[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 121 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3593-S3595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              FORMULA ACT

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for months now, American babies have endured 
an unprecedented and prolonged formula shortage. Some doctors have 
called this the worst crisis of their careers. It has become so 
widespread that nearly everyone knows someone who has been personally 
affected. Desperate parents have scoured online marketplaces. They 
reached out to family and friends for help. They paid exorbitant 
markups just to feed their babies. In some worst-case scenarios, some 
have even resorted to dangerous homemade formulas. In the U.S.A., no 
parent should be left to wonder how they are going to feed their 
newborn baby.
  After months of work and bipartisan collaboration with my colleagues 
in the House and the Senate, I rise to pass needed reforms that will 
finally provide relief to hungry babies. Today, we can take action to 
alleviate a crisis largely of the Federal Government's own creation.
  Poor governance has crippled our domestic formula market. Tariffs and 
regulations have prevented safe foreign formulas from entering the 
United States, even while we are experiencing this acute shortage at 
home.
  Currently, the government imposes a 17.5-percent minimum tariff on 
formula imports. This tariff has stifled competition. But it doesn't 
have to be that way. We can lift these substantial tariffs on the 
importation of baby formulas and reduce the costs borne by retailers to 
provide access to safe, affordable formula. Doing so will expand the 
severely limited formula options for American consumers. This modified 
version of the Formula Act does just that by waiving these tariffs 
through the end of this year.
  While passing my bill won't provide immediate relief, our work is far 
from complete. I am committed to doing everything I can not only to 
provide this relief now but also to make the necessary permanent 
reforms to our system to ensure that a crisis like this never arises 
again.
  We still have work to do, and we must further our efforts by allowing 
WIC recipients to buy whatever brand of formula might be available. We 
must make meaningful reforms to how the FDA regulates the formula 
industry. Passing this bill today is the first step. In the meantime, I 
am actively working on expanding the list of products to receive 
temporary relief from tariffs. While this is an important first step, 
it is certainly not the last.
  This crisis is such that American babies cannot wait any longer than 
they already have. We have a moral obligation to these infants to say 
that we did everything we possibly could to fight for them.
  Passing the Formula Act will be an incredible win for families and 
hungry babies everywhere. It will make meaningful headway that is so 
desperately needed today. By suspending the tariff on formula imports, 
we are providing cheaper access to individual consumers and to 
retailers alike. This relief has been long overdue and long overdue 
especially for Utahns, who have the largest families, the most children 
per capita, and the highest birth rate.
  I am grateful for the countless hours of behind-the-scenes work and 
successful negotiations with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, in the House and in the Senate, which have resulted in a win for 
our most vulnerable Americans--babies. I look forward to continuing 
this important work with them.
  Passing my Formula Act today is a victory for families and for babies 
everywhere.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 8351.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 8351) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States to suspend temporarily rates of duty on 
     imports of certain infant formula products, and for other 
     purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

[[Page S3594]]

  

  Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  Mr. LEE. I know of no further debate on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the bill, the 
bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill 
pass?
  The bill (H.R. 8351) was passed.
  Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 687

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to fix a troubling loophole in 
our earmark rules. Earmarks are something I strongly oppose. I believe 
they breed corruption, overspending, waste, and abuse.
  There has been bipartisan concern about the earmarking process for 
decades. In 2007, the process got so out of control that even 
earmarking's biggest supporters decided we needed guardrails.
  The Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. The 
bill created Senate standing rule 44, which requires the authors of any 
bill considered by the Chamber to do this: identify each earmark 
contained in the bill and ensure that the text is publicly available at 
least 48 hours prior to proceeding to the bill.
  These two protections helped shine light on the earmarking process. 
There was significant bipartisan support for the protections in rule 
44.
  In 2007, on the Senate floor, Senator Hillary Clinton said that rule 
44 would help curb wasteful spending by creating greater transparency 
``in the earmark process.'' It was nearly unanimous, including the two 
Senators from New Hampshire.
  I want to read a portion of her comments.

       I believe we can improve accountability by mandating 
     publication of the earmark for a minimum period of time prior 
     to any vote on the underlying measure, ensuring that both 
     other elected officials and the general public have the 
     opportunity to scrutinize the sponsored outlay. Taking these 
     common-sense steps would ensure that legislators are made to 
     answer for the spending they cosponsor.

  A quote from Hillary Clinton. I couldn't agree more, in this case. 
But the drafters of Senate rule 44 left something out. The rule does 
not apply to legislation brought to the floor as an amendment from the 
House.
  This means that a determined majority can ignore the protections 
offered under the rule simply by using a common procedural mechanism.
  The bill I seek to pass today closes this loophole. Senator Durbin 
commented about how important it was back then as well.
  Congress should abide by the rules it created for itself. We recently 
saw the consequences of this loophole. The Omnibus appropriations bill 
considered in March contained nearly 5,000 earmarks, totaling nearly 
$10 billion. The Senate passed the bill less than 48 hours after 
receiving the text, in violation of the spirit of rule 44.
  As Dr. Tom Coburn used to say in this Chamber, earmarks are a 
``gateway drug.'' We must close this unintended loophole before the 
situation gets worse. In fiscal year 2010, the last year of earmarking 
before the congressional ban, Congress passed 11,000 earmarks at a sum 
of $32 billion. We cannot go back there.
  Earmarks give Congress a personal incentive to vote for the huge 
spending bills that are dragging America into bankruptcy. I talked 
about it last night when I introduced my own budget to try to go the 
other direction.
  Return of earmarks will mean the return of earmark scandals and 
earmark corruption much sooner than you think. Let's do the minimum to 
prevent this.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and 
Administration be discharged from further consideration and the Senate 
now proceed to S. Res. 687; further, that the resolution be agreed to 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Reserving the right to object.
  One of Congress's most basic jobs is the power of the purse. 
Americans rely on this body to provide Federal funds for programs that 
support national defense, small businesses, border defenses, 
conservation of public lands, food assistance for the poor, and so much 
more.
  And as a longstanding member of the Appropriations Committee, I am 
proud of the work that the Appropriations Committee has done to meet 
the needs of this Nation. And as a senior Senator from New Hampshire, 
when I talk to small business owners, educators, healthcare 
professionals, community leaders across my State, it is unfortunate 
that not all of the needs of our State are being met.
  And for years, New Hampshire, like most small States in this country, 
has received among the lowest apportionments in the country from 
formula grant programs that are administered by our Federal Agencies.
  Congress has long used earmarks or congressionally directed spending 
to address funding gaps and inequities between the States. And, in 
fact, Senator Judd Gregg--whom I had the pleasure of serving with both 
when he was Governor and I was in the State senate and then when he was 
in the Senate and I got elected--was a big supporter of congressionally 
directed spending because he believed, like I do, that I know better 
how money should be spent in New Hampshire than a bureaucrat here who 
was making decisions about how to spend Federal dollars.
  Congressionally directed spending levels the playing field for States 
like New Hampshire, and even for Indiana, to ensure that our 
communities can get their fair share to address our local needs.
  Unfortunately, back in 2011, when Congress instituted a ban on 
congressionally directed spending, we ceded the power of the purse to 
unelected officials in the executive branch. And while I know that many 
of these individuals are dedicated bureaucrats, they are public 
servants. They don't necessarily understand the needs of New Hampshire 
in the same way that I do as somebody who has represented that State 
for decades.
  So that is why I was very pleased that under the leadership of 
Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Shelby, Congress once again passed a 
bipartisan bill to include congressionally directed spending in our 
budget process.
  And when we did that, the Appropriations Committee instituted some 
major reforms to improve accountability and transparency in the process 
of congressionally directed spending.
  I am going to talk about some of those reforms because while I 
appreciate the perspective of my colleague from Indiana, I think he has 
not pointed out the reforms that exist in the process of 
congressionally directed spending.
  First of all, Members are required to certify that neither we nor any 
member of our immediate family would financially benefit from the 
requests that are made. Secondly, those congressionally directed 
spending requests have to be made in writing and posted online by the 
Member and the Appropriations Committee so that the public has every 
opportunity to view the name and location of the project, the intended 
recipient, and the purposes of that request. For example, the requests 
for fiscal year 2023 are available online right now before they would 
be available if this government, this administration, were determining 
how to spend that money.
  So the Senator from Indiana doesn't have to wait until those Senate 
bills are posted to inspect congressionally directed spending projects.
  The reforms also include a 1-percent cap on discretionary spending 
for CDS items and a ban on congressionally directed spending items to 
for-profit entities.
  Finally, the Appropriations Committee requires the Government 
Accountability Office to audit a sample of enacted congressionally 
directed spending items to ensure that Congress is being held 
accountable for these projects.
  The chair and ranking member instituted these reforms to restore the 
trust of the American people in the appropriations process, and I 
believe it is

[[Page S3595]]

working. And I can tell you, as I travel around New Hampshire, it is 
one of the things that I hear from people in our communities that they 
are interested in.
  They want to know about the appropriations process, and they want to 
know what other opportunities are there to support initiatives that may 
not fit within some grant program, that they may not be able to raise 
money in the private sector for but that are very important for our 
communities.
  The resolution sponsored by the Senator from Indiana would require 
the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee to certify that not 
just Senate earmarks have been disclosed but that all House earmarks 
have been disclosed.
  I think that bill is a solution in search of a problem. The House 
already has its own rule that governs congressionally directed spending 
items, and it is required to identify these items.
  It knows what its Members have requested, and it is responsible for 
disclosing them. Requiring the Senate to confirm that the House has 
done its job before we can consider a message from the House is 
unnecessary, and it could stop consideration of appropriations bills 
before they ever get here.
  The resolution sponsored by my colleague from Indiana would change 
Senate rule 44 in ways that could have unintended consequences and 
could delay critical funding for projects that are important in my home 
State of New Hampshire and in so many States across this country.
  So given all of those concerns, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator from 
New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, back in 2007, both New Hampshire 
Senators Gregg and Sununu as well as all 98 Senators who voted back 
then I think intended not only for the letter of the law but they 
wanted the spirit of the law to be aligned with it.
  We now have a new way, something that can come over here that 
violates a standing rule of the Senate. I am guessing it will probably 
be used again down the road where we have to get something, we have no 
time to look at it. I think the spirit of the law would say that we 
need the 48 hours and the ability to know who is on it and who isn't.
  And then in the bigger picture, I would ask this question--and the 
American public ought to listen, ask it themselves--is this place 
getting more responsible or are we giving better value to you? Do we 
budget? Do we use regular order? And most importantly, are we creating 
more and more deficit and more and more debt?
  We know what the answer is. I talked about it for 15 minutes 
yesterday evening. We are doing everything we can to avoid the rules, 
pay attention to the spirit of the law. And in what we are delivering, 
it is a product I think that shows less and less responsibility out of 
a body that should not be making rules that make it easier to run 
deficits and go into debt. It ought to be the opposite.
  And if we don't, I think future generations will hold us accountable 
for the things that we seem to do best, which are the gimmicks to get 
around budgeting, avoiding the rules on a technicality.
  The American public deserves better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session and the Senate 
immediately vote on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 902, the 
nomination of Shereef Elnahal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Nomination of Shereef M. Elnahal

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, look, now more than ever, the Department 
of Veterans Affairs needs a steady hand to guide the Veterans Health 
Administration. This is the Nation's largest integrated healthcare 
system, and its job is to deliver quality and timely care to our 
veterans.
  I rise today because in about 15 minutes, we are going to vote on the 
confirmation of Dr. Shereef Elnahal to run the Veterans Health 
Administration. He has an impressive record of leading healthcare 
systems and health agencies. Most recently, Dr. Elnahal served as 
president and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, NJ, and, previous 
to that, New Jersey's 21st health commissioner. But more importantly 
than that, Dr. Elnahal is committed to caring for the more than 9 
million veterans in VA's care--a commitment he carried out as Assistant 
Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Quality, Safety, and Value at the 
Department.
  It is no secret that VHA and healthcare systems and providers are 
going through a challenging time. The VA continues to battle the 
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, with veterans' cases and 
hospitalizations and deaths on the rise again. And VA staff are dealing 
with burnout and increased turnover.
  In the past, this body has been able to rise above politics to 
install qualified individuals at the VA responsible for getting vets 
the healthcare and benefits they need today.
  This is also very, very important because the VA is in the process of 
putting in an electronic health record. It is going to be 
transformational--not only for the VA, but once it is done, it is going 
to be transformational for the country, but we have to get it done in 
the VA first. There have been some challenges. We need somebody with a 
steady hand helping meet those challenges. Dr. Elnahal is that person.
  Today, in about 12\1/2\ minutes, we need to act to confirm Dr. 
Elnahal as the VA's next Under Secretary for Health, and I would 
encourage everybody in this body to vote for him, get him in, hold him 
accountable, and make sure that we are living up to the promises we 
have made to our veterans for the healthcare they have earned.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would ask that all time be yielded back 
and that we start the vote immediately on Dr. Elnahal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________