The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: May 20th

Episode Date: May 20, 2022

U.S. government tariffs and Department of Agriculture buying practices helped drive consolidation in the baby formula industry. When a major plant shuttered over contamination concerns in February, the industry was already vulnerable to supply chain threats.And after decades of reluctance, Finland and Sweden now hope to join NATO, the U.S.-Europe military alliance founded to protect against possible Russian aggression. The change in stance was prompted by Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.This episode: White House correspondent Scott Detrow, chief economics correspondent Scott Horsley, congressional correspondent Kelsey Snell, and white House correspondent Franco Ordoñez.Support the show and unlock sponsor-free listening with a subscription to The NPR Politics Podcast Plus. Learn more at plus.npr.org/politics Connect:Email the show at [e-mail] the NPR Politics Podcast Facebook Group.Subscribe to the NPR Politics Newsletter.Find and support your local public radio station.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi there, this is Jay, and I'm currently waiting on the bandstand at Rutgers University's commencement ceremony waiting to play Pump and Circumstance for what will feel like an eternity. This podcast was recorded at... It is 1-0-7 Eastern on Friday, May 20th. Things might have changed by the time you hear this, but for me, I'll have walked across that stage earning my doctorate in clarinet performance. Congratulations to all the graduates. Very exciting.

Congratulations. Wait, was he playing it and then also graduating, or was he just saying playing it so long gets him a doctorate? Yeah, there's going to be a lull in the clarinet portion of Poppin' Circumstance for him. Yeah. He walks across the stage. Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast.

I'm Scott Detrow. I cover the White House. I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. And we have surprise special longtime friend of the podcast, Scott Horsley here again. Hey, Scott. And former clarinet player. Really?

Did you do marching band? I did not. No. I was a seated clarinetist. And even then, I was not very good. Okay, so Scott, you are here because baby formula has been hard to find in many parts of the country. This is obviously a major crisis for many babies and parents. It's got a lot of political implications, too.

And because of that, it dominated a lot of the news here in Washington this week. And Scott, you come into this not because you are responsible for the problem or making more formula yourself, but because you've been covering the story pretty extensively. You posted a long story explaining exactly how we got here, and the first sentence in a Scott Horsley-esque lead read, Like a baby's temper tantrum, the meltdown in the infant formula market has been building for some time. Yeah, well, formula has suffered from some of the same ingredient shortages and transportation challenges that other industries have faced. But the real meltdown here started back in February when a big formula factory in Michigan was shut down and had to recall a lot of formula because of suspected contamination. And the fact that a single plant shutdown can

have such wide-ranging effects all over the country shows just how concentrated the formula industry is. There's just four companies that control 90% of the market. Wow. And that's partly the result of government policy. How so? Well, for one thing, we import virtually no formula in this country, and that's because we have steep tariffs on any formula that comes from other countries, and we have steep regulatory barriers that ostensibly are designed to protect baby safety, and that's certainly well-intentioned, but it also serves to protect the entrenched formula makers in this country.

In addition to regulation, the federal government is the biggest customer for the formula makers. About half the formula that's purchased in the U.S. is paid for by the Agriculture Department through its WIC program, which provides free formula to low-income moms and babies. And the way that works is each state signs an exclusive contract with one of the big formula makers. The government gets a price break, and the company gets a captive market in that state. That company gets not only all the WIC business, but research has shown that whichever company has the WIC monopoly tends to get a lot of the other business as well. Grocery stores tend to give that company the most shelf space. Pediatricians probably recommend that brand to their patients. And Abbott, the company behind the shuttered Michigan plant, has the WIC monopoly in

about two-thirds of the states, and that's where we're seeing some of the most pronounced shortages. So can you remind us about what the White House has actually done so far to try to deal with this? Well, the big move was made by the Food and Drug Administration this week when they announced first that they had reached a deal with Abbott to reopen that Michigan factory with some new safeguards. So that will help, although it's going to take time to ramp up production. They also said they would lower some of those regulatory barriers and allow formula imports from other countries into the country. The White House has also urged states to relax those WIC monopoly rules so that WIC recipients in any state can buy whatever brand

of formula they would like to. Then the White House itself pitched in. The president invoked the Defense Production Act to make sure that formula makers are first in line for any ingredients they need. And the president directed the Defense Department to use its contracts with civilian airlines to help move some of the formula from overseas. In fact, we understand the first deliveries of formula from Zurich, Switzerland, are going to be on a military chartered plane this weekend. So, Kelsey, it is probably not surprising, given the political and real-world stakes of this, that Congress was also rushing to not only act,

but make it clear to everyone who was listening that they were acting. Walk us through how Congress has responded to this. So the House passed a bill that would have done a couple of things. One main thing was that it would require states to be more flexible in which types of formula of the people who utilize WIC can access. Now, that part of the bill was voted on in the Senate in the past, but the other part of it involved about $25 billion for additional money for the FDA. And, you know, this is the part that is kind of controversial, something that Republicans oppose, not just because of the money, but they also say that it's not totally clear that adding more money to this problem on the regulatory side would have solved the problem that originated, which was that there was this voluntary recall

at that Abbott plant. So there's opposition to part of this. And that has kind of caused one of the tensions we often see on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are saying Democrats are just trying to pass a messaging bill and Democrats are saying Republicans are voting against any kind of solution that would help particularly low income women. Are there next steps that we can expect from Congress on this? It's not totally clear what happens next. I mean, there are going to be hearings. There was already one hearing. Democrats and Republicans alike want to bring in these formula manufacturers to kind of take them to task for the situation that exists. But it's not totally clear what all Congress can do in this moment. And it's not totally clear what all the White House can do in this moment. And Scott, I think that gets the last thing I want to ask you to take a step back. There have been so many supply chain issues over the last few years, supply chains that we never thought twice about for decades and decades of the global economy because they work so well. But they always work

so well with little margin for error, right? Like the just-in-time economy is the way that we talk about it. We are able to ship things around the world immediately as we need them. But COVID and so many other things have made that harder. And there have been so many conversations about whether bigger changes are needed. And one of those big changes that keeps being mentioned is maybe the U.S. needs to have much more of a domestic supply chain, not rely on other countries. But that doesn't apply here. Well, you're right. A lot of folks have championed made in America as the solution to snarled supply chains.

But the formula is entirely made in America. And we still run into trouble when you have a problem or a breakdown at a single plant. So the solution really is not make it in America or make it someplace else. The solution is to have a diverse range of suppliers. So if something goes wrong with one, you can fall back on another. A diverse range of suppliers, both in the U.S. and in friendly countries elsewhere. Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't put all your milk in one bottle. Hey, Scott, before we wrap this up up i guess i have one big overarching question and that's how long is it

going to take for this to get resolved do we know how much longer people are going to have to be waiting to see full shelves of formula well the fda has said it's going to take a couple of weeks to restart the plant in sturgis michigan and then probably another six to eight weeks to get it up to full capacity. So that'll help. The imports are starting right away, but the fact that they're air shipping it in means we're talking about relatively small quantities. They're putting a priority on specialized formula for babies that need very specialized recipes.

But it'll probably be a number of months before we're really back to the time when parents can walk into the supermarket and assume they're going to see full shelves of formula. All right, well, Scott Horsley, it is always nice to talk to you. Thanks for joining the podcast. My pleasure.

We are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in part to stop NATO from expanding and bordering Russia. Now that is likely going to happen because of Putin's invasion. We'll talk about it.

We are back with Franco Ordonez. Hey, Franco. Hey, how are you guys? Hello. Welcome. Thank you. I would like to note that I played the saxophone and I was in a marching band for a while. Oh. Note that I played the saxophone and I was in a marching band for a while. So you played the saxophone.

And these days, Franco, you are our resident NATO head on the White House reporter team. Good transition. So I'm glad to have you. You were there in the Rose Garden yesterday when President Biden was joined by the Prime Minister of Sweden and the President of Finland to make this big announcement. Today, I'm proud to welcome and offer the strong support of the United States for the applications of two great democracies and two close, highly capable partners to join the strongest, most powerful defensive alliance in the history of the world. So let's talk about that. Let's talk about what it means. But starting off,

let's just back up a little because we talked a lot about NATO in recent years, going back to former President Trump regularly undermining it. And now it's obviously in the news a lot. But let's remind everybody of the baselines here. Why did NATO come about? And what did NATO become in the post Cold War years? Yeah, I mean, it's a political and military alliance formed back in 1949 by 12 countries, including the United States. And it was originally, you know, developed to counter Russian expansion in Europe after World War II. But now there are currently 30 members, and Finland and Sweden would actually make 31 and 32. And it supports democratic principles,

but really the core is that it's about members agreeing to come to the aid, military aid, if any of the others come under attack. And one of the many things that have happened since the Cold War ended that have really upset Russia and Vladimir Putin in specific, is NATO's borders have gotten more and more eastward and several countries that were part of the Soviet Union are now in NATO. That's something that Putin had a huge problem with. But as that expansion happened, Finland and Sweden were always kind of on the fence about joining. Why was that? And what's changed? Yeah, I mean, it's really amazing. I mean, less than three months of war

in Ukraine has persuaded both of those countries to scrap decades, decades of official independence. And they remained independent or non-aligned because they did not want to provoke Putin and they did not want to provoke an invasion. But now that's completely changed. The Finland president, you know, said the invasion of Ukraine just showed that the Kremlin does not respect, you know, non the invasion of Ukraine just showed that the Kremlin does not respect, you know, non-aligned countries. And also, public support in those countries really just changed overnight. And that's public support for NATO membership changed overnight.

You know, that really allowed this to happen. It wasn't just the leaders. It was the people of Finland and Sweden who were supportive of this. What is the Biden administration saying about the Russian threat? Yeah, it's a huge part of the conversation, Kelsey. or even brought this up beforehand with his national security team, some of his members of cabinet, to really consider the risks of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because, I mean, we really need to remember that part of the reason for Russia invading Ukraine, or at least in the commentary from President Putin, was NATO expansion. He's been complaining about this for years and years and years. Scott was talking about the Soviet

Union collapse and all those members joining NATO. That has really provoked Putin and really gotten under his skin. Now you have Finland and Sweden joining. So, you know, it's a very difficult thing. And in the United States, President Biden has been clearly trying to walk this line between trying to aid Ukraine and support Europe without provoking Putin. and saying very emphatically that joining NATO should not be seen as a threat to any nation. But let's be honest. I mean, that's, you know, I really doubt anyone is going to feel like Russia is going to see it that way. Though, of course, it's not to say that Russia is like the victim in this. Russia aggressively invaded and has killed thousands and thousands and thousands of people in a neighboring country in an unprovoked way. And like that is certainly something that would change the way that other countries view about their relationship with Russia. Absolutely, Scott. I mean, former White House press secretary

Jen Psaki, before she left, I mean, was kind of quoting the Finnish president when she said that he told Putin that he brought this on himself and that to, you know, according to Psaki said, look in the mirror. I mean, because this invasion really showed that the Kremlin can't be trusted to respect others' borders. So, Kelsey, Franco's talking about this big, sudden shift in opinion in a lot of these European countries. I mean, where they're suddenly on the same page on a lot of things. And we talked before about when it comes to funding this war, even though the US is not actively a part of it, it's certainly very involved in many other ways. There's this sudden near unanim send lethal aid, military hardware, support for defense systems, as well as humanitarian and food aid through at least the end of September, the end of this fiscal year for the United States. It is a big number. You know, $40 billion is when you break it down to a daily spending rate comes out to over $100 million a day, which is a pretty staggering number, because the US was sending about $300 million a year to Ukraine before Russia invaded. But, you know, I think

it's worthwhile to put some of that money in context. This is a lot of money for the U.S. to be sending to a single country as foreign aid. But as I've talked to members of Congress and defense experts, they say it's really hard to compare it to any other kind of, you know, foreign aid or even war spending that's been done recently. Right. And that's what we've been talking about, right? Like the U.S. is sending all of this money. It's sending weapons. It certainly has a lot of opinions on this. But at the same time, Biden keeps saying, but we're not sending any soldiers. We're not sending any troops. We do not want to make this a direct war. Right. So sending money this way means sending it as foreign aid. And that makes it look like a lot of foreign aid, because it is a lot of foreign aid. The other option, like you said, sending troops is dramatically more expensive.

The way Congress funds this is called emergency supplemental spending. It's usually the kind of money that they spend on things like natural disasters or global humanitarian crises. And when you put it in the scope of that kind of funding, this is not a terribly huge number. And when you compare it to using emergency spending to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is primarily how they funded those wars, it is the tiniest drop in the defense bucket. Is there, you know, we saw with COVID, it was an emergency, Congress was giving trillions of dollars, it was an emergency, no question about spending, you know, we saw with COVID, it was an emergency. Congress was giving trillions of dollars. It was an emergency.

No question about spending, you know, approved quickly. And then suddenly that bipartisan approach stopped and it became something that was slowed down and many members of Congress were like, it's not as much of an emergency anymore. Is there any sense that we are anywhere near that change in view when it comes to congressional support for Ukraine? Not in this moment. You know, I talked to a lot of Republicans about this specifically. And I wanted to know if they felt like they had any concerns about the level of funding or how the funding is being structured. And most of them, the vast majority of them said that they were fine with this. Their main concern was that there's, they called it a saturation point, essentially, that you could reach a point

where the US is sending so much money to Ukraine, that Ukraine can't actually absorb the aid or the weaponry that's being sent. On the weapon side of it, the part that I thought was really interesting, and that I hadn't thought about until they explained it to me was that the U.S. can send things like these Javelin missiles and all these other things. But the people on the ground in Ukraine have to be trained on it. And training means taking people out of the field. And that's not something that Ukraine can really do. They can't pause the fighting. So there is this moment where the US might need to slow things down to let Ukraine catch up with the, you know, the funding and the hardware that's been sent so far. Yeah. All right, we're going to take one more quick break. And when we come back,

it's time for Can't Let It Go. We are back. As you are both probably aware, it is Friday afternoon. Yes. So that means it is it is time to end the show like we do every Friday with Can't Let It Go. It's the part of the show where we talk about the thing from the week we cannot stop talking about politics or otherwise. Franco, what can you not let go of? What I can't let go is that the record for flying paper airplanes was broken in South Korea. Now, one, I didn't realize there was a record. Obviously, there is. Wait, Osma's there right now. Did she break the record? I'm sad that Osma wasn't there to document the breaking of this record. Because, I mean, I got two small kids. We have some, you know, some really challenging distance, you know, challenges

in our living room and kitchen, you know, trying to get the farthest airplane. But these guys in South Korea flew a paper airplane 252 feet. What? I was looking into this as I was researching Biden's trip to South Korea. In case he made like a diversion to judge the next round. I'm a little sad, I must admit, that he did not mention this yet. But, you know, there's still some time. These guys were flying a paper airplane farther over Air Force One and still having about 20 feet of clearance. Did they start at a height or is this from the ground level?

Is that flying or falling if they're just dropping it? It's both. I mean, I really highly recommend you guys and everybody listening to check out the video. It's really professionally done. This guy has a rocket of an arm, should definitely join the NFL. He's in a stadium-like arena, throws it up, just goes practically to the top. And then as you say, Kelsey, it just kind of starts plummeting down. But it still keeps going and going and going. Wait, is this like the – okay, I am picturing – when I picture a paper airplane, I'm picturing like the pointy end, the kind of like four or five folds.

Like is it a standard basic paper airplane or is this like some sort of like specialized super airplane? I think it is a wonderful question, Kelsey. The only – watch the video. Only requirements were allowed is the piece of paper and a small piece of tape. Whoa. They went so far in this video that he started to like put the fold the fold the pieces of paper and make the airplane together and my son and I were watching and my daughter and they started to blur out the screen where they were making it. Proprietary folding technique. I found the video and this

is incredible. Well now I know what I'm doing after this. Yeah wow. Yeah I thought the soundtrack was pretty powerful too. I could never do that. I can never get it to go 10 feet. Okay. Scott, what about you? Well, other than what you've just told me about this paper airplane. So there was a nice story

from the White House this week. As I think we all knew, and some listeners might know, there was like a long tradition in the White House going back to the Gerald Ford years where press secretaries would pass down from one to the other

like a bulletproof vest with notes from each press secretary to whoever the current press secretary was, the joke being like, oh, you'll need this to deal with reporters. The long tradition. Kelsey, I think it's mentioned in the West Wing. It is. There is an episode that I have to admit I didn't like very much where this comes up.

But it's like this nice bipartisan tradition of camaraderie among among people even though they often frustrate us you know are are trying to do a job that is very challenging um you would probably not be surprised to learn that among all the other tumult of the transition from trump to b, the vest went missing. It was gone. So it wasn't there anymore, which is kind of like, you know, like increasingly almost 50 years of White House history gone, which was kind of sad.

But the New York Times wrote about this first. When Karine Jean-Pierre took over from Jen Psaki and, you know, that transition just happened, Jen Psaki tried to restart this tradition by getting a new jacket, by leaving a note in it. And instead of a dude's jacket, as has been the case for years, she got a bright yellow women's blazer. And this was poignant. And it hadn't occurred to me to think about it this way.

The last five press secretaries have been women now, you know, going back to Sarah Huckabee Sanders. So I thought this was kind of a cool thing and a way to kind of reflect the way that this job has changed over the years. And not only is a jacket back, it is not bulletproof, but it is a jacket. But in another moment of bipartisanship, apparently Ari Fleischer, who was George Bush's first secretary, had made copies at some point of all the letters in the jacket up until that point. So he is working with Jen Psaki to get copies of those now missing letters back to the brand new jacket. A nice chain of history. Also, I'll also know, like, this was pretty darn funny, is that Jen Psaki made sure to buy this very bright yellow blazer in a size that could fit a lot of men. So it can still be passed on,

you know, if there is another male press secretary in the future, if. Yeah, so I thought that was a nice story. Kelsey, what about you? What can you not let go of? I can't let go. And I feel like we have visited this topic more than once as uh as a crew but mine is dolly parton related again yeah definitely love dolly parton there's no shame not let go of the fact that she is now the spokesperson for the taco bell mexican pizza which is returning after a two-year hiatus to much fan acclaim it It feels like a real left-field spokesmanship there. She just tweeted this lovely photo of her displaying the Taco Bell Mexican pizza, touting the, I'm sure, wonderful attributes of what is essentially just a tortilla

with some ground beef and lettuce and cheese. You know, I'm right there with you. But I also feel like Dolly Parton just can't go wrong. Because I mean, I felt the same exact way when when it was announced that Dolly Parton was going to open up an amusement park. I was like, what? Oh, Dollywood is beloved. Yeah, exactly. So I was I was laughing at this.

I showed the tweet to my husband and then he said to me that he was not very surprised by this because, now this is kind of crazy to me, that Taco Bell has a program called Feed the Beat. Where since 2006, they've been just giving food to artists and bands. And the list of artists and bands that take them up on this is huge. So they give touring musicians $500 in free Taco Bell gift cards, no strings attached. Isn't that crazy? When is the last time either of you ate a Taco Bell? I have to say I like Taco Bell. I'm a crunch wrap person, but I cannot identify the last time I had one. There was an aggressive Taco Bell period of my life and I think it has now come to a close. I was a fan of the double decker, like the hard shell with the soft shell outside it.

All right, with that truth bomb, I think that's a wrap for today. Our executive producer is Mithani Mathuri. Our editors are Eric McDaniel and Krista Def-Kalamar. Our producers are Lexi Schpittle, Elena Moore, and Casey Murrell.

Thank you to Brandon Carter. I'm Scott Detrow. I cover the White House. I'm Frank Ordonez. I also cover the White House. And I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress White House. I'm Frank Ordonez. I also cover the White House. And I'm Kelsey Snell. I cover Congress. Thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.