Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by half a percentage point, the biggest rate hike in 22 years. The effort is underway to stop inflation. For millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills and afford the basics, this can't come fast enough. The U.S. economy has added nearly 1.7 million jobs this year. Consumer spending is strong, but higher costs for groceries, gas, housing, and more are straining family budgets and making people very anxious about their future.

In announcing the interest rate hike yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said the following: The biggest drivers of inflation today are higher prices caused by Russia's war on Ukraine and rising COVID cases in China, which can further disrupt supply chains. In other words, the Federal Reserve Chairman said two of the biggest drivers of inflation are really global; they are complicated; and they aren't going to be solved by America alone.

Fortunately, there are some simple solutions we can take to help families save money. Let me tell you about three of them. The first is to cut gas prices. I can't think of a single cost of living that is more visible. Every street corner in America has a sign declaring what the cost of a gallon of gasoline is, and people compare these in their mind even as they drive down the road. Some people make a hobby of it. Anyone who has filled up a gas tank in the last few months has felt the sticker shock of Mr. Putin's war on Ukraine.

President Biden has already made two changes that will reduce gas prices. A little over a month ago, he announced the United States will release 1 million barrels of oil a day from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve--in

other words, to increase the supply in an effort to bring down the price--1 million gallons a day for 6 months, while oil companies ramp up domestic production to make up the shortage caused by Mr. Putin's war.

President Biden also has issued an emergency fuel waiver allowing E15 gas--that is gas with a higher blend of ethanol--to be sold across America this summer. Normally E15 isn't sold in the summer, but the White House estimates that by allowing gas stations to sell it, it will save Americans 10 cents a gallon.

Of course, if we are really serious about cutting gas prices and reducing the power of tyrants like Putin whose nations happen to sit on big oil reserves, we can do that by investing more in electric cars and clean energy sources that don't break the bank or bake the planet.

Here is another solution that can save millions of families hundreds of dollars every single month. Let's agree to cap the monthly cost of insulin for diabetes at $35. In 1923, almost 100 years ago, researchers in Canada were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of insulin to manage diabetes. They sold the patent--listen carefully--for this drug discovery for $1. They wanted to make sure that no one would ever profit from this lifesaving drug.

Fast forward 100 years. Something has gone terribly wrong. The same vial of Humalog insulin that Eli Lilly sells for $40 in Canada, it charges $350 for in the United States--40 in Canada, 350 here. The maker of Lantus insulin has raised their price more than 26 times since the year 2000: from $35 to more than $300 today--26 price hikes in 22 years.

The cost of insulin can range from a couple hundred dollars a month to more than $1,000 a month. That is the price this year. Who knows how much it will be next year. Who bears the burden of these costs? Patients and families. There are 37 million Americans who have diabetes. The number goes up every year.

Senator Warnock of Georgia has introduced a critical bill, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, to cap the monthly cost of insulin at $35 a month. I am a cosponsor. Many Senators are. Senator Collins and Senator Shaheen are spearheading a similar bipartisan effort to support it.

I urge more of our Republican colleagues to listen to the people they represent. There are lots of people struggling to afford insulin in their States as well as the blue States. Let's do this together. Can't we agree on one thing in the U.S. Senate that we are going to do to help America this year? I think this is a good project and a good goal.

The third way we can reduce inflation is a little more complicated, but it is worth talking about. We need to rein in the excessive fees charged by Visa and Mastercard for their products.

We had a hearing yesterday. It was in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was on something called a swipe fee. Of course, the swipe fee is the amount of money that has to be paid in order to move that piece of plastic through the machine. Most consumers don't even know it exists. Every retailer knows it exists.

It was the first hearing our committee has held on this topic in 16 years--16 years. And I was there 16 years ago. I walked into the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, and the hearing was on swipe fees and interchange fees. I had never heard of the term before, and I sat down and I learned.

What happened in that meeting was an exposition of the current situation for every restaurant that you go to buy a meal in, every store that you shop in, all the grocery stores. Any store that takes plastic knows what a swipe fee or an interchange fee is.

Here is how it works. Visa and Mastercard control over 80 percent of the credit and debit card markets in the United States--starting point. It isn't as if you can walk away from these two companies and be a retailer in America. If you are going to take plastic, you are going to take these cards.

And every time a card with a Visa or Mastercard logo is swiped at the retailer, Visa and Mastercard charge a fee that takes a cut out of whatever the transaction amount turns out to be. Now, some of that cut Visa and Mastercard keep for themselves. Most of it is given to the bank that issues the card.

The fee that Mastercard and Visa require the card-accepting merchant to pay to the card-issuing bank is the interchange fee. It is usually charged as a percentage of the transaction plus a flat fee, for example, 2 percent of whatever the transaction cost is plus 10 cents.

How does that work out in practice? Just an example: Say you buy $100 worth of groceries or kids' clothes on your credit card. After the fees are deducted, the merchant gets $98, maybe a little less. For merchants operating on tight profit margins--and that is most of them--these fees can add up to a big problem.

Laura Karet was one of our witnesses yesterday. She is an amazing woman. What a resume. She is the CEO of a supermarket chain known as Giant Eagle. It is a regional, American-owned chain of grocery stores based in Pittsburgh, PA. At our hearing yesterday, she explained that her industry--groceries--typically operates on a 1-percent profit margin--1 percent. So the 2-percent swipe fee wipes out their entire profit.

What do they do? Well, there is only one obvious answer: They raise the prices to cover the high swipe fees required by Visa and Mastercard, and customers end up holding the bag.

Remember, we started this conversation about inflation. Make no mistake, what I have just described to you is inflationary.

Swipe fees aren't just annoying to the retailers; they are anti- competitive. Ms. Karet told us the story that on April 22, she received the latest modification of the swipe fees being charged to her businesses by Visa and Mastercard. She said the modification was 300 pages long, almost unintelligible. She handed it over to her accountants and to her lawyers and said: Make some sense out of it. What are they doing to me?

The banks get the swipe fees, but the banks do not set the fees. Banks let Visa and Mastercard do the behind-the-scenes work and fix the fees. That means that all the thousands of card-issuing banks in the Visa and Mastercard network receive the same exact schedule of swipe fees from merchants regardless of whether they are efficient or inefficient, regardless of whether or not they are preventing fraud. It is a free lunch for the banks.

When the fee rates go up, as they did just a few weeks ago, banks make more money every time people use plastic--debit or credit cards-- and they issue more cards. That benefits Visa and Mastercard, which take their cut, called a network fee, out of each swipe. So Visa and Mastercard have an incentive to keep raising fees.

What can merchants do? Well, you might think they would sit down at the table and say: We are going to bargain about this fee, Visa and Mastercard. We object to it being raised, and we want to let you know that if you want to do business with our business, that is the way it will be.

That doesn't happen at all. This is noncompetitive. Visa and Mastercard control 80 percent of the plastic market in America. They say to the grocery store, to the restaurant, to the shop: Take it or leave it. Play by our rules or you won't play at all. We just won't even let people present their cards at your business.

Visa and Mastercard tell merchants, if they want to be able to accept payment from thousands of banks in their networks, the merchants must agree to Visa and Mastercard's fees and terms. Take it or leave it. Only merchants can't leave it. Visa and Mastercard, as I have said repeatedly, control 80 percent of the credit and debit card market.

Incidentally, the figures from 2020 show--I am going to roughly approximate these, and I will clear them up in the Record--86 billion transactions using debit cards, 41 billion transactions using credit cards in the year 2020. How does that compare with cash and check? Cash, if I remember right, was 32 billion compared to 120 billion for plastic. And what about checks? How many people are writing checks? It was 5 billion transactions compared to plastic, which was over 120 billion.

The reality is, when swipe fees go up--and they do regularly--that cost

gets built into the price consumers pay at the checkout counter and at the gas pump.

Remember those gas prices? You wonder why they are hitting $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon? They include the swipe fees, the credit card fees, the debit card fees that are being added on to the cost of gasoline.

Take a look at this chart. In the 16 years between the first hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee--one that I attended on swipe fees-- and now, Visa and Mastercard have imposed $794 billion in swipe fees-- fees passed on directly to American families and consumers. That is a staggering amount--$794 billion, for the hidden fee you never see.

Visa and Mastercard just raised these fees again 2 weeks ago. Senator Marshall, my Republican colleague from Kansas, and I sent them a letter saying this is exactly the wrong time to be raising your fees. It is tough enough for these businesses trying to hire people and get back into business after COVID-19, tough enough for families who are fighting inflation. Why do you have to raise them now? You are very profitable companies. The banks are doing quite well, too, I might add. They did it anyway.

These fee increases are adding to inflation. The market can't fix the problem because the credit and debit card market isn't competitive. The retailers have no voice in what this fee is going to be. It is ``take it or leave it.'' Visa and Mastercard have what they call a duopoly-- not a monopoly, one company controlling everything--but these two companies, Visa and Mastercard, control over 80 percent of the plastic market.

What can we do about it? Well, in our hearing, we talked about several responses. First, let's bring transparency to the market. The last thing that either Visa or Mastercard want to see is sunlight-- people understanding what they are charging, why they are charging, the impact it has on prices, the impact on inflation. They want this to continue to be a deep dark secret buried in 300 pages of legal gobbledygook that they sent to the retailers.

If consumers knew how much their Visa and Mastercard purchase cost at the local restaurants or businesses, they might try using a less costly card and there are some out there. It would be like giving the business a tip, and it would help bring down prices.

So why not require banks to show on their monthly statement that they send to us with their credit-debit card transactions how much of that was swipe fees? They could do it in a second. They wouldn't dare. They can't ever embrace transparency. That is just about part of this process. It is all in secret, in code, and legal gobbledygook. I will bet that would open a lot of eyes if you saw each month how much we are paying in swipe fees.

Incidentally, Ms. Karet talked about her supermarket chain. She said: The three main expenses we have for my supermarket chain in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio are No. 1, labor costs--understandable; No. 2, rent--that is understandable as well; No. 3, credit-debit card swipe fees. She estimated that it is going to cost her $1 million or more in her businesses based on what Visa and Mastercard just did two weeks ago to raise the fees.

Here is another way we can reduce inflation. Let's prevent Visa and Mastercard from hiking swipe fees up to unreasonable levels.

Yesterday, I pointed out that in Canada, the most commonly used debit card system, called Interac, operates with interchange fees of zero. There is no interchange fee. All the arguments that the banks and credit cards make in this country about why they have to charge these retailers these hidden fees disappear in Canada because why? The government stepped in. They said: We are going to regulate this. We are not going to let the banks and credit card-debit card companies dictate the policies in our country.

They are not alone. The European Union did the same thing. There is a long list of other countries that are moving in that same direction. It operates quite well in these countries with low fraud and high consumer satisfaction.

We don't have to eliminate interchange fees all together, but for goodness sake, we ought to make sure they are not excessive and not adding to inflation.

There are two ways we can do it: Promote something called competition. Are you a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist; do you believe in a free market? I bet you believe in competition, don't you? There is no competition in these fees. It is ``take it or leave it.'' These plastic companies dictate these terms to the retailers that honor their cards. We can promote competition by giving merchants more options on each of the swipes or place reasonable limits on their fees. Other countries, as I said, figured it out. Many countries around the world say that swipe fees are a fraction of the cost of what they are here because those nations limit Visa and Mastercard.

We are afraid to tackle the giants. Our government and the people that work in this Chamber--many of them are frightened by the size of Visa and Mastercard. I didn't get that message. We can do better here. If we do, consumers and competition will benefit.

The bottom line is this: If you are serious about reducing costs for American families, get serious about reining in swipe fees. Visa and Mastercard swipe fees are adding to the fires of inflation every single day and they are doing it in secret. Is that what we want in our economy? Is that what American families need at this moment in history? I think not.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last week, my staff found a photo from a congressional trip I made to Eastern Europe in 1991. In one of the photos, I was standing in front of a wall. There is a message on the wall painted in big letters. It reads: ``Freedom for Baltic Countries.''

I remember that trip. The trip had special resonance for me and my family. Eight decades earlier, my mother--only 2 years old--she and her family fled one of those Baltic nations--Lithuania--to escape the tyranny of czarist Russia, and they found freedom in America.

Here I was--her son--returning to the Baltics in a remarkable moment in history. You see, 2 years earlier, in August 1989, 2 million people--I will show you the photo of this because it is historic--2 million people in the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joined hands to form a 373-mile-long Baltic chain of freedom. This human chain spanned the three nations and sent a clear message that the Baltic nations wanted to reclaim their

freedom and their independence from the brutal occupation first by czarist Russia, then by Nazi Germany, and finally by the Soviet Union.

Months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Baltic chain of freedom forecast the end of the Soviet Union. But who were these countries to defy the Soviet Union? Countries with barely 3 million population in Lithuania, 2 million in Latvia, and 1\1/2\ million in Estonia were setting out to defy the superpower of the Soviet Union.

In February 1990, the people of Lithuania had chosen a new Parliament in their first free election. The new Parliament voted to restore their independence and made Lithuania the first Soviet Republic to declare independence. They were followed quickly by their neighbors, Latvia and Estonia.

You could feel at that moment when I visited the Seimas, which is the Parliament of Lithuania, the hope and history in the air, but there was also a feeling of trepidation and uncertainty. Would these small new democracies be able to preserve their freedom?

In January 1991, the blowback that many had feared occurred. Soviet tanks rolled into Lithuania's capital city of Vilnius. They attacked a crowd of protesters who were armed mainly with prayers and a few old hunting rifles, killing 13 innocent protesters and injuring hundreds more. Soviet troops and tanks attacked protesters in Latvia. I remember visiting Riga and seeing flowers and the candles on one of the walkways near downtown where a Latvian lost his life standing up for freedom in their country.

The Soviet troops could not break the determination of the Baltic people.

In February and March of 1991, the people of these three countries voted overwhelmingly in support of restoring independence. The United States recognized the sovereign new democracies later that same year.

Today, these three countries are prosperous, vibrant democracies, proud members of the European Union and NATO, and supporters of their Ukrainian neighbors who are facing Putin's monstrous military wrath.

When I visited Vilnius in January of 1991--a month before Gorbachev attacked with his tanks--I stood with the brave soldiers and ordinary citizens who filled the square outside the Parliament. They showed me their little arsenal of weapons. They took me back very quietly and secretly. It consisted of about 20 old hunting rifles. They were going to take on the Soviets. The situation seemed desperate and even doomed. Yet Baltic freedom prevailed.

I think of those days often now.

When Russia launched its unprovoked, unconscionable war, we were told Kyiv and the Ukrainian Government would fall within weeks or even days. Our military experts gave us their opinion, and that is what they said. Two months later, thank God, Kyiv is still free. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is still Ukraine's President. May God protect him.

Russia has suffered devastating losses on the battlefield and has been forced to retreat. Its forces are demoralized and in disarray. Russia's economy is faltering under the weight of the most punishing sanctions imposed against any nation in modern history.

Just as in the Baltics three decades ago, Russian strongmen have failed to understand the desire of people--even when they are outnumbered, if they are determined to be free and choose their own leaders, they will not be stopped. The Russians have failed to understand the determination of a community of democracy to stand together behind them and defeat the brutality and aggression of Vladimir Putin.

Putin may be able to deceive the people living in Russia for now, but he cannot lie to the world. We know that the Russian military has caused horrible devastation. We see it on the news. And they have committed horrific war crimes against innocent Ukrainian people. One need only look to the barbaric executions and brutality Russia has inflicted on the Kyiv suburb of Bucha. After the Russians fled, Bucha's mayor, Anatolii Fedoruk, described the immediate scenes:

Corpses of executed people still line the Yabluska street

in Bucha. Their hands are tied behind their backs with white

``civilian'' rags, they were shot in the back of their heads.

Putin had the sickening audacity to honor the military unit responsible for these crimes, saying this unit had distinguished itself in the protection of the fatherland.

Russian war crimes have not been limited to this situation. Throughout Ukraine, investigators are reporting that Russian soldiers are using rape as a weapon of war and deliberately shelling schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, emergency food centers, and other civilian targets. There are reports of summary executions of individuals and murders of children.

I agree with President Zelenskyy. In his words, he said it is ``time to do everything possible to make the war crimes of the Russian military the last manifestation of such evil on earth.''

The world can't tolerate this barbarity, and the United States must never ever provide a safe haven for anyone who commits war crimes of this nature or crimes against humanity in Ukraine or anywhere in the world. For that reason, I am introducing legislation that gives our government the authority to prosecute non-U.S. citizens who commit such atrocities in other nations and then seek haven, refuge, or seclusion in our country.

My bill is called the War Crimes Accountability Act. It closes a loophole in our current law that prevents our government from prosecuting war crimes unless they are actually committed in the United States or by or against U.S. citizens or members of our Armed Forces.

My bill would also make crimes against humanity a crime under U.S. law so that such perpetrators cannot find--ever--safe haven in this country. What would this mean in practice? If a Russian soldier committed war crimes such as those we see here or crimes against humanity in Ukraine or a person commits such atrocities anywhere in the world--say in Myanmar or in China--they can be tried under U.S. law and face criminal, civil, and immigration consequences. It builds on previous laws I sponsored to make people who commit acts of genocide or who use child soldiers in war accountable under U.S. law. Those bills passed the Senate unanimously and were both signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Despite the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people, Russian forces continue to lay siege to the eastern part of that country, bombing civilians and forcing an even greater humanitarian nightmare.

Last week, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres traveled to Kyiv. He witnessed the destruction wrought by Russia, and he said:

When I see those destroyed buildings, I must say what I

feel. I imagined my family in one of those houses that is now

destroyed. . . . I see my granddaughters running away in

panic, part of the family eventually killed.

He went on to say:

The war is an absurdity of the 21st century. The war is

evil.

So when President Biden announced a substantial new aid package for Ukraine, I said immediately: Count me in. The other day at the Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense, I asked Defense Secretary Austin and General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, about Ukraine's defense capabilities and the President's new request for aid. Both of these military leaders emphasized that continued, substantial support from the United States and its allies will be critical not only for Ukraine's future but also to reassure our allies in the region, in the Baltics, Moldova, Poland.

The $33 billion that Biden has asked for aid in Ukraine will help them withstand the next brutal phase of war and prevent Putin from spreading this malevolent war into other nations.

Let me conclude with a story about another brave soldier in the ranks of civilians, standing up to Putin's menace. Her name is Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. She is a leader of the democratic opposition in Belarus, another former Soviet Republic bordering the Baltics and Poland.

Last week, Ms. Tsikhanouskaya was in Washington to meet with the leaders of our government. Senator Shaheen hosted a meeting with her. Had Putin's puppets in Belarus not rigged the last election, she might have been elected President--almost certainly would have been. This photo shows Belarusians protesting that rigged election, risking their lives to do it, I might add. For months, thousands of Belarusians protested. Many were arrested and sentenced to long prison

sentences. I had been there before. The last dictator in continental Europe is a man named Lukashenka. He has phony elections from time to time. Anyone with the audacity to run against him is sure to lose by Lukashenka's count and almost certainly to be imprisoned immediately.

He did that to this lady's--Ms. Tsikhanouskaya's--husband who is now in jail in Minsk. This photo shows Belarusians with the courage to protest that rigged election. For months, thousands have protested; many have been arrested and sentenced. Today, Vladimir Putin is using Belarus as a staging ground for Russia's assault on Ukraine, but the Belarusian people have not given up their determination for freedom either. Hundreds of Belarusians, maybe more, are fighting in Ukraine today, and we thank them for that courage. Others have helped to blunt Putin's assault by sabotaging Belarusian train lines and crippling Russian supply lines. The supplemental aid package that President Biden has requested for Ukraine, for the weapons to repel Russia's war of conquest and to give the people of Belarus, the Baltics, Moldova, Poland, the security they need to realize their dreams of freedom, dignity, and independence is a statement of the values of America.

I urge my colleagues to come together, waste no time, pass it quickly, send the Ukrainians what they need to win this war.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, Tom Oakley was a man with a mission. His mission was to put Quincy and Western Illinois on the map. The only sure way to do that was to personally redraw the maps. So he did.

In the late 1950s, there was not a four-lane highway anywhere within 100 miles of Quincy, IL. Critics called the region: ``Forgottonia.'' Thomas Oakley had more than a good memory. He had a vision, and Western Illinois was not about to be forgotten.

Any political candidate who paid a visit to Tom's Herald-Whig editorial board knew what to expect. No complimentary coffee or cool glass of water until Tom asked the question. With a dead serious look and his deep bass voice, he skipped the pleasantries.

``What's your position on completing the four-lane Central Illinois Expressway all the way to Quincy?''

``I am for it,'' I quickly answered as a congressional candidate in 1982.

Tom smiled and asked how I liked my coffee. It was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

For decades, Quincy and the Tri-States had no greater advocate than Tom. His indefatigable voice for the region rightfully earned him the honor of having a 60-mile stretch of the Chicago to Kansas Expressway highway named after him. From Quincy to Macomb, it is the Thomas A. Oakley Highway now. He also helped grow his family's media company Quincy Media, Inc., into the 13th largest media company in the country. Last month, Tom passed away, and today, we honor the memory and legacy of my friend.

Tom was a member of the fourth generation of his family to work for Quincy Media, which operates the Quincy Herald-Whig, the Hannibal Courier-Post, and WGEM television and radio. Quincy Media has properties in several other markets as well. He was born to Thomas C. and Mary Oakley on June 24, 1932. As a young person, he began his career as a carrier boy for the Quincy Herald-Whig. In summers, he worked for Quincy Broadcasting and the Quincy Herald-Whig.

After graduating from Quincy High School in 1950, Tom earned a bachelor's degree in economics from Duke University and joined the U.S. Air Force in 1954. He served for 3 years, 2 of them flying a B-47 bomber with the Strategic Air Command. Tom was honorably discharged with the rank of first lieutenant in 1957 and was a captain in the Inactive Reserves. In 1958, he returned to Quincy and the family business.

Tom became the president and CEO of Quincy Media in 1969, following the death of his father. Under his leadership, he led the company through decades of growth, adding television stations in several markets and one additional newspaper. Tom also championed efforts to improve the Quincy infrastructure. He used his personal leadership and expanding media outlets to promote improving the quality of life in the region.

For more than 60 years, Tom worked toward developing a highway for the Tri-States, which had been bypassed by the Eisenhower era infrastructure boom. He was on an untold amount of committees throughout his life. Tom helped found the Joint Industrial Development Commission, the first unified effort to build the economy of the Tri- State region. This was a predecessor of the Great River Economic Development Foundation, which remains a driving force to improve Quincy and Adams County.

Tom made things happen. Every Governor since Otto Kerner, who was elected in 1960, heard about the Western Illinois highway needs from Tom. He was instrumental in securing funds to complete the Central Illinois Expressway from Springfield to the Mississippi River at Hannibal, the Chicago to Kansas Expressway, and the Avenue of the Saints from St. Louis to Minneapolis. There is now a four-lane bridge over the Mississippi River at Hannibal, too. He threw his weight behind projects to

improve Amtrak, Baldwin Field, locks and dams, and a port district. Tom worked with elected officials at every level of government, regardless of party, so Illinois and the surrounding States' residents could have a better life.

For his work in media and improving the region, Tom received numerous awards. From the Quincy Chamber of Commerce Hall of Fame to being the first recipient of the annual Boy Scout community service award, he was a deeply honored person. In 2020, he was inducted into the Gold Circle by the Mid-America Chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, one of television's highest honors.

Tom also was generous financially. The Oakley family made the single largest philanthropic investment in the history of Quincy University, focusing on scholarships, academic facility improvements, and support programs. Earlier this year, Tom announced a $1 million gift to Culver- Stockton College to establish the Tri-State Development Summit at the school.

Tom inspired a legacy that will continue and channel regional cooperation. He was fiercely loyal to both his family and his community, and I am fortunate to call him a friend. We will miss his leadership. His life was a life well-lived. Tom is survived by his son Ralph, his daughter Mary, his many grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. Tom, like his beloved Western Illinois, will not be forgotten.

(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, Americans across the country today woke up to a rare occurrence in the history of our American democracy.

The highest Court in our land is preparing to eliminate a federally protected constitutional right--a woman's right to choose. I am an amateur historian, but I can't think of a precedent in history where the Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right after it has been in place for 50 years. Women in America may soon live in a country where they have fewer rights than their parents and grandparents.

Let me be clear. The leak of the majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is a breach of the Court's confidential deliberations. But the opinion which--draft opinion, which has been authenticated by the Chief Justice, is very real.

It is a peculiar political event this afternoon. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, who has focused more of his energy and efforts on reshaping the Federal judiciary to reflect his political point of view, was virtually silent on the issue of this Alito draft opinion on the Dobbs case. He couldn't be pinned down as to whether he would acknowledge it or even say something good about it. Supposedly, it was the answer to his political prayer.

He went so far in trying to reach this goal as to protect a vacancy on the Supreme Court for almost 10 months. Antonin Scalia died while Barack Obama was still President, in his last year of his second term, and McConnell--Senator McConnell made the argument that he did not have the authority, since he was a lameduck President, in Senator McConnell's words, to fill the vacancy.

So the Supreme Court was there with 8 members for 10 months until Senator McConnell's political prayer was answered again and Donald Trump was elected President and could appoint a Justice of Senator McConnell's political liking. So he has been very successful in his approach to filling vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court with people who agree with his political philosophy.

Now, one of them, Justice Alito, is about to hand down an opinion which eliminates Roe v. Wade, a position which is consistent with Senator McConnell's belief that has been stated on the floor many times. And yet, when he was asked today whether he was in favor of this opinion, he refused to even answer. He wanted to focus on

who leaked this opinion. Well, of course, that is an important question. The Court is working on it right now with the Chief Justice turning his U.S. Marshal on the case.

But he would--Senator McConnell insisted on avoiding even taking a position on this draft opinion that has now been spread across America. It makes no sense at all.

Women across America are grappling with the very real concern and, yes, you could say fear, that they may lose access to reproductive freedom and choice in a matter of weeks. If true, this decision will end a 50-year guarantee that reproductive rights are protected by our Constitution.

If this radical decision becomes the law of the land, it would deny tens of millions of Americans their bodily autonomy. In an instant, abortion would be rendered illegal in more than a dozen States.

In this land of liberty, the government has no business interfering with a woman's right to her own reproductive healthcare. It is her right to choose, plain and simple. But for the past several decades, the far right has fought relentlessly to eliminate this constitutional right. They have waged a harsh campaign to, in some instances, actually punish the women seeking abortions.

Here is what I am describing: In Texas last year, lawmakers passed a law that has turned bounty hunters loose on anyone who even helps a woman receive an abortion.

And that Mississippi law that the Court is poised to uphold, it makes no exception for women seeking abortion in the case of rape or incest.

At a certain point, you have to ask: What is the real goal here? These restrictive laws won't stop people from getting abortions. We know that from history. They only make the procedure dangerously unsafe and, in some cases, prohibitively expensive for low-income Americans. Women's lives are literally at stake.

Furthermore, we have hardly begun to reckon with the consequences of this decision when it comes to other fundamental liberties.

I read Justice Alito's draft opinion. It is hard for me to describe it in a few words, but when it comes to issues as fundamental as privacy and personal choice, Justice Alito takes a pretty harsh point of view.

He acknowledges that cases that are often cited in the name of privacy, such as Griswold--I can vaguely remember that before the Griswold decision in the 1960s, the decision of selling contraceptives was subject to strict State regulation, and in many States, they prohibited the sale of any forms of contraception. It is hard for America to even believe that, when you see forms of contraception being advertised on television these days, but there was a time in the fifties and before when State regulations prevailed.

Griswold v. Connecticut was a Supreme Court case that took a look at the regulation in Connecticut and said: It is fundamentally wrong. We believe that individuals have a right of privacy to make their own decision on contraception.

That was a privacy right, which I respect. And yet, if you are careful and read every single word, you will never find the word ``privacy'' in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found the right to privacy by combining the rights of several other different amendments.

That wasn't good enough for Justice Alito on the basis of this draft opinion we have been given. He said since he can't find the word ``abortion'' in the Constitution, he doesn't believe there is a right to it. And he goes on to compare it to privacy rights, like the one I just described in Griswold v. Connecticut, and he said that is just a matter of saying privacy is your right to choose your own personal lifestyle, or words to that effect.

Well, it is more than that. It gets down to the fundamentals. And if you are going to be making a decision with something as basic as a family--a husband and wife deciding how many children and when you will have children--it really is one of the most basic things that frequently you would define freedom in this country.

That is not the way Justice Alito defines it in the Dobbs decision. If we apply Justice Alito's reasoning behind this draft decision to other rights, the implications are staggering. The Supreme Court could turn back the clock on a whole host of civil liberties.

What is next--the return of State bans on contraception? bans on same-sex marriage? bans on the permissible conduct of LGBTQ people and their different sexual orientation situation? All of that can be on the table.

Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that this draft opinion is authentic, the Members of this Senate cannot delay. We need to hold a vote codifying the right to abortion into law. Let's show the American people where each Senator stands.

Senator McConnell ducked the question at a press conference today. I still don't understand why. But he can't duck the vote. We are going to make sure that there is a vote and that his Members, as well as the Senator, have an opportunity to express themselves on the record.

Will we allow our children to inherit a nation that is less free than the one their parents grew up in? That is the question which presents itself to this Senate.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, over the past 2 years, our understanding of healthcare and good health practices has changed. The pandemic revealed we cannot limit the delivery of care to the hospital or the doctor's office. We need to reach out, particularly to the most vulnerable members of our communities, directly, personally. That is exactly what is underway in Chicago right now.

Four years ago, I brought together the CEOs of the top 10 hospitals in Chicago. They were located in areas around the city, I noticed, that were comparable to the areas of greatest gun violence, each one of those hospitals. So I asked the 10 CEOs to come over for breakfast--I bought the bagels and coffee--and they sat down around the table and they looked at one another and they told me: This is the first time we have ever sat in the same room together.

They are competitors. They are trying to get the same people to come to their hospitals. But this morning was a conversation about what they had in common.

These hospitals are on the frontlines of treating victims with bullet wounds. When I met with those CEOs in 2018, we talked about how you not only treat this kind of violence but how you prevent it.

We launched something called the Chicago HEAL Initiative. ``HEAL'' stands for Hospital Engagement, Action, and Leadership. Despite being competitors, these 10 hospital CEOs sat down, and on their own--without my input, without my urging or any Federal mandates--wrote 16 things they thought they could achieve over a span of 3 years. I looked at the list and said that this sounds good to me.

We knew we couldn't solve every aspect of the complex problems facing us with gun violence, but it was a good start. They said to me: This is the first time we have ever gotten together, and we were able to come up with an agreement.

Well, last week, the 3 years were up, and we announced what happened at these hospitals over the last 3 years. The gunshot patient in the emergency room, hospitals are no longer just stitching up their wounds; they are also addressing the emotional scars to prevent retaliation. Last year, 3,000 gunshot victims were paired with counselors and caseworkers.

Without these interventions, we know that nearly half--half--of the gunshot victims would be back in the hospital within 5 years. That is a fact.

But the hospitals are also looking further upstream to try to put an end to violence in the city of Chicago.

People say the best way to stop a bullet is with a job. Well, these 10 hospitals took that to heart. Over the last 3 years, these 10 hospitals increased new hires from neighborhoods of the highest gun violence, which face more poverty than other neighborhoods, obviously, by a whopping 21 percent.

Here is what they do. They go into the high schools and middle schools around the hospitals where they do business and sit down and talk to the kids and say: How would you like to shadow one of our nurses or one of our doctors, see what it is like in the hospital here and maybe even have a summer internship? All of a sudden, young people have taken an interest in that hospital that they walk by every day and never ever related to.

The hospitals also decided they have economic clout. Think of the money that is spent on goods and supplies at every hospital in America. Well, they decided to reach out to their suppliers and say to them: We are going to give you special consideration if you will locate part of your business in the neighborhood around our hospital so that people in the neighborhoods can be working to provide the goods and materials that we need.

They increased goods and services from local suppliers by nearly 30 percent--$120 million last year--just the beginning, seed money to get these businesses in the neighborhood supplying the hospital.

Importantly, these 10 hospitals are going into the Chicago middle and high schools offering apprenticeship programs, and it is working. Last year, 5,000 students went through these apprenticeship and intern programs.

This is especially important 2 years into the pandemic. Our hospitals have been hit with shortages of nurses, doctors, and critical support staff--not just in the city of Chicago, I might add, but the entire State. I spoke to the Southern Illinois Health Clinic CEO, and he has talked to me about the same thing they are running into in Chicago. They just don't have enough medical professionals.

I met last week with members of the Illinois Hospital Association. They told me that the shortages and burnouts in our health workforce is their top concern. They are working with local schools to recruit students.

A few years ago, I kept hearing this nursing shortage, nursing shortage, and I decided I had to learn what was behind this. And it is a very simple fact of economics. Here is what it comes down to. If you are a registered nurse in my State of Illinois, it is not uncommon for you to have an opportunity to make a six-figure salary, not uncommon at all. And particularly if you are

in the big city, you are going to make that much money. That is a good salary, and I believe these nurses deserve it.

But then you say, well, we need more nurses. We need to have more nurse training. Well, what do you need for nurse training? A teacher. A professor.

How do you take a registered nurse and turn that registered nurse into a professor? Two years for a master's degree in nursing.

The obvious question: What is that nurse going to do for 2 years while she is going to school or he is going to school to become a professor? They are not going to get the six-figure salary that they were earning as RNs. So there is an obvious economic disincentive for them to go into teaching even if they want to do it.

Now, let's assume they get through the 2 years and the master's degree, and now they are professors. The amount that they are being paid at the community college or at the nursing school is not comparable to the salary of an RN. So the economics of the situation come in as a great obstacle.

So what happens--you know this, I am sure, very well, Madam President. What happens to the hospital that doesn't have enough nurses? They have to go out for what they call contract nurses. I am not holding anything against these people. They make a living and are pretty smart at it. They make themselves available. Some of them move all over the country to be in different hospitals, and they get paid dramatically more than the RNs who are on the regular staff.

One hospital told me they pay three times the rate for a contract nurse as a regular nurse. Another said five times the rate. If you can think what that means, the budgets of these hospitals and clinics are going through the roof with these additional costs for a nursing shortage.

So we have got to find a way to create the economics of more nursing professors from the RN pool that is overtaxed, working hard, getting paid six figures, and move them into teaching ranks.

The obvious beneficiaries are all of us in America, but directly it is hospitals and clinics. So they have to join with us in a joint effort to try to solve this problem.

We also know that trauma is the root of much of the pain and conflict in our neighborhoods. You have heard the phrase: ``Hurt people hurt people.''

Almost 30 years ago, the CDC did a study on adverse childhood experiences, called ACEs. They found that witnessing violence or growing up without a stable home can really have an impact on the human mind, the mind of a child. Without the right help, that trauma can rewire a child's brain and change the way they see the world. It is not hard to see how this fuels the cycle of violence.

Under the HEAL Initiative, these 10 Chicago hospitals are bringing their medical expertise into the community to help children cope with traumatic experiences. I have seen it in a classroom, in one of the classrooms called Calm Classrooms Project, which teaches meditation in school.

I was at a classroom of third graders, and the teacher said to the kids at their desks: Now we are going to be quiet for 5 minutes. So everybody just think about what we are going to do today.

There was one kid who just couldn't do it. He was fidgeting. He wanted to talk. She was telling him: No, no. Be quiet for a little while.

I said to the teacher afterwards: What is going on?

She said: That little boy is going through some real problems at home.

I said: What are you going to do about it?

She said: Senator, I am a teacher. I am not a psychologist. I am not a counselor. We need somebody to sit down and talk to him. He needs help right now.

Well, imagine all these kids coming back from their Zoom educations, trying to get back into the classroom and into the swing of things. For a lot of kids, there is an adjustment. They need a helping hand.

So what we are trying to teach is that what is going on with mental health issues, wellness issues, trauma issues all relates to the outcomes we are looking for: kids who are successful in school and kids who avoid the gangs and violence on the street.

Two weeks ago, I visited Drake Elementary School--the Drake Dragons-- where I toured one of the school clinics and the mobile health van. Listen to this, Madam President. You are going to like this. They have a clinic in the school itself. They treat the kids with counseling and physical and health--whatever needs they have. They, of course, are there for the staff, but they also make it open to the families of the kids, no questions asked: Come on down to our clinic. When you drop your kid off at school, come on into the clinic if you need a helping hand. And they have expanded that to the neighborhood as well. It is a great idea, and it is based in the school--what I like about it.

It has been years and years since I was there, in grade school. We had an occasional school nurse, but that was about it. What would you think about a real clinic in the school? And over half of the people who come in need mental health counseling. It is an important part of life, and they are responding to it.

We were joined in our meeting just a week or so ago by Dr. Walensky from the CDC. She applauded these hospitals that are part of the Chicago HEAL Initiative, and she said this innovative partnership is exactly what CDC sees in the future.

I hope President Biden agrees. I am sure he will. In his fiscal year 2023 budget, the President called for a $250 million investment in community violence interventions to support programs like the HEAL Initiative. Believe me, I am going to knock on his door. In March, in his State of the Union Address, the President urged lawmakers to come on a bipartisan basis to address mental health.

Debbie Stabenow, our colleague from Michigan, has been one of the strongest proponents of mental health. She was talking about this--and should. The President hears the message, and he is delivering.

I partnered also with Senator Capito, a Republican from West Virginia, on the RISE from Trauma Act, which will help more kids heal from trauma. Our bill would increase the resources for a trauma- informed workforce. Projects like HEAL and this legislation with Senator Capito can really change lives for the better.