Xavier Becerra: “I feel compelled to come here and respond to some things my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have said. I…”

“I feel compelled to come here and respond to some things my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have said. I read this bill and I read the amendment, and to those on the other side of the aisle who say that this bill is adequately written, that as it is written it will protect children, my response to them is, if it does that, then what is the problem with accepting an amendment that just makes it implicitly clear. If the response is, well, we do not need it because it is already there, then I turn to the actual bill itself and I see that the bill must not have been drafted that well, because there are at least seven different distinctions made and explicit references made for exemptions to this bill to make sure that those exemptions are identified as being protected. In the case of Social Security we see it here under subsection 7. We see it for emergency legislation that the President might pass. We see it for national security. We see it for emergency assistance to State and local governments in the cases, for example, of a natural disaster. We see it in the case of our constitutional rights. If this is such a well-drafted bill, why do we explicitly ensure our constitutional rights are protected? I would think that would be automatic. There is also an exemption for our statutory rights that prohibits discrimination. If that is there, clearly there are needs for exemptions and we have to stop fooling ourselves and admit to that.”