[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 177 (Thursday, October 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5206-S5210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
  UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE FOOD AND NUTRITION 
   SERVICE RELATING TO ``APPLICATION OF BOSTOCK V. CLAYTON COUNTY TO 
      PROGRAM DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCESSING-POLICY UPDATE''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 42, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 42) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Nutrition 
     Service relating to ``Application of Bostock v. Clayton 
     County to Program Discrimination Complaint Processing-Policy 
     Update''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 30 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, also from Michigan, it is wonderful to 
see you in the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to explain how we got here today because you 
are going to hear a lot of things that are just false today and, 
frankly, are things that, I believe, are mean and using some of our 
most vulnerable children for political stunts.
  But let's start. Why are we having this discussion? Well, the Supreme 
Court has ruled that discrimination based on sex includes sexual 
orientation and gender identity. In general, it makes sense. The 
administration, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is simply 
updating its policies to comply with the law.
  Now, last year, 22 Republican attorneys general took the Department 
of Agriculture to court based on the argument that you will hear today 
from this resolution's sponsor. Everything you will hear they sued the 
Department of Agriculture over, and the court just dismissed the case. 
They completely dismissed the case. In fact, the opinion dismissing the 
lawsuit called the Republicans out for their political stunt. This is 
the judge saying this, stating that this case had nothing to do with 
bathrooms or sports teams. And the judge then said that this case is 
about food stamps and nutrition--not bathrooms, not sports teams, not 
free speech, and not religious exercise. It is about whether or not the 
USDA--how they administer food benefits: school breakfast, school 
lunch, after-school snacks, and other kinds of school and other food 
programs. And the judge said: The plaintiff States want to ignore a 
Federal statute and discriminate against poor people who do not conform 
to traditional conception of sex.
  So this is about food programs.
  And then the judge went on to say: The plaintiff States' insistence 
to the

[[Page S5207]]

contrary is no more than an invitation to join a political discussion 
untethered to applicable statutes or precedent. The court will instead 
simply apply the law.
  So I urge the rejection of what has been called a political stunt by 
the Federal court. I am calling it a political stunt because it is very 
clear that children are being used to address what some colleagues have 
said is just ``red meat'' to Republicans, to feed the cultural wars.
  Now, I want to say that I am really glad that my Republican 
colleagues are so concerned about feeding kids, and they should be 
happy to know that the USDA food and nutrition policies have nothing to 
do with school bathrooms and nothing to do with school sports. The USDA 
food programs have nothing to do with funding the rest of the school 
programs. The Federal nutrition money is not used on anything else. It 
can't be withheld on anything else or for funding anything else, other 
than the school meals. That is what it is all about.
  This whole exercise is nothing more than a political stunt using 
children, as I said before, to stoke the made-up cultural wars. Every 
child deserves to enjoy school breakfast or lunch without being singled 
out for being LGBTQ+, period. That is all this is about.

  I also want to just add that the Biden administration is focused on 
making sure the kids have access to meals and families can put food on 
their table, and it is absurd that anyone would say otherwise. They 
have increased access to free meals for students, expanded local food 
options, and are making meals healthier.
  And we came together, at the end of last year, Senator Boozman and I, 
and led an effort to expand summer meals. It was a wonderful bipartisan 
effort to make sure, in the summer, that we have 29 million children, 
who would otherwise not eat healthy meals, have a chance to get a 
healthy meal.
  So we should be working together on bipartisan efforts to provide 
healthy food for our children. This exercise does not accomplish that. 
It is nothing more, unfortunately, than a cruel political stunt.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. 
Res. 42, which I view as a cruel effort to green-light discrimination 
against LGBTQ+ children.
  My colleagues--some of them--across the aisle have made false claims 
about a policy that the Biden administration has released, a policy 
that makes clear the obvious: that every child should be able to get 
lunch at school no matter their race, religion, ability, gender 
identity, sex, or sexual orientation. That is it--a simple, narrow 
directive from the USDA that says schools that receive Federal funding 
for nutrition assistance must not discriminate within the confines of 
these nutrition programs on the basis of gender identity, sex, or 
sexual orientation.
  This is not about bathrooms. This is not about locker rooms. This is 
not about sports. This is also not about pushing some alleged agenda. 
This is about feeding children, period.
  Since this policy was issued over a year ago, in May of 2022, the 
USDA has initiated no enforcement-related actions, not a single case--
zip, nada, zero. This is a ``solution'' in search of a problem. The 
actual problem is some of my Republican colleagues' continued efforts 
to pick on LGBTQ+ children for their own political gain. By overturning 
this policy, my Republican colleagues are essentially arguing that 
discrimination based on gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation is 
OK.
  Well, I am so glad that there haven't been any instances of this 
happening. Just imagine the scenario that my colleagues are trying to 
allow. All of us--all of us--in the Senate represent LGBTQ+ children 
and their families.
  Say you are one of those children and you are told you can't have 
your school breakfast or lunch because of who you are, depriving a 
child of eating because Congress has decided that that would be OK.
  This is not OK. This resolution is not about doing good for the 
American people or making their lives better. In fact, it is quite the 
opposite. Resolutions like these have a profound impact on LGBTQ+ kids 
and their families.
  I rise today to remind my Republican colleagues that their actions do 
not go unnoticed by LGBTQ+ children, kids who already face increased 
adversity every day in the form of harassment or bullying or 
discrimination. As a consequence, LGBTQ+ youth are four times as likely 
to attempt suicide than their peers, and nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ+ 
youth report experiencing symptoms of depression.
  Our words matter. Our actions here matter. When some Republicans 
attack gay and trans children, our kids hear that. They hear that they 
are not welcome at school, in public, and, tragically, sometimes even 
at home. They hear that their rights are lesser than their peers 
because of simply who they are. They hear that they don't have the same 
freedoms and liberties as every other kid. They hear that the adults in 
the room, including some of my colleagues here in Congress, do not 
care.
  Well, I care, and that is why I am standing up against this attack 
and, frankly, all the attacks I am seeing on gay and trans kids. LGBTQ+ 
children deserve the freedom to be like any other kids, whether that be 
playing sports, joining a club, or just being a kid, free from bullying 
and harassment and discrimination. And that, of course, includes the 
school lunch line. These kids have a right to a life without harassment 
or further stigmatization.
  Should this misguided resolution go through, Congress is giving folks 
a free pass to deny a school lunch to a kid just because of who they 
are. And, make no mistake, this resolution would make our LGBTQ+ kids 
feel less welcome and less safe in their own schools. This policy is 
about feeding children no matter who they are, and it is just that 
simple. Please vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, Republicans need to leave the kids alone--
leave the kids alone. Right now, they are trying to deny food to LGBTQ 
kids because they have disagreements about policies concerning trans 
people. Instead of debating those disagreements among adults, they are 
holding school lunches for kids hostage.

  I want to be really clear about what this proposal would do and the 
message that it would send to millions of Americans. It would overturn 
a policy that prevents LGBTQ kids and adults from being discriminated 
against while accessing Federal nutrition assistance like school meals, 
food banks, SNAP benefits.
  You have an issue with high school sports? I think you are wrong, but 
have at it. You have a view about trans people? I think you are wrong, 
I think it is terrible, but have at it. But leave the kids alone. Let 
them eat. Let the children have a lunch. Every kid deserves a square 
meal. Leave them alone.
  Most people are fortunate enough to not have to worry about where 
their next meal will come from. It is just a routine part of life. But 
that isn't the case for many queer Americans who are twice as likely to 
experience food insecurity, according to the Census Bureau. And trans 
people are three times as likely to be food insufficient compared to 
cisgender individuals.
  This policy is not just another line in the rule book; it is the 
difference between people having a meal and going to bed hungry. If we 
can't hold kids harmless--if we can't hold kids harmless--what the hell 
are we doing here? Can't we have some boundaries to the culture wars? 
Can't we have some disagreements without looping in the children? They 
are kids; we are adults. We are responsible for their health and 
safety. Let them have a square meal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, it is always a great honor to come to 
this hallowed floor to fight for our youth, our Nation's greatest 
treasure.
  I would ask the White House to leave our kids alone. They are the 
ones that have picked this fight. It is the White House that won't 
leave our kids alone.
  I rise in support of S.J. Res. 42, which would strike down a policy 
memorandum regarding the Federal school lunch program that the USDA 
issued that has been weaponized against our youth. That is right. This 
administration is using school lunches to attack our youth, to 
implement their transgender policies.

[[Page S5208]]

  Let me begin by stating as a physician, as an OB/GYN, I devoted my 
entire life to the health and well-being of moms and children. From a 
mother's first visit to our office to the baby's birth and during the 
childhood, nutrition is a key to the healthy development and growth of 
every infant, toddler, and school-age child. During my time as a doctor 
and now on Capitol Hill, there is nothing I stress more to moms than 
the importance of nutrition.
  With that being said, I would like to make it abundantly clear as I 
address this Chamber, there is no greater champion for children's 
health and nutrition than me. That is why, as you can imagine, I am 
deeply troubled by the way my friends across the aisle have described 
the intent of this resolution today. I am actually shocked by just how 
wrong and, frankly, deceitful they are with their tactics and messaging 
on this CRA.
  Let me be clear, the only player in this policy fight that wants to 
and has actually suspended access to the school lunch program is the 
Biden administration. After 3 years, I thought I had seen it all when 
it came to what this current administration is willing to do in order 
to force its radical transgender agenda on the American people. 
Unfortunately, we have underestimated how committed they are to forcing 
this harmful ideology on all of us.
  Today, I am bringing this resolution to the floor to expose the 
lengths the Biden administration is willing to go to appease the far-
left factions of their party. I learned a long time ago with this White 
House: Don't listen to what they say; watch what they do. Take note; 
observe their actions.
  Listen to this: A memorandum issued by the USDA last May shows they 
have extended fighting the cultural war in a way that leaves school 
lunches for children hanging in the balance. Right now, as I stand here 
in this Chamber, the Biden administration is threatening food 
assistance for low-income kids unless the schools they attend carry out 
their transgender agenda, putting children's access to lunch at risk.
  This resolution of disapproval we are considering today aims to 
overturn this horrific policy memorandum for the USDA which would deny 
low-income kids access to the Federal school lunch program if 
their school does not adhere to the Biden administration's mandate. 
This includes, but is not limited to, requiring biological boys to be 
given access to girls' bathrooms and locker rooms or allowing 
biological boys to compete in girls' sports.

  We have heard all these stories of young women denied opportunities 
to win a championship or gain a scholarship because a biological boy 
was allowed to compete in their events. Listen, this is flat-out wrong. 
As someone who was a middle school student when title IX was enacted 
and I saw firsthand the value of that law to allow young girls to 
participate in school sports--many of whom went on to receive athletic 
scholarships--to see this action by the White House is heartbreaking.
  The USDA memorandum would force Christian schools to abandon their 
religious beliefs. Listen, this is not hyperbole or political rhetoric. 
The Biden administration has already weaponized the school lunch 
program and suspended access to the school lunch program specifically 
in two schools, requiring both to file lawsuits over losing Federal 
food assistance.
  In California, the USDA has actually taken away school lunch funding 
from kids because a Christian school refused to violate their closely 
held religious beliefs and their hiring policies because this school 
wanted to draw the workforce from a pool of individuals who share their 
values and live out their religious convictions. Children, including 
LGBTQ families, had their Federal funding for their lunches taken away. 
This is fact.
  What is ironic here is there was an original case in Florida where 
USDA granted an exemption for religious schools and forced the Federal 
statute that includes a robust religious exception. But this year, a 
second lawsuit has been filed because the USDA wasn't abiding by the 
standard the statute set. If the USDA is not going to follow its own 
exemption and ignore Federal law, then we must act--and we must act 
today.
  More than 20 Republican attorneys general agree with me and are suing 
the USDA over the policy memorandum. If this USDA policy continues, 
schools risk losing Federal funds for free and reduced lunches.
  In total, more than 29 million students nationwide receive free or 
reduced lunch programs, something I am proud to support.
  We must protect these children's food security, their privacy, and 
their safety at all costs. The USDA has no authority to force this on 
our children or the schools they attend; to adhere to woke mandate such 
as requiring boys to be given access to girls' bathrooms and locker 
rooms or allowing boys to compete against girls in girls' sports. The 
USDA has no authority to tell Christian schools they have to violate 
their religious beliefs.
  I will wrap up it up with this. We must stop this policy dead in its 
tracks to protect access to school lunches for students across this 
country and send a clear message to this administration: Stop 
weaponizing the Federal Government.
  Let me state again: The only player in this policy fight aiming to 
take away access to the school lunch program is the Biden 
administration. This CRA would not allow for discrimination against 
kids in the lunch line. That is protected by Federal law. It is in the 
statute.
  With that, I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
  I would like to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
the great State of Texas, Senator Cruz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Marshall's 
resolution of disapproval of this outrageous rule.
  I have to say, as I sat here on the Senate floor, I listened to my 
friend from Hawaii give his floor remarks. As I listened to what he 
said, I wrote down some of what he said. He said ``Kids need to eat.'' 
He said ``Don't take the food away from children.'' And he said ``Don't 
drag children into the culture wars.''
  I have to admit, Mr. President, I felt like I was in ``Alice in 
Wonderland'' and that I had gone through the looking glass because I 
agree emphatically with all three of those statements; and, for a 
moment there, I thought the Senator from Hawaii had given a speech in 
support of this resolution of disapproval.
  What is this issue about? Understand what it is about. It is Joe 
Biden and the Democrats who are taking food away from children. The 
U.S. Department of Agriculture has told schools: We will cut off your 
school lunch funding. We will take the food off of your plates and out 
of your mouths unless the schools comply with the Biden 
administration's radical transgender policies.
  It is Joe Biden and the Democrats and every Democrat who votes in 
favor of this policy who are saying: We are going to take food away 
from kids. Why? Because to today's Democratic Party, feeding children--
and, mind you, we are talking about low-income kids, many of whom the 
only food they get that day, they get at school--and the Democrats are 
going to say: We are taking away your food. Why? Because today's 
Democrat Party is committed to the proposition that a boy who 
identifies as a girl should be allowed to use the girls' restrooms; 
should be allowed to shower with teenage girls, even if the girls don't 
want it; that 10-, 12-, 14-, 15-year-old girls should be forced to 
shower naked next to someone who is biologically male. This is not 
hypothetical. Members of the Judiciary Committee listened to the 
testimony of Riley Gaines, a national champion swimmer who was forced, 
under these same idiotic policies, to shower in a shower next to 
someone biologically male with full male equipment. She wasn't asked 
for her consent. I ask the women in this Chamber: How many of you would 
be excited to be forced to shower with someone biologically of the 
opposite sex?

  Today's Democratic Party has embraced the radical and extremes. When 
it comes to sports, their view also is that boys should be able to 
compete against girls in sports and men should be able to compete 
against women in sports. And this is happening all over the country.

[[Page S5209]]

  I believe in women's sports. I believe in girls' sports. I have two 
young daughters. Sports are amazing for girls to learn discipline, hard 
work, and teamwork. Title IX has opened doors for young women to go to 
college. And yet the Democrats' extreme transgender ideology is 
destroying girls' sports and women's sports.
  This is not a matter of gender or gender identity; this is a matter 
of fairness. Anyone who is not consumed by ideology understands there 
is a difference between boys and girls. There are biological 
differences between boys and girls. There is a reason why, recently, in 
Canadian power lifting, a biological male won the women's power 
lifting, beating the second-place competitor by, if I remember 
correctly, 463 pounds. It is not fair to force little girls to compete 
against biological boys.
  The Democrats don't care about fairness. They care about extreme 
ideology. And every Democrat who votes against this CRA is voting to 
take the food from hungry kids because that is how radical they are in 
enforcing this policy.
  I urge every Senator to vote aye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 
up to 5 minutes and Senator Stabenow be permitted to speak up to 1 
minute prior to the scheduled vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, on the merits, this resolution is just 
absurd. The Department of Agriculture is not, as Senator Cruz alleges, 
punishing schools based upon how they label bathrooms or what they 
teach in health classes. The offenses that Senator Marshall and Senator 
Cruz are alleging here are just made up.
  What the Department is saying is simple: If you are feeding poor 
kids, it shouldn't matter whether that kid is straight or gay or 
transgender, whether they are Black or White, whether they are Catholic 
or Protestant. You can't choose not to feed a kid because of their 
ethnicity, their race, or their sexual orientation. That is just common 
sense. I will guarantee you, 90 percent of the Americans agree with 
that sentiment.
  The reason we are debating this resolution, though, isn't because 
there is a problem that needs to be solved. We are debating this 
resolution because the rightwing in this Nation has launched a 
relentless and unceasing campaign to marginalize, demonize, and bully 
kids who are gay, transgender, or nonbinary.
  All across the country, the Republican State legislatures are 
introducing bills designed to demonize gay children, to make people 
believe that these kids are a threat to others, hundreds and hundreds 
of bills all centered on the same lie as this resolution: That it is 
not OK to be gay, that it is abnormal to be transgender, and that 
society should rally around efforts to bully and shame these children 
and their families.
  A few weeks ago, I finished up my annual walk across the State of 
Connecticut. I do it each year. I spend a week walking about 20 miles a 
day, talking to hundreds of people--most of them totally nonpolitical--
about what they care about and what they want their leaders to be 
working on. Do you know what nobody talked to me about on that walk? 
Children's sexual orientation, drag shows in schools, bathroom 
labeling. Do you know what they did talk to me about? Wages not keeping 
up with costs, the safety of their neighborhoods, Israel, opioids, drug 
costs.
  This obsession that Senator Marshall and Senator Cruz and their 
rightwing allies have with the sexual orientation of our kids is so 
divorced from what people are actually talking about in this country.
  It is no wonder the candidacy of Ron DeSantis--really founded on his 
relentless similar campaign of attacks against gay kids and adults in 
Florida--is floundering because even primary voting Republicans think 
that this obsession that Republicans have with children's sexual 
orientation or gender identity is just super creepy and super weird, 
and it has nothing to do with the actual set of problems this Nation is 
facing.
  But there is one problem attached to this resolution: There are 
consequences to what Senator Marshall and Senator Cruz are proposing. 
When leaders choose to make bullying and marginalizing gay kids a top 
priority, kids listen. Fuel gets given to their bullies. People like 
the Senators who are sponsoring this resolution legitimatize attacks on 
gay kids and make those kids feel inferior and alone.
  The students at Seth Walsh's school were systematic in the way they 
targeted him because he was gay. They pushed him down the stairs. They 
kicked him until he was badly bruised. They screamed at him. They 
called him names. No doubt these bullies took direction and inspiration 
from adults who paved the way, who endorsed this kind of behavior.
  Then one day after one of these incidents, a frightened Seth called 
his mom, and he said, ``Mom, you have to come get me right now.'' His 
mother could feel the fear in his voice, so she grabbed Seth's little 
brother, and they rushed out the door, they went to the school, and 
they brought him home. His mom was so supportive. That afternoon, they 
just sat and they talked.
  Seth went upstairs and took a shower to calm himself down. 
Afterwards, he came downstairs and asked his mom for a pen, told her he 
was going outside to play with the dogs. Ten minutes later, his mom 
went outside to continue this conversation with her son, but it was too 
late. Seth had hung himself from a tree, and the pen he had asked for 
was for his suicide note.
  Seth Walsh was 13 years old.
  A recent survey of transgender youth showed that half of them--52 
percent of them--have contemplated suicide over the last year. Just 
think about that for a second. Half of the kids who are transgender 
come to the conclusion at some point in their young lives that they 
would be better off dead--dead--than to live in a world that believes 
they are threats to be marginalized or expunged.
  How small, how tiny do you have to be to reach a position of 
political leadership and choose to use that position to bully or shame 
kids like Seth.
  This campaign of targeting and marginalizing gay and transgender 
kids, trying to convince the country that they are threats to this 
country, it is just wrong on the facts, it is wrong morally, it has 
lethal consequences, and it should stop.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague for his 
comments.
  This is so serious for children. But let me be clear. Clear. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture nutrition programs do not fund anything 
related to school bathrooms or school sports. This is a rule about 
making sure all children have access to school meals. They are not 
discriminated against. The children aren't blocked from getting school 
meals if they are gay or nonbinary or transgender.
  And it is true, there were 22 Republican attorneys general who took 
the Department of Agriculture to court. Do you know why? The case got 
thrown out. The case got thrown out, and the judge called it a 
political stunt.
  The USDA has not threatened to withhold food from any child in 
school. In fact, the case that my friend talked about was a California 
statute, not USDA. The USDA has not threatened to withhold food from 
any child in school, period.
  So I am committed to advancing real policies that make a difference 
to our children but not wasting the Senate's time on political stunts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds for one 
brief point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none.
  Mr. MARSHALL. The only player in this policy fight that wants to take 
away lunches from schoolchildren is the Biden administration. Since 
they are unaware this is already happening, here are the two court 
cases where schools have had to sue in order to feed children at their 
schools. The first one

[[Page S5210]]

is Grant Park Christian Academy v. Fried; the second, the Church of 
Compassion v. Johnson. The USDA was party to those.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 42

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the 
third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint 
resolution having been read the third time, Shall the joint resolution 
pass?
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the 
Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 272 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     King
     Padilla
     Scott (SC)
  The joint resoluton (S.J. Res. 42) was rejected.
  (Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to note that I am 
wearing a dog tag given to me this morning by one of the families of 
the hostages held in Gaza. So we pray and hope for their release.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________