All Episodes
Previous Next
May 3, 2025 01:28-02:11 - CSPAN
42:52
Lawmakers Discuss U.S. Shipbuilding
Participants
Main
t
todd young
sen/r 14:42
Appearances
m
mark kelly
sen/d 03:51
|

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
Delasky with her book, Who Needs College Anymore, Sunday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN's QA.
You can listen to Q&A and all of our podcasts on the C-SPAN Now app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Looking to contact your members of Congress?
Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory.
Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place.
This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress.
Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors.
The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations.
Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today.
Next, Senators Mark Kelly and Todd Young on congressional efforts to revitalize the U.S. shipbuilding industry, hosted by the Atlantic Council.
This is about 40 minutes.
Welcome to today's event, strengthening U.S. shipbuilding, Congress role in maritime revitalization.
This event is hosted by the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and its Ford Defense Program.
I'm Fred Kemp.
I'm President and CEO of the Atlantic Council.
Today's discussion is on a critical but overlooked pillar.
And I underscore the overlooked pillar of national security, Americans' maritime industrial base.
I'm writing a book right now that involves Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Adolf Hitler.
And I'm looking back to their early years.
And Assistant Naval Secretary Franklin Delano Roosevelt, age 31, in January of 1914, I see Senator Kelly, Senator Young here.
It's great to have you here.
I'll introduce you in a moment.
But as Assistant Navy Secretary in 1914, his first position in national government, he said, and by the way, at that point, we really are dead in the water.
We don't have much reach at all.
President Wilson at that point was a pacifist, as was Joseph Staniels, Naval Secretary.
They thought building up too many ships would be provocative and it was quite isolationist period.
His quote at that time was, our national defense must extend all over the Western hemisphere.
We must go out a thousand miles into the sea.
A thousand miles.
We must embrace the Philippines and over the seas wherever our commerce may be.
To hold the Panama Canal, Alaska, America, Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the naval base of Guantanamo and the Philippines, we must have battleships.
That was radical thinking then.
We're not quite as lean as we were in 1914, but there's work to be done and you're going to hear about it today.
For much of the 20th century, U.S. shipyards powered not only our economy, but also our ability to project strength and respond to crises around the world.
Yet today, this vital sector faces profound challenges.
In 2023, U.S. Naval Intelligence reported that China's shipyards can build around 2302 times more tonnage than their U.S. counterparts.
Let me repeat that, 232 times more tonnage.
Once a cornerstone of American industrial might, our shipbuilding sector has been weakened by a shortage of skilled labor, aging infrastructure, and fragmented supply chains.
These vulnerabilities not only hinder our ability to build and repair ships efficiently, but also threaten our capacity to deter aggression and prevail in conflict.
Recognizing the magnitude of the challenge, bipartisan leaders in Congress have advanced vital legislation aimed at rebuilding this strategic foundation.
The Ships for America Act, as well as the recent executive order on restoring America's maritime dominance, represent major steps toward modernizing shipbuilding capacity, investing in new technologies, strengthening the workforce, and laying the groundwork for long-term naval strength.
So we're honored to be joined by two leaders in these efforts.
Senator Todd Young of Indiana is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and a leading voice on bipartisan approaches to strengthening American industrial and military competitiveness.
So Senator Young, it's great to see you back at the Atlantic Council.
Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona is a former Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut.
As a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, he brings operational experience and technical expertise to the Senate's work on the maritime industrial base.
Sarah Kelly, it's an honor to have you here with us as well.
We were hoping to have a bicameral panel here today, but the Hill's unpredictable voting schedule has other plans.
Unfortunately, Congressman Garamendi and Congresswoman Kiggins, who, by the way, is a former military helicopter pilot, had to cancel, proving once again that not even the Atlantic Council can outmaneuver a last-minute vote call.
Moderating today's panel is Valerie Insina, a senior reporter with breaking news covering Congress and the defense industry.
Convenings on topics such as this are integral to the Scowcroft Center's mission of developing sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the United States and its allies.
And for us, this isn't just rhetoric.
We don't just walk the walk, we talk the talk.
We try to do programs that will actually move the needle in a positive sense on policies.
And this is where I tip my hat to the remarkable team of Forward Defense, which is part of the Scowcroft Center and its leader, Clementine Starling Daniels.
Forward Defense conducts the Atlantic Council's global defense work covering U.S. defense strategy and military operational concepts, how warfare is changing, how technology is impacting how we fight, deterrence, space, and nuclear security, defense industry, and innovation.
Forward Defense's latest hit was a report of the Commission on Software-Defined Warfare.
The Department of Defense, it's all about the Department of Defense acquiring software to extend the life of the legacy force.
In the first 40 days of this administration, we had direct impact on the Pentagon as Secretary Hagsef put out his memo in his own approach to this vital area.
We hope we can play a similar role when it comes to shipbuilding.
As a reminder, this event is public and on the record.
We encourage our audience to ask questions either through askac.org or by raising your hand when directed by our moderator, and someone will bring you a microphone.
Identify yourself and your affiliation with your questions.
We also encourage our online audience to join the conversation on X by following at AC Scowcroft and using the hashtag Ford Defense.
So, hashtag FORDEFENCE.
So, thank you all for joining us.
Thank you, senators.
And let me turn it over to Valerie.
Thank you, Fred.
So, I'm so happy to be here with you all this morning to talk about the Ships for America Act.
I know you don't want to hear from me.
You want to hear from these two gentlemen.
So, let's jump right into questions.
Senator Young, the first one is for you.
Can you talk a little bit about the current state of the maritime industrial base?
And what are the problems there that led both you and Senator Kelly to sort of go forward with this bill?
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Well, thank you so much.
It's great to be with you, Valerie.
Of course, great to be with my colleague Mark Kelly.
And I'm sorry the members of the House couldn't be here with us.
This happens.
They're very busy, but they've been great partners in this effort.
And we look forward to seeing it across the finish line.
But listen, our shipbuilding repair base and our shipbuilding industrial capacity is infirm and certainly long overdue for a recharge, to be supercharged, if you will.
And so this bill accomplishes that effort and really will help revitalize our ability to train merchant mariners and train those workers who will be working in shipyards,
attract capital and expertise, foreign and domestic, into our existing shipyards, perhaps some new ones, and to begin making merchant ships again in this country and take some of that capacity and hold it in reserve for when needed for a time of conflict.
So we think that all of those things can be accomplished by advancing its objectives.
Why is this important?
This is important because we are a maritime nation.
We've been a maritime nation from the very beginning.
Our founders recognized the importance of sea power.
In fact, in the 1790s, one of the first orders of business of Congress, since the theme here is Congress's role, Congress passed legislation to establish a navy and to begin building frigates.
And those frigates were built in commercial shipyards.
And it was recognized that we were a nation that depended on our trading facility and having secure lines of trade and communication so that we had access to the world and it had access to us.
And they were quite sensitive, our founders were, to the insecurity of the world and our vessels and therefore our economy and our national power.
And so all of those things are still present, except for the awareness.
But I think it's not going to be particularly challenging to heighten awareness because unlike other reshore initiatives, say semiconductors, one that Senator Kelly and I are familiar with, this one resonates.
This is very accessible to regular people.
Of course we need ships.
Of course we move things and we need to continue to move things.
Of course there will be opportunity that has heretofore been untapped if we make more ships here in this country.
Of course the United States of America can train people to make ships.
So I'm really excited about this.
I don't shy away from hard arguments, but this is an easy argument and this is why I am here today to help make that easier argument, but no less consequential about why this is important.
unidentified
That's a great setup for my question for you, Senator Kelly.
This is a bill that looks at shipbuilding as a macrocosm, both commercial and defense together.
So can you talk us through some of the more defense aligned portions of this bill?
What do you see as most imperative for the defense side of shipbuilding?
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
Well, let me just start by just to add on to what Todd said about naval shipbuilding.
unidentified
So we went from seven, those seven frigates in the 1780s or so, to thousands of naval ships around World War II to 500 during the Reagan administration down to a few hundred right now.
And we're trying to build more.
We're trying to build two submarines, Virginia-class submarines, a year, and we build 1.4.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
We're trying to complete these aircraft carriers, the Ford-class, the Kennedy is going to be next.
And it's a challenge for companies like Newport News and others to get their products out because they don't have the workforce, they don't have the supply chains, they don't have the suppliers because we don't have this big, giant ecosystem.
And part of this ecosystem is the commercial shipbuilding industry that used to exist in this country.
unidentified
There used to be many more shipyards than there are today.
It was mentioned that China has 232 times the shipbuilding tonnage capacity of the United States.
I mean, we have shipyards that build one, two, three ships a year.
They're cranking out thousands.
During the first Gulf War, which I participated in, we had to move a lot of combat power over to the Middle East.
We did that very quickly.
We had about 400 U.S.-flagged ocean-going merchant vessels.
Today, that number is 80.
China has 5,500.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
What we saw in 2021, 2022 with supply chain disruptions due to COVID could easily be repeated by China just making a decision not to ship anything over to the United States on their ships or ships that they have control over.
unidentified
So we are in an economic, huge economic risk and national security risk.
Now, getting to your question about what's in the bill that promotes defense shipbuilding, really the anchor of this industry is the commercial industry.
Give you an example when I've talked to suppliers for Newport News shipbuilding, who builds Virginia-class subs and aircraft carriers.
There's like one certified valve supplier in the country.
If they wind up with production problems, the Navy doesn't have anybody else to go to.
And things get slowed down.
And that chance of building that second submarine that year just goes away.
And submarines, by the way, is one place where we still have a big overmatch with the Chinese.
And we've got a, and it's kind of hard for me to say as a naval aviator that I'm really a proponent of our submarine force.
We really need more submarines.
So if we fix the portions of the commercial shipping industry, and I think of that as like a three-legged stool here.
So you have the shipbuilding portion of this.
We've got to build more ships.
So we need shipyards to build those ships.
We've got to flag those ships with U.S. crew members, and then we need the workforce to build them and to man them.
And this legislation, it's over 300 pages in length.
We dropped it yesterday.
It touches all three of those areas.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So if we fix the commercial side, the military side is greatly improved.
unidentified
Awesome.
Well, I want to jump into those three legs that you mentioned a little bit later.
But as you said, the bill just got reintroduced yesterday.
What do you see as the pathway for getting this legislation passed?
Do you see political will by House and Senate leaders to maybe get this floor time?
You know, could something like the NDAA become a vehicle for at least part of some of these provisions?
Just walk me through how you guys see this going forward.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Well, because there's a national security nexus to this and also a clear commercial dimension to it, since these will be commercial investments, it could fit a number of different places, which makes me even more optimistic about the potential for passage here.
Right now, as you know from all the reporting, the one big beautiful bill is occupying the time and attention of many in Congress.
And so I don't anticipate it, nor does I think Senator Kelly, it catching a ride on that larger package.
But immediately following that, I would hope that we could, if not turn to this as a standalone effort, we could, and frankly, even in parallel, if people have constructive feedback and enough time they want to allocate to this, we would welcome that attention in parallel so that we can get this done.
The President isn't wasting any time with his shipbuilding effort at the White House.
They, of course, issued the executive order earlier this month.
You're going to be hearing from, I think, Jerry Hendricks at a roundtable conversation after this and many of you.
And Jerry's doing a great job, happens to be from Indiana, and he's leading that charge.
But we'll work with the White House to make sure that we're moving together consistent with their expectations on the Republican side.
We, of course, want our Democratic, since this is a nonpartisan effort, want our Democratic co-sponsors and leaders to be very comfortable with the process.
We've made just sort of a procedural accommodation to try and get this through the process in an expedited way.
There are tax provisions, and we broke those out into the tax writing committee.
That's the finance committee on which I sit, so that staff can begin looking at those provisions, offering any feedback.
And then the rest of it will continue through the process.
But I think NDAA is fine.
I don't know if you have preferences.
We really haven't talked in great detail about this, Mark.
unidentified
I think it's important enough that it could go as a standalone piece of legislation.
I would certainly prefer that, though I do sit on the Armed Services Committee.
That would be an option.
It has to go through the House Armed Services Committee as well.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So the two committees in the Senate are commerce and finance, so in two portions, but together in the House Armed Services Committee.
And then a little bit more about the so this started with Mike Waltz, who's now the National Security Advisor, was the partner, our partner on this in the House, and then he got a new job.
unidentified
The President's executive actions, I think, very does a good job highlighting the problem and the national security risk of not having a strong commercial shipbuilding industry.
This is the solution.
And having Mike over in the White House is rather helpful.
You know, I think he is part of the reason this got highlighted to the level that it's at.
So there's a lot of synergy here between the Senate, the House, and the White House and industry.
We've got 80 different, I think 80-something organizations that have backed us.
So the shipbuilding, shipbuilding companies, commercial shipping companies, labor are all behind this legislation.
I don't think we had anybody really come out against it.
Our teams worked really hard to pull a lot of support together early.
I'm so glad that you brought up former Congressman Walz.
I wanted to ask: have you guys gotten any feedback from him or the administration?
I know, obviously, the bill was just reintroduced yesterday, but maybe in the lead up toward that as the bill was getting revised.
And I guess to what extent do you see this as a complementary to some things that the administration is doing?
The shipbuilding office, the executive order.
How does this play in with that?
How is it different?
How does it build on those efforts?
todd young ▲ ● ▼
I think it's 100% complementary.
I don't see any meaningful differences other than conceptually, which is what Senator Kelly just said.
I mean, this is the solution.
The President said fixing this problem will be a priority.
He articulated the problem with some specificity.
And the legislation that Senator Kelly and now National Security Advisor Waltz initiated and has evolved since then is the solution.
So I mean, I really see us moving along together in this time of, you know, we have disagreements and a host of different issues.
That's clear.
But this is one, quite interestingly, where we've all converged and said, let's create more good paying jobs.
Let's become more economically secure.
Let's become more helpful to our warfighters and our military industrial base, all at the same time, and maybe reinforce some confidence in Congress that it can actually act on consequential issues.
unidentified
So let's dive into some of the meat of this bill, if you guys don't mind.
So you talked a little bit about some of the tax credits that this bill would impose, 25% tax credit for shipyard investments, $100 million per year for small shipyards, $200 million per year through 2035, and other financial incentives for shipbuilders.
Can you talk a little bit about what was the intent with those provisions?
Were you guys hoping to entice some foreign investment from shipbuilders, from our allies and partners?
Yeah, that's certainly a piece of it.
When you look at what China has done over more than a decade now, heavily subsidized by the Chinese government.
And that's why they were able to build all these shipyards and crank these ships out.
And I don't think they're particularly great ships, great quality.
They don't last very long, but they've produced a lot of them.
So we've got to even the playing field.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
And these investment tax credits that you talked about, 25% on shipyards, 33% on ships.
unidentified
But that can be with a partnership.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
I was just up at the Hanoi Philly Shipyard, used to be the Philadelphia Navy Shipyard, and talked to their CEO and folks on their leadership team and toured the yard.
unidentified
They have a training ship for Texas A ⁇ M Maritime Academy down in Galveston that's about to be finished.
They are really excited about this legislation and plan to invest a lot more money in that shipyard, assuming we get this across the finish line, because they could go from building two ships a year to 10.
Now, 10 is not 1,000, but it is a really good first step.
And they're also, well, I don't want to give away some of the things they said to me, but they're really interested in working in the United States and helping us fix this problem.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
So when you craft tax incentives like this, it takes a lot of consultation with the financial markets, with shipping manufacturers, shipbuilding manufacturers, with others to try and make sure you're not overpaying, so to speak, but you're still attracting in a competitive market,
you're still making these investments attractive in the near term.
So you have to take into account the risk profile of this investment and then compensate people sufficiently for that risk to get enough capital thrown at this problem from the private market as possible.
So it's not an exact art, but if you consult enough people, you'll get it right.
And if you look at the list of co-sponsors and affiliates with this legislation, you immediately get the sense, good God, like they consulted a lot of people in this legislation.
And so we got it right.
We got it right and we're consistently being told that.
Now, we may have to revisit from time to time if the markets change.
And that's why I think it's important to establish this precedent of breaking off the tax piece into the finance committee so that as we consider tax legislation from time to time, we can take a look at this as well.
I will say conceptually, this initiative, you've got the small shipyard initiative you referenced, and we offer particular incentives for that.
We want to not just revitalize existing fairly vibrant shipyards and modernize them.
We want to take shipyards that are mostly unutilized right now and revitalize those as well so that we have many nodes of shipbuilding expertise and many engines on a shipbuilding industry.
And then if some are less effective than others, that's fine.
Have them compete against one another.
I mean, this is what healthy domestic industries do.
And we're literally trying to reconstitute a vibrant shipbuilding industry here in the United States, and it will take some time.
So both Mark and I set some expectations.
250 ships, merchant ships, in 10 years is our aim.
And that's a lot.
We're told that's ambitious, but we thought we'd push the envelope, and we think this legislation will help facilitate that.
unidentified
You know, going off of that 250 ship goal, how does that potentially strengthen national security?
You know, is there a benefit to the defense industry and to the Navy by having those vessels?
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
Yes, so when ships are flagged under the U.S. flag in time of crisis and time of war, the U.S. military has access to those ships.
When they're flagged overseas, Liberia, Panama, some other country, we don't have the right to get access if we need them.
unidentified
We're really good.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
The U.S. military is really good at contested logistics, really great about moving things around the planet and getting stuff over to the Western Pacific if we need it there, Europe, Africa, Middle East.
unidentified
And we're well prepared to do that in time of conflict, at the beginning of the conflict.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
And the real worry that I have is if we wind up in a protracted conflict, especially with a near-peer adversary like China, a lot of that shipping capacity could wind up at the bottom of the ocean.
unidentified
You know, we've seen that before, World War I, World War II, when something is a real significant naval battle, ships are sunk.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So how are we going to be well prepared to support an effort six months into a conflict or a year into a conflict?
unidentified
And that's why we need the excess capacity in the U.S. Merchant Marine to be able to step up.
We've seen that throughout our entire history.
And that's one of the goals of this legislation.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, so, I mean, this is sort of the other revolution in military affairs that we need.
You have the whiz-bang tech revolution, and I think both Mark and I, we buy into that, right?
We need a tritable systems.
We need next generation systems that lead to changes in operational concepts and all the rest, the stuff we've been talking about since Gulf War I, right?
But this is a revolution in military affairs that's required right now and urgently.
We need to start preparing for this long war scenario.
We need more munitions.
We need more ships.
And so this will very much move the ball down the field in furtherance of that second revolution.
unidentified
Okay, great.
By the way, we should also do everything we possibly can to avoid a conflict with another nation like China, like Russia.
You know, that's the best path forward.
I think in a conflict with a country like China, there's going to be really no winner.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So we've got to make our best effort to just and one of the best ways to avoid conflict with a country like China is to convince them that they would not win.
And for us to be successful in a protracted conflict with a nation like China, we've got to be able to supply, get the supplies where they need to be.
unidentified
So for that, we need a strong merchant marine.
So with that said, I would love to pass the baton over to you guys in the audience.
Does anyone have any questions?
Surface warfare guy.
Oh, so I couldn't, yeah.
All right, my eyes are getting old.
Ben Massingo, visiting an Avi Fellow from the Stimpson Center.
Sir, previous efforts to try to arrest the decline of the Merchant Marine with cargo preference laws and subsidies has been insufficient.
I've seen a lot of discussion in terms of how to build the industrial base.
What efforts is Congress or do you guys have in terms of looking to keep the Merchant Marine remaining healthy and profitable?
And how are those efforts now compared to then?
Well, there are cargo preference provisions in this legislation as well.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
It's part of, you know, it's one of the legs of the stool here is to make sure we get U.S. cargo moving on U.S. ships.
unidentified
So, you know, that's a piece of this.
But you're right, we need this to be profitable as well.
It needs to be an industry that people want to invest in.
Private equity companies and individuals say, hey, I can make money investing in the U.S. shipping industry.
Starting a new shipping company or opening a shuttered shipyard could be a profitable enterprise for somebody.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So if we put the right incentives in place, and I think this legislation has them, this will be a place that will attract investment.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Industry needs talent as well, though, and that's been a real point of emphasis.
Mark is a Merchant Marine Academy grad.
Certainly understood this from day one, but it was reinforced throughout the process.
And so investing in the Merchant Marine Academy, investing in state merchant marine academies, deregulating and streamlining the Merchant Mariner certification program, those are all aspects of this legislation as well.
unidentified
Okay, any other questions?
Here we go.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Hey, thank you so very much.
unidentified
Steve Wills, Center for Maritime Strategy.
Senator Young, you brought up some great points about strengthening people.
I apologize for that.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Thank you, Clemy.
unidentified
Steve Wills, Center for Maritime Strategy.
Sir, you brought up strengthening the maritime academies.
250 ships is an impressive goal.
We need to make a lot more future Senator Kellys who graduate from our state maritime academies.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
What are some other incentives?
And I know there are no.
unidentified
No, went to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy.
That's right, sir.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Sorry.
unidentified
My apologies.
How do we strengthen that people base to crew those 250 new ships that are out there?
There's some provisions in the SHIPS Act that do that.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Could you talk a little bit about that?
unidentified
Thank you.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So the schools have the capacity to crank out more mariners, more deck officers, and more engineers.
unidentified
Kings Point has the ability to do that.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
The state schools, the guy who runs the Texas AM school in Galveston is a former space shuttle crew member of mine, Mike Thossum.
unidentified
If he could get people showing up and enrolling, he can graduate them.
One of the challenges that the kids face going to that school is it's more expensive than getting a regular four-year degree at Texas AM.
Some of the training requirements cost money and they pass that cost on to the students.
So where he feels, and I agree with him, they're getting a great education, they get a good paying job, that you can, you know, get a great income and have a great career, it is more costly.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼
So he pointed this out yesterday in our press conference about trying to bring down the costs for the kids that are going to the schools.
unidentified
We also have to get the word out.
We have to do a better job advertising this industry so people are aware of it.
I mean, if you go around high schools in the United States and ask them what 10 industries they want to work in, I would say it's going to be pretty rare that you hear somebody say, yeah, the U.S. Merchant Marine, you know, shipping, shipbuilding.
I imagine that would be a one percentile or less.
So we've got to get the message out there.
And the companies we've worked with and the organizations we've worked with are committed to doing that right now.
Can I get in one final question?
Yes, ma'am.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
You, ma'am.
unidentified
Thank you very much.
My name is Antonia.
I used to work for the Defense Committee in the Romanian Parliament, so one of U.S.'s allies.
Clearly, U.S.'s maritime position abroad right now depends a lot on the Indo-Pacific.
But in the meantime, we have regions like the Black Sea where China is building right now the largest port in Georgia.
So I'm wondering, seeing this bipartisan consensus that emerges around the idea of maritime modernization, could we also expect that Eastern Europe will be maybe not the primary focus, but certainly something that you have in mind looking at the European security architecture after the war in Ukraine?
And what can your allies do to be better friends in that effort?
Thank you.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Well, I personally do think that we should be leveraging not just the financial capital of our foreign partners and allies into more shipbuilding capacity and all the rest,
but we should also be identifying additional linkages and partnerships so that we can co-invest in shared initiatives.
So what does that look like?
Well, borrowing again from the way I think about semiconductors, that initiative did not aim to make every component for semiconductors in the United States.
That's not the goal.
The goal was to de-risk our supply chains and to de-risk sufficiently in cooperation with allies so that we wouldn't be vulnerable to future interruptions.
If we try and reshore everything, it can become very expensive very quickly.
And then if there's a problem in some of our domestic manufacturing nodes, we have no one else to rely on, right?
So borrowing from that thinking, we will continue to rely to some extent on foreign expertise.
The Koreans in particular, because of their very large shipbuilding enterprises and their capital and their expertise, but other countries as well.
You mentioned Romania.
I'm not familiar with Romanians' expertise here, but I am.
Poland, years ago I visited the Polish shipyard in Szczecin.
They have shipyards in Gdansk and other places as well.
You can imagine partnering with them on icebreaking capacity.
We've done this in recent history.
The Norwegians can make icebreakers.
Working with the Canadians will build more icebreakers.
So these sorts of partnerships, I think, are very important to our economic security.
They make us more resilient, not less, if they're with trusted countries.
And that's the important part.
And there are also efficiencies to be brought to bear so that the American taxpayer don't have to pay for everything.
I think we've struck the right balance in this bill because we're unlocking foreign capital and expertise.
And it wouldn't surprise me if people are leaders beyond Korean business and government leaders and Japanese business and government leaders who are also interested in this industry in the United States.
If we see other interests, maybe from Eastern European countries.
unidentified
So unfortunately, I think that's all we have time for today.
Senator Kelly, Senator Young, thank you so much for your time this morning.
Thank you all for joining us.
If you could give us a couple minutes to get Senator Kelly and Senator Young out of the room, they've got to head back to the Hill.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Thanks for having us.
unidentified
Thank you, everybody.
todd young ▲ ● ▼
Thanks for your interest.
unidentified
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy.
From Washington and across the country.
Coming up Saturday morning, we'll look at the current state of the U.S. economy, including the April Jobs Report and other economic indicators with the Wall Street Journal's Paul Kiernan.
Then high school teachers Kevin Jackson and Ryan Warenka join us to discuss the upcoming Advanced Placement U.S. Government and Politics exam and how students can prepare for it.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal.
Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Saturday morning on C-SPAN.
C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org.
Next week on the C-SPAN Networks, the House and Senate are in session.
The House plans to vote on legislation by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, codifying President Trump's executive order into law.
The Senate will vote to confirm Frank Bizignano to serve as Social Security Commissioner.
Also, for the first time since taking office, Trump cabinet members will testify before House and Senate committees on their respective departments and agencies.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noam testifies before the House Appropriations Subcommittee conducting oversight on her department.
And Treasury Secretary Scott Besant will appear before two committees on Tuesday before the House Appropriations Oversight Subcommittee on the Department of Treasury and on Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee for his annual testimony on the state of the international financial system.
Also Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell gives a press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.
And Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will participate in a fireside chat to celebrate the 120th anniversary of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
Watch live next week on the C-SPAN networks or on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app.
Also, head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to watch live or on demand anytime.
▲
Export Selection