⚡️ News Flash ⚡️

“Computing Power and Competition: Examining the Semiconductor Ecosystem”

House Committee on Energy and Commerce
April 15, 2026 (recording linked here)

HEARING INFORMATION

Witnesses and Written Testimony:

• Mr. Jason Grebe, Senior Vice President Corporate Planning, Intel

• Mr. Jason Oxman, President and CEO, Information Technology Industry Council

• Dr. Charles Wessner, Nonresident Senior Advisor, Renewing American Innovation Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

• Mr. Asad Ramzanali, Director of AI and Technology Policy, Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, Vanderbilt University

HEARING HIGHLIGHTS

QUICK SUMMARY

• U.S.-China Competition Drives Urgency: Lawmakers and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the semiconductor industry sits at the center of strategic competition with China, particularly in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Members warned that China’s large-scale state investment and control over key materials pose a direct challenge to U.S. leadership. Witnesses underscored that maintaining dominance in chip production is essential to economic and national security. The hearing reflected bipartisan agreement on the need to compete with China, alongside disagreements over policy approach and implementation.

• Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Taiwan Risk: A central concern was the fragility of global semiconductor supply chains, especially the heavy reliance on Taiwan for advanced chip manufacturing. Members highlighted that disruptions, whether geopolitical or natural, could have severe economic consequences for the United States. Witnesses stressed the importance of expanding domestic manufacturing capacity and diversifying supply chains. Continued investment through policies like the CHIPS and Science Act was framed as critical to reducing these risks.

• Debate Over CHIPS Act Implementation and Policy Direction: While there was consensus that the CHIPS and Science Act has spurred significant investment, members disagreed on how effectively it is being implemented. Some lawmakers raised concerns about program cuts, restructuring, and delays in research and development funding. Witnesses emphasized that manufacturing incentives are only part of the equation and that sustained R&D investment is necessary for long-term leadership. The discussion highlighted tensions over federal strategy, oversight, and execution.

• Policy Levers: Trade, Tax, and Regulation: The hearing identified several policy tools to strengthen U.S. competitiveness, including extending manufacturing tax credits, refining tariff policies, and modernizing permitting and regulatory frameworks. Witnesses cautioned that poorly designed trade policies could raise costs and hinder domestic production. Members also discussed the need to protect intellectual property and ensure access to global markets. Overall, the conversation highlighted the importance of coordinated, long-term policy to support the semiconductor ecosystem.

IN THEIR WORDS

SUMMARY OF OPENING STATEMENTS

• Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis stated that semiconductors were essential to modern society, national security, and economic strength, emphasizing their widespread use across consumer devices, infrastructure, and artificial intelligence applications. He noted that while the United States had historically led in semiconductor design and manufacturing, its manufacturing capacity had declined significantly, creating vulnerabilities in global supply chains. He warned that China was rapidly expanding its capabilities through state-backed investments and control of critical materials, posing a direct challenge to U.S. leadership. He highlighted the growing importance of AI as a primary driver of semiconductor demand and economic growth. He explained that recent congressional and executive actions had aimed to strengthen domestic capabilities but stressed that further policy solutions were needed. He concluded that the hearing would examine both current efforts and additional steps to maintain U.S. competitiveness.

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky emphasized the importance of semiconductors to everyday American life and the broader economy. She pointed to the CHIPS and Science Act as a major effort to create jobs and strengthen domestic manufacturing. She argued that recent policy changes had undermined those gains and led to job losses. She stressed that federal policy should prioritize American workers and sustain long-term job creation in the semiconductor industry. She expressed concern that current actions were not adequately supporting those goals. She concluded that restoring focus on workforce and economic benefits should be a key priority moving forward.

• Full Committee Chairman Guthrie stated that semiconductors were foundational to modern technology, economic growth, and national security, with applications spanning everyday consumer products and advanced AI systems. He emphasized that the industry supported millions of jobs and generated significant export revenue, while also enabling innovation that improved quality of life. He warned that U.S. manufacturing capacity had declined and that supply chain vulnerabilities had been exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. He highlighted recent efforts to strengthen domestic production and attract private investment but noted that global competition, particularly from China, remained a serious challenge. He underscored that maintaining leadership in semiconductor technology was critical to broader geopolitical competition. He concluded that Congress must identify effective strategies to secure supply chains and sustain U.S. leadership in the industry.

• Acting Full Committee Ranking Member Castor stated that semiconductors were critical to a wide range of technologies, including consumer electronics, medical equipment, and artificial intelligence systems. She highlighted the decline in U.S. manufacturing share over recent decades and the resulting supply chain disruptions during the pandemic. She pointed to the CHIPS and Science Act as a key effort to rebuild domestic capacity through significant federal investment and noted progress in funding manufacturing projects. She criticized recent policy decisions that she argued weakened these efforts, including cuts to programs and disruptions to supply chains. She also raised concerns about rising costs and shortages affecting consumers and emphasized the importance of addressing AI-related privacy risks. She concluded that continued investment and strong consumer protections were necessary to ensure both economic and technological leadership.

SUMMARY OF WITNESS STATEMENTS

• Mr. Grebe stated that semiconductors were foundational to economic competitiveness, national security, and leadership in artificial intelligence, arguing that leadership in chips would determine leadership in AI. He emphasized Intel’s role as the only U.S. company that both designs and manufactures leading-edge logic chips domestically and highlighted over $100 billion in planned U.S. manufacturing investments and significant R&D spending. He described surging AI demand as creating both economic opportunity and national security risks, particularly given the high cost and complexity of building fabrication facilities. He warned that global supply chains were under strain from geopolitical competition, material dependencies, and concentrated production in Taiwan. He urged policies that support domestic manufacturing, including trade adjustments, faster regulatory approvals, and workforce development initiatives. He concluded that sustained investment and policy alignment were necessary for the United States to maintain leadership in semiconductor production and AI infrastructure.

• Dr. Wessner argued that semiconductors should be treated as a strategic industry central to economic growth, national security, and military capability rather than as a typical commercial sector. He emphasized that China was aggressively investing in semiconductor development through large-scale industrial policy and had already made significant technological progress. He cautioned that efforts to restrict China’s access to advanced technologies may only slow, rather than stop, its advancement. He highlighted China’s advantages in critical minerals and long-term strategic planning as key competitive threats. He stressed that U.S. policy should focus on proactive investment and strengthening domestic industry rather than overly restrictive measures that could harm American firms. He concluded that sustained support for infrastructure, innovation, and industry capacity was essential to maintaining competitiveness.

• Mr. Ramzanali stated that the CHIPS and Science Act had shown early success in boosting domestic semiconductor manufacturing, with the United States on track to significantly increase its share of advanced chip production. He warned, however, that recent policy changes risked undermining progress, particularly in research and development programs. He argued that sustained federal leadership was necessary to ensure long-term competitiveness and innovation. He also raised concerns about the structure of the AI-driven semiconductor market, highlighting risks from concentrated market power and circular investment practices among major technology firms. He warned that these dynamics could inflate demand, distort competition, and create broader financial risks affecting public investments. He concluded by urging congressional oversight, stronger competition policies, and consumer protections to address both industrial and financial risks.

• Mr. Oxman emphasized that the semiconductor industry was central to the global technology ecosystem and that maintaining U.S. leadership required engagement in a complex, international supply chain. He highlighted the scale and economic importance of semiconductor production, noting its role in powering a wide range of consumer and industrial technologies. He argued that continued growth depended on policies that enhanced global competitiveness, including access to international markets and supply chains. He pointed to the CHIPS and Science Act as a catalyst for significant public and private investment and job creation. He recommended policy actions such as permitting reform, workforce development, extension of manufacturing tax credits, and support for exports. He concluded that careful policy design, including avoiding overly broad tariffs and consulting with industry, was critical to sustaining U.S. leadership in semiconductors and AI technologies.

SUMMARY OF KEY Q&A

• Subcommittee Chair Bilirakis asked about the immediacy and nature of the threat posed by China to the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem. Mr. Grebe stated that the United States and Taiwan maintained a technological lead but warned that China posed risks through control of critical materials and advancing capabilities. Dr. Wessner agreed and added that China posed a strategic threat across both advanced and mature nodes, particularly through market influence and materials control. Mr. Oxman stated that China represented an existential threat due to its significantly larger investments and efforts to export its technology stack globally.

  Subcommittee Chair Bilirakis asked how the United States should address vulnerabilities related to reliance on Taiwan for semiconductor supply. Mr. Grebe emphasized the need to continue CHIPS Act investments, expand domestic manufacturing, and strengthen R&D. Dr. Wessner warned that both geopolitical and natural risks in Taiwan posed serious supply threats and stressed the need for continued federal investment and incentives. Mr. Oxman highlighted the importance of expanding domestic manufacturing and extending tax incentives to strengthen the full semiconductor ecosystem.

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Schakowsky raised concerns about worker compensation and whether current semiconductor policies sufficiently supported workers. Mr. Ramzanali agreed that workers were central to industrial policy and emphasized the need for strong wages, labor protections, and continued workforce development funding.

• Full Committee Chair Guthrie asked why U.S. leadership in semiconductors was critical and how trade policy factored into that leadership. Mr. Oxman stated that global trade was essential because most customers were outside the United States and emphasized exporting American technology.

  Full Committee Chair Guthrie asked what policy changes would most benefit the semiconductor industry. Mr. Grebe identified extending the advanced manufacturing tax credit and implementing targeted tariff policies as key priorities.
  Full Committee Chair Guthrie asked how the United States could capitalize on AI-driven demand for semiconductors. Mr. Oxman emphasized promoting the American AI technology stack globally through export initiatives.
  Full Committee Chair Guthrie asked how U.S. companies could compete with China’s state-backed model. Mr. Grebe stressed the importance of sustained R&D investment and avoiding cost disadvantages in domestic manufacturing.

• Rep. Soto criticized current policies and asked how Intel was managing government involvement through CHIPS Act investments. Mr. Grebe stated that Intel supported the program and viewed government partnership as beneficial to accelerating domestic manufacturing.
  Rep. Soto asked about balancing trade and security concerns with China. Mr. Grebe emphasized the need for global market access while reinvesting revenues into U.S. manufacturing.

• Rep. Lee asked about vulnerabilities in protecting U.S. semiconductor intellectual property. Mr. Grebe stated that Intel used strict physical and cybersecurity controls to safeguard its IP.
  Rep. Lee asked whether current trade and export controls were sufficient to protect intellectual property. Mr. Grebe responded that more could always be done but emphasized ongoing company-level protections.
  Rep. Lee asked how workforce shortages could be addressed. Mr. Oxman stated that industry partnerships were necessary but insufficient without additional public investment and scaling efforts.
  Rep. Lee asked what Congress could do to support workforce development. Mr. Oxman emphasized expanding public-private partnerships and federal investment in training programs.

• Rep. Castor asked about the impact of administrative changes to semiconductor programs and funding.
  Mr. Ramzanali warned that cuts to R&D programs and restructuring efforts risked undermining long-term U.S. leadership.
  Rep. Castor asked what actions should be taken moving forward.
  Mr. Ramzanali emphasized returning to statutory goals, restoring R&D programs, and maintaining focus on long-term innovation priorities.

• Rep. Evans asked how regulatory barriers such as permitting delays affected semiconductor development.
  Mr. Oxman stated that outdated regulations slowed projects and needed modernization to support manufacturing growth.
  Rep. Evans asked about energy availability and competitiveness with China.
  Dr. Wessner stated that China’s energy capacity and regulatory flexibility gave it advantages and emphasized the need for U.S. investment and reform.
  Rep. Evans asked how companies protected intellectual property from theft.
  Mr. Grebe reiterated that Intel relied on strict security controls and monitoring to protect its technology.

• Rep. Kelly asked about concerns regarding converting CHIPS Act grants into equity stakes and taxpayer protections.
  Mr. Ramzanali stated that the change reduced safeguards such as milestone requirements and transparency, raising concerns about accountability.
  Rep. Kelly asked how Intel would protect taxpayer investments. Mr. Grebe stated that Intel was fulfilling its obligations by expanding domestic manufacturing and complying with statutory requirements.
  Rep. Kelly asked whether tariff policies were helping or harming supply chains. Mr. Oxman stated that global supply chains were essential and that poorly designed trade policies could increase costs and hinder investment.

• Rep. Fry asked how Congress should balance AI-driven semiconductor demand with consumer impacts. Mr. Oxman stated that increasing domestic manufacturing capacity would address both advanced and everyday chip demand.
  Rep. Fry asked what semiconductor resilience meant for consumers and industries. Mr. Oxman explained that reliable supply would prevent disruptions like those seen during the pandemic.
  Rep. Fry asked which policy would most improve competitiveness and consumer outcomes. Mr. Oxman identified tax policy, particularly extending manufacturing credits, as most impactful.
  Rep. Fry asked what policies would accelerate AI infrastructure development. Mr. Grebe emphasized tax credits, targeted tariff relief, and faster chemical approval processes.

• Rep. Clarke asked what commitments could sustain progress under the CHIPS and Science Act. Mr. Ramzanali emphasized fully implementing the law, maintaining oversight, and restoring R&D investments.
  Rep. Clarke asked about the consequences of cutting R&D programs and restructuring initiatives. Mr. Ramzanali warned that reduced R&D and workforce investments would undermine long-term competitiveness and innovation.

ADD TO THE NIMITZ NETWORK

Know someone else who would enjoy our updates? Feel free to forward them this email and have them subscribe here.