Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Senate Democrats join with Republicans to vote down Bernie Sanders' effort to stop outsourcing
What is happening? I feel like I missed something between the other post about
Joe Manchin joins with Tom Cotton to reroute $8 billion in climate funds to weapons systems
and now
part of a series of votes on Wednesday, a majority of Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to block an effort by Bernie Sanders to stop corporations from outsourcing U.S. jobs and preventing workers from forming labor unions.
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Senate Democrats join with Republicans to vote down Bernie Sanders' effort to stop outsourcing
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/05/senate-democrats-join-with-to-vote-down-bernie-sanders-effort-to-stop-outsourcing-2/
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/05/senate-democrats-join-with-to-vote-down-bernie-sanders-effort-to-stop-outsourcing-2/
Good list... 
This is about passing a problem-solving bill. AND, the house is expected to reject the passed substitution, and both committees will move on to reconciliation of their bills.
What's REALLY happening.
Even this Salon puff piece on Sanders, suggesting he was acting to stop evil corporations, etc, not merely performing for this kind of coverage with no chance of making a difference, goes on to provide some information.
Sanders' motion comes as the U.S. faces an unprecedented semiconductor shortage as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns.
And from this posted link:
Sen. Cantwell has repeatedly called for Congress to act on bipartisan legislation. Last Thursday, she spoke on the Senate floor about the impact the semiconductor supply chain shortage is having on the price of used cars. The senator also chaired a Commerce Committee hearing with tech CEOs on the importance of CHIPS legislation, to invest in America’s domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Yes! You know it's needed when bipartisan majorities get behind it these days. As it happens, my husband and I need to buy an affordable used car. Something I'd been suggesting before this national emergency developed, but oh, well.
I would, however, advise proofreading to avoid embarrassing mistakes.
Number two, you misused 'but' as 'but' implies that you are going to say something contrary to your stated stance
example:
I normally love pizza, but to eat it 15 days in a row is started to drive me cray.
example:
I normally love pizza, but to eat it 15 days in a row is started to drive me cray.
to what the umbrage was really about. I thought it obvious and that the conjunction umbrage was really just a sidebar. Thanks for your sharp eye! 👍
Those senators who voted against a nonbinding motion instructing the House what to do probably did so because they thought it was in the best interest of getting a final version that will pass in both chambers so Biden can sign it.
When the revised House version goes back to the Senate, they may well debate the issue again. It's a given that not everyone is going to get everything they want. That's how legislation works.
Any senator interested in a bill that will protect workers from outsourcing and union busting is free to write such a bill and shepherd it through the process. But that's hard work.
It’s Getting Worse
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-working-class-voter
March 10, 2022
snip
Democrats have generally comforted themselves that their poor performance among the working class was purely a matter of white working class voters, who they presumed were motivated by retrograde racial and cultural attitudes. But since 2012, nonwhite working class voters have shifted away from the Democrats by 18 margin points, with a particularly sharp shift in the last election and particularly among Hispanics. This gives Democrats’ nonchalance about their losing record among working class voters a bit of a whistling past the graveyard quality.
Data since the 2020 election confirm a pattern of declining Democratic support among the nonwhite working class. Put another way: education polarization, it’s not just for white voters anymore. As a result, Democratic strength among the multiracial working class continues to weaken. In a just-released Morning Consult/Politico poll, voters were broken down into three categories: noncollege, Bachelor’s degree only and postgraduate. Biden’s approval rating was just 37 percent among all working class voters, but 55 percent among the BA group and 63 percent among the postgraduates. Other polls show similar splits, with Biden faring far more poorly among working class than college-educated voters.
A recent Data for Progress poll shows this pattern extending to the generic Congressional ballot and a hypothetical rematch between Biden and Trump in 2024. Working class voters favor Republicans for Congress by 9 points while college voters prefer Democrats by 17 points. Unsurprisingly, there is a big education gap between white college and working class voters. But there are also wide gaps between working class and college nonwhite voters: Hispanic working class voters are 11 margin points less supportive of Democrats than their college-educated counterparts while black working class voters’ Democratic support is 31 margin points less than college blacks’.
The pattern is similar for the Biden-Trump rematch. Working class voters prefer Trump in 2024 by 7 points, while the college-educated prefer Biden by 21 points. And Hispanic working voters are 17 margin points less supportive of Biden than college Hispanics while working class blacks are 34 points less supportive of Biden than college-educated blacks. Remarkably, 40 percent of working class Hispanics currently say they would vote for Trump, along with 22 percent of working class blacks. These figures strongly suggest that the Democrats’ working class voter problem can no longer be fenced off as a white voter problem.
snip
What Would the Working Class Say? (WWWCS)
The Test Democrats Should Always Be Making
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/what-would-the-working-class-say
January 27, 2022
All across the Western world the working class is deserting the Left. Thomas Piketty and his colleagues among others have copiously documented this trend. The United States is no exception to this trend. In the 2020 Presidential election, despite a slight improvement over 2016, Democrats still lost white working class (noncollege) voters in 2020 by 26 points (Catalist two party vote). Since 2012, nonwhite working class voters have shifted away from the Democrats by 18 margin points, with a particularly sharp shift in the last election and particularly among Hispanics. This latter development is particularly important since Democrats have hitherto comforted themselves that losses among the working class were just among whites, who they presume to be motivated by retrograde racial and cultural attitudes. That is no longer a tenable view.
Since the 2020 election, the situation has only worsened. Signs of continued slippage among working class voters were unmistakable in the 2021 elections, most notably among Hispanic and Asian working class voters. In the latest Monmouth poll, Biden’s approval rating among the multiracial working class was an abysmal 32 percent vs. 59 percent disapproval, compared to 52 percent approval among the college-educated. This performance among working class voters should be unacceptable for a party of the left. After all, what is the point of a left party that cannot command the loyalty of the working class and therefore plausibly claim to represent its interests? And in raw electoral terms, worsening performance among working class voters makes the Democrats’ quest for political dominance essentially impossible, since the share of working class voters in the country is 70 percent larger than the share of college-educated voters.
To help remedy this situation, I suggest a simple test Democrats should be continually making on both their policies and rhetoric: What Would the Working Class Say? (WWWCS). This test is not so hard to do but it does entail getting outside of the liberal college-educated bubble so many Democrats live within, particularly as experienced on social media, in activist circles and within advocacy, nonprofit, media and academic institutions. Look at actual public opinion data—not as summarized by someone you know or something you read. Look at focus group reports. Talk to actual working class people—there are lots of them! Listen to your intuitions about how working class people would likely react to policies and rhetoric currently associated with the Democrats —not how you think they should react. Think of family members or people you grew up with who are working class. Try to get inside their heads. They are less ideological, more focused on material concerns, more likely to be struggling economically, less interested in cutting edge social issues, more patriotic and generally more culturally conservative. All this makes a difference.
That WWWCS test can tell you a lot about whether Democrats are on track with their approach. If the test indicates that Democrats are advocating or saying something that is likely unpopular, offputting and/or just lacks salience with working class people, that policy or rhetoric is probably on the wrong track. Conversely, if the test indicates that working class people are likely to view what Democrats are advocating/saying as desirable, in tune with their values and actually important to their everyday lives, that is a very good sign.
snip
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/420
The House version H.R.842 - Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 (introduced by Bobby Scott) already passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/842/actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it odd that Salon and its allies are so focused on a nonbinding motion to instruct, but there are no headlines about this bill?
The House version H.R.842 - Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 (introduced by Bobby Scott) already passed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/842/actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it odd that Salon and its allies are so focused on a nonbinding motion to instruct, but there are no headlines about this bill?
all of that information is available.
And you might want to contact Senator Sanders. He’s on one of the committees it’s “stuck” in.
Last year, the House drafted a bill called - H.R.4521 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021
The House eventually passed it on 2/4/22 and sent it to the Senate.
The Senate had already been working on their own version so after voting to invoke cloture (with 68 votes), they then took their version and amended the House version, with theirs "as a substitute". They then debated and passed that on 3/28/22.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4521/actions
So NOW the chambers have passed two different versions of this bill and they have to reconcile them. And that is what they are now in the process of doing -
Sen. Sanders, et al, had previously submitted amendments to what would be the substitute that I am not sure made it, so since it appears they are going to have this go through a Joint Committee to resolve the 2 versions, various "motions to instruct" have been offered on what Senators would like to see the conferees include in the SINGLE VERSION that both chambers are going to ultimately vote on.
Here is a list of the actions, including the motions - https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4521/all-actions
Here is the transcript of his that is the subject of the OP - https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2022/05/04/senate-section/article/S2312-1
Motion to Instruct
Mr. SANDERS. I call up my motion to instruct, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment
to the bill H.R. 4521 be instructed to insist that the final
conference report include provisions that require each
beneficiary of Federal financial assistance for semiconductor
manufacturing to be banned from purchasing the stock of the
beneficiary, from outsourcing employment opportunities of the
beneficiary to any country outside of the United States, and
from repealing any collective bargaining requirements of the
beneficiary, and that require each such beneficiary to issue
warrants and equity stakes in the enterprise of the
beneficiary to the Federal Government and to remain neutral
in any union organizing effort of the employees of the
beneficiary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the Sanders
motion to instruct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, no one disagrees that we need to
manufacture more microchips here in the United States, but we should
not be providing a $53 billion blank check to the highly profitable
microchip industry with no protections for the American taxpayer.
The five companies that will likely receive the lion's share of this
funding: Intel, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Micron Technology, and
Global Foundries made over $75 billion in profits last year and spent
over $18 billion on stock buybacks.
We have strange priorities here in the Senate. We can't extend the
child tax credit to combat child poverty. We can't deal with the crisis
in childcare. We can't provide dental care to seniors on Medicare. We
can't deal with climate change. But somehow we can provide a massive
amount of corporate welfare to a handful of corporations.
The motion I am offering today would instruct the conferees to impose
the following conditions on companies receiving this assistance: They
must agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal
Government.
If private corporations are going to benefit from $53 billion in
taxpayer welfare, the financial gains must be shared with the American
people--not just wealthy stockholders. Further, these companies must
agree to not buy back their own stock, not outsource American jobs, not
repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and remain neutral in
union organizing efforts.
What we are talking about here is not a radical idea. These exact
conditions, word for word, were included in the bipartisan CARES Act,
which passed the Senate 96 to 0.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Sanders'
motion to instruct.
When America invented the semiconductor 40 years ago, we produced
nearly half of the world's semiconductors. Today, we produce less than
10 percent.
Look what happened: Plants shut down across Ohio. Whirlpool, Ford,
GM--forced to idle plants because of the ``spread out all over the
world'' supply chain.
We passed the CHIPS Act 2 years ago. I thank Senator Cantwell who--
what she has done to stop this, encourage more production of these
chips at home.
This bill will fund--this legislation will fund the bill Congress
already passed. It is not a bailout. It is critical to my State--10,000
good jobs, 5,000 building trades--union building trades jobs paying
prevailing wage for the next 10 years. It is an incentive program.
The EU, China, Taiwan, South Korea all provide incentives to make
these chips domestically. None of them require stock warrants.
Everybody in this body knows my position in opposition to the
financial services industry to stock buybacks. You can count on that.
I yield my final 30 seconds to Senator Wicker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, there are already significant taxpayer
mandates in the bill, as it is limiting award size, prohibiting funds
from going to so-called foreign entities, such as China, and clawback
provisions.
Why do we need chips?
We need chips for Javelin missiles. We need them for--major weapons
systems contain thousands of chips. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
includes 250,000 chips.
It would make it much harder for Americans to produce these chips if
the Sanders amendment were to pass.
I urge a no vote, and I join my friend from Ohio in urging a no vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired on the motion.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, may I have 30 seconds in response?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. No one debates the need for chips. But to my friend from
Ohio, I would say: You are right. We lost tens of thousands of jobs
over the last 20 years. You know why? Because the same microchip
companies shut down plants in America to go for cheap labor in Asia,
and now we are rewarding them with $53 billion in corporate welfare.
For all of my friends who talk about the deficit and how we can't
fund the needs of our children or the elderly, $53 billion going to
some of the most profitable corporations in America without any
taxpayer protection is an absolute outrage.
Let's vote for this proposal.
Vote on Motion
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
The result was announced--yeas 6, nays 87, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]
YEAS--6
Baldwin
Booker
Markey
Merkley
Sanders
Warren
NAYS--87
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
[[Page S2319]]
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--7
Bennet
Blunt
Coons
Heinrich
Lujan
Menendez
Shelby
The motion was rejected.
Mr. SANDERS. I call up my motion to instruct, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] moves that the
managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment
to the bill H.R. 4521 be instructed to insist that the final
conference report include provisions that require each
beneficiary of Federal financial assistance for semiconductor
manufacturing to be banned from purchasing the stock of the
beneficiary, from outsourcing employment opportunities of the
beneficiary to any country outside of the United States, and
from repealing any collective bargaining requirements of the
beneficiary, and that require each such beneficiary to issue
warrants and equity stakes in the enterprise of the
beneficiary to the Federal Government and to remain neutral
in any union organizing effort of the employees of the
beneficiary.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the Sanders
motion to instruct.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, no one disagrees that we need to
manufacture more microchips here in the United States, but we should
not be providing a $53 billion blank check to the highly profitable
microchip industry with no protections for the American taxpayer.
The five companies that will likely receive the lion's share of this
funding: Intel, Texas Instruments, Samsung, Micron Technology, and
Global Foundries made over $75 billion in profits last year and spent
over $18 billion on stock buybacks.
We have strange priorities here in the Senate. We can't extend the
child tax credit to combat child poverty. We can't deal with the crisis
in childcare. We can't provide dental care to seniors on Medicare. We
can't deal with climate change. But somehow we can provide a massive
amount of corporate welfare to a handful of corporations.
The motion I am offering today would instruct the conferees to impose
the following conditions on companies receiving this assistance: They
must agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal
Government.
If private corporations are going to benefit from $53 billion in
taxpayer welfare, the financial gains must be shared with the American
people--not just wealthy stockholders. Further, these companies must
agree to not buy back their own stock, not outsource American jobs, not
repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and remain neutral in
union organizing efforts.
What we are talking about here is not a radical idea. These exact
conditions, word for word, were included in the bipartisan CARES Act,
which passed the Senate 96 to 0.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Sanders'
motion to instruct.
When America invented the semiconductor 40 years ago, we produced
nearly half of the world's semiconductors. Today, we produce less than
10 percent.
Look what happened: Plants shut down across Ohio. Whirlpool, Ford,
GM--forced to idle plants because of the ``spread out all over the
world'' supply chain.
We passed the CHIPS Act 2 years ago. I thank Senator Cantwell who--
what she has done to stop this, encourage more production of these
chips at home.
This bill will fund--this legislation will fund the bill Congress
already passed. It is not a bailout. It is critical to my State--10,000
good jobs, 5,000 building trades--union building trades jobs paying
prevailing wage for the next 10 years. It is an incentive program.
The EU, China, Taiwan, South Korea all provide incentives to make
these chips domestically. None of them require stock warrants.
Everybody in this body knows my position in opposition to the
financial services industry to stock buybacks. You can count on that.
I yield my final 30 seconds to Senator Wicker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, there are already significant taxpayer
mandates in the bill, as it is limiting award size, prohibiting funds
from going to so-called foreign entities, such as China, and clawback
provisions.
Why do we need chips?
We need chips for Javelin missiles. We need them for--major weapons
systems contain thousands of chips. The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
includes 250,000 chips.
It would make it much harder for Americans to produce these chips if
the Sanders amendment were to pass.
I urge a no vote, and I join my friend from Ohio in urging a no vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired on the motion.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, may I have 30 seconds in response?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. No one debates the need for chips. But to my friend from
Ohio, I would say: You are right. We lost tens of thousands of jobs
over the last 20 years. You know why? Because the same microchip
companies shut down plants in America to go for cheap labor in Asia,
and now we are rewarding them with $53 billion in corporate welfare.
For all of my friends who talk about the deficit and how we can't
fund the needs of our children or the elderly, $53 billion going to
some of the most profitable corporations in America without any
taxpayer protection is an absolute outrage.
Let's vote for this proposal.
Vote on Motion
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
The result was announced--yeas 6, nays 87, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]
YEAS--6
Baldwin
Booker
Markey
Merkley
Sanders
Warren
NAYS--87
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
[[Page S2319]]
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Lummis
Manchin
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--7
Bennet
Blunt
Coons
Heinrich
Lujan
Menendez
Shelby
The motion was rejected.
I believe that what he was arguing was for an earlier amendment that was submitted that didn't make the Senate's "amendment as a substitute" and he wanted to get some version of it added back in through "instructing" conferees from the Senate to get it back in when they meet with the House conferees.
His (and others who signed on) original amendment was this - https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2022/03/24/senate-section/article/S1778-5
Text of Senate Amendment 5011; Congressional Record Vol. 168, No. 53
(Senate - March 24, 2022)
[Pages S1778-S1779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SA 5011. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Baldwin)
submitted an amendment intended to be
[[Page S1779]]
proposed to amendment SA 5002 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R.
4521, to provide for a coordinated Federal research initiative to
ensure continued United States leadership in engineering biology; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1002(a), add the following:
(5) Conditions of receipt.--
(A) Required agreement.--A covered entity to which the
Secretary of Commerce awards Federal financial assistance
under section 9902 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15
U.S.C. 4652) or paragraph (3) of this subsection with amounts
appropriated under this subsection shall enter into an
agreement that specifies that, during the 5-year period
immediately following the award of the Federal financial
assistance--
(i) the covered entity will not--
(I) repurchase an equity security that is listed on a
national securities exchange of the covered entity or any
parent company of the covered entity, except to the extent
required under a contractual obligation that is in effect as
of the date of enactment of this Act;
(II) outsource or offshore jobs to a location outside of
the United States; or
(III) abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements;
and
(ii) the covered entity will remain neutral in any union
organizing effort.
(B) Financial protection of government.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce may not award
Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under
section 9902 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C.
4652) or paragraph (3) of this subsection with amounts
appropriated under this subsection, unless--
(I)(aa) the covered entity has issued securities that are
traded on a national securities exchange; and
(bb) the Secretary of the Treasury receives a warrant or
equity interest in the covered entity; or
(II) in the case of any covered entity other than a covered
entity described in subclause (I), the Secretary of the
Treasury receives, in the discretion of the Secretary of the
Treasury--
(aa) a warrant or equity interest in the covered entity; or
(bb) a senior debt instrument issued by the covered entity.
(ii) Terms and conditions.--The terms and conditions of any
warrant, equity interest, or senior debt instrument received
under clause (i) shall be set by the Secretary of Commerce
and shall meet the following requirements:
(I) Purposes.--Such terms and conditions shall be designed
to provide for a reasonable participation by the Secretary of
Commerce, for the benefit of taxpayers, in equity
appreciation in the case of a warrant or other equity
interest, or a reasonable interest rate premium, in the case
of a debt instrument.
(II) Authority to sell, exercise, or surrender.--For the
primary benefit of taxpayers, the Secretary of Commerce may
sell, exercise, or surrender a warrant or any senior debt
instrument received under this subparagraph. The Secretary of
Commerce shall not exercise voting power with respect to any
shares of common stock acquired under this subparagraph.
(III) Sufficiency.--If the Secretary of Commerce determines
that a covered entity cannot feasibly issue warrants or other
equity interests as required by this subparagraph, the
Secretary of Commerce may accept a senior debt instrument in
an amount and on such terms as the Secretary of Commerce
deems appropriate.
______
(Senate - March 24, 2022)
[Pages S1778-S1779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SA 5011. Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Baldwin)
submitted an amendment intended to be
[[Page S1779]]
proposed to amendment SA 5002 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R.
4521, to provide for a coordinated Federal research initiative to
ensure continued United States leadership in engineering biology; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1002(a), add the following:
(5) Conditions of receipt.--
(A) Required agreement.--A covered entity to which the
Secretary of Commerce awards Federal financial assistance
under section 9902 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15
U.S.C. 4652) or paragraph (3) of this subsection with amounts
appropriated under this subsection shall enter into an
agreement that specifies that, during the 5-year period
immediately following the award of the Federal financial
assistance--
(i) the covered entity will not--
(I) repurchase an equity security that is listed on a
national securities exchange of the covered entity or any
parent company of the covered entity, except to the extent
required under a contractual obligation that is in effect as
of the date of enactment of this Act;
(II) outsource or offshore jobs to a location outside of
the United States; or
(III) abrogate existing collective bargaining agreements;
and
(ii) the covered entity will remain neutral in any union
organizing effort.
(B) Financial protection of government.--
(i) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce may not award
Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under
section 9902 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C.
4652) or paragraph (3) of this subsection with amounts
appropriated under this subsection, unless--
(I)(aa) the covered entity has issued securities that are
traded on a national securities exchange; and
(bb) the Secretary of the Treasury receives a warrant or
equity interest in the covered entity; or
(II) in the case of any covered entity other than a covered
entity described in subclause (I), the Secretary of the
Treasury receives, in the discretion of the Secretary of the
Treasury--
(aa) a warrant or equity interest in the covered entity; or
(bb) a senior debt instrument issued by the covered entity.
(ii) Terms and conditions.--The terms and conditions of any
warrant, equity interest, or senior debt instrument received
under clause (i) shall be set by the Secretary of Commerce
and shall meet the following requirements:
(I) Purposes.--Such terms and conditions shall be designed
to provide for a reasonable participation by the Secretary of
Commerce, for the benefit of taxpayers, in equity
appreciation in the case of a warrant or other equity
interest, or a reasonable interest rate premium, in the case
of a debt instrument.
(II) Authority to sell, exercise, or surrender.--For the
primary benefit of taxpayers, the Secretary of Commerce may
sell, exercise, or surrender a warrant or any senior debt
instrument received under this subparagraph. The Secretary of
Commerce shall not exercise voting power with respect to any
shares of common stock acquired under this subparagraph.
(III) Sufficiency.--If the Secretary of Commerce determines
that a covered entity cannot feasibly issue warrants or other
equity interests as required by this subparagraph, the
Secretary of Commerce may accept a senior debt instrument in
an amount and on such terms as the Secretary of Commerce
deems appropriate.
______
I haven't had chance to go through what I expect is thousands of pages of legislation, but I think we all know what has happened in the past 30 years with American jobs. It has been a combo of engaging in "trade" vs internationally-operating businesses focusing on the lowest "labor costs" as part of that "trade".
But if anything was needed to FINALLY bring the problem to bear with making a decision having your "supply chain" so scattered around the world in search of the $$$, was a couple of HUGE disruptions, like umm.... 
a pandemic... and a war, and that has proven enough to blow their whole "business model" right out of the water.
They have refused to consider "redundancy" (for cost savings in case of disruption) and now they are stuck for not having even a small amount of it. "Shipping" now rises closer to becoming a single point of failure.
before the pandemic, etc, because of problems with outsourcing, but of course -- what came next...! Plus, altering the direction of a body of federal law would be something like turning a nation-sized ship in any era. Even without civil war on the bridge.
Sherrod Brown, who you know is a good progressive Democrat who has amazingly been able to remain in office in what has become an increasingly red-if-fied Ohio, mentioned "why" -
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Sanders'
motion to instruct.
When America invented the semiconductor 40 years ago, we produced
nearly half of the world's semiconductors. Today, we produce less than
10 percent.
Look what happened: Plants shut down across Ohio. Whirlpool, Ford,
GM--forced to idle plants because of the ``spread out all over the
world'' supply chain.
We passed the CHIPS Act 2 years ago. I thank Senator Cantwell who--
what she has done to stop this, encourage more production of these
chips at home.
This bill will fund--this legislation will fund the bill Congress
already passed. It is not a bailout. It is critical to my State--10,000
good jobs, 5,000 building trades--union building trades jobs paying
prevailing wage for the next 10 years. It is an incentive program.
The EU, China, Taiwan, South Korea all provide incentives to make
these chips domestically. None of them require stock warrants.
Everybody in this body knows my position in opposition to the
financial services industry to stock buybacks. You can count on that.
I yield my final 30 seconds to Senator Wicker.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Sanders'
motion to instruct.
When America invented the semiconductor 40 years ago, we produced
nearly half of the world's semiconductors. Today, we produce less than
10 percent.
Look what happened: Plants shut down across Ohio. Whirlpool, Ford,
GM--forced to idle plants because of the ``spread out all over the
world'' supply chain.
We passed the CHIPS Act 2 years ago. I thank Senator Cantwell who--
what she has done to stop this, encourage more production of these
chips at home.
This bill will fund--this legislation will fund the bill Congress
already passed. It is not a bailout. It is critical to my State--10,000
good jobs, 5,000 building trades--union building trades jobs paying
prevailing wage for the next 10 years. It is an incentive program.
The EU, China, Taiwan, South Korea all provide incentives to make
these chips domestically. None of them require stock warrants.
Everybody in this body knows my position in opposition to the
financial services industry to stock buybacks. You can count on that.
I yield my final 30 seconds to Senator Wicker.
Brown is saying is that last year, the Senate passed the initial version of this.... took me forever to find it but here it is -
S.1260 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021
The above has $52 billion in funding (as an appropriation). They sent it to the House who modified it and sent their version -
H.R.4521 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021
back for Senate consideration which is what they are working on right now after amending again.
Meanwhile the separate "CHIPS ACT" that was referenced has actually been rolled into the Defense Authorization bill -
S.1605 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
which is now law.
So the $52 billion funding included in what they are working on right now that has already been authorized "by law" under the above NDAA, and he wants the bill to move forward. There may be another mechanism to achieve the same type of protections - perhaps when they actually go to conference and slog through the sausage-making without what is a "non-binding instruction" to add those provisions in.
And note, what Sanders was requesting is not a "formal amendment" - it's just a way to say "Hey Conference Commitee - the Senate would like you to add this in whatever draft you come up with". Meaning what he proposed can still happen regardless of that "vote" (the vote was basically saying those Senators weren't ready to sign off on that "suggestion" ).
In any case, they have to work out a final version of the bill that BOTH chambers will have to vote on.
And now my brain is completely FRIED!!!!!!!!
