[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1479-S1484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to discharge the nomination of
Xavier Becerra from the Committee on Finance.
The Senator from Oregon.
Nomination of Xavier Becerra
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the motion to
discharge from the Finance Committee the nomination of California
Attorney
[[Page S1480]]
General Xavier Becerra to head the Department of Health and Human
Services.
As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am going to begin with a
simple message: Holding up the nomination of Attorney General Becerra
has been blocking urgent anti-virus work that needs to get done now. So
it is time for the Senate to act quickly, without politics getting in
the way, to confirm this nominee.
I also believe moving quickly on this nomination will help to achieve
something I heard a lot of Senators talk about over the last few days.
A few days ago, I spent almost 24 hours here at this desk while the
Senate was debating a number of different issues. Over the course of
that debate and in the weeks before it, many Senators talked about how
important it was to get past some of the longstanding disagreements and
find unity.
I will say to my colleagues: There could not be a more unifying
prospect for America than ending this public health nightmare as
quickly as possible, preventing as many COVID-19 deaths as possible,
and helping the American people get back to the activities that they
enjoy, that they consider part of their normal daily routine.
Having a confirmed Secretary leading the Department of Health and
Human Services is a linchpin for accomplishing that task. The
Department is right at the effort, at the forefront, to end this
contagion. It is leading the distribution of vaccines. It is working to
get PPE into the hands of nurses and doctors who still--still--
desperately need more of it. It is getting new resources to rural
hospitals to keep them afloat and to keep their doors open to patients
who literally had nowhere else to go during this crisis.
Health and Human Services is right in the center of the government-
wide COVID response. They coordinate work at the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, with the Centers for Disease Control, with the
National Institutes of Health, with the National Guard, with all 50
States, with the District of Columbia, with private healthcare systems
and doctors across the country and more individuals and organizations
that are just too numerous to name. Now, that is what the job is all
about and why it is so critical right now.
I want to turn to some of what I have heard discussed with respect to
Attorney General Becerra. I have heard some say that, well, he doesn't
have the right leadership experience. That is a comment being made
about the head of America's second largest department of justice. This
nominee is in charge of a billion-dollar budget. This nominee is in
charge of more than 4,000 employees as the top law enforcement official
in what would be the fifth largest economy in the world. This is the
work of somebody who really knows how to run a mammoth government
agency.
Then there have been suggestions about his healthcare background.
This is one that, to me, is just bizarre, given the track record. He
spent years and years on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is
one of the key committees in the country with respect to jurisdiction
over healthcare policy. He wrote and debated major pieces of healthcare
legislation, including playing an important role in the development of
the Affordable Care Act. As California's attorney general, he defended
the Affordable Care Act in court. When the pandemic hit, he stepped up
and fought to protect the health and well-being of millions of
Californians, particularly nurses and doctors and other workers who
found themselves in harm's way.
When one is in the Senate, you understand that Members of the
opposing party are going to have disagreements on policy issues. That
goes with the turf. Women's healthcare was obviously one of those
issues that came up during the nomination hearing.
I will tell you that Attorney General Becerra's response is what we
ought to expect of responsible public officials and of nominees. He
made it clear to members of the Finance Committee. He said again and
again and again that he will follow the law. He will be accessible to
all Senators. He is going to work to find common ground on key
healthcare issues.
I can tell you, having specialized in healthcare since my days with
the Oregon Gray Panthers, that is heavy lifting. By the way, I think it
is pretty refreshing after 4 years of just blather about repeal-and-
replace and empty rhetoric and promises on pharmaceutical price-gouging
and partisan policies that favor insurance companies over the typical
American consumers.
In my view, Attorney General Becerra proved in his nomination hearing
that he knows healthcare policy inside and out and that he is ready to
lead the Department of Health and Human Services. I don't think anybody
ought to be particularly surprised because he has a decades-long track
record in healthcare leadership and policy experience that is going to
help him succeed in the job.
We all understand the country's healthcare system is still under
extraordinary pressure and strain. On Saturday, the Senate passed one
of the largest public health packages in our country's history,
designed to crush this pandemic. So we are starting to see some light.
We are starting to see the end of the tunnel. The Biden administration
is doing everything it can to acquire more vaccines, to get more shots
into arms. I think we all understand it is not a task completed yet.
I will just close by way of saying that when our country faces a
healthcare crisis, it needs a Secretary of Health and Human Services
confirmed and on the job as soon as possible. It doesn't need more
political games and delay that only sets back our effort to end the
pandemic.
So we will be voting, I believe, in less than an hour, and I just
want to say that I hope colleagues will support this nomination
discharged from the Finance Committee. I have known the attorney
general for a number of years. As I say, this is the area that I have
specialized in over the years. And I know that Senators have
differences of opinion with respect to healthcare. I get that. But
those differences of opinion shouldn't stand in the way of a qualified
public official who has managed thousands of people in his current job,
for example, from having the opportunity to do what has to be done for
this country, and that is to get a confirmed nominee for a critical
position so that he can attack those challenges that are in front of us
right now and help patients and speed up the efforts to end the
pandemic.
I yield the floor.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Republican whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I voted for a number of President Biden's
nominees--his nominee for Treasury Secretary, for Defense Secretary,
for Attorney General, for Director of National Intelligence, for
Agriculture Secretary, and others. These candidates were not the ones I
would have picked if I were President, but I believe it is important
for our country that our President have a team in place.
As long as a President's nominees aren't raising serious concerns, I
think a President of either party is entitled to have the people he or
she chooses serving in his or her administration, but by the same
token, if a President's nominee does raise serious concerns, I think we
have a responsibility as Senators to oppose him or her. Today, I rise
to oppose the President's nominee to head the Department of Health and
Human Services.
A number of President Biden's nominees have been qualified,
mainstream candidates. Xavier Becerra is not a mainstream candidate. He
is an extremist who has used the offices he has held to advance an
aggressively pro-abortion agenda and to target religious liberty and
freedom of conscience. Mr. Becerra does not represent the views of the
majority of Americans; he represents the views of the radical, pro-
abortion wing of the Democratic Party.
The Planned Parenthood wing of the Democratic Party would like
Americans to believe that unrestricted abortion on demand up to the
moment of birth is a no-brainer, an unqualified good, but the truth is,
despite decades of trying to convince Americans of this, Americans
simply don't agree.
[[Page S1481]]
Just 29 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in
all circumstances. The vast majority of Americans believe that abortion
should either be illegal or that there should be at least some
restrictions, undoubtedly because on some level, every American is
aware that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about killing a
human being. Mr. Becerra, on the other hand, does not seem to support
any restrictions on abortion. If he does, I would sure like to hear
about them.
As a Congressman, he earned perfect ratings from Planned Parenthood
and NARAL. He assembled an overwhelmingly pro-abortion voting record,
even opposing a ban on partial-birth abortion--a procedure so heinous
and repulsive, it is difficult to even describe.
As California attorney general, he aggressively crusaded in favor of
abortion. He is known for defending California's law forcing crisis
pregnancy centers to advertise abortion--a case he lost at the Supreme
Court on First Amendment grounds. But his activities were hardly
limited to California abortion law. This was not a case of an attorney
general simply defending the laws of their own State. No. As California
attorney general, Mr. Becerra repeatedly--repeatedly--inserted himself
into abortion debates in other States. He joined other attorneys
general to file amicus briefs challenging abortion laws in Missouri,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and other States, and he frequently led these
efforts himself--a fact he proudly highlighted in press releases.
Mr. Becerra's extremist views on abortion would be enough of a red
flag, but to that we have to add Mr. Becerra's record on religious
liberty and freedom of conscience--most famously his efforts to force
religious people, including nuns, to offer health insurance benefits
that violate their religious beliefs.
At a Finance Committee hearing, Mr. Becerra tried to downplay his
actions in this case. ``I never sued [an order of] nuns,'' he claimed.
``I have [sued] the federal government.'' Well, that is an answer only
a lawyer could love. Yes, he didn't sue nuns; he sued the Federal
Government to force nuns and other religious people to offer health
insurance benefits that violate their consciences. That was the aim of
his lawsuit--to force nuns and other religious Americans to act
contrary to their consciences.
When an order of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, joined the
case in an effort to ensure their right to live according to their
faith was protected, Mr. Becerra apparently had no hesitation in
continuing his suit.
Mr. Becerra's extremist views on abortion and his record on religious
liberty would be troubling in any nominee, but they would matter a lot
less if we were talking about a nominee for, say, Secretary of
Transportation. But that is not what we are talking about. We are
talking about putting Mr. Becerra in charge of a Cabinet Department
entrusted with interpreting and applying laws protecting religious
freedom and freedom of conscience.
Nothing I have seen suggests to me that Mr. Becerra can be relied on
to provide robust protection for these cherished rights. In fact, I am
profoundly concerned that Mr. Becerra would use his office to limit
Americans' religious freedom. Under Mr. Becerra's HHS, are nuns going
to be forced to offer health insurance benefits that violate their
religious faith? Will healthcare professionals be protected from having
to perform procedures, like abortions, that violate their consciences?
Given Mr. Becerra's record, I am concerned about the answers to these
questions. In fact, there is a reason to be concerned. A prime reason
for nominating Mr. Becerra was his radical abortion advocacy and his
attacks on religious liberty.
It is difficult to find another reason for nominating Mr. Becerra
during a global health emergency. Mr. Becerra is not a doctor. He has
not worked in the healthcare field. He is not a virologist or a vaccine
expert. He does not have a background in public health. It is not
unreasonable to conclude that his appeal to the abortion left, one of
the most powerful interest groups in the Democrat Party, was a prime
reason for his nomination.
NARAL and Planned Parenthood certainly give credence to that idea
with their enthusiastic statements in support of Mr. Becerra, which
highlighted his aggressive abortion advocacy. I also have to say that
it is pretty interesting to nominate someone to head HHS who, in his
last job, proudly sued HHS repeatedly.
I know that President Biden is a man of faith, but he is doing a
great disservice to people of faith and to the First Amendment with
this nomination. He is also doing a disservice to the American people
by nominating a candidate whose views on abortion are so radical and so
out of step with the views of most Americans.
Days ago, three of my Democrat colleagues broke ranks with their
party to stand up for the many, many Americans who don't want their tax
dollars going to pay for abortions. I urge them and all of my
colleagues to join me in opposing the nomination of Xavier Becerra.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Reopening Schools
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, we have got an issue in this country
related to the pandemic but, more specifically, related to children not
going back to school. And one thing that is of incredible concern is it
appears that the Biden administration, which campaigned saying that
they were going to follow science--alleging that the previous
administration was not--seems not to be following science but to
prejudice their recommendations to fit a political agenda.
With that, let me develop my case. The harms of prolonged closure to
school children are remarkable. They are well known. It has been up to
a year since the schools have been closed, and in the Presiding
Officer's home State of California, there are some school systems that
are still not reopened.
Now, think about this: Places where children go, not just to learn
but to have social workers make sure they aren't being abused at home,
a dietary staff to make sure they have adequate nutrition--but also to
learn--have been closed for a year.
Now, we can say: Wait a second, don't worry about that because the
children have been given remote learning. There is ample data which
shows that particularly the children from lower income families are not
logging on even when they are given a broadband computer--given an
internet-equipped computer to take home or given WiFi access to use at
home. We can imagine it. Mom has to work. There is no one to supervise
the child, so the 7-year-old is home by herself while mom is working.
We can also imagine that a family does not have a culture of being
online. We can imagine a big family of seven or eight kids where things
just kind of get lost in the shuffle, and there is not enough room for
someone to be by themselves. Whatever, it is established that there are
kids being left behind by not being in the classroom, and those kids,
disproportionately, are poor. And that is why the Biden
administration's pledge to follow science resonated, and that is why
early indications that they are not is not just disappointing, it is a
betrayal--and not a betrayal of a campaign pledge, a betrayal of those
children who are at home.
Now, by the way, data shows that children can safely go back to
school. There was a CDC study from January of 2021 finding little
evidence of virus spread in a school setting when the recommended
precautions were taken, which kind of calls them--and, by the way,
there is a recent study by the following doctors--Henderson, Gandhi,
Hoeg, and Johnson from universities such as the University of Chicago,
UC Davis, and UC San Francisco--showing how safe it is to go to school,
not get infected, and social distancing as minimal as 3 feet distant
one from the other--OK, just 3 feet distant.
Now, that is important because if you say you can't bring kids back
to school because you don't have enough classroom space for smaller
classes, it is one thing if you say there must be 6 feet between each
child and another if there only needs to be 3 feet. So these doctors
from these prestigious universities found you only need 3 feet.
That begs the question: Why did the Centers for Disease Control, in
their February 26 document, say that 6 feet was needed? Now, you may
say: 6 feet, 3 feet, why does it make a difference?
[[Page S1482]]
Because schools aren't reopening, and their excuse is they need 6 feet
between students. They are finding a reason to keep kids at home not
learning--a spurious reason.
The doctors who wrote this paper just put an editorial in USA Today
in a nice quote here. I say ``nice.'' It kind of summarizes. It is
disappointing that they have to say this. It is that--they open up with
``The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,'' which is a quote
from Franklin Roosevelt. But they go on to say--they speak up for lost
wages, for families, and the poverty and eviction that this is
resulting in but that the research says there is greater risk to life
expectancies with schools closed versus schools open, but they then ask
that we overcome fear by following the science. And the science says we
can safely reopen our schools now--full-time, nonhybrid--and keep them
open. Unfortunately, that is not what the Centers for Disease Control
is saying.
Now, by the way, there is a clear agenda here. Part of the agenda is
that teachers unions in certain communities have not wanted to reopen.
They are more concerned about the union than they are about the
children. So whether it is a Democratic mayor of Chicago trying to
force the teachers union in Chicago to reopen, whether it is Los
Angeles or San Diego, which are still not reopened, with teachers
unions objecting to reopening there, this is not based upon science,
not based upon risk to the teachers or the children. They would just
rather not be at work. Isn't that amazing?
Now, let me tell you who has been open. First, in Louisiana, over 75
percent of our schools have reopened. Hats off to my State. Private and
parochial schools have been open. Hats off to them. They are kind of
the business model: If you don't get paid, you show up for work. They
show up for work. So let's give a hats off.
And that is why there should be school choice. If a parent can't get
their child educated in Los Angeles, in San Diego, or in Chicago, then
why are we keeping that child from going to a private school? ``Oh,
they can go,'' you say. Not if they are poor. If they are poor, they
don't have the revenue.
We should take the money that we are giving to those public schools
that will not open because the teachers unions oppose it and give it to
the parents so their children can go to a school where their children
will actually be educated, and the fact that we don't do that is
politics over what is best for that child. It is a betrayal of those
children.
This administration's policy, 4 months into their 4 years,
demonstrates betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. Let's safely
reopen schools now. We know we can do so. We knew that a year ago. The
science and the data show it. Congress had provided $68 billion before
this latest bill in order to make sure we had everything we needed in
order to do that. A lack of funding has not been an excuse to reopen.
What is clear is a lack of will, and I will repeat where I started:
This administration is betraying the most vulnerable children in our
country. Reopen schools now.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Nomination of Xavier Becerra
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have to tell you, you can always
tell how controversial a nominee is by how fast his supporters work to
finish the confirmation process, and last night, at 6:12, we found out
that the Democrats tried to pull a fast one on Xavier Becerra's
nomination. They were trying to fast-track this, and I was able to
object to that hotline request, but the fact that they tried it shows
that they are worried about this nominee, and they should be. After two
unimpressive hearings and seeing the split vote on the Finance
Committee, I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
come to realize that his lack of experience in the healthcare sector is
one of those big things.
You know, we have over 400 healthcare companies in Tennessee and tens
of thousands of employees in that sector. They all--each and every one
of them--have more healthcare experience than the Biden
administration's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.
His greatest hits from his job keep coming back to haunt him, and as
much as his allies here in the Senate try to spin his record, they just
can't seem to convince people that he is fit to lead. I was curious how
wide the divide is between Tennesseeans and the Becerra nomination, so
I asked my staff to look through our mailbag and see what people were
calling and writing about.
This nomination was in the top five issues of concern. People in
Tennessee are not happy. As I mentioned, healthcare, our religious
organizations--what they are seeing is somebody who has crossed the
line too many times. They do not see him as fit to lead.
His lack of experience in the healthcare industry explains why so
many people would oppose him. He thinks it would be a good idea to take
private health insurance away from 160 million Americans and throw them
into a disastrous single-payer system. If that is what you want, then
he would be a great Secretary of HHS for you.
If he has his way, he will use his new position to further undermine
our immigration laws. He has admitted--his own admission--that given
the chance, he would decriminalize illegal entry and extend Medicaid
benefits to anyone who manages to make it across the border. It is like
winning the lottery. If you get across that border, we are going to
give you healthcare benefits, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
We cannot afford to keep confirming nominees who have zero respect
for the rule of law--zero--and even less respect for the value of human
life. Throughout his career, Mr. Becerra has made his appallingly
radical positions on abortion very well known. He is proud to support
abortion up until the moment of birth. He even opposed the 2003
partial-birth abortion ban. He defended a truly evil California law
that forced pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion
services offered by State-run clinics.
Recently, a physician friend of mine made a comment about Mr.
Becerra's nomination that has really stuck with me. She said:
I'm horrified--
Bear in mind, this is a physician.
I'm horrified by his position on abortion because he would
abort a baby that I would resuscitate. He would abort a baby
that a family is willing to adopt.
Now, think about that. This is a guy, in his congressional career and
in his job as the attorney general for California, he is a radical on
abortion--a radical. You have physicians who stand there to resuscitate
these babies that have difficulty during birth. He would allow those
babies to be aborted when a physician would choose life, would choose
to help that baby live.
According to Mr. Becerra, religious exemptions should be a thing of
the past. He relentlessly harassed religious employers like Hobby Lobby
and nonprofit organizations like the Little Sisters of the Poor as part
of his crusade to uphold ObamaCare's contraception mandate. I think it
is clear why the Finance Committee split their vote on this nomination.
It has nothing to do with politics.
Xavier Becerra's obsession with dismantling American society and
rebuilding it in his own image can't be boiled down to a simple policy
position. Instead, it signals his desire to force Americans to live
their lives according to his twisted world view.
He may have the approval of leftists, but the American people and
thousands of Tennesseans have already written him off as radically
unqualified, and, frankly, so have I.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this motion to discharge
and opposing the nomination. He is radically anti-life, anti-religion,
anti-border security, anti-free speech. He is unqualified to lead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Nomination of Debra Anne Haaland
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, Montana has a rich outdoor heritage. It is
something we are known for not just across the country but even around
the world and something, as Montanans, we are very proud of.
In fact, for generations, Montana families have enjoyed hunting,
fishing, recreating on public lands. I myself am an avid outdoorsman.
In fact, some of my fondest memories growing up in Montana are spending
time with my
[[Page S1483]]
family, my dad, my mom, my grandpa hunting, fishing, backpacking in our
State. And, thankfully, I have had a chance to pass it on to our own
four children--something we still enjoy doing today, my wife and I, as
we are now empty nesters.
Recreation on public lands is part of our Montana way of life. It is
how we raise our families in Montana. And just as we cherish our access
to our public lands, we also value the conservation of our lands, as
well as the stewardship of our vast natural resources.
Energy development flourishes in Montana. It provides over 16,000
hard-working men and women with good-paying jobs to support their
families, while funding conservation and protecting our landscapes and
wildlife. Montana is still a State where hard-working moms and dads who
work hard during the week are thankful for many jobs provided by the
natural resources in our State. They work hard during the week, but on
the weekends, they go down to Walmart, Bob Ward's Sports' warehouse,
and Ace Sporting Goods store and buy an elk tag over the counter, a
fishing license, and get into our public lands within 30 minutes of
buying that license. That is uniquely part of our Montana experience.
These jobs that we have in the natural resource industry, these energy
jobs, are part of who we are as Montanans because we are a State full
of diverse interests, competing priorities, sometimes opposing
philosophies. But time and again, stakeholders have come together to
find balance and achieve our most lasting conservation wins.
That is a word that is missing in Washington, DC, as we are seeing a
new administration come to power; it is the word ``balance.'' You see,
as Montanans, we are proud stewards of our beautiful landscapes, our
rivers, our natural resources, and our wildlife. We take pride in
following the science and listening to our local experts on the ground
to do what is best for our environment and our public lands, as well as
our rural communities.
And this legacy of balance is intertwined within the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior oversees
much of America's lands, our water, wildlife, energy resources, and in
many ways oversees our Montana way of life. Over the past few years, we
have seen Secretaries of the Interior with a range of views--some I
agree with, some I haven't. But one thing was consistent, they were
consensus builders. They were able to listen to the needs of diverse
stakeholders, bring folks together, come up with a solution that worked
for almost everybody. I would use the word ``balance'' again.
Unfortunately, Representative Haaland has a very well-documented and
hostile record toward made-in-America energy, toward natural resource
development, toward wildlife management, and sportsmen. Throughout her
tenure as a Congresswoman, Representative Haaland championed the Green
New Deal. She advocated for the most extreme positions, including
banning all fossil fuels.
She cosponsored legislation to provide Federal protections for
grizzly bears forever without considering the science that is very
clear that supports delisting that species and returning it back to the
States, just like we did with wolves back in 2011.
She has been enthusiastic in her calls to stop not just the Keystone
Pipeline but all pipelines, calling for a ban for all pipelines. She
even protested the Dakota Access Pipeline herself.
She has stated that trapping shouldn't be allowed on public lands.
And as noted by several sportsmen groups, Representative Haaland would
not even commit to maintaining current access on our public lands
during the hearing. I can tell you, these are not mainstream views held
by most Montanans.
I am not opposed to Representative Haaland's confirmation because she
is a Democrat or because she was nominated by President Biden. In fact,
I have supported many of the President's nominees. This is about her
record, her very far-left, divisive positions that will fail to
represent the West, to be in the mainstream of common sense and
balance. And I fear she will harm the Montana way of life as we know
it.
This is about protecting our Montana way of life, the ability to have
a good-paying job during the week and enjoying our public lands on the
weekends because if you kill the energy jobs, you kill all the
pipelines, you kill our natural resources, Montana is left to be simply
a playground for the rich and famous. We have to stand up for our hard-
working Montanans and protect their way of life.
This is about maintaining a commonsense balance. We can develop our
natural resources and protect our public lands at the same time. We can
do both, and we must do both.
So I urge my colleagues, especially those from Western States that
hold many of these same values, to really think about what
Representative Haaland would bring to the Department of the Interior as
leader of that organization. I urge my colleagues to consider the
impact this will have and to vote against Representative Haaland's
nomination for Secretary of the Interior.
I yield back my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know we are having a vote in a moment.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote not start until I finish my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Xavier Becerra
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I don't plan to speak long, but
listening to my colleagues, I just wanted to make a few points.
Our former colleague, Representative Becerra, spent much time in the
Congress--I think 12 terms--much of that in a position focusing on
healthcare policy as a member of the Ways and Means Committee. I say
that because I know so many of our colleagues, particularly House
Members, have gone on to run Agencies, run Departments, be Secretaries
of Defense, and, basically, they just had some congressional experience
in that policy area.
So I am not sure why we are discarding that important policy
background, consideration, balancing of those issues, weighing in on
parts of our constituencies, as Mr. Becerra did.
And Mr. Becerra was the first Hispanic to be a member of the Ways and
Means Committee. So I am pretty sure he brought forth a context to many
of the healthcare policies. I know now that I bring a lot of focus on
Native American issues to the Finance Committee because I represent so
many Native Americans.
I think Mr. Becerra represents somebody who has a lot of healthcare
experience and then, as attorney general, took on one of the biggest
fights we need to have right now, which is the affordability of
prescription drug pricing and the shortages that I believe are
artificially created on things like insulin and other drugs that are
spiking out of control the healthcare prices for Americans.
If you had to say, besides getting access to affordable healthcare
insurance, what the second most important goal would be--or, actually,
if you asked across the spectrum of millions of Americans--they would
say it is the high cost of prescription drugs. And we have somebody who
has taken on this battle and, basically, really understands what we
need to do as a nation in lowering prescription drug prices.
So I just hope that people who are at home are listening. This is a
unique individual who I think stands up truth to power many times in
his career, and I think that we would be great if we have his vote and
nomination out here on the Senate floor so the American people can hear
more about the important policies.
If you want to vote against him because you don't want the Affordable
Care Act, well, that is your prerogative. But if you want somebody who
has just as much experience as any other Member of Congress who has
gone on to run an Agency, I guarantee you he is as qualified, if not
more qualified.
So I hope our colleagues will vote yes on this motion to bring Xavier
Becerra before the United States Senate.
I thank the President.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S1484]]
Vote on Motion to Discharge
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Under the previous order, the
question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge the nomination of
Xavier Becerra from the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CARDIN. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 117 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--48
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Burr
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the provisions in S. Res. 27 and
the motion being agreed to, the nomination will be placed on the
Executive Calendar.
____________________