[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8591-S8593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RELATING TO
``POLICY ON ADHERING TO THE TEXT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT''--Motion to Proceed
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 203, S.J.
Res. 82.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 203, S.J. Res. 82, a
joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services relating to ``Policy on Adhering to
the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act''.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, this is a nonpartisan CRA, which doesn't
happen around here all that often. This is basically just public
participation in good government.
When the Administrative Procedure Act was passed in 1947, the
Department of Health and Human Services didn't exist. And for about a
dozen years, it didn't have much in the way of responsibility. And so
it was exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act
that apply to public comment and public input on significant decisions
in Agencies that apply throughout the Federal Government.
In the early seventies, Elliot Richardson, who was President Nixon's
Secretary of Health and Human Services, issued a waiver of the
exemption. I realize it is a little contorted, but, basically, what he
found was that the role of the Health and Human Services Department was
vastly expanded after Medicare, Medicaid, and the other
responsibilities that had been placed in that Department. So he said,
in effect: We will be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and
we will notice the major activities that we are going to do to the
public, and we will allow public comment.
It is not a veto. It is just a simple transparency of ``here is what
our activities are going to entail,'' and it allows the public to
comment. And that has been the law for 54 years, through six Republican
Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and the first administration of
Donald Trump.
In March of this year, Secretary Kennedy chose to repeal this
waiver--this rule that was adopted 54 years ago--and closed the
processes of the Department of Health and Human Services to the public
and, essentially, obscured activities that they were making so the
public only learned about them after they had happened. There was no
opportunity. There was no notice, and there was no opportunity for the
public to comment.
So we are not really talking about politics here. We are not talking
about Democrats and Republicans. We are just talking about a
fundamental rule of how our government works in an effort to be in
touch with the public, to allow them to know what is going on in these
important decisions and to have a role.
Now, it is ironic because Secretary Kennedy, in his confirmation
hearing, used a term that, frankly, I had never heard before, but he
used it repeatedly: ``radical transparency.''
He said: We are going to have ``radical transparency.''
And we went back and looked. He used the term ``transparency''
something like a hundred times in his response to questions either in
his hearing or in his written responses. This was a basic premise of
what he presented to the Congress in his path to confirmation.
This is the opposite of ``radical transparency.'' It is radical
obfuscation. It is deliberate action. He had to take an action to
rescind this, what had been the rule for the Department of Health and
Human Services, as I say, for 54 years, under Presidents of both
parties and different administrations.
And what we are really talking about is simply allowing the public to
know what these proposed actions will be and the ability to comment.
What is wrong with that? What is objectionable about that? It doesn't
slow things down appreciably. It is not a huge impediment to Executive
action.
And we are not talking about emergency action. We are talking about
fundamental policy decisions being made by the Department.
Now, here is what we are talking about. Basically, it is called the
Richardson waiver, and it was the waiver of the exemption of the
Department that was in the original Administrative Procedure Act. By
rescinding it, which is what they did, we are--the CRA that we are
talking about today would rescind the rescission. It would basically
overturn the decision of the Secretary to close the processes of the
Department to the public.
So it basically says the public can't weigh in. And, again, we are
not talking about a veto or some extraordinary opportunity for things
to be obstructed, just notice and comment. That is sort of the basic
process of our administrative work that we do here in Washington--so no
ability of people to weigh in on major healthcare policy changes.
He reorganized the entire Department without any notice, without any
studies or analysis or public notice of what they were doing and why.
Clearly, the Executive can make changes in the staffing arrangements
and that kind of thing. They can work on how to organize their
Departments. But there should be some--when it is a
[[Page S8592]]
wholesale reorganization, there should be some notice of ``here is what
we are going to do, here is the basis, here is the study we have done,
here is why we need these jobs; and we don't need these jobs.'' None of
that happened after the rescission of this rule. And there was no
public comment. There was no public input on, really, a fundamental
reorganization of one of the most important and the second largest
Department that we have in the U.S. Government--HHS reduction in force
and mass firings, tremendous changes in the organization and the
ability of this Department, created by the Congress to meet the needs
of the people that the Congress had in mind when they funded these
programs and created this Agency.
They canceled thousands of grants and billions of dollars of research
funds. Again, without any notice, without any opportunity to comment,
they were just gone, including, believe it or not, research into
Alzheimer's, research into some of the most serious diseases that we
have in this country that are ravaging our people, cutting off
research.
Again, if that is what they are going to do, they should do it, but
they should let the people know that they are doing it and why, and
allow people to say: No, no, we think this is important. We think this
area is particularly important--just to have the input.
To do it arbitrarily and behind closed doors with no notice and no
opportunity for people to have input is a disservice to the American
people. And that is what this has done.
Thousands of grants, billions of dollars--and I am talking about like
$11 billion in medical research. Imagine what might be in that research
that has now been canceled. And people were in clinical trials that
were canceled. That is, I believe, one of the most important functions
of the Federal Government. It is research and supporting research. And
here we are, canceling this with no notice, no opportunity for people
to comment.
Another point: appointing members of important advisory committees
with no public input. In the past, there was public input. There was a
notice posted that we are going to appoint these advisory committees.
Come forward. Make nominations. Give us names.
None of that happened. And we all know that there have been some
pretty questionable decisions recently by these purged advisory
committees.
So, again, this is good government. This isn't an attack on Secretary
Kennedy, on President Trump. This is just getting us to the place where
the public has some input and knowledge of these major decisions that
are being made that affect the health and welfare of the people of the
United States.
So I hope that we can have a bipartisan vote on this today because,
again, this is just a sort of wonky process flow, but it protects the
public's ability to know what is going on in one of the most important
Departments in our government and to have a chance to have a little say
on those decisions.
So I hope that we can have a significant bipartisan vote today. I
think this will make a difference. I think it will help the country. I
don't think it will hamstring the Department or the Secretary in any
way, and it will, in fact, improve the health and welfare of the people
of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. While he is on the floor, I want to tell my colleague, it
has been a pleasure to work with him on this, and what you have said is
so eloquent. I am going to be very brief and just make one point. What
you want to make sure of is that the American people aren't in the dark
with respect to important health issues. You want them to be able to
comment. You want them to be able to weigh in. And I think that is
extraordinarily important.
And the reason it is needed is, earlier this year, Robert Kennedy
took the unprecedented step of doing away with that and basically
taking away that right to comment on matters that are so important to
them. From day one of his tenure at HHS, he has gone to great lengths
to upend public health and erode the safeguards that have been in place
for decades to keep kids and seniors and families safe and healthy. He
has fired thousands of scientists, health professionals, and staff in
charge of the health and well-being of kids and families.
And one of the things that I appreciated your mentioning is, the
roots of this--the roots of the Richardson waiver--are with
Republicans. This was not some plot by a bunch of people for
ideological reasons on the other side of the political spectrum. This
was a basic proposition of making sure that people had a say in the
healthcare policies that the Federal Government enacts.
And I would just say to my friend, back in my days when I was
director of the Gray Panthers--I know my colleague was with legal aid--
we thought the right to participate was just about as fundamental as
you can get. And doing away with that makes it a lot easier to
undermine science and healthcare in America and make every one of us
less safe.
And under the rule change that is being talked about, it is all being
done for reasons of secrecy.
Since Kennedy's repeal of the Richardson waiver, HHS has abruptly and
arbitrarily canceled hundreds of millions of dollars of previously
approved public health funding. The Secretary has announced a major
reorganization of his Department, resulting in fewer health experts at
HHS, and without the Richardson safeguard in place, it seems to me that
we will have a government that is emboldened to move forward with
sweeping rules about vaccines without input from the public.
Robert Kennedy--and my colleague touched on this--promised radical
transparency. We had the confirmation hearing in the Senate Finance
Committee. So on promises for radical transparency, it looks like what
we got, to me, I would say to my colleague, is radical secrecy. Instead
of throwing open the doors of government, what has happened is the
gates have been shut, and the key has been thrown away.
So the resolution that you are introducing today makes sure that the
American people get their voice back, and on what I think is the most
important issue, which is health.
I visited with my colleague before on this, I have always felt the
most important issue is health because, if you and your loved ones
don't have their health, everything else goes by the board.
And what you are doing with this important resolution is giving
Americans a say in the future direction of their own health. You are
giving them the power to speak up about this crusade against healthcare
and the power to speak out against the policies that are making them
less safe.
I come to the floor today to say that this is a thoroughly
nonpartisan CRA. You look at this and the language and what you are
trying to do, and how you describe it on the floor has really drained
some of the ugly partisanship out of an important debate. You have said
this comes down to--as I said earlier: Let's make sure the American
people aren't in the dark.
I urge my colleagues to vote for transparency, to vote for the right
to weigh in on these healthcare issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Waiving Quorum Call
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call with respect to Executive Calendar No. 4, S. Res.
532.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3166
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, the COVID pandemic is over, and the
emergency spending spree should be over too. The COVID-era ObamaCare
boosts were temporary, and now those temporary benefits are set to
return to pre-COVID levels--exactly as the law intended. These
emergency measures were for an actual emergency, not a forever program
and definitely not a backdoor expansion of ObamaCare.
Healthcare costs increased for everyone during the Biden years, not
just those with ObamaCare. We need a plan that brings down healthcare
costs for everyone.
In addition to ending the emergency spending spree, as the law says,
we need to claw back every last COVID slush fund dollar before
Washington finds a new way to waste it. There are billions of dollars
still sitting in the U.S. Treasury with ``for COVID'' written on them.
[[Page S8593]]
This summer, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office,
identified $65 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--still in COVID
slush funds. Let's close the book, return to reality, and give
taxpayers the accountability they have long demanded--because, yes,
their hard-earned money ended up paying for binge-drinking monkeys in
Oregon. What? Let's hear you all say: What? It is unbelievable, but it
is true. The Oregon Health and Science University raked in more than
$1.8 million for this. In one study, monkeys were fed 8 to 16 alcoholic
drinks a day to see how their chronic boozing affects COVID-19.
Taxpayers didn't sign up for that, and it is long past time we put a
stop to it.
Let me also give you some examples of unspent COVID funds.
Three million dollars is sitting in an account for museum and library
services for COVID.
There is $390 million for USAID's Emergency Connectivity Fund for
educational connections and devices. USAID is no more, so these
millions should have been returned to taxpayers yesterday.
Four million dollars for international broadcasting operations at the
Millennium Challenge Corporation. I challenge you to find any American
on the street who would want their tax dollars going toward COVID funds
for international broadcasting 6 years after the COVID pandemic.
Mr. President, $389 million in COVID funds sits unspent for HHS
program management. I think they have managed COVID enough.
One million dollars for USDA's marketing services. USDA. I can tell
you that Iowa farmers would much prefer these funds be put toward a
better use.
One million dollars for an account that just simply says ``science''
at the State Department, OK? So let me tell you, my friend Secretary
Rubio is holding down a lot of different jobs--but ``science''? Let's
give that COVID ``science'' money back to taxpayers.
Those are just a few examples. I have tracked 82 program accounts--82
program accounts--with remaining COVID funding.
My Returning Unspent COVID Funds Act is very simple. The COVID
pandemic was 6 years ago. It is past time for the unspent COVID funds
to be clawed back. Let's pass my bill and send these funds back to the
treasury.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 266, S. 3166. I further ask
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am going
to make just a few brief points in response to Senator Ernst's
proposal.
This bill would rescind each dollar of unspent funding from emergency
supplementals, including funds America needs to prevent the spread of
infectious diseases. For example, the Trump administration is using
this funding right now--that is right now--to address an Ebola
outbreak.
Rescinding this funding makes America less safe. The point of the
Rapid Response Reserve Fund is to have money in case there is a need
for a rapid response.
This funding can save lives. This bill would further rescind funding
for medical supply chain development, manufacturing, and production to
develop products like a universal flu vaccine to prevent the next
pandemic. And it rescinds funding available to build a stronger
healthcare workforce for nurses and disease specialists who can address
emergency interventions.
I want to say to my colleague: We have always worked well together,
and I would be glad to work with her and other colleagues to have a
comprehensive look at what should and should not be rescinded because
of the discussion that we have just had.
That is something that should be done as part of the appropriations
process, not, in my view, through this legislation.
For that reason, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ricketts). The objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
S.J. Res. 82
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, this well-meaning CRA is not needed. For
decades, Congress has allowed Agencies to fast-track regulations on
bureaucratic topics that do not impact the public. The policy that is
sought to be overturned merely aligns HHS policy with this longstanding
exemption. It does not change the process for major regulations that
impact the public.
The courts have weighed in repeatedly on Agency processes for issuing
regulations. Fast-track procedures can only be used in a narrow set of
circumstances.
If there is a concern about the HHS policy, the goal should be to
change the law, not pass this CRA.
There has been an implication that reductions in force would have
gone through rulemaking if HHS still had the Richardson waiver in
place. That is actually not true. The reductions in force are governed
by an Office of Personnel Management regulation implemented by HHS.
I yield the floor.
Vote on Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
proceed.
Mr. TILLIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 641 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--49
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Daines
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are
49. The motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________