[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.

                          ____________________