ai users and ai workers who are going to help all the small businesses and medium-size businesses and large businesses actually fulfill the potential of this revolution. >> three years ago you came and joined us for a den with our board and a lot of guests and member companies. we talked about both the historic funding that is coming, but also the challenges of deployment and permitting. the state plans are now coming out. are you on schedule? and just talk to everybody kind of the comprehensive efforts that you been doing both on best practices on permitting, on state plans on mapping and where you see things going this year. >> it's a big year. first of all we hav been, this as a historic opportunity. it's a historic mission i think everybody at ntia, everybody in the federal government feels it right now like we have this

chance and it's our one chance. we don't think we're going to get tens of billions of dollars again, and we have this really incredible mission to connect everyone. i keep saying to reliable affordable high-speed internet service. so that's huge. 2023 massive milestones for us that went through we talked a lot about mapping. we did the allegations -- >> we are going to leave this here and take you back now live to the u.s. senate where today lawmakers work on several judicial nominations. they are also expected to vote on the confirmation form a new representative sean patrick maloney to be the u.s. ambassador to the organization for economic cooperation and development. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt.

the clerk: mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn.

ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis.

mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt.

mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. rville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- baldwin, ben blumenthal

butler cantwell coons cortez masto, duckworth, durbin graham hassan heinrich, lujan murray padilla peters schatz schumer, smith, and welch. senators voting in the negative -- barrasso blackburn britt, capito cotton crapo, cruz daines ernst, hagerty, kennedy, lankford lowell miss mcconnell, ricketts, rounds scott of south carolina thune and wicker. mr. tester, aye. ms. warren, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. brown, aye.

the clerk: ms. murkowski, aye. the clerk: mrs. gillibrand aye. mr. booker, aye. mr. warnock, aye. mr. carper, aye.

the clerk: mr. king, aye.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye. mr. ossoff, aye. the clerk: ms. rosen, aye. ms. hirono, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no. mrs. fischer, no. mr. wyden, aye. mr. paul, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

vote:

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no.

the clerk: mr. grassley, no. x(

the clerk: ms. collins, aye.

the clerk: mr. marshall, no. mr. murphy, aye. mr. budd, no.

the presiding officer: ms. stabenow, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: mr. lee, no.

the clerk: ms. sinema, aye. mr. markey, aye. mr. rubio, no.

the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. the clerk: mr. cardin, aye. mr. young, no.

the clerk: mr. boozman, no.

mr. reed, aye. mr. vance, no.

vote: the clerk: mr. van hollen, aye.

the clerk: mr. hickenlooper, aye. mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. risch, no. mr. tillis, no. the clerk: mr. scott of florida, no.

the clerk: mr. romney, no. mr. warner, aye.

mr. mullin, no.

the clerk: mr. johnson, no. mr. moran, no. mr. sullivan, no. mr. kelly, aye. mr. sanders, aye.

the clerk: mr. mendendez, aye.

the clerk: mr. schmitt, no.

the clerk: mr. manchin, aye. the clerk: mr. kaine, aye.

the clerk: mr. casey, aye. is. vote: the clerk: braun, no.

the clerk: mr. hawley, no.

the clerk: mrs. hyde-smith, no.

the clerk: mr. whitehouse, aye. the presiding officer: the nomination is confirmed. the yeas are 53, the nays are 46. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby bring to a close debate on the

nomination of executive calendar number 540 melissa r. dubose of rhode island to be united states district judge for the district of rhode island signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of melissa r. dubose of rhode island to be united states district judge for the district of rhode island shall be brought to a close? all -- the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker.

mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown.

the clerk: mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons.

mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king.

ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. the clerk: mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy.

mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch. mr. romney. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.d/

the clerk: ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina.

ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. vaen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- booker durbin gillibrand kaine, menendez peters re sanders, sinema smith, tester warnock, welch, whitehouse and wyden. senators voting in the negative -- braun, crapo, ernst, grassley hawley

hyde-smith moran, romney rounds rubio, sullivan, and tillis.

the clerk: mr. no.

the clerk: mr. brown, aye.

ms. butler, aye. mr. paul no.

the clerk: mr. heinrich aye.

the clerk: mr. lee, no. mr. marshall no. mr. graham aye.

the clerk: mrs. fischer, no. mr. hagerty, no.

mr. warner, aye. the clerk: ms. duckworth, aye.

the clerk: mrs. blackburn, no. the clerk: mr. vance, no.

ms. baldwin, aye.

vote:

the clerk: mr. cassidy, no. mrs. capito, no. miss hassan, aye. the clerk: ms. stabenow, aye.

mr. king, aye. the clerk: mr. lankford, no.

the clerk: ms. hirono aye, mr. padilla, aye. the clerk: mr. wicker, no.hirono .irono

.rono .ono .no .o . ..

the clerk: mr. cotton, no.

the clerk: ms. cortez masto, aye. mr. schatz, aye. the clerk: mr. merkley, aye. mr. scott of south carolina, no. mr. thune, no.

the clerk: mr. ricketts, no.

the clerk: mrs. britt, no.

the clerk: mr. kelly, aye. mr. barrasso, no.

the clerk: mr. mullin, no. mr. markey, aye. ms. collins, aye. mr. cardin, aye.

ms. warren, aye. the clerk: mr. scott of florida no. mr. casey, aye. mr. van hollen, aye.

mr. carper, aye. vote: the clerk: mr. fetterman, aye.

the clerk: mr. daines, no. the clerk: mr. hoeven, no.

the clerk: ms. lummis, no.

the clerk: mr. blumenthal, aye. mr. boozman, no. mr. schmitt, no. mr. ossoff, aye.

the clerk: mr. tuberville, no. mr. manchin, no. mr. coons, aye. mr. kennedy, no.

the clerk: mr. murphy, aye. the clerk: mr. risch, no. ms. murkowski, no.

the clerk: ms. klobuchar, aye.

the clerk: mrs. murray, aye. mr. bennet, aye.

the clerk: mr. cramer, no. mr. mcconnell, no.

the clerk: mr. cornyn, no.

the clerk: ms. cantwell, aye. mr. johnson, no.

the clerk: mr. young, no. vote:

the clerk: mr. cruz, no. the clerk: mr. hickenlooper,

aye.

the clerk: mr. lujan, aye. mr. schumer, aye.

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 51 the nays are 48 and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination the judiciary. melissa r. dubose of island to be united states district judge for the district of rhode island. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, -- mr. president, today i'm heart broken to learn that 19-year-old fellow brooklynite etai chin was killed on october 7 at the brutal hands of hamas terrorists who still cruelly hold on to his remains. etai was serving with the idf as a u.s. israeli citizen and was stationed near the gaza border

on the day of i spoke to his family earlier today to say all of brooklyn and all of america mourns the loss of their son. and i told them we'll work relentlessly to make sure their son's body comes home. i first met etai's family in israel just a few days after october 7 when i went quickly to go to israel to express solidarity after that awful attack and i've spoken to the chin family many times since. over time i've gotten to know them and i feel like i've also gotten to know a little bit of what etai was like by hearing it through his father his mother his brothers. etai's father ruby has been one of the leading advocates for the return of the hostages. his travel to every corner of the world and has met with some

of the highest-ranking leaders in the world to say bring them home. bring them home now. etai's father requested me to please get his body back. i will do everything i can to make it happen. the family is not going to observe formal jewish burial practices until they recover itay's body. and the family also expresses their thanks to the biden administration and to the fbi for helping them get through these difficult months. i'll continue working with the chen family the administration and others to return itay's body back to his family so they can have the bufrl and shiva in the way they desire and sdefrnlt when i spoke to itay's father just a couple of hours ago, he promised me that the family would continue to fight for the release of all the other

hostages and that was such an act, in the moment of their darkness of clouds descending upon them to still have that fortitude, that strength that generosity to say they're going to fight for others touched my heart. i'll be working with the administration however possible until we finally bring back every last hostage and the remains of the hostages who are no longer with us home at last. i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i rise today in hopes of passing a bill in a few minutes that would support our veteransnd our servicemembers by making sure that when they want to grow their families they can get the care and services they need including ivf. the recent chaos in alabama caused by far-right ideology put a national spotlight on just how crucial ivf is to so many women

and families who are desperately hoping and trying to have children. the first thing we heard after ivf was sloun into uncertainty in alabama -- thrown into uncertainty in alabama was the horror of women and had their dreams turned into nightmares as appointments were canceled tens of notices of dollars, months of appointments were callously tossed out of the window by alabama's supreme court. its decision rested on extreme an ideology republicans are working right now to enshrine into law nationwide. next we heard republicans tripping over themselves to proclaim that they stand for ivf, even while still standing by the same extreme fetal personhood laws that caused all of this chaos in the first place. i have said this before but given how republicans refuse to publicly disavow fetal

personhood it clearly bears repeating. when republicans support legislation that says a fertilized egg has the same rights and a living breathing human person that is fundamentally incompatible with supporting ivf. th ideology that caused the disaster in alabama. and right now the majority of house republicans are cosponsors of a national abortion ban that would enshrine fetal personhood in federal law endangering ivf treatments everywhere. but if republicans really do now want to support ivf, if they really do want to help people who are trying to grow their family why not start with our veterans and our servicemembers. these are the men and women who fought to protect our families. why don't we make sure they all have the support they need to

grow theirs. i reintroduced a bill with senator duckworth last year. it's the veteran families health services act, and that would do just that. i've been working to pass this bill for well over a decade now. it has gone through countless rounds of technical edits and reviews, and ithan ready for prime time and this is exactly the kind of straightforward legislation that we should pass through unanimous consent. is hasn't just passed committee before. it actually passed the senate before. the goal of this bill is very expands the fertility treatments and family building services that are covered under servicemembers and veterans health care. that means finally having the coverage that gives servicemembers and veterans the option to freeze eggs or sperm before deployment. it means expanding adoption assistance at the v.a. and, mr. president, it means expanding access to ivf for all of our veterans and

servicemembers. current coverage policies for v.a. and dod still leave out many committed, loving people who want to start a family. we are talking about a bill that would help our wounded warriors get the care and coverage they need to start a family. i'm really glad dod and v.a. have been taking some steps under president biden to offer this care to more people including the expansion that the v.a. announced just yesterday. but we still have a long ways to go. i hope that every one of my colleagues would agree that our country should keep that basic promise we make to our servicemembers to take care of them when they come home that when a soldier comes home with injuries and subsequently needs ivf because of that to start a family or really when any soldier needs ivf to start a family they should be able to get it. so how about we take action righto make that a

reality. it should not be controversial, especially if republicans are serious, even in the slightest, about supporting ivf. this bill is just saying yes, we want to make sure that all of our veterans all of our servicemembers have access to family building services and fertility treatments they need. given all that we have heard in recent weeks, this should be we stand by our veterans if you stand by ivf, if you want to see our military families growing and thriving we need to send that message now and send this legislation that i will be asking unanimous consent on shortly to the president's desk as soon as possible. thank you, mr. presidennow i have a number of members who are coming to the floor to speak to this. so i will suggest the absence of a quorum until that time. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. if there is a quorum call i ask that it be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. i'm very proud to be here today, mr. president, to join my great colleague from the state of washington to support the veterans' families health services act. at a time when there are many many complex and difficult issues -- some them nowhere near black and white, a lot of gray areas of policy abroad and at

home -- there is one issue that ought to be absolutely clear unequivocally, in terms of what we should do the right thing to do the really obligatory thing to do and that is to make sure that our men and women who serve in uniform and veterans have access to the health care they deserve and, in particular reproductive health care and most especially ivf treatment. now, the alabama supreme court in the lapage decision is another step women's rights and women's health care and, in fact on women. the kinds of restrictions placed on ivf treatment have been essentially disowned and

disavowed by many republicans who want to run away as they can, as quickly as they can from that decision and are saying oh, well we're in favor of ivf. but not against laws that restrict ivf. well they can't have it both ways. and here's a them to show in supremely important terms that they're in favor of this kind of treatment for our men and women who in some sense have earned it and deserve it more than -- or as much as any other american because they're the ones who put on uniforms and defend our rights and our freedoms. and they're the ones who afterwards come back to their communities as veterans and continue to serve us. this measure essentially provides guarantees for active duty servicemembers and veterans access

to ivf. it expands adoption assistance at the v.a. and counseling services forg that process. and there is very little to be said that wouldn't repeat the basic common sense of this proposal and it shouldn't even be -- need to be said that military families don't choose where they live. state or another, country one or -- one country or another. when they answer the nation's call they don't sign up for service at connecticut at the subbase. they sign up and they raise their right hand, and their access to ivf shouldn't be dependent on the state where they are assigned or the country. it ought to be available to every servicemember posting. they defend our rights every

day, and we must protect theirs with this bill. and veterans who have completed their service honorably deserve the same protection in access to family planning services. our veterans who receive care at the v.a. deserve the highest standard the gold standard not some diluted standard because of a state law that restricts access to ivf. their lives are already complex and challenging enough. we shouldn't complicate them further with administrative barriers. and i will just repeat what i said on the floor the other day in favor of ivf treatment. there is nothing so moving and so profound as a family who wants a child and is having difficulty having it. there is nothing so moving as

two parents or people who want to be parents. and in our military that predicament is especially moving because they have committed to give up a part of their lives -- one could say, their lives -- to serve our country, and we should make sure that they have access to this fundamental right. again, i thank my colleague from the state of washington, and i thank other colleagues who will be here today and all who are supporting this important measure, which we should be proud to support. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: mr. president, we all know it's women's history month, and though this work should be done year-round

during march especially we focus onthe policies of women in america, including the lives of women veterans. for most of america's history, america's armed forces were made up primarily of men in uniform. not anymore. today more than 17% of the active duty force in america are women. as our armed forces better reflect the diversity of america, that means our support system and resources for veterans m a needs of that population. one of those resources must be supporting our veterans and servicemembers when they want to start family. those who serve our nation are at an elevated risk for injury. that is part of the reason we owe them such a debt of gratitude. they do risk life and limb to protect america. but when servicemembers are injured in the line of duty one consequence can be obstacles to conceiving children. that's why we should pass the veteran families health services act immediately.

this comprehensive l fertility treatments and family-building services that are covered under servicemembers and veterans health care plans. this includes services across the board to safeguard future fertility, acomes to assistance and -- adoption assistance and ivf treatment. it came into the spotlight when the alabama supreme court ruled last month that frozen embryos are children and that their destruction can be treated like the wrongful death of a child. that decision by the alabama supreme court had major consequences on reproductive rights in alabama as major health care providers stopped ivf procedures out of fear of civil and criminal liability. not surprisingly republicans across the country startedh an unpopular restriction on reproductive rights could hurt their electoral chances in the next election. in the weeks since the ruling

republicans have claimed the right to access to ivf. yet they still support fetal rights bills. the simple reality is you can't have it both ways. although alabama governor kay ivey signed a law last week that attempted to ensure that ivf treatments continued in her state -- the rushed stopgap measure la do more harm than good. when snore tammy duckworth, a veteran herself who relied on ivf to start her family came to this floor of the united states senate and asked for unanimous consent to pass a bill that would have established federal protection for access to ivf and other f treatments, a republican senator blocked it. if the republicans are truly pro-family and truly pro-military as they claim to be there should be no hesitation in supporting this

bill that supports our servicemembers and veterans who want to start a let me make one thing clear. no one should have to chas between serving our nation and have a child. we should be expanding these services not restricting them. our servicemembers sacrifice much to keep our families safe. the least we can do is to make sure they have the full range of care options they need to start families of their own. i want to thank the senator from washington patty murray for calling us together for this i think will benefit families across the board and certainly benefit veterans' families who want to start a family. i yield the floor. murmur mr. president.you. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: not withstand sag the provisions of rule 22,

subsidy that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further s. 2801 the veterans families health services act of 20 is 23 and the senate proceed to its immediate consied read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lankford: mr. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: reserving the right to object i, like most americans, have friends and loved ones who have children that were born through ivf. i am passionate about the value of every single child and am grateful for every single child 've in our nation and for their potential future. i have friends that are in the process right now of actually adopting embryos that were still frozen that they could not have children of their own and so they're adopting those embryos to make sure that they're able to come to life.

troversial issue for me in that sense. we're passionate about it as every state now protects that right and continues to be -- i understand it's become vogue in this current sea son right now to be able to -- current season right now to be able to say thatre opposed to ivf. i just don't find that. in this bill that's actually coming this bill actually part of it came through the senate armed services committee. at bill itself when it came through, it is substantially similar to that it came -- tried to come to the ndaa and was not included in the ndaa. it had an objection. the cbo scored it somewhere around a billion a year. this bill itself i understand doesn't have a cbo score because it close not only that section that was a billion dollars a year but actually includes another section that has not gone through the senate committee on veterans' affairs. in fact it was brought up in a previous congress in the senate committee of veterans affairs,

didn't have a hearing on it nor a mark-up, and then during a democrat-led senate and then a democrat-led senate as well didn't even recently this session have a mark-up on it. i say, this has not been fully vetted through what this actual lay is and what it actually does nor the cost of it much less to be able to have 24 hours lar it for unanimous consent. this bill itself includes some over-ly broad definitions and i think needs some conversation. we in the senate this is what we're supposed to do. it includes assistive reproductive technology, fertility treatments it leaves the door open for future definitions for gene editing or cloning. it leaves it to the secretary in the future. it includes the inability to reproduce or safely can carry a pregnancy to

term a very broad term trying to figure out what that means. the bill also expands the eligibility to partners who do not have to be tricare beneficiaries. this would be the first time that dod would be required to provide medical care to someone who is not otherwise entitled by virtue of their relationship to the military in other ways. this breaks new ground in that area. so there's not only issues of questions of definitions and such but there's also just definition of cost or working through the committee process through committees that have so far either not passed it or have refused to even have a markup or a hearing on it. so i don't think it's good for us to be able to bring this for unanimous consent to be able to move at this time. let's move it through in a broader conversation. but i would also encourage just as a body i don't find republicans that are just broadly opposed to ivf. i know this is a broad part of the conversation right now to leave that implication after what happened in alabama.

but i am a republican that's passionate about the value of every single child and are grateful to know people that have gone through ivf and know their kids and know the value of every single one of those children. for the sake of honoring life and for the sake of honoring obviously what we do as a senate and how we function together for those reasons, mr. president, i object. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mrs. murray: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i'm deeply disappointed but not surprised. let the record show i've been trying to pass this legislation into law for well over a decade. it wasn'tsterday, it wasn't last year. r well over a decade. and for the entire time republicans have been the ones who have blocked efforts to include this bill any legislative package. i really hoped after the outpouring of public statements in support of ivf from my colleagues acrnge their tune but the american people understand that actions speak

louder than words. on the unofficial cbo score that was mentioned, let's just say i think it's really overestimate of how many people dealing with fertility would make use of ivf and other fertility services at that cost. and my understanding, it also add the cost of children conceived through ivf being conceived, or being covered on v.a. health care for the rest of their childhood which doesn't make a lot of sense since many of those families will have children one way or the other anyway. i dispute that. but i will say it's pretty clear republicans do not support ivf despite their not even for wounded servicemembers and for veterans. but having said that mr. president, my door is open. i am te of our country goes overseas and is wounded and comes home and cannot conceive a family we should be there to

provide service for them. it is our promise to our veterans that when they serve us we will take care of them when they get home. what is not more basic than making sure they can have a family after serving our country? so i'm disappointed mr. president, i will not stop working on this. it's the right thing to do. thank you. floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

s. quorum call:

morning. how do you scrape your organization to other people >> we are centerleft thinking. we are in an adversarial position so we are involved in politics and policy. >> is for central is for centerleft what does that mean to you quick. >> it means what joe biden is a moderate democrat. you can't use partisan terms in your name or in your descriptions birthing tanks. >> if you are akin to joe biden what do you think of the amount of people in the united states that would align himself that way quick. >> it's a pretty big number. if you look at the way partisan breakdown works moderate is generally part of the public. as we have seen more polarization and the republican party and the conservative party moving to the right a lot of the folks who identify as moderates

are now probably it's a pretty big number. when you look at the people who win for sample presidential nominations in the democratic tend to be read since bill clinton who is centerleft. >> in the last couple of weeks we have seen a centrist move off kirsten cinema with joe manchin and mitt romney. what do these exits indicate to you quick. tough to think for a senate race in west virginia particular the senate year joe has defied gravity for so many years. congress is getting to be a very toxic place for people in the middle. there's still a very large group of centerleft people in the democratic conference in the house and the senate house and the democrats and the blue dogs but on the bright there are far fewer they think that's difficult for people who regard themselves as dealmakers and not to have people on the other side he deal. >> of the three that i mentioned what's a more centrist approach

in the efforts quick. >> a tremendous amount of particular first two years ago by demonstration when manchin and sinema were at the forefront of all the negotiations. they were responsible for seven bipartisan bills in addition to negotiating for changes to the three partisan bills. they played a huge role in that. >> can you talk about the groups within the current democratic party in congress? what would you say they have currently in congress? >> not very much in the house because the house is run by one party so there's not a lot of influence of any democrat in the house. if the democrats retake the house you will see a significant amount of either jeff reese trends in that direction. he parts himself as a moderate and he understands the dealmaking that kind of a compromise and he especially understands the moderates in the house and the

senate to tend to be tough to hold babies are are people on the frontline every time and if he wants to maintain the majority has got to make sure people are taking care. make your organization has done a lot in railing against the group no labels. why is that? >> we identified from the beginning when no labels was announced their intent to run a third-party presidential candidate and what a huge risk this could be the joe biden and it could potentially serve as aook at the two races that trump has run for president in 2016 and 2020 those parties helped him enormous leap in 2016 of the fact that there weren't any serious clear party candidates the next i made the difference. re really worried about third-party candidates in general especially worried about his ticket that is purportedly moderate because they are tapping joe biden not from the french but from the center and that's a dangerous and we think opportunity

to -- it's his only way for trump to win but he can't get above 50% stuck it somewhere between 45 and 47% so he needs help from third-party candidates and we are worried this could be the biggest part. >> to talk about the work of centrist and the centrist approach doesn't sit well with you. is there a disconnect or released an idea of how those two confusing. we are centerleft group. i think in other contexts a third-party effort especially did down ballot races could be interesting and might help with polarization. diving at en level is donald trump's on the ballot and that someone at that i regard as an existential threat to our republic and its the wrong way going about it because there's absolutely positively no way that they can elect a candidate. the only thing a candidate can

do is cause disruption between the two major party candidates and it will benefit from. so this is the wrong way to go want to ask questions about efforts of no labels here in united states (202)748-8000 for democrats. (202)748-8001 for republicans. we have a chief strategist for no labels on the program talking about the groups ever. i want to listen to what he had to say. criticism and get you to respond to it. >> the thing is you have to look at past elections and certainly over the course of the last decades independent's typically don't get much traction so you would think they could get traction. you have to believe that this time is different than previous elections. we and voters believe that. we have never and you can go down the list of metrics but we

have never been in a situation where both parties are unpopular for the presumptive nominee is -- where people are this pessimistic about the future of the country. when we started first thinking there was an inkling of an opening it was two y ago. consistent poll questions have been asking over time if it were trump biden and a moderate independent alternative would you be open to voting for that independent in the first time we asked that over 25,000 voters, 59% of votersaid they'd be open to both on the ticket. why is that so important? here's why. it's not because they think an independent whatever gets 59% of the vote but it's because they don't have to get anywhere close to that number. the electoral college is winner take all so if your multicandidate race to get 3435% of the vote in the state to get

100% of the votes. >> he was asked about the group and a spoiler going into this race to go ahead. >> there are three huge problems with what range is laid out. first no one running for candidate has ever come remotely close to winning the presidency. the person who came the closest was teddy roosevelt. he was doing this for years after leaving office is one of the most popular president in american history. 15 years later he'd be carved into mount rushmore. this was a pretty popular guy. he got his clock cleaned out of 80 some electoral votes. since then no one has gotten all of the electoral votes won by third parties since then that don't add up to 270. the last person to win a single state a single electoral vote as a third-party candidate was george wallace in the 1968.

before that you also had people running as -- in electoral votes but not coming anywhere close to winning so that's not going to change for but the second thing is as ryan points to this this metric that he loves which is people might be open to a third-party. of course they are going to say that they'll be open to voting third-party. if they had two choices or three choices for the most part they as been asked for many years. it never correlates to supporting a third-party candidate in the final thing i will say when you look at all the polling including no labels, what with a share as the race between biden and trump in a two-way contest is basically tied. i would say trump is slightly ahead right now. very very close and a three-way race trump's wins because

biden's floor in this campaign is kind of soft. there are people in a two-way race that would swallow hard and vote for joe biden. if they were given a third option some of them might peel away. drums floor is very hard however his ceiling is low. trump doesn't have room to move a biden does but he can move up and he can move down in to give people a third-party choice they might take it in small enough numbers foren them not to win. large enough to win it for him. pendin borrow without objection -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: we are about to vote on final passage to confirm president biden's nominee to the district court melissa r. dubose. i would like to say a few words about her, and i want to begin by saying what a pleasure and

successful effort it has been to work with senator reed together to make recommendations to several presidents that have produced excellent district court judges in the district court for the district of rhode island and a really terrific senior judge on the first circuit and a sitting judge on the first circuit court of appeals. i think our nominations have proven themselves very well in the fielde sworn in and joined the bench. bubonic plague melissa r. dubose has a few characteristics that i would like to mention. one, she worked as a prosecutor in the department of rhode island attorney general, where i used to work and where i used to work as attorney general

for a bit. and she did very busy active service there in the criminal prosecution side and was very well regarded by her peers. she spent nearly ten years as a corporate in-house counsel at a fortune # 500 -- fortune 500 company, snyder electric and learned the law from that side and then she served on the rhode island district court, which is a very fast-paced busy court where your judgment is constantly called on and she has shown herself to be a very patient and well-reregarded judge -- well-reguarded judge. she is a graduate of rhode island's own providence college. she was a history teacher in providence schools for 11 years before she embarked on her legal career. she was educated at the roger

williams university school of law, which not only graduated her but thought so highly of her they invited her back to sit on the board of the law school. i don't know how many of my colleagues here who are lawyers have been asked so sit -- asked to sit on the board of their law school. i would add perhaps the most prestigious board in the state of rhode island is the board of foundation a huge charitable organization devoted to the well-being of the rhode island community and rhode island community leaders invited her to be on the board of that as well. so this is a person a lifelong rhode islander who is exceedingly well regarded in our community. and i'll close before i yield to senator reed by pointing out that the members of the district court could not be more excited

about having her join the rhode island united states district court. we as a matter of practice often check in with the judges to make sure they concur in the recommendations we're going to make to a president, about who's going to join them on the bench. so if there are any problems that we're not aware of we have a chance to do that due diligence. in this case judges on the court were affirmatively reaching out to judge please make sure you apply to senator reed and whitehouse. we really want you on the court. this is a very special woman, accomplished lawyer experienced and proven judge, and i look forward to a strong bipartisan vote for her. with that, let me yield to my signor partner from this business of making excellent recommendations to presidents for judges mr. reed: well thank you so much senator whitehouse. mr. president, i rise today in strong support of melissa r.

dubose to be a judge of the united states district court to the district of rhode island. let me thank my colleagues from the judiciary committee for advancing her nomination on a bipartisan vote last week and to particularly thank senator whitehouse for his leadership. not just in this situation, but so many times on the judiciary committee and in the senate. and like senator whitehouse i look forward to a few minutes -- to in a few minutes her confirmation as a district judge. judge dubose currently serves with distinction at the state level, as associate judge in the rhode island district court. she's proven to be an exceptional jurist with a sterling t as a judge, she's known for ensuring trials inler courtroom are fair and -- in her courtroom are fair and law, but understands her task as a judge is to seek justice. she will fill the seat being vacated by judge william e.

smith, who will be taking senior status. judge smith is a model of professionalism and integrity. he along with rhode island's other judges on the federal district court, as senator whitehouse notedit, are enthusiasted about the -- enthusiastic about the nomination of judge dubose. they wrote, i quote, melissa is an outstanding choice to join the federal bench. she is supremely qualified. her ethics are impeccable. and her temperament is judicious. high praise indeed from a diverse and exceptionally good group of judges. i sharedge dubose. she will continue rhode island's long and proud tradition of outstanding district court judges and she will make history in her own right, becoming the first woman of color and first openly lgbtq person to serve on the u.s.

district court for the district of rhode island. judge do you know offenses was born and raised -- judge dubose was born and raised not far from where the district court is located. she earned her undergraduate in teaching fromro p remarkable school. the dominicans run a tight ship and she ensure that their students are particularly well prepared prepared. she worked for 11 years as senator whitehouse said as a schoolteacher, in the providence system shaping and inspiring young minds. i can't think of a better preparation for presiding over a court than running a classroom in a city like providence or any other big city. so she has those skills that are necessary, both temperamental and intellectual. and her desire to make her community safer, to give more back to give her young people that she taught a better chance

inspired her to study law. so while teaching full time she attended roger williams university school of law and won her j.d.. then upon graduation she worked for the rhode island the attorney general's office. she started in the juvenile division then rose to the ranks and took on new assignments, including criminal arraignments and violation hearings. after serving in the public sector several years, she worked as corporate counsel for schneider electric. a fortune global 500 company, covering compliance ethics and trade. this is a woman who taught in a cert city school, who served in the attorney general's office then went to a fortune 500 company to deal with issues that are much different than in a district court or school. so her capacity her breadth of

knowledge and experience and her whole life prepares her so well for this judgeship. in 2019, then governor gina raimondo now our commerce secretary, elevated her to the level of our rhode island she again demonstrated fearlessness impartiality and a sense of profound fairness in her court. having served as attorney a judge, in the a.g.'s office in private se has handled both criminal and civil cases in rhode island's courts trade cases that span continents literally, and she is more than ready for elevation to the federal bench. now, her resume is impressive and she has received support all across the board, from judges in rhode island from public defenders, from prosecutors, and

from state and local law enforcement officials. and like her peers, i'm confident judge dubose will serve on the district court with integrity and distinction. she's dedicated her life to public service and rhode island is fortunate she has once again answered the call. i urge my colleagues to confirm this exceptionally qualified nominee to serve on the district court for the district of rhode island. and with that mr. president, i would yield the floor, and i would also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. baldwin.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland the senate is in a quorum. mr. cardin: i concern consent that that quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. first, as chairman of the foreign relations committee, i wassents to bring to my colleagues' attention that we need to confirm our diplomats around the world. yesterday, i had a chance to meet with general richardson, our southcom commander. she told me about the challenges we're having in our own hemisphere because of nominees that have been approved by our committee, that are here on the floor, that have not been confirmed by the united states senate. really want to skunked score the -- to underscore that if we're going to be able to have our interests represented around the world, we need to carry out the responsibility of confirming nominees that have gone through the process nfl too many cases -- gone through the process. in too many cases, we're required to go to cloture, which takes a lot of time. it's our responsibility to act on these nominees and national security interest to have a

confirmed ambassador in each country. in many cases, mr. president, these are career individuals, who have given their lives, literally professional lives, in service to our country. they deserve to have us act timely on their nomination. i would urge our colleagues to do that. i am pleased that we will shortly be voting on one of those nominees for this very important position and that is congressman sean patrick maloney, to be representative to the organization for economic cooperation and development, known as the oecd. given the economic challenges we face today, promoting growth prosperity and development have never been more important. i am confident congressman maloney will do just that. he's a veteran lawmaker who worked on comity markets, digital development. as well, he served on the house permanent select committee on

intelligence. he's committed to using the oecd research convening power to lead with our values and counter-beijing's efforts with the belt road initiative. he understands the global economy needs to work for all americans, and our strong towns need a strong global economy in order to flourish. mr. president, i think the greatest compliment i can pay to ink many of us have heard from many of his colleagues in the house as to how valuable a member he has been in the house of representatives. particularly i want to mention the conversations i've had with speaker pelosi and congressman hoyer in regards to congressman maloney's incredible work in the house of representatives. he will do us proud as our representative to the oecd. i urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination to be the next representative to the oecd without delay.

with that mr. president, i would yield -- with that mr. president, i would ask consent that the vote scheduled to start in two minutes start immediately. the presiding officer: is there any objection? without objection. the question comes on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. butler. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin.

the clerk: mr. carper. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth.ú mr. durbin. ms. ernst.

the clerk: mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan. ms. lummis. mr. manchin. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. menendez. mr. merkley. mr. moran. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. rubio. mr. sanders. mr. schatz.

mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. ms. sinema. ms. smith. ms. stabenow. mr. sullivan. mr. tester. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. vance. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young.

the clerk: senators voting in the affirmative -- brown, cardin coons, durbin gillibrand hickenlooper kelly,

klobuchar, markey rosen, whitehouse. senators voting in the negative -- capito cornyn cotton cruz fisher hyde-smith marshall ricketts rubio, scott of florida, tillis. mr. warner, aye. the clerk: ms. collins, aye. mr. .

ms. hirono aye. mr. moran, no.

the clerk: mr. peters aye. mr. lujan, aye.

the clerk: mr. reed aye.

hdsjj@ó?