[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     CHIPS ON THE TABLE: A ONE-YEAR
                  REVIEW OF THE CHIPS AND SCIENCE ACT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-24

                               __________

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

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-349PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                  HON. FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman
BILL POSEY, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking 
RANDY WEBER, Texas                       Member
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
MIKE GARCIA, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California             KEVIN MULLIN, California
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas              JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
RYAN ZINKE, Montana                  MAXWELL FROST, Florida
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
DALE STRONG, Alabama                 SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania
MAX MILLER, Ohio                     JENNIFER McCLELLAN, Virginia
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              TED LIEU, California
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SEAN CASTEN, Illinois,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York             Vice Ranking Member
TOM KEAN, New Jersey                 PAUL TONKO, New York
VACANCY
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                           September 19, 2023

                                                                   Page

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

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Acting Chairman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    12
    Written Statement............................................    12

Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    14
    Written Statement............................................    14

Written statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Chairman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    15

                               Witnesses:

The Honorable Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, U.S. 
  Department of Commerce
    Oral Statement...............................................    15
    Written Statement............................................    17

Discussion.......................................................    26

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, U.S. 
  Department of Commerce.........................................    72

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Documents submitted by Representative Scott Franklin, Committee 
  on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives
    Letter to the Honorable Gina Raimondo, Secretary, U.S. 
      Department of Commerce, from Representative C. Scott 
      Franklin, et al............................................   102
    United States Department of Commerce, ``COVID-19 Workplace 
      Safety Plan,'' DOC COVID-19 Coordination Team..............   106

Document submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee 
  on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives
    ``CHIPS Child Care Requirement--Equitable Implementation 
      Promotes Stable, Well-Compensated Early Childhood Jobs,'' 
      Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University 
      of California, Berkeley....................................   124

 
                     CHIPS ON THE TABLE: A ONE-YEAR
                  REVIEW OF THE CHIPS AND SCIENCE ACT

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2023

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Babin 
presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Babin. The Committee will come to order, and without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the 
Committee at any time.
    And before we begin, Secretary Raimondo has informed us 
that she has only two hours available for this hearing, so in 
the interest of time, Ranking Member Lofgren and I are limiting 
ourselves to very brief opening statements, and we're asking 
the Secretary to do the same.
    Additionally, to give as many Members as possible a chance 
to ask questions, and in concurrence with the Ranking Member, I 
ask unanimous consent to limit each Member's Q&A to four 
minutes. Without objection, so ordered.
    I would also like to request unanimous consent to submit 
two statements for the record. The first is from Chairman 
Lucas, who could not be with us here today. As you know, he has 
had a terrible accident with a bull. He's a rancher, and he is 
recuperating. We look forward to his return soon and to his 
leadership because his leadership is dearly missed. The second 
is a full opening statement from myself. Without objection, we 
will enter that.
    So I'll recognize myself for one minute for an opening 
statement. So I would say welcome to the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee's first oversight hearing on the CHIPS for 
America program. Secretary Raimondo we appreciate your 
willingness to testify today. Thank you for being here. I 
understand you were in traffic. I'm sorry to hear that. It's 
not a rare occurrence, but your last-minute notice that you 
were only able to dedicate two hours of your time to discussing 
a $50 billion program is frustrating to say the least to the 
Members of this Committee, who have a responsibility to oversee 
your use of these taxpayer dollars and ensure that the program 
is a success. I hope that you will at least commit to meeting 
in person with any Members of this Committee, whether 
Republican or Democrat, who are not able to ask the questions 
that they prepared for this hearing, and I hope that despite 
our time constraints that we will be able to have a productive 
discussion today.
    Congress funded the CHIPS program to bolster national 
security and to ensure that semiconductors can be produced here 
in the United States in a cost-competitive way, but the 
policies advanced by this Administration during implementation 
have been criticized for driving up the cost of doing business, 
so I expect that to be a strong topic of discussion today, 
along with guardrails to protect our investments from 
benefiting our adversaries.
    I look forward to the dialog that we will have today, and I 
look forward to hearing more about the near-term future of the 
CHIPS program directly from the Secretary. So thank you, 
Secretary Raimondo, for taking the time to join us today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

    Good morning, and welcome to the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee's first oversight hearing on the CHIPS for 
America program.
    It has been just over a year since the CHIPS and Science 
Act was signed into law. This law, while much larger, more 
expansive, and more expensive than many could have predicted or 
may have wanted, was meant to ensure economic stability and 
prosperity for the United States long into the future. Whether 
that intent becomes reality, however, depends largely on 
efficient implementation.
    The U.S. Department of Commerce is responsible for carrying 
out much of the CHIPS and Science Act, including the CHIPS for 
America program. This program, which will be the focus of 
today's hearing, will receive a combined $50 billion in 
taxpayer funding to be distributed over five years.
    Congress appropriated these funds to bolster national 
security and ensure semiconductors can be produced here in the 
United States in a cost-competitive way. But the policies 
advanced by this administration during implementation have been 
repeatedly criticized for doing nothing but driving up the cost 
of doing business.
    Make no mistake, this is a zero-sum game. The mandatory 
spending for CHIPS was not a down payment. More expensive 
projects means fewer projects funded.
    If we do this right, the global semiconductor supply will 
be insulated from market volatility and geopolitical conflict, 
and it will prevent many of the disruptions that occurred 
during the COVID pandemic. It would also ensure the U.S. reaps 
the economic benefit of leading the field.
    However, if we burden state and local governments and 
industry partners with regulatory requirements, long review 
timelines, and unrelated paperwork, we risk wasting billions in 
taxpayer funding and weakening our competitive advantage over 
our adversaries.
    Secretary Raimondo, we appreciate your willingness to 
testify today, but your last-minute notice that you are only 
able to dedicate two hours of your time to discussing a fifty-
billion dollar program of such importance is frustrating to the 
members of this Committee who have a responsibility to oversee 
your use of these taxpayer dollars and ensure they are used 
effectively.
    As Secretary, you carry the weight of ensuring the CHIPS 
program is a success, so I hope you will at least commit to 
meeting in-person with any members of this Committee, whether 
Republican or Democrat, who are not able to ask the questions 
they have prepared for this hearing.
    Secretary Raimondo, you are a leading advocate for the 
program and have championed the administration's semiconductor 
and workforce policies - both those included in the statute and 
those not - since it was signed into law. I am sure you will 
field many questions - though not as many as we thought given 
your time constraints - on those policies over the course of 
this hearing.
    So far, the Commerce Department has launched the CHIPS 
office, released several vision and opinion papers, and issued 
two funding opportunity notices for ``fabs'' and supply chain 
projects. The Department has also launched efforts to begin the 
process of standing up the National Semiconductor Technology 
Center. These are all notable milestones, but much more remains 
to be done.
    There are fundamental challenges that must be overcome for 
the CHIPS programs to be a success. Despite billions in 
government funding, it remains much more expensive to build and 
operate a manufacturing facility in the United States than in 
other parts of the world.
    We don't know what the global semiconductor market will 
look like in the long term. And our own analysis has shown that 
the current advanced manufacturing workforce supply and demand 
structure could leave tens of thousands of high-paying domestic 
jobs in the industry unfilled.
    We must also ensure the record investments made through the 
CHIPS programs benefit the United States and our allies - not 
our adversaries abroad.
    The CHIPS and Science Act includes ``guardrails'' for 
protecting investments in semiconductor manufacturing, new 
research security measures, and other provisions that, once 
fully implemented, will make it harder for adversarial 
governments to strong arm American companies.
    America cannot profit from trade and international 
collaboration if China and other nations are allowed to steal 
intellectual property or cutting-edge research. We cannot 
afford to settle for business as usual.
    Secretary Raimondo, you said repeatedly that passing CHIPS 
and Science and building our semiconductor industry was a 
matter of national security. Allowing partisan politics or 
political gamesmanship to influence the way these funds are 
distributed or who reaps the most benefit will jeopardize the 
entire enterprise. Efficiency, effectiveness, and objective 
evaluation must be core tenants of this program if it is to 
succeed.
    I look forward to the dialogue we will have today, and I 
look forward to hearing more about the near-term future of the 
chips program directly from the Secretary. Thank you, Secretary 
Raimondo, for taking the time to join us today.

    Mr. Babin. So I would like to now recognize the Ranking 
Member, the gentlewoman from California, for an opening 
statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, like you, I ask 
unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the 
record. In the interest of time, I'll just say that CHIPS for 
America represents really a historic investment in reshoring 
our semiconductor manufacturing and innovation capacity. 
However, there are challenges in carrying out such an ambitious 
program. One of the concerns I have, which I've mentioned to 
the Secretary, is what steps the CHIPS program is taking to 
ensure that companies receiving funding implement the very 
highest standards for the handling of toxic chemicals.
    I come from Silicon Valley, where we've seen firsthand the 
tremendous benefits of this semiconductor industry, but also 
problematic environmental legacy of some chip production. So we 
have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revitalize the U.S. 
semiconductor industry, but we also have an opportunity to do 
it in a way that protects American workers.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and 
welcome Secretary Raimondo. As Secretary of the Department of 
Commerce (DOC), your presence here before the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee reflects just how much our nation's 
economic competitiveness is tied to our leadership in science, 
technology, and innovation.
    In a few years time, we will know whether the passage of 
the CHIPS and Science Act last year was truly the turning point 
that we all hope and believe it to be. The fate of that Act, 
and all of its promise, is not about luck or circumstances out 
of our control. It's not about regulatory hurdles or lack of 
human capital. It is very much about the choices we make in the 
next few months and years. We are having a remarkable debate in 
this body right now about taking a sledgehammer to our Federal 
budget rather than meeting the call of the CHIPS and Science 
Act to invest in our nation's future competitiveness, well-
being, and national security.
    I know that many of my Republican colleagues truly 
understand the critical importance of these investments. I hope 
that we can find the will to come together not simply to fund 
our government- which is a pretty basic requirement of our job 
- but to make the necessary investments in fusion, in AI 
(artificial intelligence), in quantum, and across the full 
range of scientific and engineering fields that will drive 
solutions to our nation's and globe's most pressing problems 
and cementU.S. global leadership.
    Today, Secretary Raimondo, you were asked to focus your 
testimony on the CHIPS part of CHIPS and Science. That is the 
one part of the bill that received an actual appropriation, not 
just an authorization. And it does truly represent an historic 
investment in reshoring our semiconductor manufacturing and 
innovation capacity. I appreciate what a monumental task you 
and your staff have been asked to take on. Your staff have been 
transparent and responsive to the Committee in our oversight 
efforts to date. I thank you for that, and for appearing before 
the Committee today. This Committee's job is to help you 
succeed through our oversight work. To that end, I anticipate 
many thoughtful questions today as we continue to receive 
feedback from a diverse array of stakeholders and have our own 
questions about the details of implementation.
    I personally have been particularly concerned about the 
health and safety of workers in semiconductor fabrication 
facilities, and what steps the CHIPS program office is taking 
to ensure that companies receiving CHIPS funding implement the 
highest standards for handling of toxic chemicals. I come from 
Silicon Valley, where we have seen first-hand both the 
tremendous benefits of the semiconductor industry but also the 
dark environmental legacy of chips production. This includes 
terrible effects to pregnant women who worked in this industry 
and experienced miscarriages and birth defects as a result of 
exposures to toxic materials. It is essential that we learn 
from our past mistakes and prioritize the health of our 
semiconductor workforce and their families.
    I look forward to today's discussion about this and other 
important issues related to implementation of the CHIPS Act. 
Thank you again for being here today, Madam Secretary.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Secretary Raimondo, for joining the Committee 
today. Although I can't be there in person, I'm expecting this 
to be an informative hearing with productive discussions about 
the Department of Commerce and your work to support American 
competitiveness in semiconductors.
    The CHIPS and Science Act was passed to achieve two goals - 
to bolster the domestic semiconductor industry and to support 
the basic research and fundamental science that keeps America 
at the cutting edge of scientific development.
    The bill doubles down on basic R&D at the Department of 
Energy (DOE), National Science Foundation (NSF), and National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
    As I like to remind people, the ``chips'' portion of the 
bill will build factories today, but the ``and science'' 
portion will build American technology for generations to come.
    This Committee has held multiple hearings touching on the 
research provisions in CHIPS and Science, but this is the first 
focusing on the chips incentives program.
    That program was given $50 billion in mandatory funding to 
increase domestic semiconductor manufacturing, research and 
development. That's a significant commitment, and it's crucial 
that these taxpayer funds are managed effectively and support 
the Congressional intent of the legislation.
    That intent was to build up our chips production to shore 
up our supply chain, stay ahead of our adversaries, and reclaim 
our global competitiveness in this critical industry.
    Before we passed this legislation, you made it very clear 
that you considered this a matter of high urgency and national 
security.
    I tend to agree.
    So I'm concerned that the first call for funding proposals 
came with a number of stipulations that are clearly more about 
fulfilling a political agenda than they are about building our 
chips manufacturing capabilities.
    Extraneous provisions like requiring fabs to provide 
childcare or encouraging unionized workforces are less about 
building up domestic chip production than they are about 
pursuing a social agenda.
    They add time and expense to fab construction and operation 
and we're working with a limited pool of resources on both of 
those.
    Money that goes to meeting unrelated requirements is money 
that doesn't go to bolstering domestic semiconductor 
production.
    It's important that we get this right not just for this 
program, but because this will affect our ability to make 
similar commitments in the future.
    There will come a time when we need to make another 
substantial investment in science and technology and when that 
day comes, we will need to show positive results from this one.
    So as we move forward, I encourage the Department of 
Commerce to keep in mind the Congressional intent of moving 
quickly and efficiently to build out our semiconductor industry 
and will prioritize that growth.
    I hope this hearing will serve as a productive discussion 
of the CHIPS program and how we can make it as effective as 
possible.
    Thank you for your time, Secretary Raimondo.

    Mr. Babin. I now recognize--thank you, Ms. Lofgren. I 
recognize the Secretary for her testimony for four minutes. 
Thank you very much.

          TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINA M. RAIMONDO,

                     SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you, and good morning. I--a few 
things. One, I'm delighted to be here. Secondly, I spoke with 
the Chairman yesterday and reassured him that I'm happy to 
spend any amount of time with any of you on any topic. Also, 
after speaking with you yesterday, we shifted the schedule a 
bit, so be able to be here for at least 2 1/2 hours.
    I just want to thank you for this chance to update you on 
the CHIPS and Science Act, as outlined in detail in my written 
testimony. We've made significant progress since about a year 
ago when the bill was passed. As evidence of that, for CHIPS, 
we've received more than 500 statements of interest from 
companies who want to participate and about 100 applications 
for the incentive program, so we are on track to launch the 
National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC) this fall, 
which I know many of you will want to talk about.
    At EDA (Economic Development Administration), we've 
launched two initiatives, the Tech Hubs Initiative and the 
Recompete Program. We're working as quick as we can to have 
announcements on both of those programs this fall. I will tell 
you both of these programs are massively oversubscribed. In 
addition, NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration), NIST (National Institute of Standards and 
Technology), and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration) are working to implement additional provisions, 
happy to talk about any of that.
    I just want to reiterate what you all know and what the 
Chair and Ranking Member have said. In addition, if successful 
in implementing CHIPS and Science, which is, as the Ranking 
Member said, unprecedented and historic, the United States will 
become the premier destination in the world for where we design 
new chip architectures, do research and development (R&D) in 
our research labs, make chips for every end use, manufacture 
chips at scale with American workers in the United States, and 
package the most sophisticated chips in the world, all here on 
our shores. That's the vision that we're trying to achieve with 
your support.
    And, you know, with that, I'm happy to take your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Raimondo follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   
    Mr. Babin. I want to thank the Secretary for her testimony.
    Now, the Chair would recognize himself for four minutes.
    Secretary Raimondo, during negotiations of the CHIPS and 
Science Act, Science Committee Republicans developed strong 
guardrails that prohibit any company that accepts a grant 
incentive from expanding or building new advanced semiconductor 
manufacturing facilities in a country of concern, including 
China, for 10 years. The language also gives the authority to 
you, Madam Secretary, to recover any incentives received should 
a company be found in violation of this. Can you please provide 
a short update on when the Department of Commerce's rule for 
implementing the guardrails will be finalized so that we can 
review it, considering the public comment period ended in May?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you for your question. So 
the answer is very, very soon. In a matter of weeks that will 
be completed. You know, I'm trying to move as fast as I 
possibly can, but more important than going fast, I need to--we 
need to get it right, especially with respect to these 
guardrails. The whole purpose of the CHIPS program is national 
security, and so we have to be absolutely vigilant that not a 
penny of this helps China to get ahead of us and that none of 
these companies who receive our money do any research with 
China or investment in China that in any way undermines our own 
national security. So very soon it'll be out and, you know, 
look forward to working with all of you to implement this 
program to achieve its goals.
    Mr. Babin. OK. The CHIPS and Science Act requires 
guardrails to be a part of any agreement or contract the 
Department enters as part of the $39 billion taxpayer-backed 
CHIPS Incentive Program. How is it then that the Department has 
been accepting applications for the Incentives Program since 
March without the guardrails being finalized? And how is the 
Department making it clear what commitments that applicants 
will be required to make when applying for the program if this 
rule has not been finalized? It makes no sense.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so we--so, as you can imagine, 
these are incredibly complicated applications. We're requiring 
a huge amount of information from these companies. We obviously 
aren't going to make any commitments to any companies and 
certainly not give any money to any companies until the 
guardrails are firmly in place. But if we were to--we're trying 
to parallel process so we can move fast, so we thought it was 
prudent to start, you know, seeking information so that 
companies could get into a good position to apply while 
finalizing the guardrails, but obviously no commitments will be 
made to any company----
    Mr. Babin. OK----
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Until the guardrails are 
in place.
    Mr. Babin. All right. Can you commit that no application 
will be approved or money sent out the door until the 
guardrails are finalized? Yes or no?
    Secretary Raimondo. Absolutely.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much.
    Second, the Department is standing up tracks to provide 
space situational awareness data. Isn't this reinventing the 
already existing system at the Pentagon, very briefly?
    Secretary Raimondo. No, no, we're working on, like you say, 
space situational awareness with the Pentagon, with an 
interagency to track the commercial satellites and commercial 
space traffic. It's more congested in space. We have to prevent 
collisions and the like. So no, it's an interagency process, 
and I think it's necessary.
    Mr. Babin. OK. All right. The CHIPS and Science Act forbids 
companies from using CHIPS funds for stock buybacks. The CHIPS 
Act Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), however, goes 
further. It asks applicants whether they plan to engage in any 
stock buybacks over the next five years and states that 
Commerce will, quote, ``evaluate applications based on the 
extent of the applicant's commitment to refrain from stock 
buybacks,'' unquote. Does that mean that Commerce will deny 
funding for applicants who plan to engage in any stock 
buybacks? And if not, then how should companies who engage in 
stock buyback in the normal course, what would they think about 
this provision?
    Secretary Raimondo. No, is the answer to your question. If 
you do buybacks, you're still eligible to receive the money. 
But, look, as you know, the whole point of this program is for 
companies to invest in research and development, manufacturing 
in the United States, and so we're going to be tough on 
companies. Like we want to see how--what are their investment 
plans, what are their research and development plans. They 
should be putting their money into investing in America and 
research and development in America. So we protect taxpayer 
money. We can't be giving them money so they can go give it to 
their shareholders to make more money. This is money to race 
ahead for investments in semiconductor industry in our country. 
So it's not a prohibition, but it is a signal to industry that 
we are serious that this is not about padding their bottom 
line. This is about enhancing their ability to innovate in 
America.
    Mr. Babin. Well, I have one more question but I'm out of 
time about Fluoro Technology and PFAS, but I will submit that 
for the record.
    And so at this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking 
Member from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 
Secretary. It's great to see you here, and I appreciated the 
time to talk to you earlier about health and safety for workers 
in the chip industry.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, Silicon Valley has 
been the home of chip manufacturing for many years. It's a 
wonderful opportunity. It's helped build the valley. On the 
other hand, there has sometimes been a downside. Multiple 
studies in the 1980's and 1990's found that women working at 
microelectronics manufacturing sites had miscarriages at twice 
the expected rate. And although the industry has made 
significant strides in terms of the use of hazardous chemicals, 
in some cases there is no alternative for a hazardous chemical 
in the manufacturing. And in that case, special care must be 
made to prevent exposure to the workforce.
    I'll just note that this is from an OSHA (Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration) missive, and I'll read it. 
``OSHA's mandatory PLs (Public Laws) remain in effect. However, 
OSHA recommends that employers consider using the alternative 
occupational exposure limits because the agency believes that 
exposures above some of these alternative exposure--
occupational exposure limits may be hazardous to workers, even 
when the exposure levels are in compliance with OSHA standards. 
And in fact, it's the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 
standards in those cases that need to be applied.
    I'll just say this. I appreciate your willingness to work 
with me on this. I look forward to vigorously engaging with you 
to see how we can get the great benefit of the CHIPS Act but 
also protect our workforce.
    Let me ask another question. There's a company in 
California not in my district with an important question that 
has broad policy implications. This company never offshored, 
and so, as a consequence, their costs were higher because labor 
costs are higher in the United States. They are worried that 
they might be at a disadvantage in the selection process 
because of their higher cost structure. What's the Department's 
general view on using the loan program to use U.S.-only 
semiconductor manufacturers to refinance existing debt if it 
results in additional capital investments in the United States? 
What's the view on using the loan program to allow U.S.-only 
semiconductor manufacturers to use loans for purposes of 
funding operational and workforce development costs? And is 
there concern about the higher cost structure disadvantaging 
them in the competition accurate?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So a couple reactions, mindful of 
time. On your first point, I am totally committed to working 
with you like we talked about. These are--these companies use a 
lot of chemicals. Necessarily, it's heavily chemical-based, and 
as you say, sometimes OSHA isn't enough. So let's figure out 
better ways to work with companies to----
    Ms. Lofgren. Absolutely.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Secure health and safety. 
Secondly, the answer is yes. We look well upon using loan 
authority and grant authority to help small companies, U.S.-
based companies to, you know, defray the additional cost 
associated with the cost of U.S. labor. I would say, in a way, 
that's the point of this whole program. I mean, the truth of it 
is, you come from Silicon Valley, that's where all 
semiconductors once were, and then it was in search of cheap 
labor that these companies all went to Taiwan, China, Malaysia, 
et cetera. That's the point of this subsidy, to allow American 
companies and American workers, you know, stay in this 
business, accounting for the fact that it is more expensive.
    So I'd say we're going to look--I have assembled an 
amazingly talented team. There was a piece in the Wall Street 
Journal about it a few months ago. I'd welcome any of you to 
come over to the Department to meet this team. We have some 
top-notch investment people, a top-notch loan expert. We're 
going to be as creative as possible to stretch the money as 
much as we can to help American businesses.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, 
Mr. Posey.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just slightly off that topic, regarding NOAA's misguided 
East Coast vessel speed rule regarding the North Atlantic right 
whales, you know, we had heard from NOAA that one or less 
whales on average per year have been killed by boats, and I'm 
wondering why the Administration would move forward with 
releasing the proposed rule later this year, and then next 
year, hold a workshop on how technology can help protect the 
whales. It seems like they're putting the cart before the 
horse.
    Secretary Raimondo. So one thing I've learned since being 
Commerce Secretary is that the most complicated issues aren't 
semiconductor technology. It's the fish issues. And I would be 
very happy coming from the Ocean State myself to come back to 
you on that, sir, and give you, you know, a proper answer. And 
I'll have Dr. Spinrad, who runs NOAA, get in touch with you. 
But I will say this. I am personally sympathetic to both sides. 
We have to, you know, preserve the environment and protect the 
whales, but also I know a lot of people make a living as 
fishermen, and so let me come back to you with a better answer.
    Mr. Posey. Yes, as the former Governor, I wouldn't expect 
that you would like the way they rolled that rule out, and so I 
appreciate that answer.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, it's complicated. They're often 
subject to lawsuits, so permit me to come back to you.
    Mr. Posey. I'll do that. What specific steps is the 
Department of Commerce taking to protect American interests at 
standard bodies where China has flooded them with high rates of 
participants and submissions?
    Secretary Raimondo. I worry a lot about this. We have a 
whole working group inside of Commerce at NIST just focused on 
showing up at standards bodies and exactly what you say. It 
sounds, you know, not sexy and boring, except when the Chinese 
write the standards to favor them, then we get locked out, and 
so I have put a huge priority on reinvigorating our presence at 
standard-setting bodies all over the world. One little example 
I'll give you is we were successful in getting the American 
chairperson of the ITU (International Telecommunications 
Union), the telecommunications union, because the Russians were 
backing an alternative. And we won, and that's because we 
focused on and put a campaign in place because, you know, 
standards really matter.
    Mr. Posey. Well, you just answered my next three questions, 
so, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back the balance of my time. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
    I'd now like to recognize Ms. Bonamici from Oregon.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair. Thank you to the 
Ranking Member. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It's good to see 
you.
    The CHIPS and Science Act is making historic investments in 
U.S. semiconductor manufacturing in supply chain improvements 
and in cutting-edge research and development. Now, the Ranking 
Member said she represents the Silicon Valley. I represent 
Silicon Forest, and as a representative of the Silicon Forest, 
I'm excited for the opportunities.
    And it was a pleasure to host you in Oregon, Madam 
Secretary, where we heard from students at Portland Community 
College (PCC) and learned how they are preparing to enter the 
workforce. PCC has a program called Quick Start in which they 
partner with the semiconductor leaders like Intel, for example, 
to provide skills-based training for the next generation of the 
semiconductor workforce.
    So, Madam Secretary, we need more pathways for people to 
enter the growing semiconductor and advanced manufacturing 
industries. So what workforce education programs is the 
Department investing in to meet the R&D goals of CHIPS? And how 
can Congress and the Department make these programs accessible 
to more diverse learners, including rural and underserved 
communities?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so great question, and I love 
visiting. We had a great visit, and I was blown away by what I 
saw at the community college. I should tell you, if you were to 
say to me what keeps you up at night, it's a long list, but the 
workforce is something that we--that I worry about. Right now, 
there's about 100,000--there's a need for industry to have 
100,000 semiconductor technicians, and that number is going to 
go up to about 300,000 pretty quickly. Technicians don't need a 
four-year college degree. The community college is a perfect 
training ground, maybe a high school plus credentialing 
program. So we're doing a few things. As you know, we're going 
to stand up the NSTC that'll have a whole workforce component. 
We encourage universities and community colleges to hook into 
that. And for every CHIPS applicant, every company that 
applies, we're requiring them to give us a workforce plan, so 
what are you going to do? We're asking States--I'm calling 
Governors myself and convening Governors to say, invest your 
State money into workforce programs, including community 
colleges. The NSF (National Science Foundation) has a couple 
hundred million dollars.
    So anyway, long story short, every single thing we're 
doing, whether it's the CHIPS money or the R&D money or 
outreach, it's to try to get States to put skin in the game so 
we can do this.
    I'll tell you some good news. We already have over 50 
community colleges that we know of that have put out new 
training programs related to the semiconductor industry----
    Ms. Bonamici. That's exciting.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. So we just got to keep 
going.
    Ms. Bonamici. I don't want to cut you off, but I want to--
--
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, yes, go ahead. Sorry.
    Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. Get another question in.
    Secretary Raimondo. That's a topic for----
    Ms. Bonamici. For a prepared and diverse workforce ready to 
implement the act, there must be access to high-quality, 
affordable childcare.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Ms. Bonamici. And I'm hearing this across northeast Oregon 
and across the country. Under your leadership, the Department 
is pioneering the requirement that CHIPS applicants must or 
should, depending on the size of the award, provide childcare 
for their workers, and I appreciate this commitment because of 
the serious challenges in the care economy. So, Madam 
Secretary, what criteria will the Department use to evaluate 
the accessibility and quality of these childcare services, and 
how will the Department encourage applicants to partner with a 
diverse range of providers like Early Head Start or home-based 
childcare services?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So we're asking every company to 
show us their workforce plan, including a childcare plan. 
There's no one size fits all. It'll be different in every 
State. But it's exactly what you say. You can't hire the 
workers you need unless women can work, and that's not going to 
happen unless there's childcare that's affordable. I'm not 
doing that because it's a social issue. It's a business issue. 
You talk to any CEO (Chief Executive Officer)----
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. And they tell you the same 
thing.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, as I yield back, I request unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a brief from the Center for 
the Study of Childcare Employment at UC (University of 
California) Berkeley on implementing the CHIPS childcare 
requirements and supporting good-paying early childhood 
education jobs.
    And also, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this is a good 
investment in our future to invest in our children. They will 
be the next generation of semiconductor workforce.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Without objection, so ordered.
    I would now like to introduce--excuse me, Mr. Garcia, the 
gentleman from California for four minutes.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And, Madam Secretary, good to see you again. Thanks for 
coming in.
    I respect and I agree with your comments. I think the 
biggest threat to the CHIPS Act is the workforce right now if 
we can't figure out how to get that right. So I applaud the 
efforts. We need all hands on deck, all demographics, both 
sexes, and everyone to max participate to support this.
    I want to thank you again for taking the time before the 
CHIPS was brought to the floor for a vote to help me get 
comfortable with the requirements, the diligence that you're 
putting into making sure--Mr. Chair, we spent several hours in 
the skiff with the Secretary's team, as well as some corporate 
subject matter experts, to make sure that we're porting over 
the requirements list to the DOD (Department of Defense) 
applications because it's--it would be a terrible thing to 
build semiconductor chips for refrigerators and cars, only to 
find out that we have no industrial base to service the 
hypersonics, the exotic weapons that we need in a fight against 
China. So I'd like for you to touch on that, Madam Secretary.
    And I also want to thank you. We are getting actually very 
positive feedback from local industry partners in my district 
in southern California from your team. The engagements that 
you've had that you described have been fruitful, and I think--
I know it's early, but the feedback is very positive, so I 
appreciate the execution on that.
    And then last, before I hand it to you, just in the 
interest of time, we had talked about over the phone a couple 
of months ago supporting you with an initiative. This trade 
fight that we're in with China, this this macro issue that we 
have with China being the biggest threat to the United States 
right now as a pure adversary, we have to figure out how to get 
to some sort of reciprocal trade agreement. I think you and I 
share that opinion. I just want to reiterate that I'm at your 
disposal. I am happy to pull together a bipartisan group of 
folks. I know, you know, folks like Mike Gallagher on the China 
Select Committee, both sides of the aisle to come together to 
help enable you in that process. It's a long-term, you know, 
problem I know, and the answers aren't easy, but I think it's 
important that we do get together and start bending the arc 
toward a reciprocal trade agreement. China is doing to us right 
now things that we should not tolerate, but if we're going to 
allow them to do it, we should at least be able to do it to 
them and have access to their markets, their intellectual 
property (IP). The agreement should be fair and balanced and 
reciprocal, and I think you understand and appreciate that.
    The last thing--so if you could talk to the requirements, 
and then I also want you to just touch on briefly your level of 
satisfaction. I know it's not related to CHIPS, but are you OK 
with the way Treasury right now is currently managing and 
making sure that we are enforcing the sanctions against Russia, 
relative to the Ukraine conflict, if you can touch on those two 
things. Thank you.
    Secretary Raimondo. OK. Good morning. Nice to see you.
    Mr. Garcia. Good to see you.
    Secretary Raimondo. On the defense industrial base, one, I 
guess, update I think since the last time I saw you is that 
we've executed an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the 
Defense Department to share information and work together on 
exactly this issue. So we get from DOD what are the defense 
industrial base CHIPS needs to make sure that, you know, as you 
say, what we are incentivizing fulfills those needs. So I feel 
good about that. It's progress, and we're working very closely 
with the DOD and the intelligence community----
    Mr. Garcia. That's great.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. So that's a good update.
    Reciprocity to China. I'm going to come sit with you 
because I only have a minute now. I'll just say when I was in 
China, I was very clear that you know, Alipay and UnionPay do 
business in the United States, Visa and MasterCard cannot. 
Their autonomous vehicle companies are piloting on our roads 
right now. We cannot. Their media companies every day are 
submitting content in the United States. We cannot.
    Mr. Garcia. That's right.
    Secretary Raimondo. It's a long list. It's not fair. Enough 
is enough. Let's level the playing field. And so I think 
there's a lot--I'll come visit with you----
    Mr. Garcia. OK.
    Secretary Raimondo. [continuing]. After my trip, and----
    Mr. Garcia. Appreciate it.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Maybe we can talk about 
it.
    On Russia, you know, that--Secretary Yellen and the whole 
team, I think, is doing a fantastic job under great--really 
difficult circumstances. The thing I'm focused on is the export 
controls. It's--I'll be honest, it is a brutal day-to-day 
fight. Every time we find out that they're going around our 
export controls, we come down on them, but it's a little like 
the whack-a-mole. Russia has been putting these global networks 
together for decades. They're good at getting around us, and 
I'd like think we're even better about stopping it. So my point 
of it is, is vigilance. You've got to take it--take it to it 
every day with vigilance, and that's what we're doing with the 
export controls.
    Mr. Garcia. Make sense. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Now, I'd like to recognize Ms. Stevens from 
Michigan.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Good morning. It's so nice to see 
you, Madam Secretary. And as I was thinking about today's 
hearing, I was reflecting on the incredible workforce at the 
Department of Commerce. And I know that you have been busy 
setting up a team, the CHIPS team, CHIPS for America team 
within the Department itself and at NIST, and it's just a 
remarkable set of people who are implementing a very historic 
endeavor. And I'm going to take you up on your offer to come by 
and sit down with the investment crew and some of the other 
folks that are working on the initiative.
    But I did just want to ask you a couple of questions. One 
is about open source central processing units, the CPUs. As you 
know, anyone in the world can contribute instructions to the 
design of open source CPUs, which then can be used for 
electronic products. And currently, there aren't requirements 
or regulations to ensure that open source CPUs have not had any 
instructions added by actors like China, Russia. I know Mr. 
Garcia was just talking to you about export controls. So if you 
have any reflections on open source CPUs, in addition to what 
you just shared about export controls, we are all ears.
    Also, we saw that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) came 
down with some restrictions on gallium and germanium. Gallium 
is used in the microelectronic components of many electronics, 
and germanium poses many military applications critical to our 
national defense. And so, given these developments, what 
industrial policy initiatives has the Department considered, 
maybe a CHIPS-like initiative for rare minerals that you could 
implement if we want to draft another kind of CHIPS 2.0 type of 
legislation surrounding germanium in particular, given how 
critical that's going to be to--you know, to the CHIPS 
implementation?
    And then last, if you have any other comments around the 
CHIPS office and the R&D facilities that--the commercial 
opportunities for R&D facilities that you're going to put 
forward. Thank you.
    Secretary Raimondo. OK. OK. So on the gallium germanium, 
you know, that seems clear to me to--that's their tit-for-tat 
sort of retaliation, and I think, you know, we're not going to 
be scared by that. We need to do what we're going to do to 
protect our national security, period. And we have allies 
around the world who can provide some of those critical 
minerals to us, or, as you say, we--you know, we can innovate 
here. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you or 
everybody to sit down and make a plan around critical minerals. 
You know, what are the most important critical minerals for 
products we need for our national security like CHIPS? And if 
we can't, you know, mine them or process them in our own 
country, then where else besides China in the world can we 
because we can't be held hostage. And so I would welcome that.
    Ms. Stevens. Great.
    Secretary Raimondo. The CHIPS team--I would--I've been in 
government now as an executive for more than a dozen years. 
This CHIPS team is like nothing I've ever----
    Ms. Stevens. I know. It's gold.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Created. It's over 100 
people, really top talent working seven days a week. I'm very 
proud of them. It's a hard job so would welcome your 
engagement.
    On the research and development, this fall, we're going 
to--you're going to--I would say in general, this fall we will 
have big announcements on tech hubs, Recompete, NSTC, R&D. You 
know, the bill passed a year ago. We've been working like 
crazy. The next few months, you're going to see announcements 
on all of that, and we want to work with, you know, whoever in 
Michigan or any of your States, nonprofit, for-profit that we 
think can add to the innovation ecosystem.
    Ms. Stevens. Great. Thank you.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 
thank you so much for appearing before us today.
    I have two questions. The first is on the RAN, the Radio 
Access Network. The CHIPS and Science Act contained funding for 
grants that could help increase supplier diversity in the 
wireless industry by supporting Open Radio Access Networks, the 
ORAN. Can you give us your thoughts on the program on how these 
funds can help scale new, commercial-ready, open RAN vendors? 
And what is at stake if these funds aren't quickly deployed to 
help spur the development and deployment of open RAN wireless 
networks?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you for the question. So, as 
you say, there's $1.5 billion in the CHIPS Act for ORAN. I 
would say I think it's vitally critically important because we 
need secure 5G and 6G networks and--you know, to protect 
ourselves. And one way to do that to bring down the cost is to 
have them be open. So we put out the first money in August of 
this year. We put out $5.5 million for the first awards. We're 
going to put more money out later this fall. We're very engaged 
with industry. I've actually been meeting myself with the 
wireless carriers. That's the key, I think, to get the carriers 
to be open to--what do you call it--like embracing this instead 
of just working with incumbent hardware providers. So I think 
it's a critical innovation for our national security, and I'm 
actually grateful that Congress put that money in the bill.
    Mr. Fleischmann. And I thank you, and we'll work with you 
to continue to expedite that, so I thank you so much for your 
answer.
    My next question deals with semiconductor manufacturing tax 
credits. Without going into too much detail, on section 48(d)--
I just wanted to let you know we were talking about--earlier 
this year, Commerce issued proposed guidance for the CHIPS 
Act's grant programs that defined semiconductor as 
semiconductor devices only and defined semiconductive 
substances such as polysilicon as material. The Department of 
Treasury unfortunately relied on this narrow definition in 
their proposed regulations for implementing the act's tax 
credits, excluding investments in U.S. polysilicon 
manufacturing and other facilities in the supply chain from 
qualifying for the credit. I feel that without domestic 
polysilicon ingot wafer manufacturing, we won't be able to 
build out our domestic semiconductor manufacturing supply 
chain.
    So my question, Madam Secretary, is will you commit to 
working with the Department of Treasury to issue final 
regulations that correctly define semiconductor to include 
semiconductor substances such as polysilicon and wafers, which 
represent critical parts of the semiconductor manufacturing 
supply chain?
    Secretary Raimondo. So let me say, as you correctly say, 
this is in Treasury's wheelhouse, so--but yes, I will work with 
you and Secretary Yellen to look at this issue, recognizing 
that, you know, my authority relates more to the grant program. 
And Secretary Yellen is in charge of the 25 percent ITC 
(Investment Tax Credit). But I hear you. We can follow up and 
we, you know, can talk to the Secretary's team.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Because with that narrow 
definition, it does exclude a lot of things that are critically 
important, in my view, to creating that domestic supply chain. 
And I think what Treasury did is they respectfully incorrectly 
latched on to a very narrow definition, which we'd like to see 
expanded and broadened.
    And I thank you, and with that, I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thanks.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    And now the gentleman from New York, I'd like to recognize 
Mr. Bowman.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good to see 
you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being here, and thank you 
for your tremendous work.
    I'm concerned about the Recompete Program. In my district, 
there are many historically marginalized, underserved, red-
lined, under-resourced communities that lack the infrastructure 
to go after some of the grant money that is available as part 
of the Recompete Program. What are your thoughts in terms of 
supporting these historically marginalized communities and 
building the infrastructure and accessing the resources that 
are necessary to create jobs and, you know, like you mentioned 
earlier, 100K shortage in semiconductor tech jobs that these 
communities could really benefit from? Can you speak to how to 
provide more on-the-ground support for historically 
marginalized communities?
    Secretary Raimondo. So it's a great question, and the whole 
point of the Recompete Program is to make investments in 
communities that have been historically behind, and our plan is 
to run an open, you know, merit-based process, then to pick a 
handful of places to make fairly significant investments 
because I know from experience if you're starting, you know, 
with nothing, you need some critical mass, which requires a big 
investment.
    We are providing every bit of technical assistance that we 
can to help communities to apply. This is an initiative that's 
got a couple of steps in the application process, and we're 
really trying to provide technical assistance. That being said, 
I'm not going to sugarcoat it. This is tough. I know in Rhode 
Island the communities that--they are left behind. As a result, 
they don't have, you know, much of the infrastructure. They 
don't have a planning team. They don't have money to hire a 
lawyer to submit the grant. So we're doing what we can to 
recognize that, but in your case, or anyone's case, if you have 
a community that you think is worthy with some money, you know, 
could be successful, then we will reach out to you and we'll 
help you to help them to apply.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you. And I'll have my office follow up 
with you on that because we definitely want to partner with you 
in that conversation.
    I had another question about regional tech hubs, regional 
tech and innovation hubs. So I was proud to contribute ideas to 
the bill about how we can bring minority women-owned businesses 
and CDFIs (community development financial institutions) to the 
table and how we can use the hubs to promote employee ownership 
and cooperative business models. As you implement these 
programs, how are you approaching the challenge of building and 
actually keeping wealth in local communities, particularly 
vulnerable communities, as we just talked about? How do we make 
sure the benefits don't just go to large corporations and 
distant investors?
    Secretary Raimondo. With tech hubs? So----
    Mr. Bowman. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Let me say something on 
the tech hub initiative. I've never seen anything like this, 
this oversubscribed. We were appropriated $500 million, and we 
have received over 400 applications. We are massively, 
massively, massively oversubscribed, 400 applications from 48 
States and three territories. We are going through the 
applications. We're required by statute to designate at least 
20, but that means, you know, 380 disappointed places. And I 
can tell you, you know, these are incredibly high-quality 
applications. So I suppose that's my way of saying I think at 
some point you should appropriate more money for this----
    Mr. Bowman. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Because it was authorized 
at $10 billion, we got $500 million. It's amazing what we're 
seeing. And this is the thing that allows us to compete with 
China, invest in America and all of our technology and all of 
our communities.
    So the point of this--Recompete is for really distressed 
places. Tech hubs, you know, not so much. Honestly, we want to 
find places that are really good at some technology, and we can 
take them from good to great. So I don't want you to think that 
this is for distressed communities.
    That being said, it's also not just for big companies. 
Actually, tech hubs, we want to be looking for the next 
generation. I don't think of it so much as big companies. CHIPS 
has become--this is for, you know, like a startup ecosystem, an 
R&D ecosystem, a new innovative way of job training, so that's 
how we think about it. That's the purpose of it. And I think 
we'll get that right and make sure we get into every nook and 
cranny of the community.
    Mr. Bowman. Yes, there's a company in my district SEEQC 
that works on superconductor-based technology, so I want to 
give them a shout-out as well. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
    And now the gentleman from California, I recognize Mr. 
Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, you have what some have considered to be 
the key Cabinet position because it's really a conglomerate of 
a lot of things that didn't necessarily go together but 
Congress saw fit to bring them together. Conveniently and 
interestingly, we're here to talk about the CHIPS Act, but I 
think what's interesting is two have your key Under 
Secretaries, your Under Secretary known as the BIS (Bureau of 
Industry and Security) and your Under Secretary known as the 
director of the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office). When you 
were in China just days ago----
    Secretary Raimondo. I believe so.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. You were you were bushwhacked to say 
the least by the launch of a 5G phone and the proof that China 
has achieved seven nanometer capability. That wasn't an 
accident. They chose you as an important symbol of their 
accomplishment. The tools that are at your disposal, one of 
them clearly to stop the export of technology that allows 
exactly what has just occurred to occur. The other one, though, 
is the one I want to focus on for a moment. Even though the 
Under Secretary for intellectual property, the PTO Director, is 
somewhat independent, still falls under yours--and the 
coordination is uniquely yours as the Secretary--my question to 
you is three of the top 10 patent recipients last year were 
Chinese. Only one was American. The reality is that Huawei, a 
company not able to do business in the United States, continues 
to receive--and often clandestinely through proxies--they 
continue to receive royalties because they are in fact 
patenting the technology.
    And there were a couple people that talked about trees and 
valleys. I'm from Telecom Gulch, San Diego. We are extremely 
concerned that your Administration has to find a way to block 
in a different way. It's not just about a particular device 
going to China from Lam or some other entity. The reality is 
that if China's allowed to create blocking and revenue 
technology in 5G, in telecommunication, in a host of areas as 
they are, the patent system, both directly through real 
innovation and through what I would call AI blocking, in other 
words, coming up with patents that envision things that they 
haven't really reduced to practice, will be used against us to 
thwart us. What can you do with the combination of those and 
other tools?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so let me say this. I would 
welcome to come sit with you if you have ideas for our 
consideration. We're trying to do--use every single tool at our 
disposal, BIS, enforcement, patents to deny the Chinese an 
ability to, you know, get intellectual property to advance 
their technology in ways that can hurt us. I was obviously--I 
don't know what the right word--upset, you know, when I saw the 
Huawei announcement. The only good news if there is any is we 
don't have any evidence that they can manufacture seven 
nanometer at scale. And although I can't talk about any 
investigations specifically, I promise you this. Every time we 
find credible evidence that any company has gone around our 
export controls, we do investigate.
    But as it relates to IP, I'll come sit with you or have 
Kathi Vidal come sit with you. If you have ideas for how we can 
tighten it up, I want to hear them.
    Mr. Issa. Well, I have been able to meet with Kathi. I'd 
love to meet with you because during the time I left Congress 
for two years, I would--my job was to try to figure out how to 
compete with Belt and Road, and we don't do it well because we 
don't coordinate the way China does----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Issa [continuing]. In competing against us. I would 
like to see in technology that we do coordinate yours and other 
parts of the government, so I'll be happy to meet with you at 
your convenience.
    Secretary Raimondo. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    And now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Ross.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for holding this very important hearing today. And 
thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us.
    North Carolina's semiconductor industry boasts over 100 
semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing 
establishments, over 7,600 people employed in the sector, and 
$1.2 billion in exported product. The passage of the CHIPS and 
Science Act was critical in reenergizing the U.S. semiconductor 
production and maintaining America's technological global 
competitiveness.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST's 
extramural manufacturing programs are critical to supporting 
U.S. domestic manufacturing, and Congress authorized 
significant plus-ups for both the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership (MEP) and the Manufacturing USA program in the 
CHIPS and Science Act, with major support from the Biden-Harris 
Administration. But, as you know, Congress failed to 
appropriate funding to these programs at the level set in CHIPS 
and Science.
    So, Madam Secretary, could you talk about the opportunities 
that the United States is losing out on by not supporting the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and Manufacturing USA? And 
how would a decrease in funding to these programs affect 
domestic manufacturing?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for your question. So I think 
it's very significant. You know, we talk a lot about securing 
our national security, competing with China. The exchange I 
just had with Congressman Issa relates to what we can do on 
defense. But my strongly held view is that what we do on 
offense matters so much more. You know, there's only so much we 
can do. As he just said, China is coordinated, they're 
investing. We need to be coordinated and invest. And the 
reality is that over the past 30 years, this country has taken 
its eye off the ball of manufacturing, and when you don't 
manufacture, you lose out on innovation and you become 
dependent on other countries. So every investment we make in 
MEP--MEP is a great program. You all have MEPs in your States. 
They are very well-run. They help small companies to do 
innovation and manufacturing. They're the ones who are going to 
find, you know, the next semiconductor manufacturing 
innovation, the next, you know, interesting battery technology.
    And so I would say we're working hard on the Manufacturing 
USA. We're going to announce the topics this fall. There'll be 
a competition of merit-based. We'll stand it up next year. But 
yes, any--if it's--shortchanging MEP or Manufacturing USA 
shortchanges America's national security and our ability to 
invest in our own manufacturing capacity.
    Ms. Ross. Great. Final question, back to NIST. I know that 
the Department of Commerce, primarily through NIST, is looking 
to increase its investments in quantum information science. 
Where do you believe the Department of Commerce should focus 
its efforts for the next five years with--through the National 
Quantum Initiative?
    Secretary Raimondo. I'm going to have to get back to you on 
that. A quantum expert, I am not, but I will have Dr. Locascio 
and her team follow up with you.
    Ms. Ross. OK. And just to tell you why I think that's so 
important, some of this we're doing catch-up or we ceded our 
semiconductor stature to other countries when we----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Ms. Ross [continuing]. Put manufacturing there. On quantum, 
we can be the leaders, and we already are----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Ms. Ross [continuing]. Maybe Representative Foushee will 
ask about this, but if you've never been to the Duke Quantum 
Science Center to see what is going on for the future, it's 
amazing, so thank you.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, no, thank you. I think we do--we 
lead the world in quantum. We lead the world in AI. And I will 
have Locascio follow up with you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    And I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, 
Madam Secretary. I appreciate you spending time with us here 
today. It's a very important topic, and I'd love to talk more 
about CHIPS.
    Unfortunately, since I do have your present, I would like 
to follow up on something that our office has been trying to 
get some answers on for a while. And as much as we all are 
tired of talking about the topic, it concerns COVID. I hail 
from central Florida. The hurricane hunters that fly for NOAA 
are in my hometown of Lakeland. And as a former naval aviator, 
I made it a career practice to avoid flying into storms, but 
was invited at a point to go flying with the Hurricane Hunters, 
and I was looking forward to doing that.
    Back in July, when I was going to do all the paperwork 
necessary to do that, I was surprised to find that I would have 
to supply my status of COVID vaccine--vaccine status and be 
willing to submit to a test or show proof that I didn't have 
COVID at the time. That kind of came as a surprise to me, 
considering that the Administration had declared an end to the 
pandemic. And I should have done this before, but, Mr. 
Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record 
a letter I sent to the Secretary back in July, as well as the 
Department of Commerce's ``COVID-19 Workplace Safety Plan'' 
that was dated in July 2023.
    Mr. Babin. Without objection.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I--you know, so our staff started doing some research and 
finding out why, why would we still be requiring this. And, as 
it turns out, you know, I read in your Department's own plan 
that the Department does not require onsite contractor 
employees and visitors to provide information about their 
vaccine status at this time. Additionally, onsite contractor, 
employees, and visitors are not required to show proof of a 
negative COVID-19 test when entering in--or a DOC facility, all 
Department of Commerce, regardless of their vaccine status.
    There's a disconnect there that I'm really puzzled about 
because somewhere between your desk and the deck plate level, 
someone's decided to create their own policy. And in no way do 
I fault the folks who were at the tip of the spear trying to 
get this done, but I--you know, 41 of my colleagues and I sent 
you a letter back in July asking for information about this. We 
still--I'm sure it's languishing in someone's inbox, but I'm 
curious, why would NOAA still be requiring this at this time, 
particularly----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. An organization that's nothing 
but scientists who presumably are following the science every 
day?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So thank you for your question. 
Let me say a few things. First, I'm sorry we haven't replied 
yet. I'm constantly trying to get better and quicker at 
replying, and we'll get you a reply this week. Second, I don't 
know, and I'll look into it. I do know, you know, they're very 
close quarters in these hurricane hunters, they're tiny, and it 
could be that, but I'll get you a proper answer.
    Thirdly, I do want to take 10 seconds to say thank you to 
the--to my team that operates these hurricane hunters. It's 
been an unbelievably busy season. We only have two hurricane 
hunters that can fly into the thick of the storm. You're braver 
than I. I'm--they've asked me to try it----
    Mr. Franklin. I don't fly into hurricanes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. And I'm not willing to do 
that----
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. But I am going to take 
this occasion to ask Congress for additional funding. We have 
two planes. They're old. We operate a fleet of nine hurricane 
hunters. They are all old. They need maintenance. I had to take 
one down during a hurricane because of maintenance. So I'll get 
you proper answers to your questions, but I do want to say that 
team is working around the clock, and we need Congress' support 
to maintain this fleet.
    Mr. Franklin. Now I do fully support them, and I would 
support more resources for them. I do understand Miss Piggy was 
down, wasn't able to fly into the storm when we needed that 
data the most.
    I'm also concerned about the implications for NOAA staff. 
You know, our staff members of NOAA are required to show 
vaccine status now because that's also not in accordance with 
the----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. Administration. So I really 
would like to have those answers.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin. And----
    Secretary Raimondo. I'll get you the answers. We have a 
policy that is science-based, as you say, and so I'll follow 
up.
    Secretary Raimondo. Very good. Thank you, Madam Secretary, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    Now, the gentleman from Illinois, I'd like recognize Mr. 
Sorensen.
    Mr. Sorensen. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking 
Member for convening the hearing and Secretary Raimondo for 
your willingness to appear today.
    And just to continue on the subject, in my previous life, I 
was a meteorologist, and so I really appreciate your support 
for those who put themselves in harm's way, flying into the 
hurricane so that we have the data to better forecast where 
these killer storms are going to go. So I would invite you to 
come to our office so that I could help champion how we can 
find the funding for the hurricane hunter aircraft to protect 
lives and property.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Sorensen. The CHIPS and Science Act included $50 
billion for CHIPS for America Fund, $39 billion for 
implementation for manufacturing incentive programs, and $11 
billion for R&D and workforce development. Thirty-nine billion 
dollars, that's a huge investment in chips manufacturing. 
However, the cost of manufacturing is very high, more than will 
be covered by this investment. We need industry to capitalize 
on the investments made in CHIPS.
    In the last year, CHIPS Program Office has staffed up and 
released two Notice of Funding Opportunity announcements. One 
of those was for the $39 billion for the Semiconductors 
Financial Assistance Program, which has received hundreds of 
statements of inquiry. In your perspective, have the 
investments made through CHIPS and Science Act incentivized and 
catalyzed the investment of private capital in the chips 
economy on the scale that we need?
    Secretary Raimondo. So it's a great question. Yes, so let 
me say, although $39 billion is an enormous amount of taxpayer 
money and it's an unprecedented program, it really is a drop in 
the bucket, you know, relative to the mission we have to meet. 
Since the President signed the CHIPS and Science Act, there's 
been more than $300 billion of private investment announced 
into the semiconductor industry, so that's why I answer yes to 
your question. Like if we continue to go on a path that for 
every dollar we invest there's $10 or more of private capital, 
then, you know, that--I feel good about that. But it is 
necessary, which is why, you know, my job is to cut the best 
deal possible for the taxpayer----
    Mr. Sorensen. Right.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. To draw in as much private 
capital as possible.
    Mr. Sorensen. How does our investment compare with China's 
investment today?
    Secretary Raimondo. Much lower, much lower. I mean, I don't 
have the numbers in front of me, but, you know, China--I think 
China--I'll get to the exact number, but I think they have like 
$145 billion fund just for semiconductors, and they've 
announced massive investments, state subsidies in legacy chips 
and mature node chips, so much lower. But, you know, our 
private sector is the envy of the world. You know, we're not a, 
you know, state-run economy, nor do we want to be one. So we 
will compete and win, and we're not going to go toe to toe with 
them for public money. We're going to out-innovate them and 
draw in private sector capital, which is why the question 
you're asking is so hard. It's the right question, and we have 
to make sure it happens.
    Mr. Sorensen. How do we make sure that we meet the 
workforce requirements when we go forward? I know that was 
brought up before. And how can Congress be part of the 
solution?
    Secretary Raimondo. You know, I think Congress needs to 
continue to fund workforce. Workforce, apprenticeships, job 
training, these aren't social programs. These are essential 
business investments for America to compete. You know, when I 
think about--if you say to me, Secretary, what is success in 
implementing the CHIPS Act? It isn't just incentivizing a dozen 
new fabs. It's getting colleges and universities to put out 
three times as many engineers. It's getting, you know, every 
community college in America to have a semiconductor technician 
certification program. It's getting high school students, you 
know, to be taught vocational training and things that relate 
to the chip industry. So I'd say continue to fund it and don't 
look at it as a soft investment. It's actually every bit as 
important to invest in our people as it is in our tanks and 
missiles and, you know, hardware.
    Mr. Sorensen. Great. Appreciate that perspective, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, sir.
    Now, I'd like to recognize Mr. Baird, the gentleman from 
Indiana.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 
Member, for holding this session. And thank you for being here, 
Madam Secretary. We appreciate it.
    My question is, you know, that among the requirements for 
those seeking CHIPS funding, they must comply with the NEPA, or 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and other environmental 
laws and other Executive orders. So tying NEPA compliance to 
CHIPS funding means that any company applying through any of 
the funding opportunities, including the upcoming one focused 
on R&D, will need to navigate this process, and for some firms, 
carrying out the environmental reviews is familiar. It is 
resource-intensive, and the process is feasible given to the 
bandwidth and capital that they have at their disposal. 
However, the smaller businesses in the semiconductor materials 
and equipment sector, there's a real risk that the requirement 
to comply with NEPA may impact the disbursement of CHIPS 
funding and/or slow down the pace of construction.
    So here's my question. How's the CHIPS Program Office 
working with its industry partners, particularly small business 
applicants, to assuage this concern? And how can the CHIPS 
Program Office work with State and local authorities to reduce 
the potential for duplicative compliance activities that might 
further delay the construction of new fabs of other 
manufacturing centers?
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you for your very important 
question. You're right. NEPA takes a long time. And so I have 
built a little team in the CHIPS office to do just NEPA, which 
is to say to provide help and assistance, technical assistance 
to applicants so they can have a NEPA plan which makes sense.
    I will say there is currently a bipartisan amendment to the 
Defense Authorization Act which would help a lot. So we're 
going to do everything we can with our own team to help 
streamline NEPA and move it as quickly as is prudent, but if 
Congress could pass the amendment--I think it's the Cruz-Kelly 
amendment in the Authorization Act--it would help us a lot to 
move faster.
    The other thing I wanted to say is in the--the way we're 
implementing CHIPS is we're trying to incentivize States, to 
your point, trying to incentivize States to help us with the 
permitting. And so, for example, States--we've encouraged 
States' Governors' offices to put in point of contact on 
permitting for CHIPS so there's just like in the Governor's 
office, a CHIPS permitting team because that's what--we're 
trying to, like you just said, streamline between the feds and 
the State requirements, and we're giving like--you know, like a 
plus one to States that actually do that.
    There's no easy solution on this. I worry about it myself. 
And like I said, we have--I have a very good team of NEPA 
experts trying to, you know, work the system properly so that 
we get it done as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. That's good to hear. You know, I got 
to give a shout-out to my alma mater, Purdue University. 
They're working--doing a lot of work in this CHIPS area. 
They've gone from a small little wafer up to an 18 inch wafer 
now to make the chips, so--and they're training these young 
people, too, and students. So I just want to give them a shout-
out for the good work in the CHIPS area.
    Secretary Raimondo. So I'm smiling because one of the best 
visits I've taken on my--at my tenure was to Purdue. I mean, 
I've loved all my visits. But Mitch Daniels is a friend of 
mine, former Governor, and what he did there was amazing. But I 
spent the day at Purdue, and I even went to a chips job fair at 
Purdue, and I got to meet some of the professors there, what 
they're doing in chips. It's like right on target. If every 
community did that in this country, there'd be no stopping us.
    Mr. Baird. Mitch Daniels is my friend, too, but anyway, 
Purdue--and we really appreciate you taking the time to be 
there.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I've already been once. It was a 
great trip and happy to go back.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you.
    I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. 
Salinas.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to you 
and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing. And thank you, 
Secretary Raimondo, for taking the time to speak with us today.
    So just before we get started on some of my questions that 
relate back to my district, you mentioned a lot of 
announcements coming this fall. And I know a lot of the money 
has already been--the funding has been appropriated. But how 
would a shutdown--a government shutdown actually affect all the 
rollouts and timelines that you are facing right now?
    Secretary Raimondo. It would be crushing. You know, I--when 
I talk to Members of Congress, they say, how come you're not 
moving faster on CHIPS? You know, where's this, where's that? 
We are literally working seven days a week to go as fast as we 
can. If there's a shutdown, it'll come to a grinding halt. I 
mean, there is no question in my mind this shutdown will hurt 
America's national security, at least as it relates to my work. 
Export control enforcement, export control work, investment of 
the CHIPS money, investment of the tech hub money, it all 
stops, and every dollar and every day that we aren't working, 
you know, puts us greater at risk.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And, as we know, as Oregon is not 
only home to Intel and companies like Lam Research, which is 
actually in my district and they manufacture chips as well, we 
host a significant manufacturing hub that contributes to the 
semiconductor supply chain, and these are really good-paying 
jobs. And I hear from these smaller companies though, 
machinists, for example, that it was a huge shock for their 
businesses when chip fabrication initially started moving 
overseas, and in some cases, these businesses took many years 
to recover. And they may hesitate to fully jump back in because 
of that experience.
    So as we look to jumpstart this essential industry, how 
should we be thinking long term about the supports to ensure 
that this isn't just a one-off investment, but that we are 
really bringing this industry and these jobs back permanently 
for the long haul?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I think a few things. We need to 
embrace innovation, including artificial intelligence, which 
will bring down the cost of a lot of this production in a way 
that it could enable us to keep it in the United States. The 
other thing is that's why we--honestly, that is why we have the 
CHIPS initiative. It is, you know, much more expensive to build 
one of these huge facilities in the United States relative to 
Asia, and that's why I think this is a good investment, right? 
Like, we want to pay workers a good wage in America. We want 
labor standards. We need environmental standards. So we can't 
back away from high standards. We need to innovate to bring 
down cost, and then, you know, that's why the--I think it's 
appropriate in this case for the government to have a program 
of this kind.
    I also will tell you, as I talk to big customers of 
semiconductors--I won't name names, but, you know, companies 
that consume huge quantities of chips, they're increasingly 
willing, in some cases, to pay more for U.S.-made because they 
see how vulnerable they are when they buy all of these chips 
from, say, one country in Asia. So if they can pay a premium to 
have U.S.-made chips, you know, I think they're increasingly 
willing to do that because it adds business value.
    Ms. Salinas. That's right. That's right. Thank you.
    As you know, the CHIPS and Science Act appropriated $11 
billion for R&D activities, including the creation of the 
National Semiconductor Technology Center, as you mentioned 
earlier. Oregon's existing infrastructure in chips, including 
everything from cutting-edge research to the manufacturing 
supply chain to high-volume fabrication capacity, uniquely 
positions the State to serve as a hub for domestic R&D. How are 
you thinking about leveraging existing resources such as 
Oregon's leading-edge and high-volume manufacturing 
capabilities and our extensive supply chain to maximize NSTC 
investments?
    Secretary Raimondo. We are thinking of doing that. Like so 
what we envision is creating a whole network. The NSTC we want 
to be a neutral science-based place or series of places that 
existing universities, tech hubs, networks, like you say, can 
kind of hook into. So the point of it is to tap into what 
exists, invest into it so it grows, and to--like if we succeed, 
the NSTC will be this place, as it says, is neutral and is 
science-based so that all institutions feel comfortable 
interacting with it.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, 
Dr. McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Ms. 
Secretary, for being here with us today.
    It's limited, so I'll get right to the point. Space Policy 
Directive 3 transferred the responsibility for civilian space 
situational awareness from the Pentagon to Department of 
Commerce. From what I understand is--since it's transferred 
away from the Pentagon, most other agencies that are monitoring 
have been using commercialized monitoring, but you're kind of 
developing your own system itself. How's that going to differ 
from the Pentagon? And why not rely on the commercial industry 
rather than creating your own kind of what seems duplicitous 
and fairly expensive?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, good--great question. So we are 
going to work with the Pentagon, and we will absolutely 
leverage commercial capacity. And we haven't made any specific 
plans. We're still, you know, working in the interagency, 
including with the Pentagon, to finalize this. All of that 
being said, there's a need for a space situational awareness, 
you know, program not that different from, you know, FAA 
(Federal Aviation Administration) and air traffic control to 
keep track of the commercial congestion in space of the 
commercial satellites. Space is becoming, you know, a lot of 
traffic, very congested, which increases probability of 
collision, danger, et cetera.
    Mr. McCormick. So I know we're really short on time.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, sorry.
    Mr. McCormick. Specifically, like we have places like 
LeoLabs and stuff like that, people who are kind of doing that 
already, and they have--actually have broader access to more 
locations than we would have, which we'd have to recreate in 
the Department. My question is, why not use those civilian 
agencies and that coordination between commercial instead of 
recreating your own infrastructure, which would seem to be much 
more expensive?
    Secretary Raimondo. We will work with them, but we think 
it's necessary for the Federal Government to have our own, you 
know, proprietary system.
    Mr. McCormick. OK. I want to talk real quick about China 
and the massive satellite launches that they have right now. 
They're going to be basically the same kind of orbit, the LEO 
(low-Earth orbit) orbit. I think somewhere around 13,000 that 
they've asked to launch up to space and how we're going to 
track that. Basically, my question is, what is the Department 
of Commerce doing to establish data sharing and transparency to 
keep all that in a safe space, given our limited ability to 
share information right now? China is not playing ball, and 
they're not allowing us to track in the same way, and we can't 
just rely on radar tracking. I know it's going to get harder as 
people come up with new technology and stuff like that. How do 
we force their hands to kind of come to the table and share the 
information to keep our space, especially LEO, from being on a 
collision course?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, let me do this. I--my Deputy 
Secretary Don Graves, along with Rich DalBello, who runs Space 
Commerce, can give you a much better answer, a more detailed 
answer to that on LEO. So let me connect you with them and come 
back to you with the proper answer.
    Mr. McCormick. Complex questions, I know.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. McCormick. Final complex question. I'm very interested 
in the AI production, the actual hardware that we're producing 
in Taiwan. You mentioned at the opening CHIPS Act and that we 
rely heavily on the hardware that's produced in Taiwan. China 
says we're going to take Taiwan. I take them for the word. If 
they do, what then? We were two years away from even--you know, 
once you break ground, it takes two years to build that kind of 
capacity locally.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. McCormick. Would we have to then--do we have a way to 
keep them from getting that technology and actually reverse 
engineering and actually having the capability to produce it 
and not give it to us? If they take the--in other words, are 
we're going to have to destroy those places in place? How do we 
keep us on an even keel or even ahead where we belong given 
that our entire capacity for production is in Taiwan right now?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. My answer to that question is I 
have to do everything every single day to go as fast as 
possible to increase domestic manufacturing. I don't know--I'm 
not going to engage in hypotheticals about what China will and 
won't do and when they'll do it. I know that we are vulnerable. 
We buy all of those chips you're talking about the AI chips, 
the leading-edge chips, all of that--none of them are made in 
America right now, which is why I've got to work like crazy 
every day to bring that manufacturing home as fast as we can. I 
don't--there's no shortcut around that because we need them at 
scale. You know, like AI consumes massive numbers of chips. 
It's not like you can make a small number of chips for AI. So 
unfortunately, the only solution, at least that I can think of, 
is move faster in America and build fabs in America to produce 
those chips at scale.
    Mr. McCormick. I'll close with this, to saying that I think 
the CHIPS Act kind of didn't address that fully, that we really 
don't have that production capability, nor do we even have a 
plan to--the plants aren't--haven't started being built here 
for the AI chips, and I'm really worried about that. Thanks. 
With that, I'll close.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you.
    And I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman Ms. Foushee.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Lofgren, for holding this meeting today. And, Secretary 
Raimondo, it is good to see you again. Thank you for being 
willing to appear before us again today.
    I was proud to join you and President Biden earlier this 
year in North Carolina's 4th, which is my district, for the 
President's first stop on the Investing in America Tour, and I 
thank you for talking with us about the success of CHIPS and 
Science and where we're heading. I am proud that in my 
district, it includes North Carolina Biotechnology Center, who 
leads the Accelerate North Carolina Life Sciences Manufacturing 
Coalition, a recipient and winner of the Economic Development 
Agency's Build Back Better Regional Challenge. This funding has 
helped to dramatically increase the capacity of the State's 
education system to prepare North Carolina residents for high-
quality, well-paying jobs and expands entry-level biotechnology 
training programs at 10 community colleges across the State.
    North Carolina Central University in my district is also 
leading a network of the State's HBCUs (historically Black 
colleges and universities) and one historically American Indian 
University to establish six training hubs. How do you believe 
these tech hubs programs will complement the efforts of the 
CHIPS office to reinvigorate the U.S. domestic semiconductor 
manufacturing sector?
    Secretary Raimondo. Good morning. Nice to see you. They're 
meant to work together. They're meant to work together. If we 
do this right, the NSTC, which we just talked about, will work 
with Manufacturing USA, the MEPs, the tech hubs. As I said, 
I've been blown away by--we have 400 tech hub applications from 
48 States, really high-quality applications. So if we do it 
right, we'll have a whole web all over America with different--
investing in different parts of the supply chain, in space, in 
quantum, in artificial intelligence, in biotechnology, you 
know, feeding--you know, planting seeds of innovation all over 
the place, which then will help these--our biggest companies, 
you know, for example, like a company like Intel that'll be 
making these chips to be that much, you know, more successful 
and innovative. So what we're trying to build is like a whole 
ecosystem of the workforce, the research and development, and 
the actual manufacturing.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that. And I'm sure you've heard 
from many corners now that everyone wishes you'd just hurry up 
and get the money out the door----
    Secretary Raimondo. That's true.
    Mrs. Foushee [continuing]. After reshoring our 
semiconductor manufacturing capacity was a sufficiently urgent 
national priority to rally bipartisan support to enact the 
CHIPS and Science Act and to provide the $50 billion in 
funding. At the same time, we want and need you to get this 
right. Can you assure us you're doing everything you can to 
move as quickly as possible to get the funding out the door? 
And can you please talk about the timeline for additional 
funding opportunities and where you see the future of the CHIPS 
program heading?
    Secretary Raimondo. So, look, I feel the pressure. I 
promise you that. I know we have to move fast. Fast is a 
conversation we just had. We are behind. But it is more 
important that we get it right, and if we take another month or 
a few more weeks to get it right, I will defend that because 
it's necessary.
    By the way, a shutdown sets us back in a huge way. You 
know, sending people home and slowing down our work, that would 
be a huge problem. So yes, I assure you, we're moving as fast 
as we can, and we're doing everything we can to achieve the 
national security goals that were intended to be achieved by 
the statute.
    The next phase, you know, I think that what I've said is 
the CHIPS program is about manufacturing, but we also have to 
think about advanced packaging happening in the United States. 
It's an interesting thing, you know, we can make all the chips 
in America, but if we then send them to Asia to be tested and 
packaged, that's a problem. So we have to package in the United 
States. We have to do the research and--increase research and 
development in the United States. And a comment--I forget who 
asked me. We've got to bring down the cost of manufacturing 
chips. That happens through innovation. So when you say what 
comes next, I think that's what has to come next, bending the 
cost curve so this can be sustainable in the United States.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    And now the gentleman from California, I recognize Mr. 
Obernolte.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Madam Secretary, thanks for the testimony today. This is a 
topic that's very important to me and I think to everyone on 
this dais.
    I'd like to ask about something that you just brought up 
since you brought it up, the issue of packaging. That's 
something that I also have been very concerned about because, 
obviously, if we can't construct the packaging for these chips 
and use that to dissipate the heat from them and incorporate 
them into integrated circuit boards, it doesn't matter where 
they're made. If we're not doing the packaging here 
domestically, that represents an equally potent threat to our 
supply chain. And yet, as you remarked, nearly all of that 
packaging is currently done overseas. I think all of our U.S. 
chip manufacturers do their packaging overseas, you know, by 
and large. I think 81 percent of the world's packaging is done 
in Asia. So I think that this is a really potent threat.
    I know that this is something we've all been talking about. 
Part of the CHIPS and Science Act establishes and adds National 
Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP) and dedicated 
$2.5 billion to get that spun up. Can you give us an update on 
that and your confidence level that we can solve the packaging 
problem at the same time we solve the chip manufacturing 
problem?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, my confidence level is high 
because we have to, right, like we have no choice. And relative 
to the question before, it's going to require a lot of private 
sector capital. In our plan, in our strategy plan, our strategy 
paper, which we put out earlier this year, we would like to 
have multiple high volume, advanced packaging facilities in the 
United States. So several, like you say, advanced packaging. As 
you well know, you're expert in this, you know, there's some--I 
hate to use the word like commodity packaging. I'm not sure you 
know how much of that will be in the United States, but 
certainly the leading-edge packaging, the most sophisticated 
packaging, that's essential for the future. Chips can only get 
so small. You know, I'm not a scientist, but what I understand 
is coming to the end of Moore's Law and chips can only get so 
small, which means it's all--the special sauce is in the 
packaging, and we have to have that in America, period, and I 
think we will, and we're focused on it.
    Mr. Obernolte. Great. I'm glad to hear that. You know, 
talking about what you just brought up again, you know, the 
fact that we're reaching some of the theoretical limits of our 
ability to create faster chips using silicon, you know, that 
highlights the fact that silicon is not the only semiconductor 
out there, and there's increasing interest in other 
semiconductors, particularly semiconductors such as indium 
phosphide that are optical semiconductors with higher electron 
velocities than silicon. And those will probably be very useful 
in applications like quantum computing, which I know is 
something that we're all very interested in making sure that 
the United States retains a leadership role on.
    So I was a little alarmed to hear the efforts recently of 
Huawei in establishing scale production of indium phosphide at 
locations such as the Wuhan Optics Valley in China. Do we have 
a plan to dedicate some of the CHIPS funding to increase the 
production of these optical semiconductors in the United 
States?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I don't know--I just made a note 
and I'll have my team follow up with you. I don't know 
precisely, you know, which areas, but I can promise you, we're 
very focused on it. Whether it's indium phosphide or silicon 
carbide, we're trying to stimulate the innovation. Like we're 
trying to--we just had a meeting on it the other day, and 
you're saying, like, we got to go to where the puck is going, 
not where it is now, which is what you're talking about. So 
yes, I am confident that we are evaluating all those future 
technologies and incorporating that into the way we're going to 
invest the incentives.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. I'm glad to hear it. Let's 
continue that discussion. Thanks for being here today. I yield 
back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you.
    I'd like to introduce the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. Jackson. Good morning.
    Secretary Raimondo. Good morning.
    Mr. Jackson. There are three Members from North Carolina on 
this Committee. You've heard from two of them. They were there.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I saw.
    Mr. Jackson. Yes. Representative Foushee and Representative 
Ross both represent part of the Research Triangle, which 
already has a wonderful reputation for being a tech hub, 
Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill. I represent a new district, which 
was just created in the last census that's the Charlotte 
region. And part of my job up here is to tell a new story for 
that region to update people's understanding because we have 
earned a reputation as our own tech center for a lot of 
different reasons, one of the Nation's leading financial 
centers and on and on.
    You said that part of your job is to get the best possible 
deal for the taxpayer, want you to do that, but would be remiss 
if I didn't use this opportunity to use my voice to update in 
your thinking what this region means, what it means to the 
State and what it means to the country because it's just grown 
a heck of a lot. And it already is a tech hub and would surely 
benefit from official recognition as such.
    I think we all know what success looks like for the CHIPS 
Act 20 years from now. I think we can have a vision of what a 
successful semiconductor industry, a mature semiconductor 
industry looks like. My question is what does success look like 
five years from now? What are the markers that tell you that 
this is headed in the right direction? My sense is that the 
CHIPS Act should best be understood as an industry subsidy but 
as an industry catalyst----
    Secretary Raimondo. Exactly.----
    Mr. Jackson [continuing]. Because we don't have the money 
to continue to subsidize this industry as the Chinese 
Government would. So we have to light a very expensive spark, 
and that spark has to catch fire.
    Now, you've said--you've given me a couple of possible 
metrics that you might be tracking here. Workforce is one. Cost 
of manufacturing going down is another. Private sector 
investment may be the biggest. So 5 years from now, what do you 
want to see that's going to give you confidence that this spark 
has produced a flame?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. I mean, that was so well said, and 
I appreciate it. First, let me say this on tech hubs. We are 
committed to supporting every tech hub that's designated, which 
is to say with a very limited amount of money, not every tech 
hub will get the money. Some of the ones that are designated 
will, some of them won't. But we are working on ways that we 
can use existing funds in the Commerce Department and across 
the government to support the tech hubs that are designated. So 
when you said you'd appreciate being designated, I wanted 
everyone to know we're going to put our back into supporting 
all the designees, even the ones that don't get tech hub money.
    Second thing, you know, it's--here's what I think. Five 
years from now if we do our job right, we will have in 
construction facilities to do--at least two facilities to do 
leading-edge chip manufacturing. Same thing for leading-edge 
packaging. I mean, actually, in five years from now, they 
should be up and running more than in construction. So we 
should have knew at-scale fabs producing leading-edge chips in 
the United States, same thing for packaging, same thing for 
advanced memory at scale. The NSTC will have--will be 
established. There'll be, you know, several centers around the 
country doing research and development. We'll have a fund 
established to make investments in, you know, smaller 
companies, and we'll have one or more Manufacturing USAs up and 
running.
    So I think that the five-year mark is a really important 
mark because it's the time that, you know, these fabs should be 
coming online, and we should be, you know, making these chips 
at scale. I also--the last thing I'll say is if we do our job 
right with all of the workforce, you know, we'll start to see 
like a totally new way of training people to do these 
semiconductor jobs. And it's not just semiconductors, you know, 
they're tech, technicians, cyber technicians and such. So it's 
a pretty--it's a grand vision, and I think five or six years 
we'll--we will have achieved a lot of that.
    Mr. Jackson. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much.
    And now the--I recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 
Tenney.
    Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member 
Lofgren. And thank you, Secretary Raimondo, for being here. I 
am just so privileged to represent New York's 24th District, 
which has a strong history of tech. We have IBM Corning in 
upstate New York. The Erie Canal is really one of the first 
regions to really bring us into the industrial revolution. But 
unfortunately, upstate New York has suffered tremendously 
because of Chinese-based entities flooding our market with 
over-subsidized cheap goods. Many of our strong domestic 
manufacturing has moved overseas. We've lost industry jobs, 
and, you know, brought on huge mass outmigration in New York, 
as everyone knows.
    We were the ones that kind of got this started. North 
Carolina has kind of taken over. But we do have an opportunity 
now to bring manufacturing and especially the high tech 
semiconductor manufacturing research here. We're really excited 
about the advent of the new Micron announcement, the facility 
coming in Clay, New York. We think it's a great first step.
    But I wanted to ask you--I wanted to talk about the--first 
of all, the Buffalo--you talked about the hubs and some of the 
tech hubs that were going to be funded potentially. I--my 
district spans across all of upstate New York. It's a huge, 
long district. I go from the Buffalo region to Rochester, 
Syracuse, all the way to Watertown, circling Lake Ontario. So 
Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse have come together. We're 
doing this as a regional approach, the New York SMART I-
Corridor Tech Hub. It's a proposal that we're hoping could 
leverage our regional labor market, existing semiconductor and 
microchip industry. Some of these are holdovers from the 
original investments many, many years ago when New York was at 
its high, and draw new investments from the private sector, as 
my colleague from North Carolina talked about. It's really 
important to get the buy-in and the investment from the private 
sector, which we're seeing.
    And I just wanted to also extend some gratitude here 
because we have other Members that are very involved in this 
bipartisan reach on this proposal, Representative Morelle, who 
I kind of surround in Rochester area, Representative Higgins in 
the Buffalo area, Representative Langworthy, Molinaro, and also 
Representative Williams, who serves on this Committee. But my 
question for you is I just--I don't--are you aware of the New 
York SMART I-Corridor Tech Hub proposal that has been--are you 
specifically aware of it as been----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Indicated.
    Secretary Raimondo. I am aware of it. I know you're taking 
that regional approach to all come together. As I said before, 
we have hundreds of applications. All of them are quite 
excellent. So we're going through them now, and we'll make 
announcements pretty shortly this fall.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. So the phase 2 tech hub Notice of Funding 
Opportunities are going out. Is there still a plan or is there 
an update on phase 2, tech hub NOFO? Is that going to be 
released as well?
    Secretary Raimondo. This fall, yes.
    Ms. Tenney. OK. Let me ask you something. Are these going 
to be contingent on phase 1 designation? Can we expect phase 1 
tech hub designees to be notified as well?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Secretary Raimondo. So what I was saying to Congressman 
Jackson, they--we're required by statute to designate at least 
20.
    Ms. Tenney. OK.
    Secretary Raimondo. And they have to be regionally diverse 
to make sure that the money doesn't just go to cities, you 
know, rural as well. So there'll be designations. And then some 
will receive like a planning grant, and then a subset will 
receive a larger grant. But what I was saying is, even if you 
don't get the larger grant but you're designated, we're 
committed to providing as much government support as we can to 
all the designees through, say, other Commerce money or, you 
know, other money in the interagency like the SBA (Small 
Business Administration) and such.
    The reality is we just need more money for these tech hubs. 
I mean, it was in the CHIPS and Science program authorized at 
$10 billion, appropriated at $500 million, and so even the 
subset of the designees that receive the bigger grants, you 
know, I--there--I can tell you this. We have a merit-based 
team. They're going to go through to evaluate. All of the ones 
that are designated are probably worthy for big grants. Like 
they're high quality, but we just don't have enough money.
    Ms. Tenney. Well, we urge you to obviously choose our tech 
hub, but we appreciate your----
    Secretary Raimondo. I think I've heard----
    Ms. Tenney [continuing]. Testimony and hard work. We think 
we put together a great team, a bipartisan effort and really 
just grateful to all the Representatives in upstate New York 
for coming back because we--again, we were once the champions 
of industry and innovation, and we need to come back. And we 
have a great opportunity with this huge investment coming from 
Micron.
    So we appreciate your testimony. My time has run out, but 
thank you so much. I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I hear you. I will say I have 
heard from more Members of Congress on tech hubs than anything 
else that I've done. It's unbelievable.
    Mr. Babin. We protect our turf.
    Secretary Raimondo. I love it. I love the advocacy.
    Mr. Babin. I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
Mrs. Sykes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this 
meeting. And, Madam Secretary, I really appreciate you being 
here. I'm going to talk about something different, regional 
tech hubs. We--that was a joke. I guess it wasn't funny. 
Similar to my other colleagues here, would appreciate your full 
consideration of the regional tech hub from our community that 
is not based in one of the largest cities in the State. Coming 
from Ohio's 13th Congressional District, we do have a bit of a 
shadow over us from the larger cities, including Cleveland, 
Columbus, and Cincinnati. And Columbus, where central Ohio is, 
we know that in central Ohio, where the Intel project is, we 
hear a lot about the work from your agency and what is going to 
happen, but I encourage you to look at us in northeastern Ohio, 
as well as some other areas, smaller areas that have a lot to 
contribute to the opportunities to onshore chip manufacturing, 
as well as other domestic energy--excuse me, domestic 
manufacturing in places that are very much used to doing so and 
have the spirit to do it as well, and not to mention the 
talent.
    I want to also thank you for your commitment to northeast 
Ohio. We were in Cleveland together to announce some minority 
business opportunities, which is important to getting more 
folks into these industries and recently held a webinar around 
accessing CHIPS funding for our community. We welcomed economic 
development companies, large businesses, nonprofits, as well as 
our universities, and they had a lot of questions. And I know 
that we submitted those to your office and look forward to the 
responses that we get from them.
    I just really want to hone in on the workforce conversation 
because there's not an industry that I've met with that has 
said that they aren't struggling with the workforce. And 
certainly in manufacturing and technology, we experience that 
as well. And I want to highlight your comment that childcare is 
not a social issue. It's a business decision. Thank you for 
that. But specifically, if you could talk to us about the 
private businesses and what incentives or encouragement are you 
sharing with them to make sure we're getting locally based, 
Ohio-based folks on these Ohio-based projects? Certainly, we 
take pride in the work that we're doing, but we want to make 
sure that folks in our communities are accessing them. How are 
you encouraging, incentivizing, demanding, mandating if you 
will those folks to work with our local employees?
    Secretary Raimondo. Great, excellent, thank you. And it was 
great to visit with you. I thought we had a great visit. By the 
way, I just again want to say on tech hubs, I hear what you're 
saying, and we take that into account. Just because you're in a 
place that might not be Columbus or might not be, you know, 
Raleigh, as your colleague said, we're going to look--take a 
hard look at the quality of the application, the quality of the 
technology that's in your community, and, you know, make those 
merit-based decisions.
    With respect to your other question, I would say for the 
CHIPS money, we're requiring every company that applies as part 
of their application to show us their workforce plan, and I've 
actually built a team in the CHIPS office who just works with 
these companies to develop their workforce plans. And the 
reason I'm doing that is because I've got to protect taxpayer 
money. I cannot give all this money to a company and then have 
them fail because they can't, you know, find the talent they 
need to run the fab. And the same thing for childcare, you 
know, you won't find the talent if you can't hire and retain 
women.
    So we are asking every company to do what you just said. 
What are your relationships with local universities, with local 
high schools, with local training partners, with local 
community colleges? How are you going to train the people in 
the community to do the jobs in your facilities? These fabs are 
massive, 5,000 people to build them, 5,000 people to work 
there, and so that's why when I say the workforce is as 
important as the technology, it is, and they've got to train 
the people in the community if they're, you know, going to be 
successful.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you for your answer, and thank you, Mr. 
Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    And now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Kean.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary 
Raimondo, for being here today.
    Secretary Raimondo. Good morning.
    Mr. Kean. And while I will talk a little bit about the tech 
hubs as well----
    Secretary Raimondo. Go for it.
    Mr. Kean [continuing]. As a strong advocate for New Jersey 
because we have a rich history of fostering innovative 
entrepreneurs, and institutions like Rutgers University are 
leading the way with proposals for initiatives such as the 
Regional Technology and Innovation Hub Program, making it 
crucial to recognize the importance of tech hubs and fueling 
the spirit of innovation.
    Can you continue to talk a little bit about the premise of 
the tech hubs and why they're so important?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, absolutely. I've been to Rutgers. 
I visited Rutgers, I don't know, a year or so ago so I saw with 
my own eyes the impressive work that's happening there in 
robotics and other areas. And the whole point of the tech hubs, 
including if you are successful in New Jersey, is to find the 
next leading-edge innovation in artificial intelligence, 
quantum, biotech, AI, all the things are going to allow America 
to have a lead in the world. And it starts in universities. It 
starts in someone's lab somewhere and then gets translated into 
maybe a startup and then to a bigger company.
    So the point of the tech hubs is to have a whole network of 
these little like beehives of innovation where you bring 
together universities with companies, with innovators and 
entrepreneurs and add some money to catalyze that kind of 
cutting edge, which ultimately leads to jobs. You know, every--
like talking to New Jersey--Bell, think about Bell Labs. Think 
about all the jobs and innovation that spun----
    Mr. Kean. In my district.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Out of there. Yes.
    Mr. Kean. In my district. I was there the last couple 
weeks.
    Secretary Raimondo. It's amazing, right? I mean, amazing, 
amazing, amazing. Thousands and thousands of companies and 
people came out of that. Let's recreate that with tech hubs all 
across the country.
    Mr. Kean. Right. This district that I represent is an 
innovation and infrastructure district and continue to have 
those priorities. We need to continue to find that common 
ground. Can you talk a little bit about export controls and the 
importance of how we use export controls in our competition 
with the PRC (People's Republic of China) ?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, so that's the other side of the 
coin. Tech hubs is investing in America. Export controls, we 
have to make sure that China doesn't have access to our most 
cutting-edge technology. Since I've been Secretary, we've added 
over 700 PRC entities to the entity list. More than 1/3 of all 
the Chinese entities on the list were put there under the Biden 
Administration, and it's because we can't be selling our most 
sophisticated artificial intelligence, chips, or other 
technology to the PRC so that they can get it to put in their 
military and use it in a way to undercut our national security.
    I would say to everyone here, BIS needs more funding. We 
need more export enforcement agents. We need more tech experts. 
Like increasingly, national security is about technology and 
keeping our edge over China, staying ahead of them, and so we 
have to control this technology so it doesn't wind up into the 
Chinese military.
    Mr. Kean. Is there anything that--you anticipated my next 
question, which was what do we need to do as a Congress to 
ensure that we continue to be on the leading edge of this 
fight?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, what I just said is that's it, you 
know, support the budget submission. BIS once upon a time 
wasn't necessarily as important as it might be today. Today, 
when you think about Chinese military capacity, you think about 
artificial intelligence, satellites, quantum, data. That's all 
tech, where America leads. So if you want us to protect that 
fully and vigorously and enforce that, we do need more 
resources, more people, and more technical people who work with 
us.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Frost.
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 
Secretary. NeoCity is a new and growing 500-acre tech campus 
just south of my district that has applied to be one of the 
CHIPS and Science Act's regional technology and innovation 
hubs. It's a really beautiful project. I really encourage 
people to check it out. It shows how local government can 
really think big. NeoCity includes SkyWater Technologies, a 
chip-packaging facility that's had to quadruple its workforce 
in the next two years. And workforce development programs 
through NeoCity Academy High School and two colleges in my 
district, Valencia College and the University of Central 
Florida. Madam Secretary, when selecting regional hubs, how is 
the Department of Commerce's Economic Development 
Administration taking into consideration local education and 
workforce development capacity, especially when the U.S. 
semiconductor industry has a worker shortage that can be filled 
by locally grown talent?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you, Congressman. I'm not 
familiar with that particular application. I will go learn 
about it. But it sounds like exactly the kind of thing we're 
trying to incentivize, which is what you said, bring in the 
high schools, bring in the community colleges, bring in the 
research universities, bring in the big companies like 
SkyWater, and focus on an area of technology where you can go 
from excellent to world class. I do want to make that point, 
especially since tech hubs is so competitive. We're not trying 
to invest in places--this is a national security program. We 
want to advance the frontier of technology, so we're not going 
to go for places that are distressed or that are, you know, 
pretty good----
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. On the technology. We want 
to go for places that are excellent on the technology, make a 
big investment where they can be world leading in the 
technology.
    But anyway, the workforce piece of it in some ways is the 
whole game. You need the----
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. People to work. So it'll 
be--the merit-based process, the criteria leans heavily on the 
workforce component.
    Mr. Frost. OK. Got you. Yes, and definitely suggest 
checking out NeoCity. I got to visit the campus. It's a huge 
project that'll include housing companies. The school is right 
next to one of the companies where students get to go over 
there and learn about it. It's really, I think, going to 
provide a good model for how we can grow local talent.
    The massive investments of President Biden's CHIPS and 
Science Act will set the tone for what the domestic 
semiconductor industry looks like for years to come, and so we 
have the opportunity now to create industry that prioritizes 
worker safety and well-being. We've had some great 
conversations with the AFL-CIO. It seems like companies are 
saying new jobs won't necessarily be union jobs, and there's a 
want for substantial, ongoing collaboration with unions and the 
Commerce Department and these companies to ensure labor 
standards are enforced. What steps has Commerce taken to 
prevent a race to the bottom in terms of labor and the fact 
that, you know, there's competition with overseas semiconductor 
manufacturers?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, as you said, we are--you know, 
we're never going to mandate to a company. There's--Davis-Bacon 
is in the statute for the building of the facility, but these 
companies are going to have to make their own decisions with 
respect to the workers in the facility. That being said, this 
Administration cares deeply about high labor standards and 
workplace conditions, safety, and wages. So we're having--every 
company that's applied to give us their workforce plan, and 
we're going to work on that with them to make sure that they 
have, you know, a high-quality, well-compensated workforce to 
do the job. I see that as a taxpayer protection. They need a 
workforce who can, you know, get the job done.
    Mr. Frost. Yes. Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. Now, I'd like to recognize the 
gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Chairman Babin and Secretary 
Raimondo, for your time today.
    Secretary, your department works to ensure U.S. leadership 
in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence. This 
leadership depends on the Nation's ability to bring advanced 
packaging on shore. Advanced packaging combines the fastest 
logic chips, specifically GPUs (graphics processing units) and 
high bandwidth memory chips and certain design configurations, 
allowing the optional language training and interference 
techniques at the heart of AI. Do you have a good sense of 
which applicants or types of applicants best meet the advanced 
packaging needs?
    Secretary Raimondo. We do. We do. As you said, we've had 
400 statements of interest, some including leading-edge 
packaging, and it is part of our strategy to incentivize 
packaging because we want to have at least a couple of leading-
edge packaging investments in the United States as a result of 
this.
    Mr. Strong. Since there's virtually no packaging done in 
the United States, do you feel confident in the discussions 
with these few companies that work on advanced packaging that 
you can strike a deal and bring these technologies to the 
United States?
    Secretary Raimondo. I do.
    Mr. Strong. In August, the Commerce Department announced 
that in the year since the CHIPS Act was signed into law that 
the CHIPS Program Office has received more than 460 statements 
of interest for projects in 42 States. Over August recess, I 
had the opportunity to visit with large chemical manufacturers 
in north Alabama, who are exploring expansion to support new 
semiconductor manufacturing because of the CHIPS Act. While 
significant attention has been given to large fabrication 
projects announced in States such as California, Arizona, New 
York, and Ohio, is it important that project--it's important 
that projects in States like Alabama, where there is currently 
no significant presence of chip manufacturers, are given fair 
consideration. Can you specifically describe the CHIPS Program 
Office's efforts so far to ensure that the CHIPS Act is 
implemented as a national program with opportunities for States 
like mine that also want to play a critical role in the 
domestic semiconductor supply chain?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I can absolutely assure you of 
that. Listen, this is completely merit-based. There are no 
States or projects that have any advantages over any other. 
It's based upon who can help us hit our--the mission of the 
program, which we've identified in a paper which we put out 
earlier this year. I'll say of the $39 billion, we've said that 
$10 billion will be invested in mature node chips and also 
supply chain companies, which would include chemical companies 
like the one you're talking about. So we would encourage them 
to apply, and I promise you, they'll get a, you know, really 
hard look.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you, Secretary. North Alabama is home to 
a variety of space-based technology research and development 
companies, as well as NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Both 
commercial companies and civil space organizations recognize 
the potential of utilizing microgravity as an environment to 
make smaller chips. Can you speak to the Department of 
Commerce's interest in ensuring that the regulations 
implementing the CHIPS Act directly acknowledges and supports 
the future of this important work in space?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, it's a component. You know, 
although it's sounds crazy to say that $39 billion is not 
enough money, you know, we can't do everything, and these are 
massive projects. So I can assure you, we are looking to do the 
most cutting-edge work, including with AI chips and space-
related chips to advance our national security goals and that 
we'll look at all applications, you know, very seriously.
    Mr. Strong. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. 
Caraveo.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary 
Raimondo, for coming in to speak with us. You know, I think I 
would really be remiss if I didn't mention Colorado's bid to be 
a tech hub and look forward to following that process moving 
forward with you.
    Now, one of the best things about Colorado is the 
concentration of research universities we have that are primed 
to take advantage of the benefits of the CHIPS and Science Act. 
These include universities like CU Boulder, Colorado State, and 
MSU (Metropolitan State University) Denver, which Deputy 
Secretary Graves visited earlier this year. And while I'm eager 
to make sure that these institutions are able to take advantage 
of the various programs in the CHIPS Act, specifically chips 
R&D and workforce programs, I also want to make sure that other 
institutions that maybe don't have the clout or the name 
recognition of a University of Colorado at Boulder are able to 
use these programs as well.
    My district is home to the University of Northern Colorado 
(UNC), which is a smaller public institution that's becoming an 
attractive option for many Coloradans. It's our UNC, perhaps 
lesser known than the North Carolina one, but it has seen a 
growing demand for undergraduate students to add more degrees 
in those STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics) fields and is offering computer science and 
statistics for the first time this semester as a major. Many 
more students are interested in mathematical sciences, and the 
university, I think, has been forward-thinking in expanding its 
expertise there.
    But I want to make sure that even though UNC is still 
growing, that they can compete with larger universities for new 
R&D and workforce programs being stood up by the Department. So 
how is the Department ensuring that smaller institutions that 
are still building their STEM programs like UNC will be able to 
engage in partnerships under the various chips R&D and 
workforce programs?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you. Let me be really clear 
about this. We won't succeed unless we have community colleges, 
all--not just the tier 1 research universities. In some ways, 
you know, a lot of them are already doing their thing. We 
talked about Purdue earlier. We are completely focused on what 
you're talking about, especially when you have a college or 
community college like that hooked into a bigger network of a 
statewide system. We need to be operating at every level. You 
know, I said earlier, there's a massive shortage of 
semiconductor technicians. There's a massive shortage of 
cybersecurity technicians, of digital backbone workers. You 
know, everyone that that college can put out, we can put to 
work.
    So--and by the way, I lived this as Governor. You know, 
when I was the Governor of Rhode Island, we completely redid 
our community college and our non-research university four-year 
university to be focused on the industry needs, and it works. 
These students in my experience are incredibly hungry, 
hardworking, and they're the ones you need to support to get 
good jobs. So that's what we're doing. I mean, we are reaching 
out. We already have, I think, 50 community colleges around the 
country that we're kind of working with or who have said they 
want to work with us to do what you said, like redesign the 
curriculum to match the needs. It's why we're asking companies 
to give us their workforce plan, and then we're going to work 
with them to say, have you thought about this college? What are 
you doing with this university? What--you know, so we're--the 
NSTC is going to have a big workforce component, a 
semiconductor workforce component which will work with these 
universities. The NSF has a couple hundred million dollars for 
workforce.
    So across all of the R&D programs, there's a lot of 
workforce, and I just--I promise you, we're going to go out of 
our way to make sure it's inclusive. That being said, you just 
put that on my radar, so I'll make sure, you know, we focus in 
in Colorado.
    Ms. Caraveo. Perfect. I appreciate the concentration on--
excuse me--these smaller institutions, and in particular, that 
you're reaching out to make sure that they know about the 
resources that you have.
    And with that, my time is expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. Now, I'd like to recognize 
Mr. Williams, the gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Williams. Madam Secretary, well, good afternoon. It's 
nice to meet you----
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams [continuing]. And thank you for being here. 
Before we get started, I spent four months in Rhode Island in 
1991 at Officer Candidate School, and so if you'll indulge me, 
do you know how long the Newport Bridge is? You really don't 
have to answer that.
    Secretary Raimondo. I don't, although I just kayaked under 
it in the Save the Bay Swim.
    Mr. Williams. Yes, the Narragansett is beautiful, but I can 
tell you that it's 16 long, long weeks long, sir. That's how 
long it is, corresponding to my time there.
    I am proud to represent the heart of the Silicon Empire, 
which is central New York, and, as you know, Micron has 
announced $100 billion investment, one of the largest in 
American history, to be part of this resurgence of chip 
manufacturing in the United States. We have a fantastic 
application for the Regional Technology and Innovation Hub, 
from western New York into central New York, and this is just--
think of it as the superhighway for the Silicon Empire. And we 
are also in my district home to some of our Nation's most 
advanced weapons systems, and these are systems that require 
secure, reliable, and domestically produced silicon chips. So 
thank you for all you're doing and all those efforts.
    I come out of the tech industry. The new digital economy is 
increasing data creation at an exponential rate, and that's not 
hyperbole. Industries like transportation, power generation, 
process manufacturing, and even the retail shopping experience 
are increasingly data-driven. So solutions like artificial 
intelligence and self-driving cars need and create enormous 
amounts of data to be useful.
    And so I want to highlight the tremendous risk our Nation 
faces that the production of memory chips is dangerously 
concentrated in Asia. May I invite your comments on how the 
CHIPS Program Office is planning to ensure domestic production 
of memory chips specifically to protect the United States from 
relying solely on overseas production?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So we do have memory as a focus of 
our investment program. We need--we've we put out in our paper 
we want to have at least two clusters of leading-edge logic, as 
well as advanced packaging, as well as memory. Exactly as you 
said, you know, it's not made in America now, and we need to 
change that.
    Mr. Williams. One of the perceptions I think for the 
layperson is often focused on the logic portion of--you know, 
of silicon chips. We think about these advanced processors. But 
in this data-driven world, the ability to write into and out of 
quickly to store vast amounts of storage, as we all know, on 
our phones, you know, is increasingly sort of taking over the 
helm of chips and a central focus of chips. Are there any 
positive developments in memory chip manufacturing that you're 
aware of that you would draw attention to, you know, beyond the 
announcement, for example, of Micron? Is there any other action 
or activity going on in memory chips in the United States 
running through your office?
    Secretary Raimondo. That's the primary one. I mean, as you 
well know, there's only really three--there's two Korean 
companies, Samsung and Hynix and then Micron, and we are 
interested--and right now, as you say, there's no really like 
most advanced memory made in America, which is something that 
we need to, you know, remedy through investing in this 
initiative program.
    Mr. Williams. And urgently and at scale I might add.
    Secretary Raimondo. And at scale.
    Mr. Williams. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, I agree.
    Mr. Williams. Great. Thank you for your time.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Secretary 
Raimondo, for honoring this Committee's invitation to be here 
today.
    Secretary Raimondo. Good morning.
    Ms. Lee. I'm proud that the EDA has a robust and positive 
working relationship with the Southwestern Pennsylvania 
Commission. I commend EDA's commitment to equity as a top 
priority and their grants and programs, as the Administration 
encourages its grantees throughout the country to develop 
initiatives that present new ideas and creative approaches to 
advance economic prosperity in distressed communities.
    NIST has been vital in advancing U.S. innovation and 
competitiveness. As someone who likes cold hard facts, NIST 
works directly--NIST's work directly impacts the daily lives of 
citizens to improve not only physical tangibles like products, 
services, and infrastructures, but also improve our quality of 
life and standard of living.
    As a proud representative of western Pennsylvania, my 
constituents expect us to address their concerns on the 
implications AI will have on our labor and our workforce. AI 
presents fascinating opportunities in STEM and advanced 
manufacturing, but we also need to exercise caution to ensure 
that we provide access to opportunity for skills training and 
education to every worker, and that we're truly understanding 
the ethical implications involved and the concerns regarding 
bias and discrimination. Investments in our future through 
legislation like the CHIPS and Science Act will only continue 
to foster more success stories like those in my district and 
across the country through the work that's done through NIST, 
but this work does change lives.
    Secretary Raimondo, how is the Department of Commerce 
collaborating with other agencies to ensure that domestic 
content requirements for tax credits--excuse me, tax credit 
incentives in industries like steel manufacturing ensure 
American competitiveness and robust business opportunities for 
small- and mid-sized enterprises?
    Secretary Raimondo. Just--sorry, can you--first of all, 
it's nice to meet you.
    To say the last, I was with you on AI, and then I----
    Ms. Lee. Yes, we left there.
    Secretary Raimondo. Just--sorry, just the question----
    Ms. Lee. Yes--no, no, you've been here for a long time----
    Secretary Raimondo. I know----
    Ms. Lee [continuing]. And it's freezing in here.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. I apologize. It is very--
--
    Ms. Lee. My question is about how the Department of 
Commerce is collaborating with other agencies to ensure that 
domestic content requirements for tax credit incentives 
industries like steel manufacturing ensure American competitive 
and--competitiveness and robust business opportunities for 
small and midsize companies?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, OK. Sorry. We are really serious 
about enforcing all of that. I mean, you know better than most 
that Chinese dumping of cheap steel into the market has hurt a 
lot of people, including in your district, and so we have Buy 
America provisions and U.S. content requirements that wherever 
they are, in statute, we enforce them. Also on the other side 
of our house in the Commerce Department we also, you know, 
maintain tariffs and countervailing duties wherever we need to 
so we have a vibrant domestic steel industry. You can't be a 
strong country without making steel.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you. And I was going to ask you about 
western Pennsylvania's ecosystem for robotics and our autonomy 
sector, but a lot of folks have been able to actually ask 
questions about what I was going to say there so I didn't want 
to overwhelm you with repetitive questions.
    But for my final question, with the development and 
expansion of the domestic production of semiconductors and 
other advanced technologies, how is your agency working to 
continually update the NIST artificial intelligence risk 
management framework to ensure workforce development 
initiatives are effective in supporting labor but not 
supplanting labor?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, exactly. Exactly what you just 
said, working with NIST but also the White House has been, you 
know, working across the interagency to put out other 
frameworks on the topic you just said, which is how do we deal 
with the fact that AI is going to change the way we all work. 
And we have to be there for all workers. You know, certain jobs 
will change, but we have to use AI to create jobs, not destroy 
jobs for--people's jobs will change, but we have to make sure 
that they are retrained to do different jobs and not left out.
    Ms. Lee. Yes, I thank you for the consideration that the 
agency will put into AI and workforce. As people--you know, 
people with disabilities, people who have various concerns will 
find increasing access to quality of life, but we do want to 
make sure that we're prioritizing workers.
    My time is up, and I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much.
    I'd now like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Secretary, 
thank you for being here today, and thank you for your 
patience. I know it's been a good bit. You spoke earlier, and 
you've been ongoing, talk about the importance of increasing 
opportunities for career and technical education. I could not 
agree more. So I'm going to dive right in and forgo my 
monologue. What is the Commerce doing to ensure that CHIPS 
funding goes to projects that will actually create jobs for 
Americans? And do you believe that the American workforce has 
the ability to complete these construction projects and then 
has the engineers and technicians needed to operate these new 
fabs here in the country?
    Secretary Raimondo. I do, but we have a lot of work to do. 
So I have a team on the CHIPS team who are helping figure out 
the construction workforce plans with each of the applicants. 
You know, so Ohio--like these facilities will require 5, 6, 7, 
8, 9,000 people to build. The unemployment rate in the building 
trades right now, no matter where you live is like zero, two 
percent.
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo. So we need new apprenticeship programs. 
We need to recruit people in high school. We need girls and 
women to do these jobs. And will we do it? Yes, but I can't 
sugarcoat it. It's a lot of work. Same thing for in the fabs. 
I--we are pushing the companies, Governors, Mayors, educational 
institutions, update your curriculum, teach people what's 
relevant so they can get these jobs.
    Mr. Miller. Yes, I mean, even in the State of Ohio right 
now--and as you know, the Intel project is coming to Columbus, 
which is just a couple hours south in the 7th District. But 
we're around 2,000 carpenters short right now for that project 
at Intel. And as you just said, with a two percent dip in the 
trades, amongst the whole--now, I love what you said about 
encouraging our educational system to promote more of the 
trades, K through 12 technical education and STEM workforce, 
and I applaud you for that. I just would really like to see it 
come from the State and local level----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. And see more of an influx there 
throughout our entire country than doing what's easiest here, 
which is just more Federal legislation that nobody needs, in my 
opinion, but I wholeheartedly agree with you on that.
    Secretary Raimondo. Can I say one thing on that?
    Mr. Miller. Sure.
    Secretary Raimondo. As part of the incentive program, the 
CHIPS money we're putting out, we are requiring the applicant 
to come to us with money from the State, including workforce. 
So we're putting the burden on the company, say Intel in your 
case, for example----
    Mr. Miller. Yes.
    Secretary Raimondo [continuing]. Would go to Ohio or go to 
Columbus and find out what incentives, including workforce or 
apprenticeship programs, whatever, put it in the application 
before they apply to us. We're trying to draw forward all that 
at the local level.
    I also started an initiative called a Million Women in 
Construction. There's about a million women right now in 
America that work in construction. We've got to try to double 
it. I mean----
    Mr. Miller. I just met with a group actually right before 
here, about women in construction. You know, I have a few 
questions here, but I'm just going to ask, what do you think 
when it comes to the technical education, the drawback that 
we're seeing amongst the trades? Do you attribute it to work 
ethic? Do you attribute it to societal norms within this 
country changing? I mean, you've talked about innovation. You 
know, we've shipped off, you know, manufacturing to focus on 
innovation within this country, and we've lost out on that so 
we don't have parity. I mean, where do you think it is? Because 
in Cleveland, Ohio, in our steel workers, it's hot in the 
summer, and it's very cold in the winter, and it is tough work, 
but what I can tell you is----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. They're getting paid $120,000 a 
year----
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Miller [continuing]. Right now with full pensions, and 
they will be millionaires and our kids that are going to school 
will be half a million in debt. So just curious what your 
response----
    Secretary Raimondo. I totally agree. You know, I think it's 
a lot of things. We can maybe follow up when we have more than 
a minute. I do think the cultural norms, I think, like pushing 
everybody to college isn't necessarily the right move. And 
most--like 40 percent of American kids who go to college drop 
out, so they have loans, no degree, and it's not a good path. 
So I've--even when I was Governor, I'm a big believer in 
vocational training, technical skills, apprenticeships. Girls 
should think of themselves as a plumber or as a welder. They 
can do these jobs. You know, the average entry level like 
certified nurse assistant or home healthcare, which is heavily 
women, is like maybe like $15 an hour, and those are tough 
jobs, too. The average plumber apprentice maybe 40 bucks an 
hour, on your way to 80 bucks an hour. So I think we have to 
start to say these are good jobs. They're good jobs for 
America. You know, not everybody has to be a Ph.D. engineer or 
whatever. Go do these jobs. Build the future of America and 
make a good living.
    Mr. Miller. I could not agree more. I'd love to follow up 
with you later on. Chairman, my time has ended. I yield back.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
    And now, I'll recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Lieu.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Secretary 
Raimondo, for your leadership. I'd like to ask you some 
questions about artificial intelligence. AI has been a driver 
of our economy and will continue to be a driver of our economy. 
Last year with a public release of large language models, 
individuals and companies now have access to very expensive AI 
technology at their fingertips. Largely, that's going to 
benefit society. It can also cause harm because some of these 
individuals would be terrorists or criminals.
    Just a few minutes ago, I went on ChatGPT and simply typed 
in how can I build a lethal virus? And it said, I'm very sorry, 
but I can't assist with that. Then I asked, how do I build a 
dirty nuclear bomb? Same answer, I can't assist with that. And 
that's because ChatGPT is a closed AI system and their 
programmers put in guardrails so it doesn't answer those 
questions. Open source large language models, you can have the 
guardrails removed pretty easily. I want to know if you or the 
Department of Commerce have a--has a view on whether there 
should be some regulations on open source AI large language 
models above a certain size?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. Let me say this and then answer 
your question directly. I agree, AI has incredible potential, 
which is incredibly exciting, especially in healthcare, if you 
think about, you know, finding cures to diseases more quickly. 
But the downside is just as scary, and that's why the White 
House has convened companies to take on voluntary commitments. 
I think we need to do that as a bridge to this body, Congress, 
enacting regulations. But yes, we have to think about the 
threats of open models and come up with a regulatory 
environment as well because, as I understand it--and you know 
more than I do--the open models are only like a generation 
behind the largest frontier of large language models, which is 
to say they're pretty powerful, and so we do need to find ways 
to regulate and protect the downside for the open models.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. NIST has done incredible work, and 
they have put out an AI risk management framework that's gotten 
good reviews from both the public sector and private sector. 
Part of it is simply having organizations think through the 
issues raised by AI and have a process for working through 
those issues. Earlier this year, Congressmembers Zoe Lofgren, 
Haley Stevens, and I wrote a letter to the President asking him 
to apply the NIST risk management framework to the entire 
Federal executive branch. So I'd like for you to request and 
consider applying the NIST risk management framework to the 
Department of Commerce, and if you would look into that, that'd 
be greatly appreciated.
    Secretary Raimondo. OK. I will.
    Mr. Lieu. And then lastly, I want to follow up on your 
comment, that it was not such a great idea to push everyone 
into four-year colleges, and I think that if you look across 
our economy, there is a huge shortage of skilled workers in the 
trades, and so I support your efforts in that regard. Anything 
I can do to help incentivize having more people in the trades, 
I'd like to help you with that.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Lieu. With that, I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller [presiding]. Mr. Casten from Illinois.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman. Madam 
Secretary, nice to see you today.
    The--I want to chat a little bit. As you know, when we were 
debating the--what became the CHIPS and Science Act, we were--
our office was concerned about--with this huge amount of money, 
thankfully, that we're putting in, how do we make sure that 
those taxpayer money--that taxpayer money is not going to 
shareholders through buyback programs and how do we put those 
protections in place? And ultimately, we weren't successful in 
getting the strong language we wanted in there. There's some 
weaker language in the bill and--such as the legislative 
process.
    But as a result of that, we had led a letter last February 
to Michael Schmidt in your office, asking basically what could 
we do administratively to put those stronger protections in. 
I'm grateful for a lot of the back-and-forth we had with your 
office afterwards, in addition to some of the statements that 
your office and you personally have made about giving 
preference to companies that are not going to engage in 
buybacks.
    Having said all that, I'm a little bit concerned about your 
exchange at the start of this hearing with Mr. Babin saying 
that if a company--that that would not be a prerequisite for 
funding if a company didn't make those commitments. And so, to 
my mind, if that's not a prerequisite, that raises the 
possibility that we may find ourselves in a situation giving 
money through CHIPS to a company that doesn't need the money, 
essentially displacing private capital, and creating a--what we 
were concerned about two years ago, that wealth transfers from 
taxpayers to shareholders.
    And so I guess my first question for you is when you say 
that you will be giving preference, can you explain 
mechanically what that means? Is this just a nice-to-have? How 
are you actually prioritizing when you make these investments?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So, as you well know, the statute 
says our money cannot be used for buybacks, so we're going to 
do everything we can to invest the money in accordance with the 
statute. What I was saying earlier, I think the question was a 
version of can you guarantee you won't give money to a company 
that does buybacks? And the answer to that is no, we may, but 
we have a very rigorous system where this--this like a lot of 
back-and-forth with these companies. They apply and we have, 
you know, months or weeks of discussion. They need to show us 
their books, show us the financial plan, show us how much 
they're investing in research and development, and prove to us 
that they actually need our money to do whatever it is, you 
know, that they're doing.
    So I think of it as like a balance. My number one job is to 
hit the national security goals, also, to protect taxpayer 
money, not use any--you know, get a good deal, not use any--not 
give any company a dollar more than they need to to hit the 
mission, and obviously, most important, like to do what the 
statute says.
    So it is true that we have a preference for companies that 
won't do buybacks, mostly because we need them to put every 
single penny they have into their workforce, into innovation, 
into R&D. but I can't promise you that a company that does in 
their--you know, in their business, do buybacks or has in the 
past done buybacks won't receive an incentive grant if we think 
the business they're in is necessary for our national security 
and they can't be successful in doing that without an 
incentive.
    Mr. Casten. What enforcement do you have if you do all 
that, they make the voluntary pledge, and then two years from 
now, they violate the pledge?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes.
    Mr. Casten. Do you have clawback provisions you're putting 
in? Like legally, can you have recourse back to that taxpayer 
money?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes, thank you for asking that because 
I should have said it before. All of these grants will be sent 
out in tranches. So let's say XYZ company receives a $2 billion 
grant. We're not going to wire them $2 billion. They are 
subject to an investment plan. So you can, you know, get X 
amount, hit these milestones, get Y amount. If at any point 
along the way they break any of the conditions, either, 
depending on what they do, we can claw back money or they don't 
get the next installation.
    Mr. Casten. OK. I'm out of time, but I would welcome to 
continue the conversation and yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman from California is now 
recognized.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary for your testimony and your 
leadership.
    My district in the San Francisco Bay Area is a hub of the 
innovation economy, so lots of folks are interested in how 
CHIPS and Science is rolling out. In July, the Semiconductor 
Industry Association released a study that projected a 
shortfall of 67,000 workers in the semiconductor industry by 
2030. As you know, to address this challenge, CHIPS and Science 
Act authorized a number of workforce development programs 
scattered throughout the CHIPS office, R&D programs, and 
incentive programs. I am a veteran of our California Workforce 
Development Board, as well as our local Workforce Investment 
Board in San Mateo County, so my question is how is the 
Department's overall strategy enabling the semiconductor 
workforce through these programs, how that coordination is 
happening with the existing Federal workforce funding streams? 
But also, is there coordination going on with the State 
workforce development boards and--State and local workforce 
boards? How is all that being integrated if it is?
    Secretary Raimondo. It is. The way we're endeavoring to do 
that coordination is every company who applies for money and 
receives money has to give us a workforce plan that we approve 
after extensive back-and-forth. And in that plan is what is the 
State doing, what is the city doing, what's Commerce doing? But 
then also, you know, like--as I said before, the NSF. So we're 
trying to have a plan in place for every, you know, company's 
proposal.
    Mr. Mullin. And just----
    Secretary Raimondo. I also have a workforce team, I should 
say. I've built a workforce team at the CHIPS office in 
Commerce, so to just give you a sense, like we are really 
serious about the workforce component and providing technical 
assistance where we can so that everyone has a really fulsome 
workforce plan.
    Mr. Mullin. Great. And my district has over 600 life 
science companies, so I just wanted to ask you about how NIST 
collaborates with other agencies such as the FDA (Food and Drug 
Administration), for example, to create frameworks and 
standards that ensure biotech products go through the 
regulatory process in an efficient way. What kind of 
coordination is happening through your department and other 
entities like the FDA, for example?
    Secretary Raimondo. Exactly what you say. I think NIST is--
I give so much credit to them because they are like neutral, 
science-based place that works with industry, but also other 
agencies. And I know biotech is one of the top priorities.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for your leadership, and with that, I 
yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Miller. The gentleman from New York is now recognized.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Chair and 
Ranking Member for holding this important hearing, and 
Secretary Raimondo for your leadership at the Department of 
Commerce.
    New York State and especially the capital region, the 
district that I represent, have been a pioneer in computing 
design, development, and manufacturing for nearly 80 years. 
Today, New York State is home to the world's most advanced 
microelectronic breakthroughs, including the foundational chip 
innovations that enable today's AI systems and the world's most 
powerful AI supercomputer. Our existing infrastructure, paired 
with a deep bench of knowhow, means that New York is ready to 
become the linchpin for national efforts to coordinate NSTC 
activities aimed at alleviating the chip shortage and 
propelling sustainable R&D. I understand the selection 
committee will soon announce the Board of Trustees for the new 
nonprofit entity that will construct the NSTC.
    So, Madam Secretary, can you outline a timeline for the 
announcement of the board and next steps they will take once 
impaneled?
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So in the next, you know, couple 
of months, I think we'll have announcements about the board. 
Their first thing that they would do would be to announce the 
CEO of the NSTC, which also should all happen this fall. And 
then there will be a process to actually establish the NSTC, 
you know, early next year. And the decisions around how many, 
locations, et cetera, will all be made, you know, at that time.
    Mr. Tonko. And can you provide insight on the governance 
structure that the NSTC will use to operate?
    Secretary Raimondo. So they will have a--we have a 
selection committee now that's going to put an initial board in 
place. That initial board will choose a CEO and then other 
board members. And then our Department of Commerce will have a 
agreement with NIST, a research agreement, which--similar to 
what NIST has done for a long time with other entities, which 
will lay out, you know, how they intend to use the Federal 
money to execute their vision.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And once the board is selected, how 
does the Department intend to ensure that public-private 
partnerships drive solutions to the NSTC's grand challenges?
    Secretary Raimondo. So the whole thing is a public-private 
partnership as per statute. It's a consortia. We are--we're 
committed to making this be a purpose-built, you know, science-
based, neutral effort. And, as I said, there'll be a research 
agreement as between NIST and the NSTC which will lay all that 
out, and we will hold them accountable to what is in that 
agreement.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And there was a white paper on the 
NAPMP that was supposed to be issued and has been delayed. Can 
you share any new or additional information on the timing and 
scope of the entity?
    Secretary Raimondo. I just looked at one of my associates 
because it's coming very soon, this fall. I was hoping he was 
going to say maybe next week, but I guess we'll stay on it.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. So we'll go with this fall.
    Secretary Raimondo. Fall, yes.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. I have several academic institutions in my 
district that will be critical to educating and training the 
workforce needed to support industry demands, as well as 
conducting the advanced research for the next generation of 
chip technology. Can you provide insight into the Department's 
work across Federal agencies to ensure that collaboration with 
universities will incubate that research and science?
    Secretary Raimondo. That is--that's exactly the plan. You 
know, we're working with the NSF. We're actually working very 
well with the DOD, across agencies to work with universities. 
The vision would be that the universities--look, someone asked 
me earlier what success looked like in five years. In five 
years it's this seamless back-and-forth between industry, 
startups, and universities so we get the inventions coming out 
of universities, out of the lab, and into products we make in 
America.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, again, I thank you for your responses. 
I thank you for your leadership.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    Mr. Collins [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes himself 
for four minutes.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for your time. I may go over 
some stuff you've already talked about. I'm not sure, but----
    Secretary Raimondo. Of course.
    Mr. Collins [continuing]. They keep us bouncing around 
here. I'm also Chair of the Subcommittee for Research and 
Technology. So we talk about anything from semiconductors, AI, 
hypersonics, even did a roundtable on quantum technology. And I 
kind of want to ask about your trip to China because China has 
stated that, by 2045, they want to be not only just the 
economic leader, but militarily, socially, even in space. And 
from what we're gathering, a lot of it, they're ahead of us. 
You take quantum technology. I think they spend more than the 
entire world on developing that.
    So I'd like to know what you may have found out--if any of 
that--if there's any evidence of that, they're ahead of us, 
behind us, beside us and what you learned there in China.
    Secretary Raimondo. Yes. So look, I'm as concerned as you 
are that we can't let them get ahead, and we certainly can't 
let them get any of our technology to do things that could hurt 
us. You know, I think that with respect to AI, the United 
States leads the world, and we need to stay there. I also know 
that, as you say, the Chinese Government is putting hundreds 
and hundreds of billions of dollars into these technologies 
with the express goal of dominating. So when I was there, I was 
clear that we don't negotiate when it comes to national 
security, we don't compromise, and I was clear that we're not 
going to make any changes to, for example, our export controls, 
which is what I work on. And we're going to continue to 
vigorously control U.S. technology so they cannot get this 
technology for their military. And I also was clear that as 
long as they have this military-civil fusion strategy where 
really everything is the military and they can go into any 
company and take technology and use it for the military, that 
means we are going to have to be tougher than ever to control 
that technology from getting into the hands of their military. 
It's not that we want to, you know, hold back their economy per 
se it, but we do want to hold back their military, and I was 
very clear in saying that.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, well, I think we should hold back their 
economy, too. I'm very much America first, which I guess kind 
of leads me into my next question. I also sit on Natural 
Resources. So we've been all over the country talking about 
critical minerals, and the fact that we're down to three 
smelters, China processes 80 percent of our critical minerals 
here, and from what we provide. And as far as Taiwan and 
semiconductors, we know that China even threatened to withhold 
critical minerals from them. And I heard you the few minutes I 
was in here earlier, you were talking about making sure that we 
bring semiconductors home, and I wholeheartedly agree with you 
on that. But we have, and this Administration has really made a 
concerted effort, and it's been several Administrations, to not 
allow people to mine here in the States. And I don't understand 
how you can advocate semiconductors here in this country when 
China has already shown that they're willing to withhold 
critical minerals, and we're not willing to mine critical 
minerals here in our own country.
    Secretary Raimondo. So I can't speak to what's been done in 
the past, but I do think you're right. You're right. We are 
dependent on them, and we have to do everything we can to 
either, you know, mine here or on allied shores. And from my 
part of it, you know, I'm going to do what I need to do with 
export controls to hold them back. But when I think about 
chips, the chips is just one piece of it. It's the raw 
materials, it's the rare earths, the critical minerals, and we 
do need a holistic strategy on that.
    Mr. Collins. Right, right. All right. I am out of time. I 
thank you. I want to thank the Secretary for joining us today 
and the Members for their questions. The record will remain 
open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions 
from Members.
    This hearing is adjourned.
    Secretary Raimondo. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]