worked with Lindsey Graham on a number of different items; one is a
conservation fund that also fights terrorism. He remarked that Lindsey,
in his way, was able to boil down why this was so important and had
hats created that said: ``Good for animals, bad for terrorists.''
  And that was very typical of Lindsey because he could boil things
down very simply to be able to make a point, almost like a country
lawyer. He would say: How many people think that, for example, if Iran
had a nuclear weapon, they would use it on us? Raise your hand. They
would raise their hand.
  And he would say: So how many people think it would be bad if they
got a nuclear weapon? All of those people would raise their hand.
  How many people think we should stop them from getting a nuclear
weapon? They would raise their hand.
  That is the simple way that Lindsey would make his point.
  He was supersmart and had an incredible sense of humor. It was not
often fun if you were on the other side of that sense of humor
sometimes. In one of our Budget Committee hearings, Lindsey Graham was
presiding, and we had one of our members who was going through all
sorts of points and charts and so forth. And when the presentation came
to an end, Lindsey Graham said something to the effect: Well, next time
we are going to record that, and we are taking it down to Gitmo because
it would be more effective down there. So you wanted to make sure that
you were talking to the right audience and making your points quickly
with Lindsey.
  He was also very charming and was very direct. When he would go talk
to foreign leaders, he would be able to get across those simple ideas
the way he did with audiences back at home and be able to express
directly through humor, through charming them, to help them understand
where their interests were aligned with our interests, how we needed to
work together to be able to keep the people of their country safe and
the people of our country safe.
  Lindsey was very clear-eyed about the dangers of dictators like
Vladimir Putin. He understood, when Putin is losing, we are winning, we
are safer. He was appalled by the invasion of Russia into Ukraine--that
unprovoked, aggressive attack--and was a fierce advocate for supporting
Ukraine, not only because of the injustice of what Russia is doing to
Ukraine but because Lindsey understood what the threat to the United
States and the people of America would be if Putin is successful; that
if they are successful in Ukraine, they are going to go after a NATO
member, and then we will have boots on the ground in Europe. Lindsey
was trying to keep us safe by advocating for the Ukrainians.
  When Lindsey would see an issue, he would hop on a plane and go fix
it, whether it was overseas or to my home State of Nebraska. He came to
Nebraska several times.
  I loved the man. I had the privilege of spending time with him here
over the last 3\1/2\ years. He liked Coke Zero and Riesling wines. He
was charming, funny, intelligent, dedicated to this country. Our body
and this country is losing a lot with Lindsey Graham. We are losing
some of the humor we had. We are losing some the glue that holds us
together. We are losing a fierce patriot, and our country is worse off
for it.
  Susanne and I are praying for Darline and the rest of her family and
Lindsey's staff at this tragic time and, indeed, for our entire country
as we have experienced the loss of this larger than life patriot,
Lindsey Olin Graham.
  Lindsey, I know you are looking down on us from upstairs, and you are
going to do your best to guide us from up there. We really, really miss
you.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. RICKETTS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to use a prop
during my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, it is actually fitting. I just had
somebody in the cloakroom tell me the last person that came to the
floor and used the chart to draw on was none other than Lindsey Graham,
so I will dedicate these comments to Lindsey.

                                 Intel

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have a friend in Louisiana. He is the
former State speaker of the house. And Charlie invented a new word in
English. The word is ``winky-doo.'' When the then-speaker of the
statehouse wanted to describe someone acting dishonestly or denigrating
your position or double-crossing you, the speaker would say: He tried
to winky-doo me. He tried to winky-doo me.
  I have always loved that word.
  Intel, a fine American company, may be trying to winky-doo the
American taxpayer. Last year--and let me say that again. Intel is a
fine company. They have to compete in the market to manufacture chips
like everybody else. I believe in free enterprise. I don't believe in
state-supported capitalism, government-run capitalism.
  But Intel was not doing a very good job competing, and so the Federal
Government decided to bail them out. The Federal Government--the
Department of Commerce--gave Intel $8.9 billion cash, bought 10 percent
of the company--not $8.9 million, $8.9 billion cash.
  Now, a fairminded person, when the Department of Commerce did this,
could have said: Well, why Intel? Why not some other company?
  So that gave me pause. Fair point. I didn't like seeing the Federal
Government picking and choosing among American companies about which
should get $8.9 billion of American taxpayer money. I didn't like that.
I still don't like it. If there is a fair competition, fine. And I get
that manufacturing chips are important to America. I get all that. But
the government is still playing favorites.
  When the government buys 10 percent of a company--$8.9 billion. Did I
mention that is how much money Intel got? When the Federal Government
takes a 10-percent equity position in a company, you can bet that the
politicians, of which I include myself, are going to give a whole lot
of advice to Intel--or any other company they buy the stock in.
Sometimes that will be sound business advice, but sometimes it will
just be raw gut politics. I don't like it. I don't like it.
  I know the new thing is neosocialism. I have watched new Members of
Congress get elected, all of whom can--they all know the words to the
Cuban national anthem, and they are all for socialism. I would ask them
to take a look at the history of Cuba and the former USSR and China and
Argentina and Venezuela--and I could continue going--and they should
try to show me a country where socialism has worked. They can't.
  But I digress. The reason I didn't like this idea of buying 10
percent of the stock of Intel was because, as far as I was concerned,
it was in the foothills of socialism. If a company needs help and
we decide as a government that company is vital to America, God made
these things called loans that are

collateralized so that the company has to pay it back. But my wishes
were not followed. The Department of Commerce gave Intel $8.9 billion
cash in return for 10 percent of the company.

  Well, here is why I think Intel might have winky-dooed us. Intel just
announced they were taking $5 billion of that, and do you know what
they are doing with it? They are building a chip manufacturing plant in
Ireland--in Ireland. I mean, I don't get it. And I know Intel is going
to say: Oh, it wasn't the $8.9 billion that the American taxpayers gave
us that we took and helped the Irish economy.
  Money is fungible, folks. Money is fungible. And they can say all
they want ``Oh, it wasn't American taxpayer money; it came from a
different pot of money.''
  Now, if this is true--and I saw it announced publicly that they are
building a $5 billion chip manufacturing plant in Ireland--after $8.9
billion of American taxpayer money was given to them, as far as I am
concerned, this deal is a breech birth; it is a total cockup. And
somebody from the Department of Commerce or from Intel needs to explain
this to the American people, because I don't like it.
  I didn't like it when we started giving money to particular companies
going: Yeah, we like you, but we don't like you. You don't get any
money, but you get money.
  If that decision will be made, it ought to be made by Congress,
folks--your elected representatives. But it was done.
  But right after we did it, Intel took the money and invested it in
Ireland. It triggers my gag reflex. I hope I am wrong.
  Intel, if you are listening, I hope you will explain all of this.
  Department of Commerce, if you are listening, I hope you will explain
all of this.
  The Department of Commerce, I think, is going to say: Oh, Intel has
outside investors in building this plant.
  That, to me, is a distinction without a difference. As far as I am
concerned, the way it looks to me right now, we gave them $8.9 billion
of American taxpayer money, and they said ``Thank you very much'' and
went and decided to spend it in Ireland. And where I come from, we call
that a three-wheeled shopping cart.
  So Intel needs to build that manufacturing plant in America or they
need to give the American people their money back, and they need to do
it now. And they need to explain it to the American people.
  Mr. President, we have to vote, but I have still got 5 minutes. That
is a dangerous combination, but I am going to do it in 5 minutes.