Let me ask you maybe the most basic question.
We're told we need this new Chips and Science Act to get really semiconductor
manufacturing back onto the shore in United States.
If it's a good idea to make the semiconductor here, why do we need the
government to help us? Why didn't the markets take care of this
problem on their own? That's a great question.
In general, I think the semiconductor industry has had a history of being very
productive and not needing assistance. However, in the case of manufacturing
over the course the last decade, it's really drifted outside, not just the
core wafer fabrication, but also the rest.
The supply chain is really drifted into other areas of the world geographically
where there is bit lower cost of building operations, et cetera.
We're told that is because of competitiveness, the need to compete,
but also national security concerns. From what you understand.
Is it more of one than the other or is it even.
Well, I mean, I do think that it's a combination.
I don't know if it's even. But the national security concern is a
geopolitical concern. Certainly from a supply chain
availability perspective, we learned through Covid that geographic
distribution of supply can be helpful. And we need that.
We need more diversity of supply chains. So it's beyond, you know, any one
concern. I think we had a we had a perfect storm
during the Covid of shortages and other things.
And we out of that. You know, the conversations that Chips
Act was born. I am excited about the opportunity to
start really doing some work to move towards a more balanced ecosystem.
What's the goal? You just a balanced ecosystem is the
goal self-sufficiency, United States that we can produce everything we need?
Is that even possible to do? What should our goal be?
You know, our goal should be that we have more availability of the complete
semiconductor supply chain, not just wait for fabrication, but also packaging
and memories and other things all within, not just the United States.
You know, I'm not one for protectionism per say, but but in a broader
distribution and and better access candidly for companies.
So can the United States produce everything?
Intel has done it for decades. There are other companies that are
required in the ecosystem around wafer fabrication to actually build the whole
thing. My firm and computing makes high
performance semiconductors that are power efficient for servers that run
your cloud and your internet. But this is what they look like.
So just to give you an idea of what a semiconductor for your viewers looks
like, a chip like this, which has a 128
course, has about 55 billion transistors on it, things that you can't imagine how
complex it is to build one of these. The supply chain around this is equally
complex. So the wafer fabrication, the thing that
we talk a lot about and the thing that we know Intel for and TSMC, Taiwan
Semiconductor and others, this was made at Taiwan Semiconductor, but it was
actually packaged by a U.S. company called AM For, but it was
packaged in Asia. And so we need to see more of that
entire supply chain move to us. And a large portion of the first phase
of the CHIPS Act is to do what we would call incentive, you know, investment
into the United States Renay. Where are we, from your perspective,
sort of in the longer scope of history with which of semiconductors?
And let me ask about supply and demand. Supply, demand, a different sort of
sense supply. We all sort of know I've heard about
Moore's Law right there. It's going to have increasing density.
Where are we in that path? Does it trail off at some point?
On the other hand, on the demand side? How much computing power do we need?
And how do those two match up? Well, demand.
I'm going to take that one first because it's very straightforward, it's
unabated, really. And we're entering into a phase.
It's interesting. I've worked in this industry for for
about 30 years. And every time we think we're at the
end, you know, whatever the face was, whether it was the P.C.
cycle or the or, you know, smart phones. We think this is it.
What are people going to need more computing for?
And it turns out there's always, you know, another frontier of discovery.
We can call it a lie. We can you know, there's lots of other
things in the field of A.I. that just require more compute.
In addition to that, we're trying to do more with compute.
Our cars are getting smarter. Our homes are getting smarter.
You know, every aspect of our life, even in non-scientific just daily life.
So demand of all sorts of some ISE. So it's not just high performance like
what I build, but it's also what we in the industry call lagging edge that that
the use of older technologies. And we saw a lot of shortages of that in
automotive that that companies like Global Foundries, a U.S.
company built. So
demand growing, multi segment demand growing.
That's good news. Not every segment, some segments are
flat. Some segments will go into decline, but
the overall semiconductor industry growing.
So going back to the chips in science back here, how transforming who will be
50 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money to many of us, as I understand it,
given how expensive these plants are, maybe not so much.
Maybe it will leverage up more private investment, but will it really change
the semiconductor industry and indeed the tech industry in that state?
Well, you know, what it will do is it will.
It's already done this. It's brought the importance of
semiconductors in the semiconductor industry, an industry that was
pioneered, founded in the United States. The R.A.
continues to be led in the United States.
It has brought it into the public discourse.
I think that's important. It's a bipartisan issue.
We all are very concerned about the long term competitiveness of an important
fundamental industry that supports many, many other industries.
You know, I think that with the Chips and Sciences Act does is it raises the
awareness, it creates the opportunity for companies that may not come to
United States like timelines, semiconductor or Samsung or others who
have made commitments in the United States.
It's more expensive and candidly for them to build and to operate.
So it gives us a level playing field in some areas.
It's the beginning. It's not the end.
I think private money will need to assist 50 billion dollars, of which the
first tranche is very focused on manufacturing, not latter.
Trench on RFD is is a small, small amount of money in semiconductor world.
But it is an important signal that we're open for business and that we are moving
forward and are sincere about getting better geographical distribution of
supply and firing. A lot of people call this industrial
policy, which I guess is what it basically is.
Not everyone thinks that's a good idea. The United States has had a mixed track
record. I think it's fair.
Senator, what do you from the semiconductor industry, how do you
regard this as industrial policy and what is the division?
Good industrial policy and maybe not so good.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to give a give of an overview of industrial
policy. I'll give you my point of view, which
is, yes, in some ways it can be considered
industrial policy. I consider this positive industrial
policy because it's in its incenting investment and it's incenting
private investment alongside. And what we would think of is reverse
foreign direct investment into the United States.
It is you know, I don't think industrial policy, that's economic protectionism is
particularly productive. This is not part of it.
I think it's important. This is a global business.
It's a global industry. We know that if we tried to do something
that's protectionist because we're not competitive or something like that, it
tends to not end up being as productive as we'd want it to be.
That's not what the Chips and Sciences Act is, in my opinion.
In my opinion, this is a positive movement towards encouraging people to
invest in a segment that's critical to the future, not only national security,
but of know scientific breakthroughs in what we do.