WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) spoke on the Senate floor to restore transparency in public health via a congressional disapproval resolution. Senator King led the effort to reverse the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) April 2025 decision to halt public comment in a Senate procedure under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Today’s bipartisan, procedural vote passed 50-49 and will lead to a final Senate vote on the motion.

Before the vote, Senator King stood on the Senate floor and encouraged his colleagues to stand up for open government and against “radical obfuscation” of public health decisions.

“Mr. President, this is a nonpartisan CRA, which doesn't happen around here all that often. This is basically just public participation and 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 70's, Elliott Richardson who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services for President Nixon, issued a waiver for the exemption. Basically, what we found is that 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 we subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and we'll notice the major activities that we're going to do to the public, and we'll allow public comment. It's not a veto, it's just a simple transparency of, here's what our activity is going to entail, and allow the public to comment. And that's 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 close the processes of the Department of Health and Human Services, to the public and essentially, obscure activities that they were making so the public only learned about them after they happened. There was no opportunity, there was no notice, and there was no opportunity for the public to comment. So, we're not really talking about politics here, we're not talking about democrats and republicans, we're 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's going on in these important decisions, and to have a role.

“Now, it's 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're going to have radical transparency, and we went back and looked, he used the term transparency something like 100 times in his response to questions in either in his hearing or written responses. This is the opposite of radical transparency. It's radical obfuscation. It's a deliberate action. He had to take an action to rescind this -- what had been the rule for the Department of Human Services, as they say, for 54 years, under presidents of both parties and different administrations.

“And what we're really talking about is simply allowing the public to know what these proposed actions will be and ability to comment. What's wrong with that? What's objectionable about that? It doesn't slow things down appreciably. It's not a huge impediment to executive action. And we're not talking about emergency actions. We're talking about fundamental policy decisions being made by the department.

“Now, here's what we're talking about. Basically, it's called the Richardson Waiver, and it was the waiver of the -- of the exemption of the department that was in the original Administrative Procedure Act. By rescinding it, which is what they did, the CRA that we're 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're not talking about a veto or some extraordinary opportunity for things to be obstructed, it's just notice and comment. That's sort of the basic work that we do here in Washington. So, no ability for people to weigh in on major health care 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 – they can work on how to organize their departments, but there should be some -- when it's a wholesale reorganization, there should be some notice of, here's what we're going to do, here's the basis, here's the study we've done, here's why we need these jobs, 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 -- the second-largest department we have in the United States 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 -- 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. 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's what they're going to do, they should do it, but they should let the people know that they're 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 and with no notice and no opportunity for people to have input is a disservice to the American people. And that's what this has done.

“Thousands of grants, billions of dollars, and I'm talking about, like, $11 billion in medical research. Imagine what might be in that research that's now been canceled. And people were in clinical trials, canceled. That’s one of the most, I believe, one of the most important functions of the federal government, is research and supporting research. And here we are, canceling these with no notice, no opportunity for people to comment.

“Another point, appoint members of important advisory committees with no public input. In the past, there was a notice posted that we're going to appoint these advisory committees and we're going to -- and 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 really -- this is good government. This isn't an attack on Secretary Kennedy, or 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 effect 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 -- this is just a sort of wonky process vote, but it protects the public's ability to know what's going on in one of the most important departments in our government, and to have a chance to have a little say in 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. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.”

###