WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, this week joined the Hill’s Editor-at-Large Steve Clemons for a virtual discussion on the need to provide reliable access to effective and affordable health care and equipment during a global health crisis. Murphy highlighted the need to federalize the medical supply chain and strengthen access to prescription drugs.

“…[W]e're in a national emergency right now, right? I mean, we had 1,200 people die yesterday. We had 860,000 people who filed for unemployment last month... And right now, we have to err on the side of saving lives. And so yes, I believe that for the time being, that means federalizing the supply chain, at the very least of PPE,” said Murphy. “And what that means is not the federal government coming in and running a private manufacturer, but going to manufacturers and saying ‘hey, listen, for the next three months, you're going to be in the business of making masks or face shields, and we're going to pay you a fair price to do that, but you are going to be part of meeting this national commitment.’ 

Murphy continued: “This is what we did in a wartime. We are not doing it now, even though this virus is killing more people than many of the kinetic wars we've been engaged in have killed. So I just think the administration has totally abdicated its responsibility by not taking a more forceful hand, and paying manufacturers what it costs to make this equipment, but effectively mandating that they make it for a foreseeable period of time. Frankly, there'd be tons of manufacturers in Connecticut that would be glad to get that call. I have a lot of manufacturers who are ready to start turning their production lines over to making medical supplies, but they don't want to do that unless they have a guarantee of how long that's going to last and what they're going to get paid.”

In April, Murphy and U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Medical Supply Transparency and Delivery Act, which requires the president to utilize all available authorities to mobilize a federal response to the pandemic through an equitable and transparent process. Murphy and his colleagues have demanded multiple times on the U.S. Senate floor that this legislation be put forward for a vote but have been denied.

A full transcript of Murphy’s interview with Steve Clemens can be found below.

STEVE CLEMONS: “My first guest today is a member of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's an outspoken advocate for federalizing our medical supply chain during the fight against COVID-19. He's also joined bipartisan efforts to ensure the safety and supply of pharmaceuticals in the country.

“Senator Murphy, it's great to see you again, and thank you for joining us on this important topic. Look, I mean, COVID-19 hit, a lot of people saw it coming, some people saw it coming and said they didn't say they knew it was coming, but, you know, we had paralysis, a kind of heart attack, when it came to PPE gear in the sense that we didn't have what we need in this country. What are you trying to do about it?”

MURPHY: “Well, it's not, you know, entirely constructive to keep reliving history, but it is important to remember that there were many of us who, at the beginning of this crisis, knew that we were going to need to pre order supplies, we were going to need to invest in training. There was a meeting on February 5th, in which Republicans and Democrats in the Senate were begging this administration to start a major down payment on the supply chain, when they refused to engage at that point in the process, and so we've been playing catch up ever since.

“I've been, you know, very concerned about the outsourcing of our medical supply chain for a long time. Senator Rubio and I have been working on this for over a year, and I think it begs some really important questions moving forward. There are benefits, of course, to having an international medical supply chain, right. The connections that we have economically to the rest of the world can lead to a more stable globe. But we have seen how exposed we are when 100% of some absolutely necessary medical gear, whether it be the PPE that we didn't have enough of early in the crisis or the drugs and the vaccines that we're going to need in the future, are all sourced outside of the United States.

“So I think we're going to have to build a much more nimble, much more flexible system in which we still rely on international supply chains, but we resource ourselves with stockpiles much more aggressively, and then we have reserved capacity here at home so you can at least quickly gear up to make some percentage of the components of drugs, the hard medical supplies, or the vaccines that we ultimately need to beat pandemics.”

CLEMONS: “So Senator, I may sound naive in my question, and I would just love to kind of get just a little more nuance on this, because when I hear the words federalize the supply chain, it sounds almost like nationalized. And it almost sounds as if that, you know, almost like a command and control calculation. And I'm just interested, because most of all of this we're talking about there is private sector. You've got private companies, private firms, that are often multinational companies that have, you know, assets all over the world. And I was talking to the health minister of Sweden today about how she is worried about vaccine nationalism, for instance. So I’m just interested in how you know-- are you talking about federalizing for a short period of time? And how do you get the equities right between that national need and national direction, like the Defense Production Act used selectively in times of crisis, versus the realities of the decisions that private sector companies have to make?”

MURPHY: “Well, I mean, we're in a national emergency right now, right? I mean, we had 1,200 people die yesterday. We had 860,000 people who filed for unemployment last month. I mean, this is a dire national emergency. And right now, we have to err on the side of saving lives. And so yes, I believe that for the time being, that means federalizing the supply chain, at the very least of PPE. And what that means is not the federal government coming in and running a private manufacturer, but going to manufacturers and saying ‘hey, listen, for the next three months, you're going to be in the business of making masks or face shields, and we're going to pay you a fair price to do that, but you are going to be part of meeting this national commitment.’ 

“This is what we did in a wartime. We are not doing it now, even though this virus is killing more people than many of the kinetic wars we've been engaged in have killed. So I just think the administration has totally abdicated its responsibility by not taking a more forceful hand, and paying manufacturers what it costs to make this equipment, but effectively mandating that they make it for a foreseeable period of time. Frankly, there'd be tons of manufacturers in Connecticut that would be glad to get that call. I have a lot of manufacturers who are ready to start turning their production lines over to making medical supplies, but they don't want to do that unless they have a guarantee of how long that's going to last and what they're going to get paid.”

CLEMONS: “Well that sounds very compelling. You know, I'd like to show you a chart Senator, and I've shown this to Senator Warner and others because, you know, just trying to get a fix on, you know, particularly API's, and this short chart, which was from 2019, shows that China has about 13% let me just finish here, you know, 28%, of 510 facilities in China, China is at 13% when it comes to the rest of the world of manufacturing facilities by region, the United States is larger than that rest of the world is there. So I know there's been a shift and you know, almost a doubling, over a decade, of capacity in China. But when it comes to sort of looking at API's and that dependency and those key drugs that we need, do we need to shift it back from China? Or is it other parts of the world that have you worried?”

MURPHY: “I think this is about a broader exposure to a global supply chain. I think we have to be most worried about China these days, especially given the way in which our relations are deteriorating on a daily basis, but you just never know when things are [going to] get rough between the United States and any other nation such that they could hold that kind of leverage over the life and death stakes of a pandemic. And so again, I think it's a combination of measures.

“I think it's about resourcing some of this manufacturing from start to finish, I think part of it is about developing the capacity to scale up, so effectively paying some manufacturers in the United States to sort of hold reserve manufacturing capacity. So if we need them to start making a particular drug or particular device, that they have the ability to scale up. And then lastly, just doing a much better job of stockpiling. You know, there are certain things you can stockpile, there are certain things you can’t, but we clearly didn't have the necessary stockpiles at the beginning of this pandemic.”

CLEMONS: “Look, it's super clear to me that you've thought carefully and strategically about the many component pieces out there, but it used to be you say the word supply chains and people's eyes would you know, they'd glaze over, and they'd run out of a room and say, you know, they’d get on their cell phone, but it's a hot topic now. I mean, you mention supply chains and people show up. But what we're also talking about is a kind of committed industrial policy, which may involve pricing, it involves investment, it means, you know, what's the science and R&D ecosystem around it, what are the jobs around it and the training? So there are lots of pieces that come around the kind of initiative you're talking about. And I guess my blunt question to you is, does the US have the capacity today, as you see it, to put those pieces around? Because it's an ecosystem. It's not a flip of a switch.”

MURPHY: “No, I think you're very right. This is about a broader conversation about creating a new American industrial policy, a brand new American industrial policy, because we don't have one. And in Europe, in Japan, in South Korea, they have robust, profitable private sectors, but they also have much more integration between the private sector and government, much more planning that happens with all of those players at the table. I do think that there is a new recognition amongst many Republicans who would have been anathema to industrial planning 10 years ago, that there is no way to confront China in the new century without having that greater integration. Just think about the technology side of the equation. 5G is just the tip of the iceberg.

“On 6G, on advanced battery, on AI, China is going to be able to lap the United States because of that integration between government and the private sector. And so we're [going to], not necessarily have to copy what China does, but we're going to have to have that conversation and that coordination, especially on research and development, be tighter between public and private sector in the United States and with Europe, if we want to be able to meet China, where they're going to be over the next 100 years. And my sense is that there are a lot more Republicans who want to be part of that conversation. The pandemic, but also China's general rise on technology exports, have woken them up.”

CLEMONS: “Senator, you and I are both foreign affairs junkies, as I know you know. And, you know, I was talking, as I mentioned to the Minister for Health and Welfare in Sweden, and she said, you know, we should be coordinating among trusted allies. We should be talking more deeply about how to help each other in dark days. Where does the reliance and maybe the restoration of trust with allies, who also were going to be part of this global supply chain, come into the picture you're talking about? 

MURPHY: “Well, you know, the president got fleeced by China when he entered into a trade war with them without our allies. There is just no way for the United States to be able to effectively combat China's unfair trade practices alone. And, of course, the Europeans have the same interests that we do. They do not want Chinese product safety standards becoming dominant across the world for the next 50 to 100 years. And so what is so tragic about the foreign policy disaster of the last three and a half years is that there was an opportunity for the United States and Europe to set some common economic policy to go into trade negotiations with China jointly, and because this president decided to fight Europe on everything, we weren't able to avail ourselves of that opportunity.”

CLEMONS: “Well, Senator Chris Murphy, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, and thank you for sharing your work on talking about what we need to do with supply chains in times of crisis. Thank you. 

MURPHY: “Great. Thanks Steve.”

###