Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, hundreds of firefighters are in town this week to talk about legislative issues. I was honored to speak at the International Association of Fire Fighters conference and meet with firefighters from Illinois on Monday to thank them for keeping us safe. Their visit is particularly timely given a couple of serious train accidents in the past few days. One accident, a derailment, happened in Galena, IL, last Thursday. Twenty-one cars carrying Bakken crude oil from North Dakota derailed there and five of them caught fire. Fortunately, the accident happened 2 miles outside the city, so no one was killed or injured. It was a potentially deadly accident, though, and we are very lucky no one was hurt. The fire burned for days. Brave men and women from the Galena Fire Department were the first on the scene. Like many fire departments throughout the U.S., the Galena Fire Department is an entirely volunteer force. The area where the crash occurred is in a wetland where the Galena River meets the Mississippi. The first responders had to use a bike path to get to the crash site. I want to thank Galena Fire Chief Randy Beadle for his leadership in tackling this disaster. Galena Assistant Fire Chief Bob Conley also helped coordinate the first response. While most people would run away from something like this, firefighters run toward the flames. We owe a debt of gratitude to them. I spoke with Galena Mayor Terry Renner the evening of the crash. I let him know I was ready to help in any way I could. Others on the ground whose efforts were critical to the local response include: Galena City Administrator Mark Moran, Jo Daviess County Board Chairman Ron Smith, County Administrator Dan Reimer, County Sheriff Kevin Turner, and County Emergency Management Agency Director Chuck Pedersen. First responders were not sure if the oil from the derailed train cars might make its way to the Mississippi River--just half a mile away. To be on the safe side, BNSF erected a berm in the river to catch any runoff, either from the train cars themselves or from runoff from firefighters' hoses. Now the cleanup really begins. The EPA will vacuum up the spilled oil from the ground and test the soil below for contamination. Even if the oil did not reach the Mississippi, this was too close a call. These types of accidents are happening more frequently and the potential for catastrophe is great. This is not the first time Illinois has seen such a derailment. In 2009, one person was killed in Cherry Valley; and in 2011, 800 residents of Tiskilway were evacuated after a massive explosion. The National Transportation Safety Board found the weakness of these cars added to the severity of both explosions. Recently we have seen these dangerous derailments across the country and in Canada. It happened in West Virginia last month, and another yet this weekend in Ontario, Canada. Of course, the most severe incident occurred in Quebec in 2013, when a train carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, killing 47 people. I urge the administration to act swiftly to finalize rules that increase safety standards for the train cars. We need to ensure these cars have the strongest safety measures and that the old tank cars are taken off the track. Booming oil production in the Bakken region has caused an exponential increase in crude oil shipments in recent years. Last year, railroads carried almost 650,000 carloads of oil. In 2008 they carried just 9,500 carloads. Not only are the quantities greater, but some of this crude oil is believed to be more volatile. More traffic and more volatile crude means more disasters. Improving freight rail safety is more critical than ever before. We feel this impact in Illinois, where we have the second most railroad track in the country. Approximately 25 percent of all U.S. rail traffic passes through densely populated Chicago. We are lucky that the fiery train derailment in Galena was not closer to homes, businesses, and schools. Trains just like the one that crashed travel through cities and suburbs on a daily basis. If a wreck like this one happens closer to a developed area, we might see thousands of people evacuated--not to mention the potential for injuries or fatalities. It is not a risk we should be willing to take.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week I had an opportunity to cross the street into the Supreme Court, and I witnessed the first oral argument I have ever seen. It was a historic moment for me and for our Nation because it was a moment for the Court to argue about the Affordable Care Act and the intention of Congress when it was creating this Affordable Care Act. Having been here at the time it was debated and having voted for it, it was interesting to hear arguments made on the floor of the Supreme Court that suggested something we had never intended. The exchanges that were created under the Affordable Care Act are exchanges created by each State or Federal exchanges. There was never a distinction made in the debate nor any intention that the subsidy given to those who bought insurance in these exchanges would be different if the exchanges were State-created or federally created, and that is basically the argument before the Supreme Court. One can only imagine what the final decision of the Supreme Court will be, but we know it is critically important to millions of Americans. In the past year alone, 10 million uninsured Americans finally have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. In the private market, millions more now have access to expanded coverage for preventive health services, such as a mammogram or a flu shot, without any cost sharing. Because of the Affordable Care Act, a person no longer needs to stay in a job simply to carry health insurance or be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition--a situation which virtually every family faces. And because of this law, prescription drugs for seniors cost less. Last week, when the Supreme Court heard arguments in King v. Burwell, the plaintiffs made an argument that those who were governed by Federal exchanges were supposed to be treated differently under this act. That was never the intention of those of us who were part of the creation and voting for this legislation. A ruling in favor of King would change this provision as we intended it. It would mean 8 million Americans would no longer be able to afford health insurance. According to the Urban Institute, premiums for people able to purchase insurance would increase by 35 percent. I can't imagine that even Senators who voted against this bill are cheering at the prospect that 8 million Americans would lose insurance and many others would face higher premiums. Well, the Republicans have argued they have an alternative to the Affordable Care Act in the Senate. They put out a draft proposal last month. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House said he was going to release his own plan. The Affordable Care Act puts families in charge of their care instead of insurance companies. It expands health care coverage and lowers health care costs, makes Medicare stronger, and lowers the deficit. What part of that do my Republican colleagues disagree with? Before the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 50 million Americans lacked health insurance while health care costs for working families and small businesses were increasing by double digits. The Affordable Care Act changed all of that. Ten million people now have private health insurance, millions more are covered by Medicaid, and for the first time ever insurance companies have to live up to their promise of being there when you actually need them. The Senate Republican proposal falls short. It would allow insurance companies once again to charge higher premiums to women, to decide that people with preexisting conditions will not get any coverage at all, and to decide that certain individuals will only get so much help for paying their bills. If Republicans have their way, insurance companies will get to decide again whether you can renew your health insurance policy as you become older. Worse yet, under the Republican proposal, 12 million people would lose their health insurance and taxes on working families would go up. That is not right. The Supreme Court would put in jeopardy health insurance coverage for Ariana Jimenez. She lives in Chicago and works part time as a nursing assistant at a community health center. Ariana pays $52 a month for her health insurance premium. When asked what would happen to her coverage if the Supreme Court took away the tax credit, she simply said: ``I wouldn't be able to afford it.'' In Illinois over 800,000 people now have health insurance. Over 290,000 people purchased their plan through the Illinois marketplace, which is a Federal marketplace. An additional 530,000 people have enrolled in Medicaid, and 125,000 young adults in Illinois can still stay on their parents' health insurance plan. Since September 2010, children under the age of 18 enrolled in the employer-based or marketplace plan have been eligible to receive vaccinations for diseases such as measles without any cost sharing. A few years ago Domingo Carino found out he had a health condition that required medication he couldn't afford. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act and to some help from staff at the Asian Human Services Family Health Center in Chicago, Domingo found good health insurance that only costs him $11 a month. Domingo's plan not only allows him to afford the medication he desperately needs, but he is also able to keep his current primary care physician. According to Domingo, he can now live without worrying about how to afford his medication. For Domingo and millions like him the tax credits provided by the Affordable Care Act are a lifesaver. If those who oppose the Affordable Care Act prevail in the Supreme Court, that tax subsidy, or tax credit, will not be available to Domingo. Over 54 million people also benefit from Medicaid. Before the Affordable Care Act, two out of three people on Medicaid were pregnant women and children. That is 36 million vulnerable Americans. Medicaid also provides for people with disabilities. Before the Affordable Care Act, almost 3 million people were covered by Medicaid in Illinois. More than half a million births were covered by Medicaid in Illinois, too. Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, another 290,000 people in Illinois are covered by Medicaid. That means these people finally get better from a condition they could not afford to treat. That is a success story. The new Republican plan uses something else out of an old playbook. Republicans want to cap Medicaid spending for each beneficiary. This budget gimmick would hurt the most vulnerable people in America--low- income seniors, people with disabilities, children, and pregnant mothers. States would be forced to make harsh choices on what they would cover and what they would not cover. Is that what America wants? According to a recent Gallup poll, the uninsured rate dropped 3.5 points from 2013 to 2014. In Illinois the uninsured rate dropped 4.5 percent in the same period of time. The Affordable Care Act includes changes meant to help slow the growth in health care costs, and they are working. We need to stick with the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, another critical part of this conversation is health care research. One of the most outstanding men serving the Federal Government in America is named Francis Collins. He is an amazing man who heads up the National Institutes of Health. He is a great physician and a great researcher. When the United States wanted someone to head up the Human Genome Project, they picked Francis Collins. He managed to bring that project to success by providing more information than anyone ever dreamed of, and now we are better in treating problems and diseases across America. I went to see him last year at the National Institutes of Health. We talked about medical research in America, and what he had to say was terrifying. There has been a 23-percent decline in medical research in the United States over the last 10 years. We have not even kept up with inflation in providing money for medical research, and that is not lost on people in the research field. We are now finding that our medical researchers are older and older. Younger researchers have given up. They don't think they are getting approvals for their research applications. As they leave the field, the new generation of researchers has diminished and our ability to find cures has also diminished. At the same time that the United States is backpedaling and falling away from its leadership in biomedical research, the rest of the world is charging forward. The European Union is making massive investments in medical research and in just a few years the Chinese will pass the United States for the first time in their investment in biomedical research. They understand that in addition to finding cures, biomedical research is really the opening for entrepreneurship, profitability, pharmaceutical companies, medical devices, and they want to make sure China is in the lead. Why isn't the United States in the lead? I will speak about two particular diseases that need to be researched.

Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will respond to the Democratic leader and say that I have heard the same thing. There are some Republicans in the House who believe that sequestration--this across-the-board cut--is what we should do, and I could not disagree more. I chair the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. If we go forward with the sequestration, this will be devastating to America's national defense. If we get into this practice of cutting back in biomedical research, it will not only deny us the basic money we need to fund research grants--and we are now funding a lower percentage than we have in decades--it will also mean a discouraging message to researchers. They are going to think: What is the point in becoming an NIH researcher if the government and Congress will not provide the basic resources we need? The third element, which we cannot overlook, are all of the millions of people in the United States and around the world who are praying that we will be able to come up with breakthroughs when it comes to medical research. In the United States of America, a person is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease once every 68 seconds. Last year we spent over $200 billion on Medicare and Medicaid for the care of Alzheimer's patients. What Francis Collins has said to me is that if we can dedicate growth in research funds, we can--with the grace of God and maybe miraculously--find a cure or find a way to delay the onset of Alzheimer's, even for a few months. The savings to the Federal Government would be so much more than the actual cost of the medical research. This notion of cutting back on NIH research, which some in the House are pushing, is really an effort that will cost us more in the long run--not to mention the human suffering.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. It was not that long ago that America was consumed with Ebola and what it meant in terms of threats to life in Africa, the United States, and around the world, and it was right that we focused on stopping the scourge of the Ebola epidemic in Africa. But there was a concern, as well, expressed over and over again this last fall, about how many Americans would be a victim to this Ebola epidemic. It turns out at the end of the day that fewer than a handful were actually affected by it, but every year in the United States and around the world, hundreds, if not thousands, die from flu--influenza. Again, just to get to the point the Senator from Nevada makes, we are penny wise and pound foolish by denying the money for research for a universal flu vaccine that will save lives around the world. A minimal investment in the United States can make a dramatic improvement in the morbidity and mortality of those who are affected by flu. So I thank the Senator from Nebraska for joining in this conversation this morning and talking about the biomedical research deficit which we are facing in the United States. I wish to mention one or two other specific examples in this field. The kind of research we are talking about at NIH holds great promise when it comes to treating disorders such as multiple sclerosis. MS is an unpredictable and disabling disease that affects the central nervous system. Symptoms range from numbness and tingling to blindness and paralysis, and there is no known cure. Today more than 2.3 million people have been diagnosed with MS worldwide, including 20,000 in my home State of Illinois. Typically, MS is diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 50, but between 8,000 and 10,000 children and adolescents live with it in America, people such as Meghan Malone. In 2004, at the age of 14, Meghan was diagnosed with MS. Her first symptoms began when she was in the eighth grade. She lost vision in her right eye for a few days. One year later her feet went numb while she was out trick or treating with friends. By the next morning she couldn't feel her thighs, and a few days later she was completely numb from the waist down. Her parents quickly brought her to the hospital where she was diagnosed with MS. She panicked, thinking she was too young for this disease and afraid of what it meant for her future, but she is doing what she can to stay healthy. She spends a lot of time exercising every day. She tries to think positively. Since her diagnosis, Meghan has gathered her friends and family to participate in Walk MS every May. There is one in my hometown of Springfield, IL. They have raised over $50,000--Meghan has--to help fight the disease. Meghan said: I walk to give hope to others who are newly diagnosed with MS. It wasn't easy to hear those words and I think by walking I can help others find ways to be positive about their diagnosis. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society has been sponsoring Walk MS since 1988 and they have raised $870 million to support research. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and people such as Meghan are doing their part, but if the Federal Government is going to do something it has to do its part. We have to make an investment at the National Institutes of Health to complement the efforts by private citizens and generous people across America to fund research in these diseases. Let me give an example. Jonah Chan and his team at the University of California in San Francisco can teach us a lesson. Dr. Chan's team invented a new technology that led to the discovery of a drug normally used for allergies that has the potential to repair the nervous system in people with MS, but this important discovery needs further Federal investment in biomedical research to move these early findings to promising treatments. Here is what I have done. I have introduced the American Cures Act. It will increase funding at the Nation's top four biomedical research agencies, a 5-percent annual budget increase over and above inflation--the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans' Administration medical research programs. The American Cures Act will make funding for critical biomedical research projects less political and more predictable. Dr. Collins at NIH told me: If you gave us regular funding increases of 5 percent real growth a year for 10 years, I will prove to you that investment will come back tenfold in helping the improvement of health in the United States and reducing the cost of health care. I believe him. I have confidence in him. So why would we not do it? We should be making this commitment. Cystic fibrosis is another example of federally funded basic research that improves people's lives. The other day Patrick Magner, a sophomore at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, IL, wrote to me about his two young brothers. John is 12 years old, a fully functioning sixth grader, and Matthew is 9 years old and plays sports in school. On the outside, one would never know they are dealing with cystic fibrosis. John and Matt both take about 30 pills a day to help with their basic digestive functions. This doesn't include several other prescriptions, over-the-counter drugs, and daily therapy. They consider themselves lucky because 50 years ago people with cystic fibrosis didn't live long enough to even attend school. Today, with more advanced treatment, life expectancy for people with cystic fibrosis has increased over 800 percent. Research generated by NIH funding continues to give John and Matt hope for their future. Their older brother Patrick wrote: Without this funding, my two younger brothers might not be alive today. This funding is crucial to not only curing cystic fibrosis, but other diseases as well. That is the promise of the American Cures Act. It allows America's smartest medical researchers to continue to find treatments to stop progression and one day, God willing, find a cure for diseases such as MS, cystic fibrosis, and many more. Last week I joined Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania on his resolution to support Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Senators Wyden, Hatch, Brown, Markey, and others on behalf of fighting this terrible disease. Together, along with the American Cures Act, these efforts are improving people's lives. In order to lead to breakthrough cures for these diseases, we need as a nation--as a government--to take the lead. This research shouldn't be a low-budget priority; I think it should be one of the highest. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make Federal funding for biomedical research the true national priority which it is. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me commend my colleagues Senator Nelson from Florida and Senator Stabenow from Michigan for their statements. Senator Nelson spoke from his heart and spoke for many of us on both sides of the aisle who feel this letter sent by 47 Senators undermines the efforts of the President of the United States to avoid a nuclear Iran and to avoid a military response. I particularly want to thank my colleague Senator Stabenow from Michigan for recalling that moment in history which any student of the Senate knows was something that made a difference in the foreign policy of the United States of America for 70 years. It is seldom that any of us comes to the floor and thinks that our speeches will be remembered for 70 minutes, but 70 years later Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of Michigan, set a standard for foreign policy which has guided our country since. At a time of deep political division after World War II, this self-described isolationist and extremely conservative enemy of the New Deal stood and called for unity when it comes to foreign policy. His admonition that politics should stop at the water's edge has largely guided us. When we look at all the controversies that have ensued since then-- think of the Vietnam war and what was going on in this body during that war, the deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans, those who were against the war and for the war. Yet there was never, ever anything like we have seen with this letter sent by 47 Republican Senators. I am glad it didn't occur then, even though I had deep misgivings and trouble with the Vietnam war in its execution. I would have had to have been reckless to endorse an idea that our Nation, through its Senate, would reach out to the Vietnamese during the course of that war, when so many lives were at stake and so many lives were lost. So here we are today--a letter sent by 47 Republican Senators. We have talked about the impact of that. Reflect for a moment on the impact of that letter on our allies who are sitting at the table in Geneva, our allies who joined us in imposing the strictest sanctions in history on Iran to force them into negotiation, our allies, sitting with Secretary Kerry and representatives of our government, who must look at this letter from 47 Republicans and say: Why are we wasting our time? What they are saying is no matter what we do--because no agreement has been announced--no matter what we do, the Republican Senate is going to reject it. That is what the letter says. It goes on to say--and this is a little bit of chutzpah according to the New York Times. The Senators signing the letter go on to remind the Ayatollah, who is not term-limited, that they have 6-year terms and may be around for decades--decades--and basically say to the Iranians: Don't even waste your time thinking about negotiating. It is not a waste of time because the alternatives are absolutely horrifying. The alternative of a nuclear Iran would be a threat not only to the Nation of Israel and many other Middle Eastern States and countries beyond, in Europe and other places, but it would invite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The ending is totally unacceptable and unpredictable. So is it worth negotiating? Is it worth trying to find a way to avoid a nuclear Iran? Of course it is. Should the negotiations fail--and they might. I hope not because of this letter, but they might--then what do we face; bringing Iran to its knees with more sanctions? Whom will we call on for these sanctions? Whom will we turn to and say: Will you join us in a more strict sanctions regime? The very same allies who sat at this table and saw this letter from 47 Republican Senators saying to them: Don't waste your time; we have the last word when it comes to Iran. I don't believe the Republican leadership was thinking clearly when they signed on to this letter. I don't think they understood the gravity of their action. They certainly were premature, at the minimum. We don't have an agreement. We are days away from understanding whether there is a possibility of an agreement. Yet these 47 Senators have basically said: Don't waste your time; we are not going to accept it no matter what it is. This is a sad outcome. Similar to the Senator from Michigan, I was 1 of 23 who voted against the invasion of Iraq. I never dreamed for one minute of sending a letter to Saddam Hussein before that vote instructing him about the politics of America. It turns out that in the history of the Senate that has rarely, if ever, occurred. I hope now that those 47 Republican Senators will reflect on their actions and reflect on the impact it will have. I hope the American people understand the President is embarking on a very difficult and delicate mission to try to negotiate a verifiable end to the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and specifically to end nuclear capability in Iran. He may not achieve it, but I respect him for trying. He is the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He is the elected leader of our Nation. Though many in this Chamber cannot accept it, he is the President of the United States, and he deserves our respect. I respected President George W. Bush, even when I disagreed with him on his policies on Iraq, and we should expect nothing less of the loyal minority when it comes to this President as well. I conclude by saying the Senate has an important role to play. But the President's role, speaking for the United States--trying to avoid a nuclear Iran, trying to avoid a military conflict, another war in the Middle East--is something that should not be undermined for political ambition. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his remarks on this letter. I can't think of a precedent where we have had one political party in the Senate try to intervene in international negotiations. In this situation, if these negotiations fail, it is pretty clear to me that one of the options on the horizon will be military action against Iran. I pray to goodness that we never reach that point. But I wish to ask the Senator from Nevada, those who are so anxious to scuttle these negotiations, to undermine these negotiations, do you think they have reflected on the fact that the alternative could be another war in the Middle East?

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, in the history of the Senate to date, back to the 1940s when Senator Vandenberg from Michigan joined in a bipartisan effort on foreign policy as one of the hallmark events in the history of this great body, and for decades when we served in the Senate, kind of the stock phrase was that politics ends at the water's edge when the President is representing the United States overseas. We can argue and use our constitutional powers to argue back and forth, but we want to give the President the authority to try to protect and defend this country. Can the Senator from Nevada, who is a student of history, recall any other time when a group of Senators--a partisan group of Senators-- reached out to a party in negotiations with the United States directly, as this letter has done?

Mr. DURBIN. I will ask the Senator from Nevada a further question. Didn't we also have a similar precedent when Senator McCain and Senator Kerry were leaders in an effort to finally establish diplomatic recognition of Vietnam and normalize relations? This was a bipartisan effort to try to move us beyond a painful chapter in our history which cost so many American lives. That, too, was bipartisan, as I recall.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Saturday marked the 50th anniversary of what has come to be known as Bloody Sunday. In March of 1965, Congressman John Lewis, then a young man fresh out of college, and Rev. Hosea Williams led 600 brave civil rights activists across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. These courageous men and women, and children marching with them, were marching in pursuit of the most fundamental right--the right preservative of all others--the right to vote. What they received that day, however, were brutal beatings from police batons as State troopers turned them back and chased them down. A few days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed the Nation and called on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. Within months, the legislation was signed into law--guaranteeing that the fundamental right to vote would not be restricted through clever State and local schemes, such as poll taxes and literacy tests. I was proud to join Congressman Lewis on a trip to Selma about 10 years ago for a ceremonial walk across the bridge to mark the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. As we marched on a Sunday morning in the footsteps of the civil rights giants, we celebrated a bill that has often been called the most significant civil rights law ever passed by Congress. Little did we know that 8 years later, in 2013, the Supreme Court would strike down a major provision of that law. In Shelby County v. Holder, by a 5-to-4 vote, a divided Supreme Court struck down the provision of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions to preclear changes to their voting laws with the Department of Justice. The decision effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act. In the aftermath of the Shelby County decision, several State legislatures pushed through discriminatory and onerous restrictions on voting that previously would have required Department of Justice clearance. We have heard disturbing stories of a 93-year-old veteran and a nearly 70-year-old doctor who were turned away from the polls in Texas because their IDs did not meet the specifications of an onerous new State law. We heard about Florida's faulty voter verification efforts that disproportionately flag Hispanic citizens for removal from the voter rolls. And we have heard how the elimination of out-of-precinct voting and cuts to early voting impacted minority voters in North Carolina. It is hard to believe that 50 years after Selma, we are watching State legislatures pass legislation restricting opportunities to vote in America. None of us want to subscribe or endorse voter fraud--not a person on either side of the aisle--but this goes far beyond it. As chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, I held hearings in Florida and Ohio, where they were enacting restrictive laws to limit opportunities to vote--limiting the time you can vote, requiring IDs. In each of those States, I called as my first witnesses elected officials of both political parties. I asked, in both States, the same question to the first panel of witnesses: What has happened in your State by way of voter fraud that has led you to restrict the opportunity to vote in your States of Ohio and Florida? The answer was: Nothing--nothing. Then we discussed how many people have actually been prosecuted for voter fraud that led to this tightening of the laws and limiting the opportunity to vote. In Ohio, the answer was: We think in the last 10 years, a few people might have been prosecuted. This clearly was not a problem in need of a solution. This was clearly an effort made in these State legislatures to restrict the opportunity to vote for certain Americans. Why? If you believe in this country, if you believe in democracy, if you believe in the right to vote, why do so many State legislatures--under the guidance of a group called ALEC--why are they changing their laws to restrict the right to vote? Clearly it is because they want certain people to find it more difficult to vote. When I chaired this subcommittee and I had this series of hearings, we heard over and over again that these laws have a disproportionate negative impact on lower income individuals, minorities, youth, elderly, and other vulnerable populations. I wish that 50 years after Bloody Sunday, our society had reached a point where the protections of the Voting Rights Act were no longer necessary. But we have seen in State after State that we still need the protections of the law, or people--good American citizens--will be denied their opportunity to cast a vote in an election. So in order to truly honor the foot soldiers of Bloody Sunday, we have to do more than vote for congressional medals. We have to work together to pass the Voting Rights Amendment Act to ensure the Federal Government is once again able to fully protect the fundamental right to vote for all American citizens. The Voting Rights Amendment Act, which Senator Leahy, Senator Coons, and I plan to reintroduce soon, will undo the damage of the Shelby County decision. Our bill will restore the Voting Rights Act by updating the formula that determines which jurisdictions must preclear changes to their voting practices with the Justice Department. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. The spirit of Bloody Sunday--the spirit of Selma, AL--was alive and well 9 years ago, when both political parties stood up and said: We are both going to endorse it. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, 390 Members in the House out of 435 voted for it, and 98 Senators--from both political parties--voted to reauthorize it, 9 years ago. Congress, after all the hearings--21 of them--with more than 90 witnesses testifying, produced a record that exceeded 15,000 pages, and the bill was solid in the law. We recognized then that despite the progress we have made in the years since that famous march, there still was unlawful and unfair discrimination against Americans who wanted to exercise their right to vote. The Supreme Court ignored our work, and in the Shelby County decision overturned a key section of this law. That is why we need to once again step up on a bipartisan basis to pass this Voting Rights Amendment Act.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I might also reflect on that victory 50 years ago and think about another civil rights milestone that we have an opportunity to act on this week--this week--in Washington. Two weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination of Loretta Lynch to the full Senate. If confirmed by the Senate, Ms. Lynch will become the first African-American woman to serve as Attorney General of the United States. In January, she gave moving testimony to the committee about sitting on her father's shoulders as a young girl so she could witness civil rights activists planning sit-ins and marches in the early 1960s. Ms. Lynch is incredible. She is so well qualified that in the course of 2 days of hearings, there was virtually no negative question asked of her. She handled it so well. She has now waited 121 days for confirmation by the Senate. Loretta Lynch has waited longer than any nominee for Attorney General in the last 30 years. She languishes on the calendar. It is embarrassing to think that after all of the speeches and all of the reflection of this last weekend on the progress we have made in civil rights in America, this woman, whose nomination in and of itself is a civil rights victory, is being held up in the Senate for no obvious reason. As Congressman Lewis said in a recent letter to the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Lynch ``recognizes the value of all people and has fought vigorously to ensure their equal protection under the law.'' John Lewis said: ``She will carry the torch of justice to help make the United States a more perfect union.'' Mr. President, we are not a perfect union. We will strive throughout our history to reach that almost impossible goal. There is a lot of work we need to do, and each generation must accept it. First we need to confirm Loretta Lynch, and let's do it soon. Let's do it this week so she can lead the Department of Justice and continue the fight to move our Nation forward. And we must restore the Voting Rights Act so the Justice Department has the tools it needs to ensure the efforts of those who marched 50 years ago. As I said before, no other Attorney General nominee in the last three decades has had to wait this long to receive a confirmation vote on the floor of the Senate. By way of comparison, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey as Attorney General 53 days after his nomination was announced. Ms. Lynch was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 26 in a bipartisan vote. On that day, the Judiciary Committee also reported out the nomination of Michelle Lee to be Director of the Patent and Trademark Office as well as a bill called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. The majority leader has scheduled a vote on Ms. Lee for today, and he has said the Senate will vote this week on the trafficking legislation. Why is Ms. Lynch's nomination being kept in limbo while these other matters are being scheduled ahead of her? There is no reason to stall the process for Ms. Lynch any further. The majority leader should schedule a confirmation vote without delay. When we have that confirmation vote, I will be proud to vote in support of Loretta Lynch. She is a nominee of outstanding qualifications, integrity, and judgment. She has been confirmed twice before by the Senate to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, and she has served in that position with distinction. She has prosecuted some of the highest profile cases in the country, and she has received widespread praise for her diligence and her no-nonsense approach. Ms. Lynch is a prosecutor's prosecutor. But her resume stands out for other reasons as well. She received undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. She has private sector experience at prestigious law firms, including working as a defense attorney and on civil matters. And she has international experience working for the U.N. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Through it all, Ms. Lynch has never forgotten her roots, growing up as the daughter of a minister and a school librarian in North Carolina. Loretta Lynch's life is a testament to the fact that in America, glass ceilings can be shattered through hard work, perseverance, and outstanding performance on the job. Now the Senate is in the position to confirm this historic nominee to serve as our next Attorney General--once her floor vote gets scheduled. I think Ms. Lynch will do an excellent job. But don't take it from me. Let me read some of the praise for Ms. Lynch that has come from individuals and groups that have endorsed her. Here is what the president of the National District Attorneys Association, Michael Moore, said about her: On behalf of the National District Attorneys Association, representing 2500 elected and appointed District Attorneys across the United States as well as 40,000 assistant district attorneys, I write in strong support of Loretta Lynch's nomination to lead the Department of Justice as the next Attorney General of the United States. As prosecutors facing challenges in the field from violent crime, to human trafficking, to gangs and drug traffickers, our membership feels that Ms. Lynch understands the operational nature of these challenges and will be a strong independent voice at the helm of the Department. Here is a letter signed by 25 former U.S. attorneys, both Republicans and Democrats, including Patrick Fitzgerald and Scott Lassar from my home State of Illinois. They said: We are all former United States Attorneys. Some of us served in Republican administrations, some in Democratic administrations. We all share a deep commitment to the rule of law and an abiding respect for the Department of Justice. . . . We firmly believe that Ms. Lynch will make an outstanding Attorney General. . . . we believe that Ms. Lynch has the experience, temperament, independence, integrity, and judgment to immediately assume this critically important position. Law enforcement groups support Ms. Lynch, too. Here's a letter from the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Richard Beary. He said: The IACP believes that Ms. Lynch's years of service have clearly demonstrated that she has the qualifications and experience necessary to be an effective leader of the U.S. Department of Justice . . . The IACP urges you to confirm Ms. Lynch's nomination rapidly. Here is a letter from the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing 26,000 active and retired federal law enforcement officers. He expressed his full support for Ms. Lynch and said: FLEOA stands behind her proven leadership and her support for those who investigate and enforce the federal statutes. . . . Her accomplishments and her leadership continue to resonate in the law enforcement community, and she possesses the requisite institutional knowledge that is required of the position of Attorney General. These are just some of the endorsements that Ms. Lynch has received. She has also been endorsed by other prosecutor and law enforcement groups, bar associations, business leaders, civil rights organizations, and former top Justice Department officials from both parties. As I mentioned earlier, this past weekend marked the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday when 600 civil rights marchers were beaten on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL. Our Nation's conscience was shocked by the image of John Lewis, now a Congressman from the State of Georgia, being beaten and badly injured on Bloody Sunday by troopers with nightsticks. John Lewis has spent his life marching for the cause of justice. He speaks with a voice of moral authority that all of us should heed. Several weeks ago Congressman Lewis sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of Ms. Lynch. I want to read an extended excerpt from the letter I mentioned earlier. Congressman Lewis said: With over 30 years of legal experience, Ms. Lynch is unwavering in her efforts to create a more just society. A Harvard graduate with an extensive career in public service, private practice, and academia, she recognizes the value of all people and has fought vigorously to ensure their equal protection under the law. She will carry the torch of justice to help make the United States a more perfect union. Ms. Lynch's commitment to civil rights stems from her family's roots in North Carolina. Her father, a Baptist minister, preached at a church where students would meet to organize anti-segregation boycotts. Her grandfather, a sharecropper and pastor in the 1930s, helped people in his community who faced challenges under the Jim Crow system. I will never forget Loretta Lynch's description of her father raising her onto his shoulders so she could witness the civil rights protestors in his church. The fact that this young girl could be the first African-American woman to serve as our Nation's Attorney General is another milestone on our Nation's long, slow march to establish a ``more perfect union.'' The bottom line is this: Loretta Lynch is extraordinarily well- qualified to serve as Attorney General. She has been extensively vetted, and she has performed admirably while in the spotlight of that process. And Members of the Senate have had plenty of time to review her qualifications. It is time to move forward and hold a vote on Ms. Lynch. There is nothing to be gained by further delay. I hope the majority leader, Senator McConnell, will call her nomination for a vote and I hope all my colleagues will support this outstanding nominee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today is the 150th anniversary of the second inaugural address of President Abraham Lincoln. Later on this evening there will be an observance in the Rotunda sponsored by the Illinois State Society and the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation to observe this anniversary. My colleague Senator Kirk is scheduled to be there; former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood; Stephen Lang; and some of the most distinguished Lincoln scholars in America: Dr. Edna Greene Medford, Chief Justice Frank Williams of Rhode Island, and the most prolific Lincoln writer I know, Harold Holzer from New York. There have been 15,000 books written about Abraham Lincoln. I think Mr. Holzer has written about half of them. He is not only prolific, but he is profound in his observations about this great man's life. He was joined by Edith Holzer, his wife, who stood by him through his Lincoln travails. Historians disagree on whether the second inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln was his greatest speech or his second greatest. I am in the latter camp. I accord that highest honor to the Gettysburg Address for its brevity as well as its inspiration, but both speeches are immortal. I am not a Lincoln scholar, but my life as a Springfield attorney, elected Congressman, and Senator from Illinois has taken me to some of the same streets and same buildings that were part of Abraham Lincoln's life. Although he tried mightily to be elected to the Senate in 1858, Abraham Lincoln fell short. It was in that campaign of 1858 that he debated Stephen Douglas. At the end of the debates and when the votes were cast, Stephen Douglas was the victor in that senatorial contest in Illinois. Of course, the same two men faced off again 2 years later for the Presidency. But that Senate seat, the Douglas seat that was contested in the 1858 election, is the same seat I am honored to hold today in the State of Illinois. We can feel Abraham Lincoln's presence in this building, particularly near the Senate Chamber. There is a magnificent room off the Senate Chamber known as the President's Room. It is one of the historic rooms in the Capitol. It was in this room in April of 1862 that President Lincoln signed the bill outlawing slavery in the District of Columbia. It was in this room in 1965 that Dr. Martin Luther King and other leaders watched Lyndon Baines Johnson sign the Voting Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination at the polls--100 years after Lincoln's death. It was in the same room on January 20, 2009, that a newly inaugurated President Barack Obama signed his first official documents as President of the United States. And it was in this room that Abraham Lincoln worked long into the night before his second inauguration, signing and vetoing bills passed in the final hours of one Congress, before the next Congress was sworn in. Imagine that, Congress leaving important business until the last minute. President Lincoln was working in the President's Room on March 3, 1865, when he received an urgent message from GEN Ulysses Grant. GEN Robert E. Lee was seeking a peace conference to negotiate an end to the war. Grant asked the President, his Commander in Chief: What should I reply? After conferring with Secretary of War Stanton and Secretary of State Seward, Lincoln sent word back to General Grant that he was not to meet with Lee ``unless it be for the capitulation of General Lee's army.'' The following day, in his second inaugural address, March 4, 1865, Lincoln explained more fully why he had refused Lee's request for a negotiated settlement. He said: ``With firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in.'' Less than 5 weeks later, General Lee surrendered unconditionally at Appomattox. The cannons would fall silent. After 4 years of horrific death and destruction, the worst war and the most costly war in the history of the United States was over. But the work was not. President Lincoln told us in his second inaugural address the urgent challenge is not only to win the war, but to win the peace by achieving true reconciliation. Another President could certainly have been vindictive toward the South--that had been the practice of the day and it is what many people wanted in the North--but Lincoln understood that if America remained divided after the hostilities ceased, then the terrible sacrifices of war would have been in vain. So he counseled in that immortal inaugural address: ``With malice toward none, charity for all.'' Let us bind up the wounds here, and not inflict new injuries. That was how the Union would be reunited and persevere. Six weeks later after this speech, Abraham Lincoln was cut down by an assassin's bullet. He was, in fact, the last casualty of America's war within its own boundaries. That address, that second inaugural address, remains the second shortest in the Nation's history, only 703 words. Lincoln spoke so briefly that many people were still arriving after he finished. As at Gettysburg, some listeners were mystified by the President's brevity. Few understood the genius of the speech at that moment. Frederick Douglass was an exception. He said to Mr. Lincoln afterwards, ``Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort.'' In the century and a half since his death, we have made uneven progress in achieving the kind of America Abraham Lincoln believed we could be. A full century passed before African Americans in the South were guaranteed the most basic right of citizenship, the right to vote. If President Lincoln were here today, I think he would be happy to see how our Union has survived. I think he would be pleased and astonished to see that America had elected and reelected another lanky lawyer from Illinois, and an African American, to be our President. I also think he would challenge us. When our government ``of the people, by the people, for the people'' is under threat from a cabal of secret, special interest money that can buy elections, I think President Lincoln would tell us we have unfinished work to do. When we neglect to bind up the wounds of war of even one soldier returning from war, and neglect to care for widows and orphans, Lincoln would have reminded us that we have unfinished work to do. And when the right to vote is under systematic attack in so many States for obvious political reasons, there is still work to do. When Americans who work long and hard can't earn enough to provide for their families, I think Lincoln would tell us to put our shoulder to the plough and finish the work of creating a genuine opportunity for all Americans. We can see in the second inaugural and in the Gettysburg Address one reason that Abraham Lincoln remains our greatest President. He shows us that America is capable of constant progress toward our professed creed. We can love our country and be determined to make it better. Tribute to Bill Bartholomay Mr. President, even by Chicago standards, this has been some winter. From Boston to Birmingham, AL, tens of millions of Americans have been clobbered this winter by record snowfalls. In fact, we are heading for the exits in Washington this afternoon with the threat of another winter storm. That may be why so many of us are so happy this week is finally here and we can literally count the days until spring training of baseball begins. In cities throughout the Sun Belt, mighty Casey is smiling again. More than Punxsutawney Phil or the sighting of the first robin, spring training for many of us marks the unofficial arrival of spring. Few people on Earth are happier about the start of the baseball season than Bill Bartholomay, a man who has done so much for the cities of Chicago and Atlanta, for the sport of baseball, and for our Nation. Bill Bartholomay has achieved more in his one life than many talented people in five. He is phenomenally successful as an entrepreneur, and he has built some of the most successful insurance brokerage firms in the world. Bill has owned a restaurant, a candy company, and a chain of toy stores. He helped a friend and business partner by the name of Ted Turner transform CNN from an upstart news station to one of the most powerful news organizations in the world. Bill Bartholomay is more than a successful businessman, he is a principled civic leader and a true philanthropist. On top of all that, he is chairman emeritus of the Atlanta Braves. He is a man who half a century ago, with support from leaders, including the father of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., brought Major League Baseball to America's Deep South. What a life. In 1962, Bill Bartholomay and a group of investors bought the Milwaukee Braves. The Braves roster then included a lot of great legendary ballplayers. Among them was a young catcher with a rocket for an arm whose mother had to sign his first major league contract because he hadn't reached the age of 21. His name was Joe Torre. But the Braves greatest player then and ever was a man named Henry Aaron, ``Hammerin' Hank.'' In 1966, Bill Bartholomay and his partners moved the Braves from Milwaukee to Atlanta. Here is something that will do your heart good. Go to YouTube and watch the video of that magic night, April 8, 1974, when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record to become baseball's all-time home-run champ, a record he would hold for 33 years. For anyone under the age of 50, it may be impossible now to fully appreciate what that moment meant. It was 6 years almost to the day after Dr. King's assassination. For more than a year, as Hank Aaron had closed in on Babe Ruth's fabled record of 714 home runs, he had been cheered by many, but also subjected to ugly racist threats and taunts. There were people who just seethed at the idea that Babe Ruth's immortal record would be broken by a Black baseball player. Years later, Hank Aaron would acknowledge that the anger and the jeers wore on him. They worried Bill Bartholomay too. So watch that clip on YouTube, April 8, 1974. It was the Braves home opener against the Los Angeles Dodgers. More than 53,000 fans were standing for that great moment--a record crowd. It is the fourth inning. Henry ``Hank'' Aaron is up at bat. The count is 1 and 0. And then it happens: Aaron swings and smashes the ball over the center field fence. The fans roar. Fireworks fill the sky over the stadium. As Aaron rounds the bases, the Dodgers infielders reach out to shake his hand. He crosses homeplate, surrounded by teammates, his beaming wife, and parents. And standing right next to him was Bill Bartholomay. It had been a dozen years since Bill and his partners had bought the Braves and 8 years since they moved to Atlanta. Part of their reason for moving the Braves to Atlanta was because Atlanta was working hard in the 1960s to become the leading city of the new South, a city that would move beyond the old legacy of Jim Crow to a new era. Leaders, including Dr. King, believed that Major League Baseball could help to create that new Atlanta, and Bill Bartholomay and his partners wanted to be part of that dream. Eight years after he moved the team to Atlanta, there he stood with baseball's new home-run king, a man who had started his career in the old Negro League, who had just broken the most revered record in Major League Baseball and who would become a symbol of immense pride for Atlanta and all of America. That was one of the many great moments for the Braves under Bill Bartholomay. Since he moved the team to Atlanta in 1966, Bill has witnessed the Braves winning 16 division championships, including a record-setting 14 in a row, 5 National League pennants. And in 1995 the Braves went all the way, winning the World Series. Bill no longer owns the Braves, but he is still closely connected to the team and has served as the chairman emeritus since 2003. He is an active member of the MLB owners group. Bill Bartholomay grew up in Illinois in a family where his father and grandfather had made good money in the insurance brokerage business. He was the second of two boys, and he grew up in Winnetka, IL, just outside of Chicago, in a big house. The Bartholomay family were friends with both the Wrigley family, who owned the Chicago Cubs, and the Comiskey family, who owned the White Sox. As far back as he can remember, Bill loved baseball and so did his mom. They used to go to Cubs games together. At North Shore Country Day School, his eighth grade phys ed instructor thought Bill loved baseball a little too much. He sent home a report card that said: Billy is very cooperative in play activities. While his ability is not great, he makes up to a large degree by his enthusiasm and interest. My greatest concern with him is that he seems to borrow much of his ideas of conduct from professional baseball. That teacher needn't have worried. The lessons of baseball have served Bill Bartholomay very well. They have inspired and shaped his entire amazing life. One of Bill's favorite sayings is: ``Start strong, finish strong and play all nine innings.'' Translation: Give it everything you have got-- no half measures. That attitude has enabled Bill to build or even help build a number of powerful insurance brokerage firms, along with other diverse businesses. In 2003, he became vice chairman of Willis Group Holdings, one of the largest insurance brokers in the world. He increased their presence in Chicago to the point where they became the regional headquarters of what was formerly known as Sears Tower, now known as the Willis Tower. Today that office anchors Chicago's place as a first-rate place to operate a global company. Bill is more than a businessman, more than a man of baseball; he is a civic leader as well. In the early 1980s, then-Chicago mayor, the late James Byrne, asked Bill to serve on the park commission, overseeing Chicago's 400 parks. Bill never said no to public service. So even though he had five teenaged kids and a number of businesses, he said he would serve for 1 year. He ended up serving for 23 years, including many as commission chairman. All told, three of Chicago's mayors recognized Bill's talents as a bridge builder in Chicago. He made sure the commission focused not only on the wealthy parts of the city but all of the city. Bill created a charitable foundation and he has helped to make it work and helped millions of others. He is a generous man and he is generous in praise of others. I wish to give a short story that I read when I was reading a book one day and stumbled on this little episode in Bill's life that really tells a story. It is a story about another baseball legend, a man by the name of Satchel Paige, who may have been the best baseball pitcher ever. He was an American treasure. He was a star in the Negro Leagues during the Jim Crow era. He later became the first African-American pitcher in the American League and the first Negro League player elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. He played for an astonishing 250 teams in his 40-year career. He used to pitch year around, often on back-to-back days. He hurled exhibition games on his day off. He spent the winter months playing in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. In 1968 Satchel Paige was 62 years old, and despite all the time he had played in baseball, he hadn't played long enough to qualify for a pension. He fell 6 months short. So Satchel Paige sent a letter to every Major League Baseball team asking them if they would consider hiring him as a coach, and if they would for 6 months, he would qualify for a pension. Well, you can guess who replied. It was Bill Bartholomay. Bill Bartholomay, in a real true act of kindness, said: ``Baseball would have been guilty of negligence should it not assure this legendary figure a place in the pension plan.'' Bill made sure Satchel Paige got his pension. He hired him to be the Braves' pitcher-coach-trainer just long enough for him to meet his pension needs. In case there was any doubt about what he was doing, he assigned Satchel Paige the number 65, the age at which his retirement salary would kick in. But there was another reason the Braves hired Satchel Paige. That summer--the summer of 1968--riots were raging and cities were burning across America in the wake of Dr. King's assassination. Bill Bartholomay believed that having a bridge builder such as Satchel Paige might help diffuse tensions in Atlanta, and he was right. Satchel did that partly by signing autographs and spending time with fans and serving as a good will ambassador. Even though his title was trainer, what Satchel Paige really wanted to do, even at age 62, was pitch. The club didn't care for the idea. They were afraid his eyesight wasn't good enough and a line drive might knock him off the mound, but Satchel insisted. He said he could tell by the crack of the bat where the ball was headed. In 1969, Satchel Paige pitched a couple of innings in an exhibition game for the Braves' highest level minor league team, the Triple-A Richmond team. So picture this: Satchel Paige on the mound beaming, and who steps up to the plate? Hank Aaron. The best pitcher in baseball history against the best hitter. Strike one, strike two, and finally Hank Aaron swings hard, gets a piece of the ball and pops out to third. Old Satchel still had it. In his 1966 Hall of Fame induction speech, Ted Williams urged the inclusion of Negro League players to the Hall of Fame. Satchel Paige was elected as the first Negro League player to be inducted. Satchel Paige once said: ``Ain't no man can avoid being born average, but there ain't no man got to be common.'' Bill Bartholomay has led an uncommonly good life as a business leader, as a pioneer in baseball, as a civic leader, as a philanthropist, and as a man who sensed in his lifetime an opportunity to build bridges in America and make us a better nation through the game of baseball and through the integration of that sport. He served the cities of Chicago and Atlanta in an extraordinary way, but he served America as well. He proved his old phys ed instructor from grade school wrong by showing that the rules of baseball are pretty good rules for life after all. On this day, as we start spring training and a new baseball season, I wish the very best to the very best--Bill Bartholomay. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Today I recognize, on the Senate floor, the life and work of a true Russian patriot: Mr. Boris Nemtsov. Tragically, Mr. Nemtsov was gunned down Friday night as he walked across the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge with his girlfriend, just yards from the Kremlin and Red Square in central Moscow. Hours before his death, he had given a radio interview where he criticized Russian President Putin for his aggression in Ukraine and Russia's own economic woes--brave acts in a nation where criticism of Putin is not tolerated. Mr. Nemtsov has been one of the most vocal and highest profile opposition leaders in recent years, tirelessly speaking up for democratic reforms and rights on behalf of the Russian people. In fact, Mr. Nemtsov has been working on behalf of the Russian people for nearly 30 years. He moved from physics into politics shortly after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, first winning a seat in the Russian Parliament in 1990. After a series of successful economic reforms as a Parliamentarian and later Governor, Nemtsov was then appointed Deputy Prime Minister under the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin, and even had a chance at the Presidency himself. However, he returned to Parliament after the 1998 crash of the Russian stock market until 2004. Since then, he was active in everything from politics to banking, and over the years he raised repeated concerns that Putin's policies were rolling back democracy and civic freedoms in Russia. Mr. Nemtsov had been arrested several times--and complained of official harassment--for his participation in demonstrations in support of reforms to end corruption, uphold the rule of law, and support basic freedoms. It is no surprise that tens of thousands of people showed up this Sunday to a rally in Moscow. Originally scheduled to lead the event himself to oppose Russian aggression in Ukraine, the rally turned into an opportunity for members of the opposition movement to mourn Mr. Nemtsov's death. People held images of Mr. Nemtsov, flew flags, and even held up posters and signs with phrases such as: ``I am not afraid.'' Several thousand also showed up to his funeral Tuesday. Mr. Nemtsov's mother Dina Eidman received all the well-wishers. In recent months, she had reportedly shared her fears that her son may be killed for his criticism of President Putin. Under President Putin there has been a troubling pattern of silencing peaceful dissent--a problem no doubt made worse by the deliberate whipping up of nationalistic fervor in recent months around Putin's invasion of eastern Ukraine. We recall the tragic death in prison of Russian human rights lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, jailed for uncovering hundreds of millions of dollars in tax fraud perpetuated by Russian officials in 2009. Mr. Nemtsov had even visited Washington, DC, in 2010 to support the Magnitsky Act. Some of you may know of Natalya Estemirova or Anna Politkovskaya, two Russian human rights activists and journalists who were outspoken about human rights abuses in Chechnya, and murdered in 2009 and 2006, respectively. There was also the 2006 poisoning in London of Alexander Litvinenko, an FSB officer who defected and made several claims of corruption against Russian law enforcement officials. Incredulously, one of those suspected for his murder by British authorities was later elected to the Russian Parliament. Sadly, the list goes on. More recently, the nationalistic passions unleashed by the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol last year has led to more narrowing of free speech and the marginalization of activists. Many have faced harassment, prison sentences, even violence. And in many of these types of cases, perpetrators are not brought to justice. In a country where authorities may sometimes be involved in crimes of their own and where law enforcement, judicial, and investigative bodies lack credibility, there is very little accountability. What has been happening in eastern Ukraine and Russia is deeply troubling. President Putin has used the invasion of Ukraine to justify a further crackdown on his own people's talents and aspirations. He has used state-controlled media to unleash anti-Western propaganda that is an insult to the Russia people. He has bet his people's economic and international standing on the pursuit and protection of his own kleptocracy. The Russian people deserve better. In the case of Mr. Nemtsov, I echo the words of President Obama and countless others: an independent investigation must take place to find out who was responsible for Mr. Nemtsov's death, and the perpetrators must be swiftly brought to justice. The same goes for the many others who had the courage to peacefully report the truth or voice dissent in Russia and then found themselves in jail or murdered. I joined Senator Johnson this week in leading a resolution recognizing Boris Nemtsov and calling for an investigation. I urge my colleagues to support this hero who has been taken from us too soon, and I hope we can continue to work in his honor to support the Russian people as they stand for democratic reforms.