Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am sorry we were unable to reach an agreement today. The proposal which I am about to make, called the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act, simply ensures that children will not age out in this process. How many times do parents come to me with tears in their eyes saying: Don't hurt my child. Here is our chance, as we work out all the other issues, to take care of this one provision. It would not increase the number of green cards. It does not get into the other issues we have debated. I ask the Senator to please, for the sake of these children, give them the protections, and let us continue to try and negotiate the other provisions. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the interest of the moment, I cannot offer my third amendment, but I will say this: It will be back. This is a chance to do something for the children. It is very simple. You know what it is. Let's do this.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me say to Senator Lee, the changes he came back with were significant. Removing the hold harmless provision, to me, is fundamentally unfair to anyone who has been waiting patiently for a green card. Why would the Senator jeopardize anyone and make them wait even longer for a green card? That was one of the modifications he suggested. The two other modifications the Senator suggested delayed protection for children that left them subject to deportation for 2 to 3 years. Why would we do that? We both agree that is a terrible outcome. That was one of his modifications as well. As far as the 50-50 rule, listen, I believe that is what is driving this conversation. These outsourcing companies make a bundle of money, and there are people who want to keep them in business and making money, even at the expense of American workers, and I think that is wrong. I really do. I can't believe that that is what is really going to stop us now at this point, to try to protect these outsourcing companies for 3 years before this provision affects them. As far as what we can do here today, I think what I am going to offer next is going to be the simplest thing we can achieve and maybe more at a later date. But let us protect the children. That is the next thing I am going to offer. Let us protect the children and make sure that as they are waiting in line, they can't age out and be deported. That is not an unreasonable request. So I am going to refuse to agree to the modification, but I will offer protection for the children next, and I hope--let's agree on that today and continue the rest of the discussion beyond.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have a few minutes more to close this debate. I ask forbearance of those who are prepared for the 4 p.m. vote. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 additional minutes.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

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. There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am grateful to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and their staffs for their work to produce the fiscal year 2021 defense authorization bill. The FY21 NDAA authorizes $740.5 billion in defense spending, up $2 billion from last year. The bill provides a 3-percent pay raise for our troops and includes provisions that support spouse employment, childcare, and improved military housing. It ensures that the United States can defend effectively against threats from Russia, China, and North Korea and invests in key and innovative capabilities and technologies. It includes key provisions I requested to boost efforts at Rock Island Arsenal, address military sexual trauma, and protect the health of our military communities from dangerous chemicals. But this year, we take up the NDAA during a global pandemic, record unemployment, and calls to address racial injustice. The bill touches on some of these issues. It authorizes $44 million for vaccine and medical research related to COVID-19 and expands benefits for Active Duty and National Guard personnel involved in COVID response. I am pleased that it includes a provision authored by Senator Warren to require DOD to remove names, symbols, and other displays honoring the Confederacy. If we want to move toward a more just society, we cannot continue to honor Confederate leaders who committed treasonous atrocities in order to preserve slavery. I also authored two amendments that were included by consent, the first an amendment supporting strong security assistance for the Baltics that I filed with Senator Grassley. The Baltic States remain key allies and among the few NATO countries that fulfill the target spending of 2 percent of GDP on defense, and this provision encourages support for more robust and enduring security assistance. My other amendment is one I sponsored with Senator Portman, welcoming NATO recognition of Ukraine as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner. EOP status will help only further deepen cooperation with NATO, which is especially critical as 2020 marks the 6th year of ongoing Russian occupation of eastern Ukraine. But the FY21 NDAA still does not go far enough. I field two amendments that go to the heart of our duties as Senators, the power to declare war and the power of the purse. Congress must stop abdicating its constitutional responsibilities. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan, but I never imagined that we would still be there nearly two decades later or that the same authorization would be used to justify actions around the world that this body had not contemplated at the time. My amendment would sunset all authorizations for the use of force after 10 years so that Congress can take up the issue and engage in its constitutional duties. I also cosponsored an amendment led by Senator Udall making clear that Congress has not given the executive branch any authority to go to war against Iran. We also cannot continue to let this President raid national defense funds for his ridiculous and racist border wall effort--remember, the one that the President promised Mexico would pay for. Every dollar diverted has been at the expense of our men and women in uniform, especially hurting our National Guard. This bill does nothing to address that. Even when the Ninth Circuit court ruled last Friday that the money grab was illegal, the Department of Defense informed us on Monday that it would not stop construction of the President's campaign promise. That is why I filed an amendment that would keep the President from transferring defense funds outside of DOD for the wall. We need a robust debate on the proper, effective way to respond to the humanitarian crisis at our border, one approved by Congress. In addition, I filed an amendment that would disapprove of Russia participating in the G7 or being readmitted into a reconstituted G8. Not only does Russia maintain its occupation of Ukraine, but it has continued its interference in the U.S. and other democratic nations. And just last week, The New York Times reported that Russian intelligence secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to kill American troops in Afghanistan. Apparently, the White House has known about this for months and did nothing. It is unacceptable. My amendment makes it clear that the U.S. should not support Russia's participation in this international summit. The FY21 NDAA also doesn't go far enough to address the toxic class of chemicals known as PFAS, which have been linked to serious and devastating illness. That is why I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Shaheen's amendments to designate PFAS as hazardous substances and boost DOD cleanup efforts, provide blood testing for servicemembers and their families, and increase funds to study the impact of PFAS on health. In addition, I support Senator Gillibrand's amendment that would extend antidiscrimination protections to our transgender servicemembers who bravely make sacrifices for our country. I also am a cosponsor of Senator Schatz amendment to limit the transfer of equipment under to the DOD 1033 program to militarize police forces across the country and provide transparency to the program. I hope that we may be able to debate all of these important issues during consideration of this bill, all of which will only help improve this legislation and provide for our national defense. In the meantime, I reiterate my thanks to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for their work on this bill.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, listen carefully to what we just heard from the Senator from Texas. First he talked about amnesty. Amnesty as I understand it is a blanket forgiveness for the commission of a crime. Cinthya Ramirez has DACA--the DACA protection that I described--2 years at a time. She was brought here to the United States from Mexico at the age of 4. She has paid her fee, has gone through her background check, and receives 2-year protections to continue in this country. According to the Senator from Texas, that is amnesty for a crime-- amnesty for a criminal. It is certainly not that. This young woman has been as open with our government as she could possibly be, and for it she has received 2 years at a time to build a life, and what a life she has built. Undocumented and uncertain of her future, a person who is doomed by the Trump administration's policy finishes her medical education in nursing school at Lipscomb University, a Christian college in Nashville, and works at one of the best hospitals in the whole region, saving the lives of people who are facing COVID-19, and in the eyes of the Senator from Texas, she is just another criminal looking for amnesty. Really? I am sorry, that doesn't add up. It doesn't add up at all To say today that because we are seeking help on DACA, Democrats do not value American workers--another statement made by the Senator from Texas--may I remind the Senator that all of the people we are talking about in the DACA Program are currently in the United States legally working because of DACA? It is not as if they are taking jobs away by coming into this country and displacing others. Many of them are unemployed because of the economy too. She is doing work people are afraid to do, exposing herself to the coronavirus every single day. You heard the routine she goes through when she comes home from work: taking off her clothing, rushing into a shower, washing off her cell phone, cleaning it before she sees her family. This is a person who is a criminal? She is a criminal for what she does, Cinthya Ramirez-- really? I don't understand the thinking. To call the decision last week--the week before--before the Supreme Court disgraceful is to say that she should have no chance. She should be gone. What has she got to offer to the United States of America, to the State of Tennessee, to our future? She has a lot to offer, and most Americans, even an overwhelming majority of Republicans, get that part of it. Now the Senator comes before us today with a consistent record on Dreamers. Every moment that he has been in the U.S. Senate, whenever he has been given a chance--whenever--to help the Dreamers or to help DACA, the junior Senator from Texas has voted no, time and time and time again. He is consistent. Bless him for his consistency. Today he is not even offering an alternative that would give this woman a chance--no alternative to the Dream and Promise Act. Instead he offers his own bill, which has nothing whatsoever to do with DACA and the Dreamers. The Cruz bill would increase penalties for immigration offenses, but anyone who commits any of the offenses that have been described by the Senator from Texas is already ineligible under DACA-- ineligible. DACA requires applicants to clear criminal and national security background checks. Cinthya Ramirez has done that. To say that she is even close to committing a crime is an outrage. Let's be clear. The junior Senator from Texas is in the majority in the U.S. Senate. If he were serious about advancing his bill, he could ask the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a committee vote on the bill. The Senator from Texas serves on that committee. Then he could ask the majority leader to schedule a floor vote. But he hasn't done that. This bill that he brings to the floor today he has not even introduced as a bill in this session of Congress. In this session of Congress, with the Republicans in the majority, the immigration subcommittee chaired by the other Senator of Texas has held one hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on one immigration bill. There has not been a single vote on an immigration bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Clearly, the Senator from Texas has no intention of trying to advance this bill that he passionately defended on the floor. He is offering it today to try to muddy the waters and somehow tie up this wonderful young nurse in Tennessee with a horrible crime that was committed in California. She had nothing to do with it. There is nothing in her life that is even close to that crime, and to put that as the alternative to DACA and the Dream Act is fundamentally and totally unfair. As long as I am in the Senate, I will come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Cinthya Ramirez and all of the Dreamers. What an American tragedy it would be to deport this brave and talented young nurse who is saving lives in the midst of this pandemic. America is better than that. We must ensure that Cinthya and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working. We need them now more than ever, and we must give them the chance they desire to let them become citizens of the United States. Madam President, I object to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning on an issue that is topical. It is an issue that, over the last several days, has become a national centerpiece of conversation. It reflects a decision of just a few days ago by the Supreme Court that rejected President Trump's efforts to repeal deportation protections for Dreamers--young immigrants who came to the United States as children. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the President's decision to rescind DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' It was 10 years ago that I joined with Republican Senator Dick Lugar, of Indiana, on a bipartisan basis, to call on President Obama and beg him to use his legal authority to protect Dreamers from deportation. President Obama responded by creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. It provided for Dreamers temporary protection from deportation--2 years at a time--if they registered with the government, paid substantial fees, and passed criminal and national security background checks. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received DACA protection. DACA unleashed the full potential of these Dreamers, who are contributing to our Nation in a variety of ways--as soldiers, as teachers, as nurses, as small business owners. More than 200,000 DACA recipients are currently ``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' That is not my term. It is the way President Trump's Department of Homeland Security describes the work of these DACA recipients now-- 200,000 of them ``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' Among those DACA recipients, 41,700 of them are in the healthcare industry. This includes doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. They are the healthcare heroes we salute, and at the same time, they are the DACA recipients this President loathes. On September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and faced being deported to countries many of them barely remembered, if they remembered at all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in and rejected that strategy by President Trump. What was the President's reaction? To no surprise, the President responded by attacking the Court and threatening to try to repeal DACA, even again, in the closing months of his first term. Congress must step in immediately. After that Supreme Court decision, President Trump tweeted, ``I have wanted to take care of DACA recipients better than the Do Nothing Democrats, but for two years they refused to negotiate.'' Here is the reality. The President has rejected numerous bipartisan proposals to deal with DACA and the Dreamers. May I be specific? On February 15, 2018, the Senate considered bipartisan legislation that was offered by Republican Senator Mike Rounds and Independent Senator Angus King--a bipartisan measure. The bill, which included a path to citizenship for Dreamers, was supported by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. Why did it fail to reach 60 votes? Because President Trump openly opposed it. That is why. He said: I have a better idea. On the same day that the Senate voted on the President's immigration proposal, we found his so-called ``better idea'' failed by a bipartisan supermajority of 39 to 60. On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6--on June 4, 2019, which was more than a year ago. H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise Act, is legislation that would give Dreamers a path to citizenship, and it passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote. The Dream and Promise Act has been pending in the Senate for more than a year. I have come to the floor, day after day, and heard the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, bemoaning the fact that we are so busy here in the Senate and that the House just isn't doing its work. Yet the House has sent some 400 pieces of legislation to Senator McConnell's desk--90 percent of it bipartisan. He refuses to consider it. He refuses to bring it to this empty Senate floor so that we can do our work. One of those measures, sadly, is the Dream and Promise Act--the bill that would solve at least part of the immigration challenge we now face in America. Last week, I sent a letter, signed by all 47 Democratic Senators, calling on Senator McConnell to immediately schedule a vote after the Supreme Court decision. As of today, the Senator has not replied. Over the years, I have decided that the only way to tell the story of the Dreamers and the story of DACA is to introduce them here in the Senate. I have asked them to come forward, if they wish, provide me with photographs, and let me tell their stories. This is the 124th story I am going to tell. It is the story of a remarkable young woman named Cinthya Ramirez. Cinthya Ramirez came to the United States from Mexico at the age of 4. She grew up in Nashville, TN. She wrote me a letter. Here is what she wrote about growing up: Moving to the United States gave me the gift of education. I learned English by the first grade, and that is when I learned that I loved school and I loved learning. While in high school, Cinthya was on the track team and was a student council representative and a great student. She graduated at the top of her high school class with the highest honors. Cinthya went to Lipscomb University, which is a private Christian college in Nashville, and she graduated with a nursing degree. Today, thanks to DACA, Cinthya works as a cardiac registered nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center-- the largest hospital in Nashville, TN. Cinthya is on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is what she writes about this experience: I am a very spiritual person, and I pray a lot. I remind myself that this is the job that I was meant to have. If the time comes for patients to die and they cannot have their families with them, we have to be there for them. Cinthya's greatest fear is that of bringing the coronavirus home to her family when she comes home after her nursing shifts at the hospital. Here is what she writes: I take every precaution before entering the house. I take off my clothes, clean my phone, go straight to the shower. The rest is in the hands of God. I thank Cinthya Ramirez--a DACA recipient--for her service. She is an immigrant healthcare hero. She is a DACA healthcare hero. She is putting herself and her family at risk to save the lives of others. She should also not have to wake up every morning in fear that actions taken by the Trump administration will lead to her being deported back to a country she can barely, if at all, remember. This is a classic example of this debate and what it is about--and to think that, in a year, we have not even taken up this issue that was sent to us by the House while it winds its way through our judicial process all the way to the highest Court in the land, where the ruling was in favor of Cinthya and the DACA recipients who have this protection. In that year, did we step forward in the U.S. Senate--the so-called greatest deliberative body on Earth--to even debate the bill that passed the House of Representatives? No. No, there was no time for that. As you can see, we are so busy here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. There is so much more that we could do here. Shouldn't we start with the highest priority--protecting Americans in the midst of this pandemic? This woman, Cinthya Ramirez--undocumented, protected by DACA--risks her life every single day because of this pandemic. Can we risk ourselves politically for a minute in the Senate and actually take up a measure that could have a direct impact on the lives of the 800,000 DACA recipients and the thousands of others who could have applied for that protection during the months that we have debated this in court? Sadly, we have been unable to do that, and it is all because of a decision being made by the President of the United States and by the Republican majority leader, and it is a decision which needs to be addressed directly. In a few moments, I am going to offer a unanimous consent request, when it comes to moving this bill, that was sent over by the House of Representatives more than a year ago. I am really going to call the bluff of this President, who asks: Why doesn't Congress act? Why don't you come up with a bipartisan proposal? Mr. President, here is our chance. Here is an opportunity. We have a bill that has been sitting here for a year that would address Cinthya Ramirez's future and the future of thousands of others. The question is whether or not the Members on the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, will at least let us address this issue now. Give us an opportunity to bring before the U.S. Senate a measure which is no surprise, nothing revolutionary or new. It is a measure we have considered in various forms over the last 20 years, but it is a measure that would address this issue and do it in a thoughtful way. This is an opportunity which we should seize. Wouldn't it be remarkable, maybe a headliner, if the Senate actually did something--if we actually took an issue of the day that affected real people, real lives, in the middle of this coronavirus epidemic and actually decided that this young woman and thousands like her were worth the effort I think America would be shocked that this U.S. Senate responded that way, and don't tell me we have better things to do. I am all for doing the military authorization bill. We can get that done and be back in 2 weeks and take this up immediately. We know the bill is here. We know that the bill is prepared and covers the areas that would protect this young lady and so many others and give them a future in the United States of America. At this point, it is really up to us. Now, there may be an objection when I make this unanimous consent request. Listen carefully to the objection. It has nothing to do with resolving the issue before us--the issue of the future of this young woman and thousands of others just like her. But we are in a position at this moment where we have to act. I am awaiting the arrival of a Republican Member, who I hope is on the way, and so at this point I am going to suspend and yield the floor with the hopes that we can return to another colleague coming to the floor momentarily. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and friend Senator Schumer. We have been fighting this battle for a long time, Senator. Eight of us who came, four Democrats and four Republicans, put together a comprehensive immigration reform bill which should have passed 7 years ago--68 votes on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was a bipartisan measure, which we joined with Senator McCain to put together to bring to the floor. I thank you for your heartfelt comments. I am going to speak a little longer and make a unanimous consent request. This measure I am asking for unanimous consent on, the American Dream and Promise Act, was introduced by Representative Lucille Roybal- Allard, Democrat of California, on March 12, 2019, with 202 original cosponsors. It would provide Dreamers, temporary protected status recipients, and individuals with deferred enforcement departure with protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status in the United States if they meet certain requirements. It passed the House of Representatives 237 to 187--7 Republicans joined the 230 Democrats who were present to support the legislation. Protections in the American Dream and Promise Act would allow nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, as well as another 1.6 million eligible Dreamers brought to the United States as children to stay in our country legally. The bill's protections would also allow over 300,000 temporary protected status holders and 3,600 individuals that I described earlier with the same opportunity. It would create a conditional permanent resident status valid for up to 10 years that would protect Dreamers, including DACA, from deportation and allow them to work legally in the United States. Cinthya Ramirez could continue working as a nurse long after this pandemic is gone. To qualify for this, the Dreamers would need to meet requirements. They must have come to the United States before the age of 18--she came at the age of 4--and continuously lived here for at least 4 years. They must demonstrate they have been admitted to an institution of higher education, earned a high school diploma or equivalent, or are currently in the process of doing that. She is a graduate of Lipscomb University with a degree in nursing. They must pass government and background security checks, submit biometric and biographic data, demonstrate good character with no felonies, misdemeanor offenses of domestic violence, or multiple misdemeanor convictions, and they must register for the Selective Service, if applicable--she has already met all these standards by the examination she has been put through for DACA--and, of course, pay their application fee. DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible Dreamers who still meet the requirements needed to obtain DACA would automatically qualify for conditional permanent resident status. When the President ended DACA in September of 2017, we stopped accepting applications from those who were eligible. Now these young people would have the chance, if they meet the requirements and the test that is required of them. They must complete one of three tracks: graduate from college or university or complete at least 2 years of a bachelor's or higher degree program in the United States; complete at least 2 years of honorable military service or have worked for a period totaling at least 3 years while having valid employment authorization; maintain continuous residence in the country; demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak English; understand American history, principles, and form of government. It is a high standard, but it is one they are prepared to meet and they should meet to become part of America's future. How important are they? Well, they are extremely important in every single State. We know that there are some 780,000 DACA recipients across the United States. There are 109,000 of them in the State of Texas--109,000. The average age of arrival for them is 7. They came here as kids. Their annual tax contributions are in the millions. I could read the numbers. In the State of Texas, there are 30,000 of these DACA recipients who have been characterized by the Trump administration as essential workers--30,000--4,300 DACA healthcare workers in the State of Texas. The States of Texas, Arizona, California, Florida, and others are going through a resurgence of infection and death from this pandemic. These DACA young people--many of them are on the frontline fighting this disease, as Cinthya Rameriz is in Tennessee. The notion that we want them to leave now--4,300 leave Texas now-- healthcare workers? Unimaginable. It makes no sense. It is time for us to do something. At a minimum, for goodness' sake, in this empty Chamber, can we come together and debate this issue? The President has challenged us to do it. Let's do it--not be afraid of it. Put it through an amendment process on the floor. I have lived through that before. It actually would resemble the U.S. Senate, which many people remember from the history books, where people actually came to deliberate and vote on amendments. That is all we are asking for. Bring this under unanimous consent to the floor. Let's do it. The President has challenged us. I am going to make a unanimous consent request. I see the Senator from Texas is on the floor here, and I want to make sure I get the right copy. Here it is. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it my understanding that the Senator from Texas was going to offer a consent request.

Mr. DURBIN. I think this is the moment to do it.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to 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. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the course of America's immigration history, there have emerged leaders whose names are synonymous with the struggle and triumph of these immigrants. Stanley Balzekas was that leader for Lithuanian Americans, especially in the city of Chicago. Stanley was my friend. His devotion to Lithuania, to America, and to the cause of human freedom and dignity was legendary. Whether you bumped into him on the streets of Vilnius or Pulaski Road, he always had a smile and story to share. He was as gracious and as comfortable with the Chicago hotdog salesmen as he was with heads of state. He died last week, passing peacefully at his home at the age of 95. As his family said in his obituary: ``His failing heart could no longer keep up with his zest for life.'' What a heroic heart he had. Stanley Balzekas was a decorated war hero in World War II, one of the thinning ranks of the Greatest Generation. He joined the U.S. Army in 1943 and served in the infantry. He fought in key battles, including the Battle of the Bulge and the Battle of Huertgen Forest, for which he was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for rescuing 12 wounded soldiers. He landed at Normandy and marched with other U.S. soldiers under the Arc de Triomphe and along the Champs-Elysees to celebrate the liberation of Paris from Nazi occupation. He was captured by a Waffen SS unit in France in February 1945 and spent four months as a POW at a camp in Germany. There, he was brutally mistreated, starved, and lost half of his body weight. After the war, he returned to Chicago and earned a bachelor's degree and master's degree from DePaul University and joined his father running the family business, Balzekas Motor Sales, which was run continuously by the family from 1919 until 2009. Stanley's father emigrated from Lithuania to the United States in 1912. He grew up in Marquette Park, in Beverly, the heart of Chicago's Lithuanian community. His father made the leap from a butcher shop to start an auto dealership in 1919. Over the years they sold many models of cars, from Hupmobiles to Chryslers. The Balzekas name became synonymous with Lithuanian entrepreneurship. Young Stanley was at his father's side during the formative years and after he returned from World War II. Next to his success in business, Stanley Balzekas' most lasting gift to Chicago is the Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture, which he and his wife Irene founded in 1956 in a building next to the family car dealership. The mid-1960s, when Stanley opened the Balzekas Museum, were some of the darkest days in the Cold War. Lithuania, once a massive medieval empire that stretched from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea, was then an occupied state within the old Soviet Union, and the USSR did all it could to erase the Lithuanians' sense of their own history and culture. Stanley and Irene Balzekas founded the museum to help preserve that history and culture and, equally important, to advance the cause of Lithuanian independence. Chicago was the perfect city for their cultural jewel. It is the most Lithuanian city outside of Lithuania, and a sister city to the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius. Nearly one in eight Lithuanian Americans, including this Senator, calls Illinois home. In fact, Valdas Adamkus, the third person to serve as President of a free and democratic Lithuania after it won its independence from the USSR, lived for many years in the city of Chicago. The Balzekas Museum's collection started with Baltic amber jewelry and Stanley's own considerable collection of East European military antiques. Over the years, it became a trove of Lithuanian and Eastern European books, maps, and artifacts, and one of the most respected ethnic museums in Chicago, if not the Nation. One of its prized possessions was a map from 1430 which showed the Lithuanian Empire stretching across Eastern Europe. Stanley spent hours and hours reading letters and examining every artifact anyone would send to him at the museum. When someone else might view something as just an old handkerchief, Stanley would recognize the family's last treasured link to an ancestral homeland--a treasure worth saving. But Stanley Balzekas and the museum did not just catalog and preserve history. They helped to make history. On March 11, 1990, Lithuania declared its independence--the first Soviet republic to do so. Nine months later, in January 1991, Soviet troops and tanks rolled into Vilnius to crush the uprising. People from all over Lithuania rushed to Vilnius to defend the Seimas, their Parliament. Hoping to keep the defenders of a Lithuanian democracy and the world in the dark, the Soviet Government blocked all TV transmissions from and within Lithuania. But nearly 4,700 miles away, there was a fax machine in the Balzekas Museum humming a lifeline for the Lithuanian's resistance, allowing freedom's defenders in Vilnius to tell their story to the world and, in return, to learn that the world stood by their side in defense of their cause. That vital connection to the outside world may have influenced the Soviet Union's surprise decision to withdraw its tanks from the small democracy in the Baltics. In January 2011, I had the great honor of addressing the Lithuanian Seimas, or Parliament, on the 20th anniversary as a free and democratic republic. I turned to Stanley Balzekas and his daughter-in-law to help translate parts of my speech into Lithuanian. He wasn't just a friend; Stanley was my teacher. In the mid-1980s, the Balzekas Museum moved from its original home to the West Lawn neighborhood, on the Southwest Side of Chicago. It expanded its vision to become a place where Chicago's many ethnic communities are celebrated. Stanley Balzekas never stopped thinking about how to create goodwill and understanding. One of his last projects was to turn a small vacant lot near the museum into a park, which he christened ``Love and Respect Park.'' The centerpiece of that park is a young tree, grown from a cutting taken from the nearly 1,500-year-old oak tree, the oldest in Lithuania. He hoped its shade would provide comfort to all who call Chicago home for generations to come. Stanley Balzekas was honored in life by many civic organizations. He received the highest honors offered by the State of Illinois and the Republic of Lithuania. His passing was mourned by the President of Lithuania and by friends too numerous to count. Irene, the love of his life, died many years ago, but Loretta and I wish to extend our deep condolences to Stan's children: Stanley III, Robert, Carole, and their spouses, to Stanley's six grandchildren, and to his friends in Chicago and around the globe. I will close with one last story about my friend. Over the years, Stanley Balzekas must have been photographed thousands of times with famous leaders or with family friends. He used to tell people jokingly that the key to taking a good photo was to ``always stand in the center, that way an editor can't crop you out.'' Stanley, my friend, from your days as a young GI to your final days on Earth, you were never afraid to stand in the center of life itself. Your place in history will not be erased. And thanks in part to your efforts, Lithuania's proud history and culture were made an inspiring part of the world's story. Aciu, my friend. May you rest in peace. Remembering Art Berman