tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 22, 2012 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
ends of the ship whereas one only had one. we built nine of each. 27 ships in a class is more than you need to gain efficiencies. but let me tell you what we're doing. we're going to single down to a common combat system so that any sailor on any vessel can go to the combat system of the other. we're singling up on the same type of exhume case -- communication. the communicators will be able to go from one end to the other. and, of course, the mission module guys can go on any ship, they don't care. the only people who will be different will be the hull machinery and electrical guys, that's it. this is going to be an extremely effective platform for our fleet. do we know everything about the vessel? no. are there going to be problems? yes. the problem that ben was talking about that pogo and aviation week came up with, they
identified 62 things. we went into it. we actually created a matrix. 25 of those 62 are just flat wrong. they're incorrect. and not one of the other issues that were highlighted by ben or my aviation week and space technology we were unaware of, and we don't have a plan of action. ben mentioned the crack in the lcs i. wow, we noticed that. there was water coming through the crack. of it's already been fixed on lcs i, and the design fix on lcs iii has already been there. this is a learning navy, and it is also a navy that is unafraid to say we made a mistake. so as we take this ship to sea and we see what works and doesn't work, we will fix it. and if we can't fix it, we will stop building it. so from my perspective, the fleet design is an awesomely capable design. the lcs is just the ship that we need to fit this design. there are a lot of skeptics.
this ship is, first, it's a small combatant, so almost everybody in the navy is going to be skeptical of it to begin with. it has to prove itself. has a new maintenance scheme, got to prove it. we have to make sure it works the way we want it. gotta prove that. and we have to do the mission modules. but, ladies and gentlemen, i will tell you right now that this ship will sail in the fleet. it is a warship. it will be ready for war, and i guarantee you the sailors who fight this ship are going to be darn glad they're on it when the time comes. i look forward to your questions. ..
yes, it's true i'm a navy partisan. i'll admit it. i'm from maine. i don't know how -- this is the home of ironworks. when i was young, how can i not be a nibble partisan? by the way, my name is preble. the cards were stacked in a certain direction from the very beginning so not going to be, i'm not going to pretend otherwise. i am a navy partisan. i think it's particularly important for those of us who care so deeply about the navy to
have this kind of a discussion, okay? because if we don't scrutinize every single one of these decisions, and yes, i admit we're making the job harder. issues to that. that's why he gets paid the big bucks for, right, bob? we need of this kind of a discussion. because if we add native partisans don't have that discussion, others are going to have a force, including people who don't have the same kind of commitment to the surface fleet that we have. so that's how i come to this issue. the lcs has had problems. we know about this. low, i know a thing or two, a few things about to point on the first flagship. when i reached in march 1990, the boat had been underwater for nine years. we were still working through some of the problems associated being the first ship in the class, okay? and i understand this can take
time. and i take, they have responded to these issues. they believe they've addressed these issues. they believe they have a plan for getting this program on track. but i just wanted cash the i don't want to dwell on the specifics of what was raised about lcs one. i want to look past that. there are alternatives to the lcs. and i respect i do disagree with undersecretary work. eric talked about the national cut. we wrote a paper copy is to make the case for frigates were successful to the frigate. we think there is an alternative that could achieve a similar mission at less of a cause. but i think i have seen a bit of a change for even just in the last few months. i think we're in the minority. i think there were many people and the service commend undersecretary work's comments who had a lot of skepticism about this program all the law because it was small, because they wanted a big ship with big
guns, okay? there's been a lot of skepticism about small ships for a long time but i think a lot of people are coming around, this is what he wrote last week. the sad truth is we are well past killing this program. though we will build the opportunity cost for decades. this will make it to the fleet. the big questions now are one, how will mean managed to optimize a sub out optimal platform them into the fleet commanders the best possible platform given its limitations? how do we ensure we employ the platform in a matter that doesn't necessarily imperil our sailors? lcs will for many gap from the cheap seats, be the gift that keeps on giving, unquote. well, you can guess i'm the one yapping from the cheap seats. are there aspects of the lcs program that deserve a second look works i want to amplify a point the ben raise. do we really need to differences? should we revisit the decision
to go with two very different designs and not a counselor? is supposed to be a down selector this is supposed the competition but at the 11th hour the navy decided otherwise and congress affirmed that. again, i want to emphasize, i am not opposed to a duel by in principle. i deployed on a ship that was a dual by ship. when i was on ticonderoga and another age is class cruiser pulled up behind me i didn't know whether it was a bad chip or an eagle chip until i walked on the quarter deck. and i guarantee you that most people, including many service people, if they don't have all of the whole numbers memorized the same thing goes to the ddg 50 was but if you don't know, if you haven't memorize all the number can you look at two destroyers side-by-side and say that say evil destroyer, that's a bath destroyed. anyone, anyone at all the looks at lcs i in lcs two side-by-side knows these are different ships.
so what does that mean. i'll tell a story here. when i pulled up contrary to go on deployment, i could walk down the pier to any class, did matter, vertical launch or the real launchers like the original ship that i was on. walk down the passageway, same passageway, unbolt from the deck, from the bulkhead i needed to deploy and i understand that the statute of limitations is doing this expire to know it is being thrown in i was responsible for getting the ship under way. i cannibalize new construction vows once, in order to make sure that my ship was ready to deploy. so those kinds of advantages of eight dual by, but the same ship. another case.
there is the training pipeline. you know, when we got richie porte i had to second class petty officer is in my division. these are two of the finest enlisted men i've ever dealt with. one of them i know for a fact -- one of them may have made chief. they came on my ship. that never deployed. they qualified a as a wash offir in about a week. they were an engineering officer by about mid way through that first deployment. never before. the training pipeline below the water line was identical. some of the undertrained for the other systems, of course they have the same guns. so i'm worried about that. now yes this is a problem that you consult with more money. there's going to be some training that's unique to the vessels. and i want to commend. i am sympathetic to the idea of having multiple crews assigned
to a single ship. several crews and you can have, i understand that. it makes sense, but where does the training pipeline, how does the training pipeline support that? can you people a guy who starts out on lcs i to lcs? that's my question. other concerns. manning. this has been raised. these houses are supposed to be minimally manned, okay? as i understand it, so a core crew of 40 to the original design. as i understand, we learned this from operating the fleet. it's undermanned. now my understanding is the navy is considering increasing the core group perhaps by 50%, maybe 60. there's speculation they're looking at increasing the crew size far more than that. but when you do that you start to trade away some of the core advantages of lcs, including the ffg's. so my bottom line is we are trading in dozens of warships,
small warships, i'm not opposed to small warships, not at all, okay? trading away dozens of small warships including the frigates in lieu of of a few number of ffg is come when you count the other small warships, the lcs will replace them. with a vessel that had a single mission in mind, not a multi-mission. module yes. if the model works the way this post to come and less survivable one. i think undersecretary work made a compelling case. i'm not opposed to that in principle. while we're on the subject of trade-offs, trading off one vessel against the other, i have to say it. we made this decision to build very large aircraft carries, 100,000 plus tons, at least 14 million to build the next one. i would be shocked if it comes in at $14 million. that's about -- about what, 20
-- is that right? the opportunity cost on just any surface fleet, okay? we also have an opportunity cost versus all service combatants. planning to build 12 of the new ballistic missile sub is, the ohio class follow on. the target office -- cost of $5.3 billion in this year's dollars to two months ago the navy estimated the leadership in the program will cost 11.7 billion, and lester c. estimates the leadership would cost 13.3 billion. i'm curious, eric, if you guys have revisited that yet because of that number to me looks pretty daunting. why do i dwell on this in a forum is supposed about the surface fleet? because these are opportunity cost. if we decide to invest so much in that, we're giving up in a ship building budget unless you believe and i don't think anyone
here on this panel believes the shipbuilding budget is likely to increase by 50-60%. i think it is important to dwell on these numbers to compare and weigh the costs. let me be clear. i say this not because i have something against celebrities. because i just don't think we need 10 or 12 ballistic missile sub restore the critical deterrence but other programs we're working on a katowitz document moving from a nuclear triad nuclear diet, a lot of the work we're doing, even if the submarine like survive. as it turns out the we don't need all three legs of tried and even if it does survive, i don't think it is obvious these results need to be nearly as expensive as current projections. so let me close with a somewhat different bigger picture beyond what's already said you. i want to say a few things about the navy surface fleet nation. and it's really an age old question the article and to bring the worlds police come is that what we're trying to do? key component of that mission is reassurance.
discourage other countries from defending themselves. that's what that means, reassurance. they are reassured, they are secure. they do not need to do these. they are in washington there's a notion better to have one country to provide these services because other countries wouldn't do it as well as us or they would mess it up. it's better for us to be doing these things. so look at how this works in practice but there was a recent case in south china, scarborough show, philippines and chinese. the filipinos expect that we will defend their territorial claim against competing claims by the chinese. the united states chiefly the of the u.s. navy will also do this, we're expecting, for taiwan, vietnam, malaysia, others. they are not worried because the u.s. navy has their back. in the context of the surface fleet then, and the lcs specifically, we are building a coast guard cutter for other peoples posts. that's what this is.
okay? and other countries are choosing not to build anything at all. now, they have grown accustomed to this. been sheltered under our protective umbrella for a long, long time. they have become depend on the u.s. navy. they are not worry. some people in this town, indeed many people here in washington like it that way. it like being the world's lease. they like being the guarantor. or the global force for good. and if others are less inclined to defend themselves and their interests that's okay. i see things differently. my colleagues here at cato's see things different. we doubt the benefits of global primacy are outweighed by the cost. we dispute the claim. globalization depends on a single superpower to police the comments and enforce the rules. we here at cato think it would
not be such a bad thing for other country to country but more to global security, but we doubt that they would do so so long as the united states taxpayers are picking up the tab so long as the u.s. navy, especially is on the frontline at every potential dispute. now, we are lonely but not alone in this fight. polling data shows most americans want desperately for others to shoulder the burden of defense, defend themselves and interest. one poll found that 79% of americans think we spend too much money defending others. 79% think we spend too much money defending others, a mere 4% think we don't spend enough. recalled to then admiral mike mullen opposed his before he ascends his chairmanship, a 1000 ship navy, envision a system in which the united states would remain the world preeminent military power with a never projections our second to none.
and yet he also envisioned that other countries would have navy, would be capable of defending themselves and will contribute to global security and a measure that was consistent with their interests and their capabilities. our current plan seem to be having exactly the opposite direction. i would hope that it isn't too late to revisit that decision as well. thank you. >> all right. before we get to questions, which we will do before the hour, or at the hour, ben, you were very brief. do you want to say anything in response to all the other comments briefly before go to questions, or save it for them? we will save up for questions. >> been going to ask a couple of questions. number one, this is for bob work. alternatives to lcs were mentioned, mentioned if the navy
were forced by congress to not buy lcs, if it was stopped prematurely, will be the navy's kind of first choice as an alternative? >> well, if we're told to truncate the lcs the first thing we do is going the brookline into we could get it, we could understand exactly what we wanted to do. the national security cutter, when i wrote that as eric said, i was writing it as if you could afford it. you could do it very simply as a present chip or what i caught the national fleet station ship it but we simply can't afford that type of niche capability in the navy. and the national security cutter is not the ship keep. they can't operate the mission models of an lcs, and it would be good for sailing around. but the lcs is very good for sailing around, too. so the national security that we
don't leave is a viable option. there is really no frigate on the market that we could probably build up cash but i will refer to, we talked about this a lot. let's assume you could build a good frigate for $750 million. all of the cost that you here from overseas, they don't put in the robust in the combat in -- combat ship that we do. let's say you can build one for $457 million but it would take several years to design, several years to build. if we were told to stop the lcs vessel right now, it would be disastrous for the u.s. navy. make no bones about it. the size of the fleet would shrink drastically. so we don't really see anything it's available on the market that would be automatically better than what we are building now. >> second question for anyone who wants to answer it before we go to audience questions. we were talking about the future of the surface navy.
there's a theory or thesis that the future of the surface navy is to become the below surface navy because the marriage of ballistic missiles, cruise missile's with better surveillance technologies means navy's surface metal objects on the surface of the sea will be driven further and further ashore, and so they might as well be under water. so i wonder if, i'm particularly interest in what the navy feeling on that is by anybody else, eric our ben, chris, who have views on that. >> when i was looking at the navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan, that came a couple months back, that was one of the things that jumped out to me. if you look at the plan, your submarine fleet is actually getting smaller. it's shrinking. where as your surface fleet is increasing markedly. your surface combatant is increasing marginally. a lot of the issues that you just sit there, ben, came to my mind. we have the chinese with some of
these guided missiles that look at our carriers at giant targets but if we're meaningfully talking about projecting force and controlling the seas, subs are great for taking out other subs ever taking out surface combatants. it's just, i would love to hear more from the navy about why the decision to go away from subs in the 30 year plan, why we are doing that. >> erika? >> i have nothing. >> there's really three or four different types of schools of thought. threats to surface vessel is a threat to any navy vessel sailing the seas is unquestionably going to. supersonic cruise missiles proliferate as an toshiba ballistic missile, so that threat is definitely going a. so there's one school that says submerge the fleet. that is great if all you want is a fleet that is good for war fighting. but if you want a fleet that sales of the ocean, operates four to preserve the peace, submarine is in the best way to do that. a submarine is a warship.
then there's those called it the new navy fighting machine that says what you do is you take your packets of 90 big destroyers and you atomize them and maybe you buy three or 400 smaller ships and you make the target icing for the bad guy very, very difficult. that's good in principle. and if we're going to design the fleet from a clean sheet design we might be able to do that. but in essence we're going that way in a different direction. we're actually going after unmanned systems, and lcs is et cetera. then there's the people just say go unmanned. on the sea, under the sea, over the sea. if you go unmanned, then these threats are manageable but we are probably two decades at least away from something like that. then the u.s. navy's position is what you try to do is to go after networking and to try to make your fleet more powerful through networking, and allow it to compete. and also go after directed
energy weapons and electromagnetic weapons, which allow you to fix the disparity between the enemy's magazine ashore and a relatively limited magazine at sea. we think we can pursue that path until it is time to make a second move. we just don't think it is there yet. as far as ben's point, we haven't gone away from submarines. we have a requirement for 48 a good history in the 20 they started to get the dutch reflection of us not building a lot of submarines in the 1990s. we can build a submarine fast enough to replace the forefront settlements that will retire it should. were committed to 48. we'll get to 48. it's just we will go through that trough. if you take a look at the fleet in each of the fleet has a problem. the submarine has a problem in the '20s and early '30s as we bottom out at the surface fleet has a bottom in the '30s, as we can't buy enough in the '20s. to build, to offset the retirements the and the amphibious ships are hurting
right now. so when you're trying to figure out how everything works together within a constrained budget, you can have everything you want and you make trade-offs. so we are very, very committed to submarines. we just will go through a trough as we tried to get out of it. >> okay, to audience questions. please wait for the microphone so that everybody here and on tv, watching on thibault or on their computers can do. announce her name and affiliation, and try to end the question in a real question mark rather than giving a speech. who is first? yes, sir in the back, middle. >> undersecretary work. and no, sir, i'm not going to ask about the lcs. you commented that we do not need for it gets. i'm just curious, it seems that
there's some indicators that things might be changing that could change that in the next five or 10 years and am wondering if you concur? and given that there is a decision with environmental change with china that we do need forget, we don't have them, what would do in that continue to? indicators seem to be with the asia-pacific pipit is just a vast size of the pacific, vast blue water that you need blue water long endurance, belonged will ships that maybe can't necessary role that name as a frigate. with a large continental power, with global sea power in vision, we see that motto clearly with china, with an aspect of maritime commerce that could potentially come up interdicted with china, we see may be another indicator that we might need to either interdict chinese merchant shipping or protect our own commerce coming to the regions. and also with less history, the battle of the land, two world wars, and we have to develop
ship classes very fast to meet that requirement, some of the ships you had in your slides. air-sea battle is lastly. it seems with all these indicators are leading to where we may need for it gets. if we get to that point, what will we do to get to that point? >> well again, this goes back to the fleet design and frigate, the way i think of ships and the world is we're in the guided munitions regime can it be confident of what i call battle force missiles that are carried by the should. cruisers, destroys, things like that, frigate, very hard to kind of telling it what it is. so we have decided to build large what i'll call large battle network combatants with 90 to 122 missiles else in them. not to me other navies do that. we have over capitalize. 6-under ship navy, were building
26 our navy. that was a signpost for the mid-'90s. at the high point of the 6-under ship navy would 73 cruisers, guided missile cruisers and destroyers. 73. that was the 600 ship navy. today we have 84. we have similar going to have a big top end, and that's where we put our money. if you're going to build frigates, i would argue that if you drop down to 75 frigates, i mean 75 big boys, cruisers and destroyers, and you want to frigates, you wouldn't buy them out of the lcs. you buy them out of the big boy tonnage. and then you say okay, for wartime what he going to get? you get about 48 missiles. well, what you need is something to escort your combat logistics warships. the lcs originally was designed for its anti-submarine warfare module as a barrier platform.
it was going to drop sensors and sit there on the sensor line and go after the enemy subs. we just looked at the ship in the pacifica we said hey, we need bill to escort our combat logistics force. not the lcs will have a variable depth sonar with a multifuncti multifunction, with a torpedo of the on a, with a helicopter, it will be every bit as good of an asw escort as the big seven ever was. if we need to have, at antiwar capability to, the ship at 3000 tons has the margin to put on the missiles. so we have a lot of flexibility here, if we want frigates, or if we want escorts we probably build up from the lcs line. if we want to frigates would probably build down from the cruiser line. you can mix and match anyway you want. the real key about designing the
fleet is having a lot of on ramps and off ramps. and i figure right now is fleet design, we have on-ramps, off ramps, if we need to buy fewer carriers we can go to large deck amphibious ships with jsf. would into sorts of things. so you want to multimission, multi-warships, want have a lot of on ramps and off france, and right now we just don't need frigates. >> can i -- not so much as a comment but a follow-on question. the question of range. i know that in the early stage again, we're trying these things out, we need to speak a bit to the range, what you expect the ships to be able, kind of the operational, the normal operational mode, how long can these things operate independent, and how you are addressing that, that early i think vulnerability. >> i mean, this was a design that was made, the high speed of the ship. there's a healthy debate within
the fleet on whether you need a ship without high speed when you have helicopters and small interceptor boats that you can shove out of the backend. but that decision has been made. now, on the normal speed range profile, the schiphol opera.com it will be operating on diesels less than 15 knots. with that it has more endurance than a big seven. asked to lead off the gas turbine. winner operate on diesels, the ship is extremely economical. if we want to go 40 plus knots that you burn fuel fast. so it's all depends on how you do this. the next thing is is apple harvey said i really want this ship to be able to close with a carrier strike group. that means the speed of advance, average speed is got to be about 16 knots. the lcs three, which is follow along from the ship, lcs i that ben was talk about has a
six-foot extended transit and it can get at least 16 knots on diesels. which made it should be able to keep up with a carrier strike group unless they carried has to get somewhere in a hurry. if that's the case, the lcs can do with it. it will just have to refuel a lot. it has 21 days with the provisions on board. it can be dashed that will happen is he'll go out for about 21 days. and they can get into very small ports all over the world. so we think the lcs is going to operate forward. i'll tell you right now we couldn't base more frigates in singapore. we can base more lcs. those lcs will operate with a a0 insurance they will be able to exert enormous amount of presence and influence in that area. we will have eight in bob grant and we're looking of the places we can base forward. so this ship again, iran's, off france, takes for .56 ships to get one forward under a single chrysostom.
think about that for a second. you have to buy nine ships, cruisers and destroyers to keep forward at any given time. the lcs is designed for every one chipped out of every two to be forward. so sure we have to prove it, but right now we think we can. also, i think chris's point on whose size is exactly right. this reminds me of the -- is going to be 185 cents. we took it out to sea, took about 215. we don't think it's going to be a 50% bump, but i'm certain that a coworker of the ship will be slightly larger. so one of the key things were think about doing is increasing the bulk size. the ship was designed to have three bunks, it only has to right now. it's nice for the sailors forward, but they what exactly the same if we go to three high and you can have 100 people on the ship with no real problem. we are working down through. >> next.
>> the gentleman in the middle right here. >> for years, the lcs discussion has reminded me of my time earlier days in the navy both in fleet and in the boardroom, where the prior was someone to suck up to the captain, get the upper attention. lcs has become for the navy a magnet. lcs -- two-thirds of us wouldn't be here today. yet the arguments against lcs are very different from what we've heard on the ffg, on the ddg-51. what is that? why is the navy having such a hard problem getting lcs behind? >> can i start off by answering that question? because listening to bob today, he would probably rather respond to me anyway, listing today i think the navy has a real
messaging problem because on one hand bob says that the lcs is going to be ready to go into combat on day one. on and he's not going to say into a robust and that acts as a fight which means it's not going to come to on day one because it will take quite a few days before you take down a and the access network. so in that sense, the navy has got, i think what has gotten a messaging, on this issue. the lcs are built to level one survivability. navy ships are built for three levels. level one, level two, level three. level one has been logistic ships. level two has been amphibious ships and level three would be your cruisers, destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers. it's going to be escorting ships that we would not normally seen into the combat environment even though bob stated will send it into a combat environment, on day one of the conflict. and i think, i really would like to get bob's answer because i think there is a serious disconnect between different parts of the navy that on how
this ship is going to operate in a wartime environment. >> i think both of the comments are spot on. this ship is so different. it so different than anything we've put to sea, and that's why the skepticism of the ship is so pronounced. you have to prove it. and on the waterfront it's all in the missouri type frame of mind. you've got to show me. now, the sailors to run the ship, if you go out there and they will say what do you think about the ship, so we just sent admiral roden and shone starkly to lcs i. sat down with the krueger tells everything that is wrong. and essentially the big issue for them was cruz size. we think about to be bigger. got it. they want a horizon range weapon. guided. we want, too. we kind of loss that i know we are looking for a replacement. but there is a lot of skepticism in the fleet on the way we're going to many, the way we are going to maintain it. this is healthy skepticism. so we have to be able to show
the fleet, and in the past what's happening is unfortunately it's been the cno and maybe the civilian leadership that has been trumpeting the ship. but now we have to let's see, people are starting to see. they are starting to see change on the waterfront and they're saying okay, if we do this to the ship, we can do this. and that's what happens whenever we go in. we are not over the object. we still have a messaging problem, and one of them is what the cno was talking about when you start about the anti-axis very of denial system, he was asked a specific question about the western pacific. what he was saying was you will not send lcs into the western pacific, the high import of the battle network. it would be operating as a combat logistics warship escorts. so it would still be in combat, but it would not be in a high-end system. we are going to eight lcs is in the gulf.
if the war went out on that day, there inside the environment. they would go out and start seeking fast attack craft and, or go out and try to sweep minds. they are going to be in the fight. it's a level one plus survivability ship. it's got more survivability features on it than a combat logistics warship. it's designed to operate under a battle network, and if it finds itself against an opponent that out guns at, like any ship, ever since the navy has been poor, it's going to have a problem. but for the three nations it is currently designed for, fighting against fast attack craft and fast and short craft, for fighting against these are sobering, and for fighting against minds, it's going to be well armed than any the ships that occurred during that mission now. so you have to look at in terms of fleet design and what the ship brings to the fleet. >> let's go in the back on the
middle. on the aisle. cynic secretary work, if i may ask you to follow up on something that chris just said, regarding the support of the of the ship. than a device have as much commonality in its warships as again. we moved away from that because we allow the contractors to do more which is why secretary winter complained about some sub subclasses of ships having different components and how much stress that is putting on a. how are we not going to get to a situation where you have two distinct classes, two completely different sets of machinery, i know the combat system harmonization initiative is underway, but that's still a bit out. are we going to get into a position on these ships were you will have independence classic guide like we had which were
subordinate and totally separate classes that sort of looks similar? >> well first of all, i guess this is a learning navy. if you take a look at our history and you see some of the things we bought and we said that wasn't the right thing, and we are more than willing to say we made a mistake. one advantage of having to introduction right now is that one of the two ships, turns out that more problems than we expect, we have another option and you single out. but let's assume because we do assume that both ships are going to google to perform the missions and both of them are going to be able to perform well. the lcs 2 has an enormous capability. it's probably got a little stronger skill set there. they lcs i is really our swarm to pick much more maneuverable, or you put 76-millimeter on the steel-hulled if you wanted to. you have all sorts of different option. so we like having two options right now. if we build two, 27 ship classes, that's more than enough
to be able to sustain many of the ship classes we've operated before, the charles adams class, 23 ships. you know, usually we don't have ships, class is bigger than seven. and what we will focus on is combat systems, commonality, c-4i system, knows. weapons systems commonality. and what you get the company or thing you are really looking at is the hull and electrical differences. and we will see. we will see. it may turn out that it will be better to single up to one but that's not our plan right now. >> let's go right in front. >> robert harris, former naval person and a lockheed martin. i think it's fair, listening to the panelists this morning, to say that eric left, bob bork and
chris preble are on the view that there really isn't an alternative to lcs. if that's the case, and i believe it is, then going forward, what should be navy's priorities with respect to lcs? how decimated get beyond these criticisms that have been raise given the fact that this is a ship the navy is going to buy, what should be the priorities going forward with respect to lcs? >> well, i would've certainly probably agree that we are going to have a bunch of lcs a rabbit i think we'll have a minimum of 24. i think come 2015 anticipation for the budget that year that will have a minute will have a decision point to continue with the lcs program and if they continue with the else's program how do they continue? both types or just one? contra to sort of maybe people didn't realize in the audience the navy has gone through multiple swings on the lcs program. it was originally going to be a down select back in the early
2000. then they're going to keep both types are of our longtime to keep competition. and a change the strategy to go back to accounts like program again and then in december 2010 when the queue, came in there so attracted to the navy did decide to go back and change the strategy of the last minute to maintain those lines. the navy has got a wide set of options starting in 2015. so for one thing i would say that i don't think the navy necessary have to continue with the lcs program after that point. he will have 24 ships at that point and to decide whether they want to fill out to 55 of whether after experimenting with in the fleet as bob has said, that's something the navy left to do. whether they in any do something else, modified lcs design, a little barge, little smaller. a whole new designed of a transport sized ship it and i agree with bob that the frigate sized ship is not going to be cheaper than the lcs. it's going to be shipper and a destroyer but not cheaper than in lcs.
so i would say, my answer would be an october the navy's answer would be at this point is that they don't know. they have to get out in the fleet to work with it for a while and see how it works and what they to do with and what they can't, and then make appropriate changes or, you know, different off ramps as bob suggested for the future. that would be my view. >> robbie, i don't think it's true that i resign myself yet. you are working on me. re-signs myself yet to the inevitability of this, especially the inevitability of 55. okay, i think i am, i have been concerned about the dual buy strategy of two very different ships. i think bob would on the table correctly. this is two-27 ship classes, not one ship class. and i think it is not unreasonable for those of us who are concerned about him about
cost to question why the down select was not executed the way it was supposed to be. and to revisit that, okay your the under just said. it's not their intention to single out, but we recognize that might be an option in the future. and i think that would be my statement as well. it's a question of where, at what point do you choose to single up and what criteria do you choose for assessing which of these two ships. and again, they have different advantages. if you singled up which one, which advantage would you privilege over the other, and then what would you build in blue of the other vessel? let me be clear. when i talk about an alternative, eric and bob both seem to agree that it frigate sasha isn't cheaper. okay, that may be true. i'm not entirely convinced of
that but i'm willing to accept it. so maybe i'm not talking about a frigate sized she. made a talk about a corvette sized ship. a corvette sized ship, 2000 tons, is so unpopular in the navy culturally that they have such difficulty dealing with a small warship that it just wouldn't buy into his argument or the reason why we fix on 3000 plus done is because at least you get by and by the fleet. with all due respect, the fleet is adaptable. the fleet can be convinced of the merits of a small, smaller vessel if the alternative is less, and is capable vessel that is twice as expensive and twice as large. so i'm not giving up on the question obviously not or else you wouldn't have had this discussion in the first place. i think it is still worth asking the question, can we develop an alternative. and in the meantime, this is also key, in the meantime could we experiment with keeping the
remaining frigates in service, spend a couple hundred million dollars to keep them in service a little bit longer to buy us time to develop an alternative? that's what we need to talk about in the proposal that ben freeman and i put on the table. >> ben, do you have anything? >> yeah, i even, in spite of all my criticism of the lcs, i am actually a fan of this mission, of going forward, of getting into this and the access areas. so you can temper my criticism, too. i'm not opposed to this issue. i just think, i think i would agree with chris on this. the duel by a still an issue for me. i'm not convinced we need to very different variants to do this mission though i do think it is, it's a very important mission. the inflection points were talk about right now, issues with iran, strait of hormuz, that's what i use the example that i did. serve an incredibly valuable areas and we want to make sure
if access to those areas. and so i am a fan of the nation, even if i am an ardent critic of the lcs in general, lcs i. >> for me, think of the jsf program. the longest time we convinced ourselves that this was one single aircraft with three different kind of missions, and we got ourselves into a lot of trouble because it is three different aircraft. the f-35 be is as different from the f-35 a as lcs ii is from lcs i. they kind of look the same. they look a lot more the same than lcs i and lcs ii but that is an entirely different aircraft. so yes, we for the longest time we said maybe we should just single up, but when you take a look at the advantages of both of these vessels, you say wow, maybe over time the lcs ii becomes the pacific ship, long legs, long looked to the lcs ii has no problem with endurance.
huge aviation capacity. maybe it's going to be the pacific ship. that lcs i, small, wonderful, can get into any port you can think of in latin america or africa. great swarm of killer. very minor compared -- so having these two different ships right now, we believe is a tremendous advantage. now, i do say that 3000 tons makes the ship more acceptable to the fleet, but the reason why cno chose 3000 tons, it's a small ship that can operate helicopters. that was the limiting design. and if you want this ship kashmir what you mean in the little squares you need inflatable boats, unmanned systems and helicopters. that's what you need. that's what the ship brings to the fight. and if you need to up gun it to a frigate, then it can carry two-mh 60 very slightly.
for 3000 tons was the lower limit of the mission that we wanted but it also made it easier to sell. to produce questions, here are the six things. the first thing we did is we have to address the issues that ben brought up. they are 62 dishes. we think we have answers to every single one. they're going to be more issues we find that get hull one and hull to the right the right. gave the sixers into the production run, first thing. second thing, get the core precise record we know we are probably too low. we have to figure that out. three, single up the combat systems. if you do that, now you become totally interoperable inside the fleet and to solve a lot of your problems. make sure the medicine passionate mission modules were. as things fall out, or we can welcome the beauty of the ship issue to make the changes relatively quickly. you've got to prove to the guys on the waterfront that the maintenance and a scheme that we have will work. we will be able to do that until
we get a couple more in the fleet. and the final thing is like apple harvey says, let's not just talk or think about the three mission modules bishop has now, let's think about all the other mission modules that might be able to carry on board. think of it more as an evolution two state system but if we get those things right, then the navy will go all in. if we get only four of them right, is going to a lot of skepticism and questions. if we get none of them right we will not build a ship. so we're confident we can solve all six of these things, but we've got to prove it. >> and i apple pie, on those six things and i think the key oversight issue for congress is the mission modules. that's, in my my, the number one question which needs to be addressed. when are they going to be delivered, how much of the going to cost, what is the capability, are they interoperable? truly interoperable. can you take one of these and take it from lcs i and put on lcs ii, and vice versa? those are the key questions. and also that factors into cost
because we talk a lot about the baseline cost of the structure budget got to factor in the mission module. these ships aren't what they're are sold as if you don't count the provision modules. that to me is up to six. i would agree with all the other five that bob mentioned. that to me is the critical one. >> we are going have to triage here. so let's grab three questions and hopefully they will be quick and then we will have quick answers. over there, the gentleman in the middle in the blue, and the gentleman over here. the rest unfortunately have to ask after if you can. >> we had a lot of talk about the navy using -- what about the other way around? and cost $750 million because of its own independent logistics system, training system. this is an institution looking at leveraging stewardship of u.s. taxpayer dollars. why doesn't the coast guard use the lcs, and buy into the navy's
logistics, by into the navy's training system be? okay, right down here. >> if resources are they considering the main factor here, if they start to step step down, if you don't have the resources to purchase what's necessary for requirements, basically you're the analysis in place to support the offramp or the alternatives that individuals -- the other individuals are talking about. >> and finally right here. >> following on that issue, you all have said the navy doesn't have the money it needs for shipbuilding plan that it has put forward. so the question is, what do you
really need to buy, what will you buy if it comes out to be, you know, several billion dollars sure, what do you need on an annual basis? >> i'll take a shot at bruce's question and defer to the others on the other two. i wrote a board that looked at that very question. and at that time the circumstances would suggest that the coast guard would not have an interest in the lcs because it would've been much more expensive than it wanted and it would have the range and endurance that they're looking for in the program. but the evolution in the lcs program, assuming we get the fix is right that bob work was talking about, the problems that ben is pointed out, it might be worth to look again from the coast guard point of view. if you can to 60 knots and get yourself 6000, 7000 nautical mile range, what the lcs was having, talk about $400 million, $415 million platform, i think
to be worthwhile for the coast guard to reinvestigate discourse and for themselves in answer to the own satisfaction what they can still meet their requirements or not. >> first of all, the lcs, i think the coast guard right now is struggling very mightily to get their seven and eight national security cut into the budget. they haven't passionate have an even more difficult time right now and we do. and then have what is called the offshore patrol cutter, the median secure data. i don't know exactly what is called right now, but they have that decision facing them. and it may turn out that the lcs is an option for them, but i can't speak for the coast guard of course. but they have a very, very tight budget, and once we get this vessel into cereal production, the 10th a ship comment off of each of the lines is going to be an extremely, extremely cost effective ship. if you be ready to ship about
2500 on it instead of the big gas turbines, if you had to go 27 knots, these lcss would get a lot of range. it's up to the coast guard to make that decision. on the resources we just went through one of the biggest strategic changes, in my view, some people look in the 1990s. i actually think there's nothing like this since 1953, 1954 when president eisenhower came in, was faced with the war in korea, needed to get out of the work to balance the budget, and he made some major, major changes here if you take a look back on what we just did, essentially the prioritization implicit, e3 this strategy, prioritization, this is the most maritime front national security strategy document since the 1890s. that's my view. if you read this national security priority, you can achieve this strategy without a strong navy murdering 14.
now, if the resources are that dramatically from where we are, we would have to really look at the assumptions we made. but we will get to 90 cruisers in to the cg's and ddgs. we have 62 right now. will be able to build the other 10 between now and 2016, not an issue. we'll finish up the three edt 1000. we are 22 ticonderoga class that will probably take out a 15. will have 90 of these big boys. and the lcss is in their production coming down the cost curve like you would lead. both of the builders are just an remarkably well. so we're going to get to 300 ships by 2019, no matter what. your questions are, what happens over the long run? man, you know, i say this all the time, people say how do you sleep? i sleep mike bibby. i wake up crying every two hours. i can't look out and say what about what could happen rejoicing i can say is we are
prioritizing a. we are starting to break away from the one-third, one-third, one-third split. the department of the navy is definitely of a high priority in our nation she could he gritty city than it been in decades. so if we take more cuts, i would expect more prioritization to occur, and the department of the navy to be able to build to its 300 ship navy. i could be totally dreaming. so what would we buy? i'm telling you right now we are buying the right stuff. we have got the best cruiser and destroyed in the world. it's going to be better when we get to fly three with advanced missile defense radar. the lcs is unlike anything floating out there. and i'm convinced it's going to be really something. the virginia is the best in the world, hands down. the 17 for all of its problems, best amphibious ship, hands down. there's nothing like the wasp class l. hves or the lh ours.
you take a look at the should for building, every single one of them are the best in the world. so what would i buy? i continue to buy what we are doing. now, i would come back to you and say i've got to have a different plan. but i'm telling you right now the surface navy has a very, very bright future. there's a lot of people who would like more ships. i think we all would, but the plan that we're on right now we think we can forward and we think it's just what the nation needs. >> all right. thanks everybody for coming. please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] >> lunch is upstairs one floor up the spiral staircase. >> congressman. whatever with j.p. morgan and they say here's a company made a stupid decision, did something done. lost money, didn't collapse.
fires people are responsible. this is the market that works. is how it is supposed to happen. why does government need to play a role? >> to some extent that's true but i take credit for. it's because government has played a role. if this had happened five years ago, if j.p. morgan had lost more than $2 billion, i think he would've seen much more panic in the economy. i think you would've seen much more concerned. what we did in the legislation we passed and to other things was to require the financial institution to be much better countless. so one of the things that the result of the government telling you that more capital, you have to have more capital, then you would've had otherwise, that would help give people reassurance. >> this past weekend on c-span's newsmakers congress and barney frank spoke about the over $2 billion lost by jpmorgan chase as well as the state of the u.s. and world economies. the dodd-frank law and gay marriage. watch his comments online at the c-span video library. >> the u.s. senate continues
debate today on and extending food and drug administration and user fee that funds fda reviews of prescription drugs and medical devices. the bill also creates a user fee for generic drugs and a system to track system -- prescription drug. some senators want an amendment for the flood program which expires at the end of the month. the bill sponsors want to keep amendments related to the bill's purpose. and now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our father, shine your light
on capitol hill and give light to each lawmaker. illuminate their lives so that their beliefs may be certain and true. may the light of your knowledge guide them in all of their decisions. grant that guided by your light they will reach the light that never fails. grant that illuminated by your truth they may reach the truth that is complete. lead them, o god, so that in the end they may see light in your light and know even as they are known. amen.
the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 22, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeanne shaheen, a senator from the state of new hampshire, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 400, s. 3187. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to
calendar numbered 400, s. 3187, a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, we're now on the motion to proceed on the f.d.a. user fees bill. the democrats will control the first half. the republicans the final half-hour. we'll recess from 12:30 until 2:15 today to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. at 2:15, the motion to proceed will be adopted and the harkin-enzi substitute will be agreed to. i now ask unanimous consent that tiffany griffin, from senator bingaman's office, be granted floor privileges for the duration of s. 3187. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, there are 12 million people in the united states who face a cancer diagnosis today. many have fought back against this terrible disease and won. others are still fighting. each one knows how difficult a
cancer diagnosis can be. but imagine coming to terms with your diagnosis only to find out the life-saving drug you need to survive is in short supply or simply not available. i wish this were make believe but it's not. it's real america. that, madam president, is the situation faced by many americans battling cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. through 20 weeks of chemotherapy, my wife and i lived with the fear that the medicine she needed every monday morning wouldn't be there because there were shortages. but for for us, the drug was always accessible. many americans haven't been so fortunate. one nevadan fighting bladder cancer was near the end of treatment when the medicine he was taking suddenly ran short. madam president, only time will tell whether the alternative treatment that he received was
enough to save his life. another nevada woman with bowel cancer was forced to choose a less effective chemotherapy treatment because the best drug on the market, one that cures bowel cancer in 75% of the cases, was available. only time will tell whether the second-choice medicine was effective. yet another nevada man was on two cancer drugs to keep him alive and give him a greater quality of life, but one drug was in short supply. since drugs only work when taken together, doctors have been able to only treat him intermittently. that isn't good. so only time will tell how many days or weeks or months or years he lost because he couldn't get the drug he needed. every day, these stories play out in hospitals across our country. every day, americans experience shortages of life-saving f.d.a.-approved drugs and treatments. these shortages literally put americans at risk.
as the number of shortages increase each year, more patients are forced to wait for treatment and worry. in the last six years, drug shortages have quadrupled. last year, the f.d.a. reported shortage of 231 drugs, including many chemotherapy medicines. that's 231 drugs. how many tens of thousands of people did that affect? public pressure has prompted some drug makers to voluntarily notify the f.d.a. of impending shortages, but congress must step in to improve communication between drug makers, the f.d.a. and doctors, course who have to -- doctors who have to break the terrible news that life-saving medicines aren't available. there were a reported almost 200 drug shortages last year, but effective lines of communication could further reduce the number of shortages to save patients' lives. so i'm pleased the spirit of bipartisanship begun by my
colleagues, senator harkin and enzi, continued yesterday. i look forward to an orderly amendment process. i'm optimistic that the senate will move this legislation without unnecessary delays. i hope, madam president, i'm not disappointed. each year, more than 1.5 million americans are diagnosed with some form of cancer. it's up to us to ensure not one of them waits and wonders if the medicine he or she needs to stay alive will be there when the need arises. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to call attention to a couple of stories from the last two days. i think they say a lot about the difficulties of addressing the economic challenges we face. the first is a story from "politico." it says the budget committee chairman can't remember the last time he talked to the president. the budget committee chairman can't remember the last time he talked to the president.
another chairman dealing with student loans says he hasn't talked to the president in months, in months. the democratic point man on energy doesn't seem to talk to the president much at all. madam president, if you want to know why we can't solve these economic problems, this is it. we've got a president who is more interested in running around to college campuses, spreading some poll-tested message than he is in actually accomplishing anything. that's the problem. now, the second story, also interesting, is about h.h.s. signing a $20 million contract to promote obamacare. $20 million of taxpayer money to promote a bill most americans want to see repealed.
$20 million of our tax money spent on commercials to promote obamacare. madam president, let me suggest that the president spend a little more time trying to do something about spending and debt and gas prices and a little less time trying to spin the unpopular things he's already done. it might require a little more work, but it's what we need. it's time to lead. so i would ask consent that those two articles to which i just referred appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, madam president, on another matter, yesterday, we learned about the resignation of the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission, dr. gregory yazko. as i said yesterday, i'm not surprised by yazko's resignation.
even democrats on the n.r.c. testified before congress that his inappropriate conduct as chairman resulted in a hostile work environment for women and threatened to undermine the mission of the n.r.c. itself. but what should surprise all of us is how this administration could remain silent for more than a year after the allegations of yazko's offensive behavior first surfaced. yazko's alleged behavior is unacceptable in any workplace. the fact that it was allowed to persist at a critical agency that oversees the safety of our nation's nuclear power plants is astonishing. the white house must now move swiftly with a replacement for yazko, and i urge the senate to move quickly to reconfirm the nomination of christine saviniky as n.r.c. commissioner before her term expires on june 30. now, the only reason her nomination, commissioner
saviniky's nomination was held up by the white house and the democratic-led senate in the first place was because she had the courage to stand up to a hostile work environment and to the bully who was responsible for it. now that yazko has submitted his resignation, it's time for the senate to move forward on christine saviniky. commissioner saviniky's credentials are unmatched. she is one of the world's leading experts on nuclear safety. she was confirmed by the senate to her current term without a single dissenting vote. it's time we act. saviniky has served as commissioner with distinction, is enormously qualified, has bipartisan support and deserves a speedy reconfirmation. the american people are best served by a commission that is fully functional. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the following hour will be equally
the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. i take this time to just bring to my colleagues' attention that we are celebrating national small business week. it is a very important occasion because, as i know the senator from new hampshire understands, the growth engine for america is with our small businesses. if you're looking at job growth, which we all know we need in order to get our economy moving again, we know that there will be more jobs created from small companies than from large companies. about two out of every three jobs that are created in america will come from small companies. we also know that if you're looking at innovation, who follows the patents, who comes up with the creative new ideas for america to become as competitive as we need to, it will be more from the smaller
companies. there is an incredibly larger number of patents from small companies than from large companies. so the growth engine for america's economy really rests with our small businesses. i'm proud to serve on the small business committee under the leadership of chairman landrieu. we have brought forward many initiatives that help small businesses, and i think it's made a huge difference as our economy is starting to recover, as we look at now 25 consecutive months of continuous private sector job growth where we have turned around the economy and we're now growing. in large measure, i think it's because of the attention that we have paid to the small business community. we are proud of what it's meant for our entire country. let me just give you a little bit about my own state of maryland. we have over 500,000 small businesses in maryland that employ over one million people in my state in small businesses. so it is by far a huge part of
the maryland economy. our strategy over the last several years during the obama administration has been to concentrate on small businesses to help them recover, particularly from this economic recession. the first effort was to increase the capacity of the small business administration. i was proud of the obama budget that put more back into the small business administration. i was proud of the initiative that we had in the senate to add funds to the small business administration so that they could indeed be the advocates for the small business community. they had someone in the government that was fighting for their issues and it's made a huge difference. i think if you talk as i have to the small businesses of maryland, they tell me they have now much greater capacity for help through counselors and advocates at the small business administration. we then went to deal with the number-one issue that was brought to our attention, and i'm sure you heard the same
stories in new hampshire that i heard in maryland, that small businesses had a hard time getting access to capital, that we had to do a better job of making capital available, particularly during a tough economic period where small businesses don't have the same deep pockets that the larger companies had that we needed to do a better job. so we increased the s.b.a. loan limits, increased the amount of federal guarantee in order to make it more attractive for banks to lend money to small businesses knowing full well that the government was standing behind those loans. that made some moneys available. we looked for creative new programs to help our small businesses, one in the treasury department to help. we also looked at helping our states in partnership with our states. i know that in maryland, the additional funds that we made available in washington to help build the state program has made many more loans available to small companies in maryland.
all of that has helped in providing opportunities for our small businesses. the reauthorization, the sbir program and the sttr program has made a huge difference. since 1983 in my own state of maryland, $1.5 billion of funding has come from the sbir program. for those who are listening who may not know what this program is about, it's innovation. it's small companies that are involved in the biotech and cyber tech areas where they use innovation to create jobs. in my state and your state, madam president, they are using these funds to create the opportunity for america to be competitive internationally. we can state chapter and verse for national defense research or for clean energy technology where small businesses are taking advantage of these innovative research grants have been able to build jobs in our community and make america more competitive for the future. the reauthorization and
predictability of funding under the sbir program, increasing the amounts that are available will create and has already created more job opportunities. we got that done and that was certainly a major step forward. we passed bills providing tax breaks to small businesses, the expensing of their equipment so they can go out and buy equipment and keep things moving. would i ask for an additional five minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cardin: i thank my friend from arizona for his courtesy, and i will try not to use the entire five minutes. there are other areas where we have also moved forward with help for small businesses, credits for their health insurance so they can cover their employees. in my own state of maryland, we have set up an african trade office which has provided opportunities in international trade, an area where we think we could still make progress.
i could talk about many of the success stories in maryland, small businesses that have used the sbir program to develop the -- the reaction to smallpox vaccines to make them more efficient. we have had examples of where we're now developing a vaccine to deal with the common cold. i was at an s.b.a. event where we honored our -- our leading entrepreneurs in our state and can tell you an example of where a small business person, janet amerhoff, who was the small business person of the year, a software development company. she has had some personal issues with her own health, but despite that for the last three years has had 190% growth in her revenues. this is the innovation we have in maryland that comes out of the small business community. the tailor-made transportation services that first qualified as an 8-8, graduated from that, started with a small transportation company that provided transportation for
people with special needs, now providing a diversified transportation system in our community. all of that has developed through small business programs that we helped develop. but i come to the floor to announce a new initiative that i will be filing today, and that is the small business goaling act to deal with another problem we have with small businesses that i hope that we will be able to take up on the floor of the senate in the very near future. it would increase the prime goals for small businesses in government procurement from 23% to 25% and increase the subcontracting goals to 40%, adding transparency to how government provides procurement opportunities of their government contracts to small businesses. we have taken some action in dealing with bundling and trying to prevent the bundling of small contracts into large contracts that makes it more difficult for small businesses to get prime contracts.
this legislation will make it, i think, more transparent and visible so that we can, in fact, provide more opportunities so that the government leads by example by using small companies more to help them grow. it will help not only small businesses but those that we have services --, serviced, women owned companies, minority owned companies, all will benefit from these opportunities. i want to thank the chairperson of the small business committee, senator landrieu, for her extraordinary help in getting this bill together. it will help small businesses by allowing them to grow, create jobs and help our country in recovery. once again i want to thank my friend from arizona for giving me these extra few moments and just encourage my colleagues, the best way to help celebrate national small business week is to pay more attention to helping small businesses grow. with that i yield the floor.
mr. president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to 3450e9 during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i would like today to add a little context to the discussion of the fiscal cliff that our nation approaches, a reference to the combination of the largest tax increase in history, new taxes under obamacare, sequestration, and the expiration of the payroll tax holiday, all of which take effect in january of 2013 unless the president and the congress act. this is a key discussion to have because how we view the so-called fiscal cliff defines our perspective on how an economy grows and process percent. -- process percent, prospers.
edward l lazier wrote an yop qled. the keynesian view and the view of supply-side economics. keynesian views that spending is the key to growth. keynesians believe that in recessionary times, government spending can take the place of private-sector activity and they present a false choice between government spending cuts, austerity, and growth. their perspective holds that growth is contingent on government spending. this was the thinking behind the president's 2009 surplus spending package. the so-called cash for clunkers, and a litany of other recent government programs, transfer payments and temporary tax credits. the administration's insistence on enacting these temporary keynesian spending policies to
stimulate consumption i believe is misguided, and the evidence reveals has failed. remember, the stimulus was sold as a measure to keep unemployment from topping 8% but, in fact, unemployment hasn't dipped below 8% for 39 months. and growth is very anemic. we're experiencing a recovery in name only. so there isn't much evidence that spending can revitalize a sagging economy. that is to say government spending. and even if government spending could be a boost as lazier -- laysar points out, he writes "even if a stimulus has some benefit, the cost is likely to be very large. in order to stimulate the economy, growth in, not just high levels of government spending, is required. to provide a stimulus comparable to the 2009 legislation, we would need to increase government spending by $850
billion. -- $250 billion. and he ose ghost on the keynesian view keeping spending constant at the higher level in 2014 would generate no growth for 2014 because there is no increase in spending over the 2013 level. if we want to delay our day of reckoning, he writes, we must keep spending at a higher level for each year that we want to postpone the negative consequences for growth" -- end of quote. supply-side economics, on the other hand, holds a different super expectative on growth, that government spending does not increase prosperity. that tax hikes hurt the committee economy and stifle growth. we believe that economic growth stems from combining three inputs -- labor, capital, and technology. these three factors of production result in output that we can then consume. without labor, capital, and
technology, there can be no consumption. focusing on policies that stimulate consumption targets the wrong side of the equation. in order to get the economy going, we need to focus on the inputs: labor, capital, and technology. we also believe that government spending cuts are beneficial because they free up private capital and help align revenues with government spending. lazear argues that supply siders stand on firmest ground wit comes to economic growth. here's what he writes. on the tax side there is strong evidence that supports the suppliedsiders and he cites insight from christina romer. and her research shows that raising taxes by 1% of g.d.p. -- raising taxes, which
is what the administration proposes -- lowers our gross domestic product by nearly 3%. so increased taxes by 1%, you lose 3% of gross domestic product. i recently joined 40 of my republican colleagues in sending a letter to leader reid to make this point, that tax increases will have a deleterious effect on economic growth. the letter asks that he join us in taking the tax threat off the election in order to create more economic certainty. we know that so-called taxmageddon is coming and there's no good reason not to act. the election is not an acceptable excuse. in fact, i would posit that politicians could be rewarded for acting to avert the catastrophic effect of this huge tax increase. in addition to acting to prevent tax hikes, congress should also pursue spending cuts to help
unleash private capital, boost growth, and reduce our nearly $16 trillion national debt in the process. to be clear, cutting government spending does be mean -- not mean that government should take a sledgehammer approach and cut indiscriminately. we should be careful where we cut, we should prioritize. for example i oppose the defense cuts on national security grounds, not keynesian grounds. in other words, while it's true that cuts in defense federal spending speng will result in job losses, big job losses under sequestration, our national security sewn more -- even -- is even more important. the automatic spending cuts under sequestration mean across the board cuts to the department of defense will in the words of the secretary of defense devastate our national security. allowing the sequester to begin as planned would cut 10% from defense in fiscal year 2013 alone and dramatically shrink the size and capabilities of our
military. to avoid this, the senate should follow the lead of the house of representatives, which recently passed legislation to replace the sequester with other spending reductions. the legislation will cut $315 billion in spending and will reduce the deficit by over $242 billion. it's not a perfect bill but i do believe it's a good place to start. my overarching point is this. we should not shy away from prudent spending cuts for fear they will hurt growth. it shouldn't be difficult to find cuts in our $3.7 trillion budget. these cuts will not derail economic growth if done the right way. the choice, in other words, between spending cuts and growth is a false choice. if the president is truly concerned about boosting growth and reversing the trends of the last three and a half years he should stop presenting this false choice as did he, for example, at the g-8 summit last week where he actually
encouraged german chancellor angela merkel to embrace a growth package based on his own budget busting stimulus spending. i hope chanceler merkel and other a leaders take a look whether the obama growth package is something they want to bring home after observing the american economy the last four years. preventing tax increases and reducing out-of-control spending is a better approach to long-term prosperity. madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the record carry the op-ed i referred to by edward lazear of "the wall street journal" of may 21. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i'm pleased to see that jessica
rosen wiesel -- and take my have been con pirmd. it's unfortunate that the f.c.c.'s stubborn response to, forced me to place a hold on their nominations for the past four months in order to get the f.c.c. to move on giving mere the information that any member of congress ought to be entitled to. the f.c.c. needs to learn a simple lesson from this episode. the public's business ought to be public. and transparency brings accountability. eventually the truth will be known, so you might as well get it out there when the questions first come up. i initially placed my hold on the f.c.c. commissioner nominees because the f.c.c. had
stonewalled a document request that i submitted on april 27 last year regarding their actions related to a company called lightsquared, and the hedge fund harbinger capital that owns lightsquared. before i wrote my letter on lightsquared, many concerns had already been raised regarding the company's plans for a terrestrial network and its potential to interfere with the global positioning system, or sometimes that's referred to as g.p.s. in my first letter i raised those concerns as well. unfortunately, the f.c.c. doesn't appear to have taken those concerns seriously, but months later, independent testing verified the danger lightsquared posed to industries from commercial aviation to even our own armed forces.
it seems strange that a project that was so obviously flawed was allowed to go so far, but lightsquared had help. in total, lightsquared has paid 53 different lobbyists, some registered, some unregistered. they paid one former governor, three former senators, nine former members of congress, including a former speaker and former minority leader, and a former white house counsel to advocate for them, that lightsquared ought to go through. these lobbyists provided entry into the f.c.c. and the white house, but they couldn't change the fact that lightsquared's network simply couldn't coexist with g.p.s. lightsquared has now declared bankruptcy, and it appears that
its plan to build a terrestrial network are over, but many questions still remain. some of those questions, why did the f.c.c. give lightsquared this unusual waiver in the first place? why did lightsquared's lawyers mention campaign contributions when they sought meetings at the white house? why did a four-star general claim he had been pressured by the obama administration not to criticize lightsquared? when i first asked the f.c.c. for documents, i was told they would take about two years to respond to my request through freedom of information. then they told me that they do not voluntarily turn over documents to the 99.6% of the members of congress and senators
who do not chair a committee with direct jurisdiction over f.c.c. after a lot of back-and-forth with the f.c.c. 1993 they told me the reason they don't respond to 99.6% of congress is because of just a one-line statement in the congressional research service report. the line reads -- quote -- " oversight is most effective if it's conducted by congressional committees of jurisdiction" -- end of quote. now, the f.c.c. somehow took this quote and conveniently came up with the idea that they don't have to give this senator any documents. and, of course, to anybody in the congress, this makes no sense whatsoever, but that's what the f.c.c. hid behind. and, of course, you know me, i didn't give up. the f.c.c.'s response to me is
just another variation on what the justice department told me when i started asking questions about operation fast and furious unfortunately, we have members of the house of representatives that aren't afraid to ask this administration some tough questions. in fast and furious, it was chairman issa who held the justice department's feet to the fire to make sure that they responded fully and responded completely. when lightsquared -- or with lightsquared, it was another committee in the house of representatives. the house energy and commerce committee. chairman walden, upton and stearns and their staffs have done an excellent job in making sure the f.c.c. is open, transparent and provides documents to congress, even when they don't want to give those documents to a senator that asks for them, meaning this senator.
i would also like to thank commerce committee chairman rockefeller here in the senate for pressing the f.c.c. personally to release documents. with all this help, we're making sure that the f.c.c. is open with the american people about the way they operate because transparency brings accountability. in over 30 years of conducting oversight, i can say that when it comes to providing documents to the congress, the f.c.c. is one of the worst federal agencies that i have ever had to deal with. even after receiving a document request from the energy and commerce committee in the house of representatives, the f.c.c. still tried to play the tired old games that agencies played when they aren't acting in good faith. when they finally turned over
their first batch of documents, would you believe it, those documents were already publicly available on the internet through freedom of information act, so they weren't giving us anything that we didn't already have access to. now, then there was -- when they didn't convince us that they were acting in good-faith because quite frankly they weren't, they gave us a second production, but even of the first 1,968 pages that they produced, all but three -- in other words, 1,965 pages were newspaper clippings. again, the f.c.c. was playing games, and, of course, that's just not acceptable. fortunately, we have continued to press the f.c.c. and we now with the help of the house of representatives have
approximately 8,000 nonpublic internal documents. still, we have not received all responsive documents from the f.c.c. yet. we just received another 4,000 pages of documents, and i have been told that approximately 7,000 more documents are on their way to congress, so we now at least have a path forward. that is why i lifted my holds a couple weeks ago so that these nominations could move forward. i trust that the house committee will ensure that the f.c.c. provides those 7,000 or so additional documents. i have always said that if you're hiding something, it's best to get it out in the open because the longer you stone wall -- meaning in this case, the f.c.c. -- the worse you're going to look when those facts finally come out. the f.c.c. has attempted to stone wall my request for
documents for almost a year, and they have failed, but they failed only things to the help provided by the house energy and commerce committee, and because of that help, we're finally able to review internal documents from the f.c.c., the very same documents we should have gotten when we first asked our request april 27 last year. as i said when i initially filed my intent to object, i strongly believe that it is critical for congress to have access to documents in order to conduct vigorous and independent oversight. whether it takes one day, one week, one month or even one year, as it did in this case, i will continue to pursue transparency across the federal government because transparency brings accountability. this is essential so that congress can practice its
constitutional role of oversight over the federal government. the role of oversight is this simple -- congress passed those laws -- passes laws and appropriates money. that's not the end of it. our government is a government of checks and balances. we have a responsibility after passing laws, after appropriating money to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed and the money spent according to the intent of congress. that's oversight. even now, as we review these documents that we have already gotten and begin conducting interviews with key f.c.c. staff, the investigation obviously continues. step one was getting access to the f.c.c. emails. it took this step so that we could make sure that we had the facts before we jumped to conclusions. now it's time for step two, asking some hard questions of the key f.c.c. personnel who
approved the lightsquared waiver. this process may continue to take more time, but however long the process takes, i will continue to press for transparency at the f.c.c. because with transparency comes accountability. this agency must operate in an open and transparent manner, and we must have answers regarding the lightsquared waiver. the people at the f.c.c. work for the american people, they don't work for themselves. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
and jenny boyer be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: we are now on the motion to proceed to the food and drug administration savings and innovation act of 2012, for the drug user fees and the medical device user fees. a couple of new provisions are in this bill and that is dealing with the generic drug user fees, and the biosimilar drug user fees also. so this bill is extremely important. we have been working in our committee for over a year on it, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle as both senator enzi, my ranking member, and i pointed out yesterday, this has been a true bipartisan effort. we did not divide up in terms of party, democrat or republican, we divided up in terms of interest areas. and we had working groups within our committee so that senators
who had a particular interest in one area or another were on that -- on that working group. we also had senators who were not on the committee but who had interest areas in it to also be involved in our working groups. and so they and their staffs had full working knowledge of what was going on all the time, and it was a true collegial effort. those working groups completed their work earlier this year, and we also called in all the stakeholders. the prescription drug manufacturers, the pharmacists, the drugstores. we called in consumer groups. and practitioners. and so we had all the stakeholders involved in this, too. and so now we have come up with a bill that has very broad support. i put in the record yesterday a list of over a hundred different
organizations, everything from the drug manufacturers to consumer protection groups, consumer groups, that -- that are supporting this bill. so it has very broad-based support. i believe that is, again, due to the fact that we proceeded on the reauthorization of this bill in a time-honored tradition of the united states senate. and that is for the committee to take the reauthorization prospect, to do its due diligence for over a year as i mentioned, and to make sure that people were involved at every step of the process on both sides of the aisle, and that we brought in the stakeholders, and continued this effort, as i said, for over a year. to the point that we have a bill that was -- that is broadly supported. this -- as i said, everyone has a common interest in
ensuring that our products don't hurt patients. i have said in our hearings and i continue to believe that safety is the paramount consideration. we cannot sacrifice patient safety on the altar of other considerations. patient safety still is the highest standard, the highest mark on which we aim our sights. but getting the products to patients quickly is also important. i have heard heart-wrenching stories of patients dress prattly waiting for treatments, of inspiring accounts of small start-up companies seeking to entitle the needs of these patients with innovative medical products. patient groups and industry alike have stressed the need for efficient processes to get products to patients quickly. again, i will be pointing out later also that we do have -- f.d.a. does a very good job of getting products, both drugs
and devices, to market quickly. in fact, of the 154 drugs approved in both the u.s. and canada, this was a study done by "the new england journal of medicine," 132 were approved here first. so we have not been dragging our heels and f.d.a. hasn't been dragging its heels in terms of getting the job done. now, some say that, well, sometimes products get approved more rapidly in europe than they do here. well, that's true, but it's important to note that the foreign approval standards are different so it's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. the f.d.a. here approves drugs and devices based on their safety and effectiveness. safety and effectiveness. are they safe and do they
actually do what they say they're supposed to do? other countries basically in europe only consider safety and not whether the device is effective. so as long as it's safe, they approve it. so, yes, they have a shorter approval time but they don't take into consideration effectiveness. i strongly believe the u.s. should keep this high standard, this high standard of both safety and effectiveness. it's important to know if a device is effective or not because that affects a patient's decision whether to accept the device's risks and whether to forego maybe alternative treatments. f.d.a. officials testified before our committee this year, they submitted documentation showing that 95% of medical device applications were reviewed within the deadlines set in the past user fee agreement. now, again, despite all this good work that f.d.a. is doing, patients who are sick or dying,
promising therapies can't be approved quickly enough. so the bill that we have before us will continue to support the agency and its good work but it will allow for some very beg improvements. the medical device industry has agreed to double its user fees, to pay twice as much, and, in return, the f.d.a. has agreed to speed review times, increase transparency, enhance communications, again, all of which will get devices to patients more quickly but still keeping in mind safety. so anything that we can do to both streamline the process, get drugs and devices to patients sooner, and making sure that we keep our high standard of safety and effectiveness is not only good for business but critical for the patients who need them. so, mr. president, i expect the f.d.a. safety and innovation act will have significant impact on
f.d.a.'s ability to approve medical products in an efficient and transparent way. again, as i said, that benefits everyone. investors will feel better about putting their money into medical technologies. companies will translate their research and development work into sales more quickly. support for innovation will allow the united states to maintain its leadership position in the biotech industry. this will preserve and create jobs all over america. in this sector, as long as we preserve safety standards, what is good for business is good for patients of the again, if companies and their investors feel that the climate is right to commit resources to new medical therapies, this means that patients who did not previously have options will have treatments to turn to. so this bill, i say, is a win-win for everyone. mr. president, inspiring
innovation and improving patient access to medical therapies are two of the many ways this bill modernizes our regulatory and oversight system to benefit both patients and the biomedical industry. the f.d.a. safety and innovation act say truly bipartisan and consensus bill that -- act is a truly bipartisan and consensus bill that includes a wide range of stakeholders. we will, i hope, be on the bill shortly after our noon caucuses and conferences for the two parties. i hope that we'll be on this bill this afternoon. i trust that we will have only relevant amendments to the bill. i hope that that has been sort of accepted on both sides and that we can discuss the bill, have the relevant amendments and have them disposed of sometime this week. so i'm hopeful that -- that we can -- we can get this bill done before we go home for the memorial day recess.
but we'll be back on the bill this afternoon. i urge all my colleagues to give this bill their support. as i said, we'll have some amendments, i'm sure, that will be relevant to the bill, they'll be debated and voted upon but, nonetheless, i hope we can expeditiously move this bill and get it done. the clock is ticking. the -- the f.d.a. authorization runs out at the end of this summer. you might say, well, we have until then to get it done. well, look at it this way, we're out of here the month of august. we're out of here for the 4th of july break. we have a memorial day break. we have appropriations bills to do. we have all kinds of things that we have to do this summer. plus, it's not waiting till the last minute. f.d.a. needs to know very soon whether or not they're going to have these resources. the drug companies need to know whether or not f.d.a. will have the resources to continue to do
its work. so sometime midsummer f.d.a. will have to start probably sending out pink slips to people who they will not be able to keep on past the end of the summer because they won't have the funds to do that. it's been estimated that up to 2,000 people could lose their jobs at the end of this summer if we don't do our work and get this bill reauthorized. so time is of the essence. we need to get it done so that we can go to conference with the house, work out whatever little disagreements we may have and get the final bill to the president hopefully sometime -- sometime in june so that the f.d.a. then won't have to go through any processes of seeing who they're going to lay off and how they're going to close things down at the end of the summer. so again, time is of the essence. i urge all my colleagues to -- to support this well-thought-out
bill. as i said, it has taken over a year to put together. all of the stakeholders support it. broad support across america. so i hope that we can get on the bill this afternoon and -- and bring it to a close as soon as possible. mr. president, with that, i -- i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quor be -- the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: i am pleased to follow senator harkin, one of the chief authors of the f.d.a. bill, and to thank him and senator enzi for this truly
bipartisan, monumental work on a measure that is essential to the future of the health of our nation as well as our economic security. this bill is a big one. it's a big bill with complex provisions and an essential purpose: to safeguard the public, to protect patients and encourage innovation and invention, which are so important to treating and curing diseases in this country as well as other problems. and this measure is revolutionary in many ways. it contains complex, new provisions with bipartisan support, and truly the bipartisanship in support of this bill makes it noteworthy as well. i'm pleased to say that it includes the gain act, which i helped to author and champion with my colleague, senator
corker, and 20 other senators who have joined in this effort to incentivize the development of new antibiotics, to treat and stop and concu conquer the supe, as they are known, germs that are resistant to antibiotics as they exist now. to provide more drug security, the supply chain needs greater safeguards and i've worked with other senators on this measure. and i'm proud to say it's in the bill. the treatment and research on pediatric diseases and conditions that is the work of senators reid and alexander and murray, and i've been very proud to add to their efforts. and, of course, the work on medical device innovation and
safeguards, which i've done with senator grassley and senator kohl. this measure in a way epitomizes the approach are that w that wee to f.d.a. regulation, which is to enable devices to reach the market more quickly, to make sure that they are safe but available more promptly and to guarantee surveillance and oversight after they reach the market, a understan and reportiy industry so that we enlist industry as a partner and make the f.d.a. an alirk an ally, non adversary. nowhere is this approach more necessary than in addressing the drug shortage problem in this country, and it is a problem, it is a crisis, it is an outrage.
the united states should be embarrassed and outraged that the greatest country in the history of the world, the strongest on the planet, having developed lifesaving medicines and devoted extraordinary research and development to make those medicines available to the people of this country still has shortages, crisis shortages, in those very pharmaceutical drugs. and that crisis is inexcusable and unacceptable. the bill takes a step in the direction of addressing and solving it. it is a first step. i leave no doubt as i stand here that i will continue to work on this problem to advocate other
steps, some that i will suggest today and others that will be forthcoming in measures that i will propose later. i first became aware of the drug shortage problem through contacts with people from connecticut, patients who suffer as a result of these drug shortages, doctors who are hugely concerned about the choices they have to make and the dilemmas they face every day in their practices, and hospitals that engage in what they call triage, trying to find drugs to substitute for the ones that are in shortage so that they can care for patients who are literally dealing with life-and-death situations. we're talking not just about one or a couple of drugs -- methatrexate was recently the
subject of a "new york times" front-page article. it provides cancer treatment. but there are other cancer-treating drugs that are also in short supply, essential for both prolonging life and giving life to patients who otherwise would lose it more quickly. we're talking about mytomyocin, about cytarinine and in other areas of treatment we're talking about epinephrine, which is important for allergy treatment, zinc injections, propyphol, a workhorse in emergency rooms when people arrive in need of anesthesia. for these drugs and hundreds of
others, literally hundreds of others, to be in shortage is unacceptable and inexcusable. what illustrates this problem perhaps most dramatically is the faces and voices of the people in connecticut and in every state around the country who suffer because of these drug shortages. they are your neighbors, your friends, my colleagues' constituents. they're coping with pain, anxiety, sadness, grief, anger, and there are drugs available to them that would provide relief and remedy, and their docs can't get them because they are in shortage. we're talking about people of great courage and fortitude like susan block, and she is just i
will us will tra stiff -- i have -- and she is just illustrative. i have her picture here. my office helped her get a drug to treat her cancer because halfway through her treatments for ovarian cancer, sh she arrid at the hospital one day to learn from her doctor that doxyl would no longer be available. she called my aves i office in c upon learning that information. ovarian cancer causes more deaths than any other cancer of the female reproductive system, and susan was unwilling to settle for half a treatment, and she was right and her doctor supported her, and my office supported her in securing an emergency delivery of doxil for susan, allowing her to complete treatment. and she has allowed me
graciously to share this photo with you today. i am pleased that we have been able to help constituents in connecticut again and again and again to secure these medicines when they've been in shortage, working with manufacturers as well as as hospitals in that effort. but it shouldn't have happened at all. and not everyone has been this lucky. steven hine of bethel wrote to my office, after he lost his wife anne. she died of terminal ovarian cancer. anne was also on doxil. while the drug wasn't going to save her life -- these drugs don't always save lives -- it could have prolonged her life expectancy, but she couldn't get doxil in time, and she lost her battle with cancer. steven, her husband, understood that the drug wouldn't have cured her, but it would have
helped her live longer and spend more time with her family, her daughter who is going to graduate -- who was going to graduate that spring, and it would have meant so much for anne to see her daughter graduate. we have a right to ask, what kind of nation allows patients to go without these drugs and forces doctors to make decisions about who needs them the most? i want to thank senators klobuchar and casey particularly for championing this effort, even before i arrived in the united states senate, and later personally the chair of this committee and ranking member, senators harkin and senator enzi, for their support.
there are proven measures that will help solve these issues, and more needs to be done, but this amendment, which provides for a requirement of notification in the event of a discontinuance or interruption of the production of life-supporting, life-sustaining drugs or drugs intended for use in the prevention of a debilitating disease or condition or a sterile injectable or a drug used in an emergency. the reasons that these drugs are in short supply was illustrated and documented by a g.a.o. study, and it showed drugs are in short supply -- not just once, but they are chronically in short supply, some of them many times.
it showed definitively that these drugs are old, sterile, often injectable, and generics. the markets simply are not working for these drugs. the profit margins are not sufficient to sustain the supply. the markets for these drugs are broken. if these drugs, to draw the nailinthe --to draw the nailinga utility, the lights would go out. the lights are going out for patients in connecticut and across the country because the markets are not working and the government, the f.d.a., is failing in its responsibility, under great pressure, with perhaps good intention, but still not effectively working enough. and the president of the united states recognized it when he
issued an executive order that required the f.d.a. to use its current powers of notification more effectively and to refer price-gouging cases to the department of justice when there is evidence of them. and the markets are not working so that there is now a gray market that involves markups of 200%, 300%, 5%00%, 800%, sometimes even higher, in the prices of these drugs as they are resold in in secondary mar. beyond notification of these drugs, as it is contained in the bill, there are other measures that are important and necessary so that we do more to address these problems. i have refiled my amendment from the "help" committee markup along with senators franken, schumer, cardin and klobuchar to impose penalties, tough penalties, for manufacturers who
fail to notify. notification is fine, but it will be less effective if there are no penalties for failure to notify. and we may try to walk a balance between enforcement and incentives, but enforcement in this area is critical, and this measure imposing penalties for failure to notify is critical as well. the amendment is a fair one. it provides for penalties of up to $10,000 per day, up to $1.8 million per violation for failure to notify the f.d.a.ing within a reasonable time -- to notify the f.d.a., within a reasonable time frame. i'm proposing an amendment as well that would require critical manufacturing reinvestment. i've worked with the manufacturing industry to create a public-private partnership to incentivize the development of additional manufacturing
capacity. the root of the drug shortage problem is that these products are old and generic and difficult to make, so that we need more capacity, we need more plants making more of these drugs, and over the long term this kind of partnership will strengthen the markets and strengthen our capacity. it says that the secretary of health and human services has authority to implement an analysis of the root causes of the drug shortage and to proactively seek these kinds of partnerships with manufacturers to produce more of the drugs that may be in shortage right now, but to predict, to forecast are what wilwhat will be in shon the future. market manipulation must be addressed more effectively. and i have proposed an amendment that will stop the gray market insofar as it is possible to do, to