[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.
____________________