Nomination of Xavier Becerra

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source