path so that there's a larger volume of choices 
for the investors. And part of that is indeed, back to the 
CHIPS Act, to restore a free market balance. Not to tip it, but 
to restore it, so that investors will be more confident that 
there is a vibrant future for their investment in the 
semiconductors industry in the U.S. And that's yet another 
reason why the CHIPS Act funding will be so important not only 
to the major players, but also the upcoming small companies.
    Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much. And I see my time has 
expired, so I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Moore is recognized.
    Ms. Moore. Well, thank you so much, and, of course, I am so 
pleased with myself that I decided to be on the Committee with 
the Honorable Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. I would've 
just killed myself if I didn't have the opportunity to see her 
in action, as she has been such an inspiration.
    You know, I am going to sound repetitive, I'm sure, because 
I want to sort of relate to some of the things that I have 
heard before. Question really for Dr. Kelleher, and maybe--Dr. 
Chiang. You know, I am from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and, of 
course, this is a place that we were known at one time to be 
the machine makers of the world. So I'm wondering, Dr. Chiang, 
when you talked about work force development and all that, we 
start talking about play space strategies to do things, will 
this funding enable a place like Milwaukee to have a level 
playing field by providing funding for training and upgrading--
because we have a fantastic work force for generations that 
were accustomed to manufacturing? Or are we going to just be 
flyover country, and they're going to run off to California, or 
some of these other places?
    And so I am very, very--you know, I talked to Deputy 
Director of Commerce Don Graves. He indicated he thought that 
the Midwest would be a great place to do this kind of work, and 
I am--I'm wondering, you know, if--you know, because 
Milwaukee's a great place. We've got a port, we've got water, 
there are deals that could be made with local governments 
regarding utilities and so on. Is it foolish to even hope that 
a place like Milwaukee could be a site?
    Dr. Chiang. Congresswoman--well, let me share the Midwest 
enthusiasm that you just expressed so well. And indeed, here in 
the Midwest, whether it's in Indiana, or Wisconsin, or any 
other States here in the middle of the country, we have a lot 
of customers, and I hope companies would want to be closer to 
their customers. We have a lot of talent, and I'm hoping that 
the work force development portion of the NSTC in the CHIPS Act 
will support a nationwide network that access diverse talents, 
and is geographically inclusive.
    Ms. Moore. Well, I appreciate that. Listen, I want to yield 
the rest of my time to Dr. Foster. I can't see my clock, but I 
would like to yield to Dr. Foster.
    Staff. Dr. Foster's not present right now.
    Ms. Moore. OK. Well, I know he was very eager to finish his 
questioning, and so I wanted to accommodate him, so I will 
yield back my time.
    Staff. Thank you. Mr. Pete Meijer is next.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for 
the hearing today, and for all of our panelists who are here. I 
want to second Ms. Moore's comment, and just note that--I think 
I haven't been in a private meeting among Members, or in a 
Committee hearing that has all touched on microelectronics 
without all of us making the respective cases for our districts 
on why they are best positioned, so there is strong support in, 
I think, not only recognition in the--how critical this issue 
is, but also on the opportunities that it presents.
    And I guess specifically, you know, in Michigan, the 
semiconductor shortages that we've seen domestically have been 
dramatically impactful on our automotive industry, and not just 
on, you know, the big three, and the largest producers, but 
also in all of the constituent industries and manufacturers 
that are serving in there. As a Member of this Committee, I've 
been particularly engaged and interested in this issue of 
domestic manufacturing, and specifically on semiconductor 
chips, and how we can support new programs within existing 
agencies like NIST to advance additional domestic production.
    I was proud that earlier this year we were able to secure 
additional funding for the Manufacturing U.S.A. Institute, 
which passed unanimously in Committee, but unfortunately was 
not included in the final package passed by the House. These 
dollars would've gone toward research, development, education, 
training for our domestic semiconductor manufacturing pipeline, 
and I'm--retain some optimism that we'll be able to still 
complete that, given the number of tasks ahead of us on the 
Committee.
    I guess my first question would be to Mr. Bhatia. It's my 
understanding that many experts believe, you know, 
breakthroughs in packaging will really be key to improving chip 
efficiency beyond the gains already achieved through Moore's 
Law. Can you share what the role of a Federal supported 
research and development center that's focused on--specifically 
on advanced packaging? You know, what could this bring, in 
terms of uniting stakeholders together to tackle this 
challenge?
    Mr. Bhatia. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Meijer. And, you know, advanced--first of all, I'd like to say 
that, you know, we support the idea that there should be 
national--that the NSTC Center should be focused on specific 
areas and verticals, rather than one monolithic center. So a 
center focused on packaging makes a lot of sense, and where we 
really see the benefit is, as advanced--as the scaling of 
primary logic chips becomes more and more challenging, there 
is--and as memory becomes a larger portion of the semiconductor 
ecosystem, the ability to put heterogeneous packages together 
that combine logic chips from one company, and memory chips 
from another company, and possibly packaging technology from a 
third company together, these are the kinds of breakthroughs 
that are going to be needed to address both the performance 
requirements of computing paradigms of the future, as well as 
power requirements of the computing paradigms of the future. 
And so, you know, there really can be an important role played 
for packaging, where the number of companies coming together 
are from different parts of the industry.
    Mr. Meijer. And then I think that that packaging component, 
you know, with the exception of--I believe it was Dr. Foster, 
who--you know, a lot of us do not have personal experience 
within this industry, and it's obviously a highly complex, 
highly developed one, but I think the role of packaging within 
microelectronics is, you know, again, one of those limiting 
coefficients that is vital to the broader semiconductor 
industry, but sometimes it's a little bit missed when we're 
talking about a congressional--and next, Dr. Kelleher, in your 
written testimony you had described the advances that 
international rivals are making in the global semiconductor 
technology industry. Can you briefly share, you know, what are 
the consequences of having to import such advanced 
semiconductors, and what should that ultimate balance look like 
between, you know, domestic production, but still having 
potentially some international supply?
    Dr. Kelleher. Well, if I look at it over the last 50 years, 
we have done the majority of our manufacturing within the 
United States. I believe for the--or basically going forward, 
our aim is to continue to do that, and I believe that--going 
back to--we were talking about supply robustness, et cetera, 
for the United States we should have a majority of 
manufacturing, or basically a significant increase of where we 
are from today, in terms of having our own independence.
    I'll also loop back to the--your last question, if that's 
OK, around packaging? Intel has leadership in packaging, and 
all our IP and development on packaging is done here in the 
United States. A lot of the packaging right now, all their R&D 
and development work is done in Asia We truly believe that 
establishing a center around advanced package not--will 
continue to help us, continue to push the edge on leading--on 
overall packaging and maintaining that leadership, but we're 
also bringing the rest of the United States so that we'll be in 
ability not just to have the capability of it in the United 
States, but also the ability to manufacture it in the United 
States.
    Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Doctor, and my time is expiring, but 
I just want to thank again the Chairwoman for holding this, and 
our Ranking Member as well, and thank you to our witnesses 
being here today. I think this is a vital topic, and I hope 
that we see legislative progress on this in the short term. 
Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. And I don't want to say 
goodbye to Chairwoman Johnson, because I'm looking forward to 
13 more months of serving with her wonderful leadership, and 
maybe she'll change her mind. But I do want to wish you a very 
happy birthday tomorrow, Eddie Bernice, so congratulations. 
It's wonderful to--I'm glad you were born.
    And to move on, Mr. Bhatia, a long time ago I was 
Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, and, with Governor George 
Allen, we cut the ribbon on the big silicon plant out in 
Manassas, Virginia, and Governor Allen said, we're moving on 
from the Old Dominion to the Silicon Dominion. What happened? 
How did everything end up in Taiwan, rather than in Virginia, 
or in the United States?
    Mr. Bhatia. Representative Beyer, thank you, and thank you 
for participating in that ribbon cutting ceremony. And our 
Manassas, Virginia facility continues to operate, and provide, 
you know, important supply for the automotive industry, and 
networking industry, and other industrial industries. It's 
actually one of the key parts of our global supply chain 
network.
    But what really happened was--I think that event that you 
were referring to was probably in 1998 or so, is that about 
right, roughly? And Micron acquired that site shortly 
thereafter, but in the middle of that, there was 20--it began 
20 years of concerted policy by Asian countries to buildup 
ecosystems and scale to create favorable environments for 
semiconductor manufacturing.
    There also happened to be the transition from the 200 
millimeter technologies that have been talked about on this 
panel to 300 millimeter technology, and that's where Asian 
countries really focused on making sure they were building up 
their ecosystems as the industry transitioned in the early 
2000's from 200 millimeter to 300 millimeter.
    And particularly, in semiconductor memory, the scaling up 
of those facilities just provided tremendous economic 
advantages that, you know, the smaller sites in the United 
States, without the government support, without ecosystem 
development, just couldn't compete. And so the Asian countries, 
particularly around memory, did end up having much larger 
scale, manufacturing in much more cost-effective environments.
    And this trend over the last 20 years, you know, won't be 
reversed overnight. It--you know, and CHIPS, and the investment 
tax credits that are proposed are a good start, and they are--
you know, they--we need to act with urgency, because, as I 
mentioned before, the gap is only widening because Asian 
countries, many of them, are already outlining policies for 
long term decades of investment with tens or even hundreds of 
billions of investment. So we really do need to move quickly.
    Over time we can see that this gap closes, whether that gap 
is in the production output, or in cost structure, as the scale 
factors start to come together, but we need to act now, and we 
need to get about reversing this trend if we want to have 
leadership in long----
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Going to try to get one more question 
in for Dr. Chiang. You know, when I talk to my friends at 
Micron and Intel, they talk about, you know, billions of 
dollars to get the new plant up. How do we grow the 
semiconductor startup ecosystem? How do we help the little guys 
who are developing all the cool chemistry? I'm sure that when 
Bill Foster was winning his awards 30 years ago, he was 
probably doing it in a small lab.
    Dr. Chiang. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. And 
as we have already observed throughout this hearing, that the 
semiconductors industry is a large and diverse one, as is our 
country, the United States, and there are many different 
components and opportunities. For example, a startup company in 
the design of chips today will face a different kind of 
challenge than those focusing on packaging. And there are 
States whereby the largest factories will be located, and there 
are many other States where smaller fabs, legacy node fabs, or 
packaging centers might be created.
    But, in general, I would say that as SIA (Semiconductor 
Industry Association) or SRC (Semiconductor Research 
Corporation), these industry consortia, have indicated, that we 
need to aid restore a free market balance, and CHIPS Act will 
help to accomplish a big portion of that goal. And second is 
that we need to encourage more students and faculty to work 
with industry in order to be the co-founders, or the first set 
of employees, of these startups. The fundamental root cause, I 
think, is that most of the investors view the investment into 
semiconductor startups not as potentially high return as some 
of the other startup investment opportunities. So, restoring 
market balance, and increasing the volume of the deal flow 
would help to tackle those challenges for the startups.
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, and, Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
    Staff. Mr. Obernolte is next.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, and thank you to our 
witnesses for what's been a very fascinating and impactful 
hearing. My first question is for Dr. Kelleher. In your 
testimony you discuss the fact that we have a 30 percent cost 
disadvantage in attempting to do semiconductor manufacturing 
here in the United States versus overseas. I wonder if you 
could just spend a minute and tunnel down on the cost drivers 
for that 30 percent difference, and what can be done to restore 
U.S. competitiveness in that area?
    Dr. Kelleher. I'll break it into probably three portions, 
right? First of all, labor. There's a labor cost difference 
between Asia and the United States. Second of all, the cost of 
building, and the cost of building the fabs in Asia, is less 
expensive than in the United States. And third, there is the 
incentives which are available within Asia from many of the 
countries are also--make it so that the combined of those three 
together is what gives the 30 percent cost disadvantage.
    So I--the work that's going on here through the CHIPS Act, 
in terms of how it will potentially help us as we go--in our 
industry, not just from--and for R&D development, because that 
has also the same cost disadvantage, because it's done on the 
fabs by researchers, they--it will help to address the cost 
disadvantage against those with an--the--which is made within 
Asia, and actually gets us to be in a place to be more 
competitive.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. I'm sorry, you--the last thing that you 
said, could you say that again? Because----
    Dr. Kelleher. I said----
    Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. That was going to be my next 
question, is what do we do--what can government do to help 
bridge that gap?
    Dr. Kelleher. I think there's two pieces. I'll break it 
down into--first of all, there is, within the CHIPS Act--moving 
forward with the CHIPS Act, and support--and particularly in 
the NSTC, and--basically consistently--and having a structured 
framework to fund into the R&D within the United States. And 
then the greater CHIPS Act, in terms of enabling leading edge, 
to be able to build out, it's basically the manufacturing of 
the leading edge technologies. So this--the CHIPS Act is 
absolutely key, in terms of working, and basically enabling 
that to come into play, so that it enables the industry to be 
able to start eating into that cost disadvantage.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK. So maybe you can tunnel down on this a 
little bit further, because I see this as two different 
problems, right? There's the problem that we are in danger of 
losing our position as the world leaders in the technology, and 
that's certainly something that we can catalyze a solution for, 
but then there's a separate problem that most of the 
manufacturing is not done here in the United States anymore, 
which has national security implications for us, so we want to 
see more of those fabs here, and not just the fabs for the last 
generation of technology, but the fabs for cutting edge 
technology be here.
    So I see the CHIPS Act--I see how what you're saying is 
true for solving the first problem, but I don't see how that 
reduces that 30 percent cost disadvantage that's preventing 
those fabs from being here in the United States.
    Dr. Kelleher. I think through the CHIPS Act, in terms of 
the incentives from the U.S. Government, that will start eating 
into that differential. And, ultimately, the choices where 
companies go to make their--to choose where their--build their 
fabs has--it goes back to what are the incentives available for 
a given country, as well as what is the supply chain, and the 
people, and the skills, and all of that. But the funding coming 
through in the CHIPS Act will start helping to turn the tide, 
and start eliminating the erosion of the manufacturing going 
offsite, and start bringing it back onsite to the U.S.
    Mr. Obernolte. OK.
    Mr. Bhatia. Representative Obernolte, can I add a comment?
    Mr. Obernolte. Sure, go ahead.
    Mr. Bhatia. Sure. I just want to--just had one data point, 
just so that--it's a Micron specific data point, but it's very 
common across the industry. The capital intensity of our 
industry, particularly memory, is tremendous. Micron will spend 
more than 30 percent of its revenue back in capital again every 
year, and so the--in addition to the CHIPS Act, an investment 
tax credit that refunds capital investment is a really key 
element to make sure that we can start to close this--Micron 
sees 35 to 45 percent cost gap, with much larger scale 
operations that are already in place in Asia for our 
competitors.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. I think we are in complete agreement 
on that, but it would have to be very targeted, and I'm not 
sure what you have just described is sufficiently targeted, 
because, you know, the--we're kind of at cross purposes, where 
industry is pursuing, you know, the commercial incentives, 
where we in government have a national security justification 
for wanting those fabs to be here. So it does us no good if, 
you know, we catalyze further development in cutting edge 
technology if that technology is still manufactured and 
deployed in other countries. We need to solve both problems. 
But it's a fascinating discussion. I think that what you're 
hearing on the Committee is a willingness to work with industry 
in trying to solve both of those. So I want to thank our 
witnesses, and I'll yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Gimenez is recognized.
    Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, thank you, and happy early birthday 
to the Chairwoman. I want to thank you for this hearing, and 
also to our Ranking Member. Thank you. I've got two or three 
questions that--for Ms. Kelleher. Is it true that Intel is 
planning to build new facilities, new manufacturing plants, in 
China?
    Dr. Kelleher. So Intel and the U.S. Government, we share a 
goal of addressing, basically, the ongoing industry-wide 
shortage of microchips, and we have explored a number of 
approaches with the U.S. Government. However, our key focus is 
on the significant ongoing expansion of our existing 
semiconductor manufacturing operations, as we have already 
announced, which work is ongoing in Arizona and New Mexico, and 
we're working on selecting a green-fueled site here in the U.S. 
and in Europe. This will take time, and, again, I urge Congress 
to fund the CHIPS Act so we can accelerate the progress here in 
the U.S.
    Given the urgency of the shortage, we remain open to other 
solutions that would help meet high demand for semiconductors 
essential to innovation and economy, but, basically, we----
    Mr. Gimenez. Ma'am, you're--I've only got a certain amount, 
is it a yes or no?
    Dr. Kelleher. So I'm not going to discuss specific--
discussions with the U.S. Government here.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. So do you view China as a competitor, or 
do you use it--do you view it as a place of--it's an 
opportunity or a competitor? What do you view China as?
    Dr. Kelleher. China is part of our world market, but I 
also--I'm very clear on protecting my IP, from a technologies 
perspective, here in the United States.
    Mr. Gimenez. OK. So I'll take that--the answer is you view 
it as an opportunity, it's part of the world market. Do you 
intend to seek grants from CHIPS if it is passed?
    Dr. Kelleher. Given Intel is the leading manufacturing and 
leading edge technology here within the United States, and we 
have had long investment history here in the United States----
    Mr. Gimenez. I'll take that--I'm sorry, I'll take it as a 
yes. Again, I've got some questions, and I really need to go, 
so I'll take that as a yes. OK, you're going to seek funding 
from CHIPS. All right. We talk about--when you talk about 
supply chain, you have the chips themselves, but then what--the 
stuff that makes the chips, all right? And so, you know, the 
testimony is that the rare earth metals, all these metals that 
go into making the chips, they're actually--a lot of them come 
from China. Does the United States have the capacity, does it 
have the resources, the natural resources, to produce this in 
the United States?
    Dr. Kelleher. I think all of it--I don't believe yes, that 
there is, but this is an ongoing work that different parts--I 
know Dr. Bhatia said Micron is working with the United States, 
and Intel is also working with the U.S. Government, because 
this is a piece of work that--supply chain that we have quite a 
bit of work to do.
    Mr. Gimenez. And is it because of regulations, et cetera, 
that we're not producing this stuff here in the United States? 
Is it because of us, we're doing something wrong here, 
Congress, the executive branch is doing something wrong so that 
we don't incentivize that production here in the United States? 
Because, actually, we bring all this manufacturing back, and we 
still don't have the supply chain for the chips themselves, 
we're not going to be anywhere, right? We need to have it all 
basically here. Would you agree with that?
    Dr. Kelleher. Having--basically a significant portion of 
the supply here in the U.S. absolutely will help, right. Your 
question, in terms of is it something legislation is doing, I 
would put it more that I think it needs to be raised in the 
importance in terms of within the supply chain. And I think 
once it raises within the importance of the supply chain, then 
the might of the entire industry works on it to get a better 
answer.
    Mr. Gimenez. Is there any research going on into creating 
chips that don't need these materials, and need something which 
is abundant, or not quite as expensive, maybe not quite as 
exotic? Is there research to creating a chip--a cheaper chip 
that's just as good or better than what we've got right now?
    Dr. Kelleher. If you go back to, say, some of the core 
ingredients of the advanced materials that we use today, I 
think one of the key aspects of--within NSTC and research of 
the future is how do we replace those with alternative 
materials? I mean, the periodic table is actively being used, 
in terms--and as we advance the technology, we typically end up 
using new--basically more elements of the periodic table. So I 
think one of the things I would like to see out of NSTC is an 
ongoing activity in terms of how we actually--and move 
ourselves to be from less dependent on some of those materials. 
And then----
    Mr. Gimenez. All right. And so--and I know that my time is 
up, but my final comment would be that we would--hopefully the 
United States would be helping you develop those materials that 
would make us less reliant on outside sources to create these 
chips. And thank you so much, and again I yield back. Thank 
you.
    Staff. Mr. Waltz is recognized.
    Mr. Waltz. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to build 
on my colleague from Florida, Mr. Gimenez's, I thought very 
thoughtful and timely questions on the supply chain and on 
critical minerals, I've often spoken about, and worked on 
legislation in the Defense Department--on the Armed Services 
Committee for the Defense Department, trying to address the 
United States' heavy reliance on China for access to critical 
minerals. The Chinese Communist Party has openly threatened 
Japan, Australia, and others with withholding these critical 
minerals as part of--you know, and it's been in line with their 
geopolitical interests, and, frankly, in line with the 
dictatorship that the CCP is.
    So I've introduced H.R. 2637, the American Critical Mineral 
Independence Act. It has a number of provisions to support 
research and development. Dr. Witherell, can you speak to what 
it would mean for the semiconductor industry to be able to 
understand and control minerals and to manufacture them, and to 
be able to process them, the role DOE labs, like Berkeley 
National Laboratory, and others play in making this the 
reality?
    And, just to directly address Representative Gimenez's 
questions, I think we need to have an honest conversation about 
our own rules, in terms of mining on Federal lands, in terms of 
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and our environmental 
restrictions, the fact that it takes on average a mining 
company in the United States 7 to 10 years to get an 
appropriate license, in Australia it's 2 to 4 years. So I think 
this is an interesting kind of academic conversation here, but 
we're not being honest with ourselves about the own--our own 
restrictions that we put on being able to control our own 
supply chain.
    And I can tell you, sitting on the Armed Services 
Committee, we are losing badly, if you look at the trend lines 
of what the Chinese will be able to control, and what we're 
giving up. In fact, Build Back Better, that the House just 
passed, will close down America's largest copper mine, because 
it's on Federal lands. So, Dr. Witherell, can you speak to how 
critical this will be to be able to control the critical 
mineral supply chain?
    Dr. Witherell. Well, there's enormous effort in--across the 
Dewey Laboratories on critical minerals and materials, and on 
developing--and it's everything from--and, of course, it's 
broader than semiconductors, batteries too, cobalt for 
batteries and other things. And we're working on developing--
No. 1, thinking about the new technologies, being able to use 
certain minerals that are not as rare so that we can actually 
build it. At the same time, there are efforts on how to get 
lithium in this country, how to get other minerals in this 
country, and that's going to be, I think, an increasing 
emphasis among the DOE laboratories in the future.
    Mr. Waltz. Well--no, thank you, I appreciate that. And, you 
know, I mean, it's interesting you mention lithium, which is 
obviously critical for battery manufacturing, which is critical 
for a green economy, which many of us support. However, I don't 
want to increase our dependency on our greatest adversary as 
the cost of having a green economy. And it's also worth noting 
that, in Afghanistan, we had the world's second largest known 
lithium reserve, third largest copper, fifth largest cobalt, 
and we just handed that over to the Taliban, who are now 
actively flirting with Chinese mining companies to exploit 
those resources.
    Dr. Kelleher--so, I mean, the mistakes that we inflict on 
ourselves, and that, frankly, this administration's policies 
are inflicting on this entire effort, again, is something I 
think we need to have an honest conversation about. But, Dr. 
Kelleher, I wanted to--you know, again, I know you've been 
asked, and I apologize if I'm repeating here. You know, I 
applaud the investments made, and that you're looking to make 
in the United States, and I am concerned about Intel's plans to 
expand manufacturing in China.
    Can you--and I know you talked about the cost differential. 
We know much of that is subsidized by the CCP, in terms of 
creating that differential. But, again, sitting on Armed 
Services, we are pulling our hair out trying to keep up 
militarily with Chinese investments, and then to watch American 
companies continue to invest there. I understand the cost 
differential of the United States, but we also have--you know, 
we can make investments into India, happy to help you with 
that. We can make investments into Vietnam, and there's kind of 
allied shoring, in addition to onshoring. So can you talk to 
those efforts?
    Dr. Kelleher. So some of our--we have manufacturing 
facilities within Vietnam. We have also manufacturing 
facilities within Malaysia, and we have--also have 
manufacturing facilities within Costa Rica.
    Mr. Waltz. Just in the interest of time, ma'am--I don't 
mean to cut you off, I'm just out of time. Can--why are we--why 
are you expanding in China, then, rather than those other 
facilities?
    Dr. Kelleher. I didn't say we were expanding in China. I--
--
    Mr. Waltz. OK.
    Dr. Kelleher [continuing]. Was very clear what we have 
announced is expansions here in the United States. And what we 
have formally announced is expansions here in the United States 
and in Europe. What I did say is I wasn't--directly to the 
question that the--that I got asked earlier is--discussions 
with the U.S. with respect to China, and I said, bottom line 
is, I'm not discussing that.
    Mr. Waltz. OK. Well, there's just been reporting of your 
expansion in Chengdu factory there that the Biden 
Administration has expressed serious concern about. I think 
that's what I was getting at. If you could send an answer for 
the record, I'd appreciate it.
    Dr. Kelleher. Sure.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman, for your indulgence.
    Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I think that is 
the end of our witnesses. But before we bring this hearing to a 
close, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before the 
Committee today. The record will remain open for 2 weeks for 
additional statements from the Members, and for any additional 
questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. The witnesses 
now are excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]