[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6925-S6926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the following nomination: Calendar No. 265, Shalanda 
H. Baker, of Texas, to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic 
Impact, Department of Energy; that the nomination be confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination, and that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.

[[Page S6926]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. One hundred 
years ago, not many people could have imagined, certainly not predicted 
within a degree of accuracy, the kinds of technological advances that 
we have seen over the last century that have allowed us all to have 
lights in our own homes; to have televisions, cell phones, all manner 
of conveniences; and that these things would be widely available to 
rich and poor alike, urban and rural alike.
  These are conveniences that are now so common that they are easy to 
take for granted. But they don't come about automatically. They didn't 
just happen. They have been brought to us as a result of labor and 
innovation and dedication of individuals who took chances and created 
something new.
  Today, I stand opposed to the nomination of Shalanda Baker because 
she openly opposes the economic system that has brought so much fortune 
to our country. Regarding capitalism, free markets, Ms. Baker stated 
the following:

       As we move into this new future, we must also remember that 
     a just transformation of our energy system requires a careful 
     interrogation of the racist, capitalist politics that 
     currently drive it. We must expose, and then eradicate, these 
     underpinnings.

  Ms. Baker, in addition to having made statements like that one, 
advocates for a cap-and-floor model for electric utility pricing, one 
in which high-income individuals would pay a minimum--not a maximum, 
but a minimum of 6 percent of their entire household income on 
electricity; and then other households who are less wealthy--the least 
wealthy would pay no more than 3 or 4 percent of household income.
  Look, I, too, want to make sure that our poorest citizens and our 
poorest communities have access to resources and are able to be lifted 
out of poverty, but placing obstacles in the way of competitive markets 
and denigrating the very concept of the competitive markets that have 
made electricity and so many other developments so available to so many 
people, rich and poor alike, would I fear; would I firmly believe; 
would I, am certain, end up preventing technological advances that 
benefit everyone in our society.
  For these reasons, I oppose Ms. Baker's nomination, and I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I appreciate being recognized, and I am 
grateful that this conversation is being held between myself and the 
Senator from Utah, who is one of the more principled friends I have 
made in the U.S. Senate.
  He has been a friend and a colleague, and we have worked and 
partnered on numerous things together. He is someone that, even though 
I think I am an inch or two taller than him, I look up to, in all 
sincerity.
  I worry about our Nation right now, that we are taking statements 
that people have made and whipping around them a lot of presumptions. 
There is a difference between saying I am against capitalism and I am 
against racist, capitalistic policies. That is a big difference.
  We are a nation that exploded forth to be the dominating economy on 
the planet through the capitalist system. But the capitalist system was 
not fair and equal all the time. In fact, it did not reflect what Adam 
Smith himself, in his essay on moral sentiments, talked about.
  Capitalism is an ideal that the best way to distribute goods and 
opportunity is through this idea of a free market, where everyone has 
access. Clearly, that has not been the case in this Nation when African 
Americans were originally, in a capitalist system, slaves. Even after 
the period of our greatest national sin, Blacks were still held out of 
equal opportunity to be competitive.
  If you look at, perhaps, some of the greatest ideas of capitalism--
this idea of working the land with your sweat and labor to produce 
products to sell into the market--well, look at something like the 
Homestead Act, where in many ways that land belonged to Native 
Americans who did not have that same free and equal opportunity. Think 
about the Homestead Act and how waves of incredible, hard-working 
European immigrants got that land, but Blacks were excluded.
  No one in this body would deny that that is patently racist.
  And this continues. In a lot of our biggest businesses, up until the 
sixties and seventies, women weren't allowed equal opportunity. That is 
a capitalist, sexist system that denied equal opportunity.
  We know this from African Americans. I know this from my own family 
story about my father, here in this area, coming after college and 
being the first Black person hired by a small tech company the 
President may have heard of called IBM--the first Black salesman in the 
entire Virginia area, as walls were broken.
  My father told me the story of why he left the company that he was 
working with. Because one of his managers said: You should get out of 
here because no nigger is ever going to be allowed to be a manager at 
this company.
  That is racism.
  So here is a nominee who--in the context literally that my colleague 
read, racist, capitalist policies--no one can deny that these policies 
existed in our country and that the free-market system hasn't been 
free.
  People on both sides of the aisle, I have heard, speaking to the 
corporate concentration that is going on, the monopolistic practices we 
are seeing everywhere from the pharmaceutical industry to pharmacies, 
from farms to tech, that is working against the free-market, capitalist 
ideas of great philosophers, like Adam Smith. So to object to someone 
for that reason, to me, is patently unfair.
  And my colleague also objected because of a policy. He described one 
policy. Well, Shalanda Baker is not going to be in a position where she 
is making policy. She is going to be charged with ensuring that there 
is equal access and opportunity in a wide range of the Department of 
Energy's programs, opportunities, and resources; that we are a more 
inclusive and more equitable Nation. That is her charge.
  And this work is vital because nearly, in America, one in three 
households are energy insecure, meaning that they have difficulty 
paying their energy bills; and research has, unfortunately, shown that 
low-income households, disproportionately Black and Brown households, 
are more likely to be energy insecure.
  I love this Nation more than any other country on the planet Earth. 
Yet we still have injustices that show that African Americans are 
disproportionately subject to inequalities.
  The crazy thing about this is a spiritual law that Martin Luther King 
embodied so well. He said:

       Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

  It is a truth.
  In America, poverty is not just a problem of the poor; it costs this 
country more than a trillion dollars every year. So dealing with the 
fact that Blacks are disproportionately poor brings resources to us 
all. Every dollar raising one child above a poverty level returns $8 to 
our economy. So addressing inequality, addressing disparities, helps 
everyone.
  Energy justice isn't something we talk nearly enough about, and that 
is why Ms. Baker's role is so important. So I am disappointed today.
  I voted against a lot of Trump nominees, but I voted for a lot whom I 
disagreed with on policy. There is an urgency right now on this issue 
in America. There is an urgency right now to be a more just and 
inclusive society. There is an urgency right now to create deeper 
community in this country and to ensure that everyone has the fruits of 
liberty and opportunity. It is what we swear an oath to. It is what Ms. 
Baker's job is all about--making real the words of our united pledge 
that we will be a nation with liberty and justice for all.
  I yield the floor.