[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 16 (Friday, January 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S667-S671]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ACT OF 2019--MOTION 
                         TO PROCEED--Continued


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the announcement this morning that air 
operations in major cities in this country on the east coast and other 
places could be delayed or are interrupted comes as no surprise.
  This last week, I met with air traffic controllers in St. Louis and 
in Aurora, IL. We have over 600 air traffic controllers in Northern 
Illinois because of O'Hare, Midway, and so many other important 
airports in that region, and, of course, in St. Louis, with Lambert 
airfield and others. They have quite extensive air operations.
  They explained to me what is going on with air traffic controllers. 
It shouldn't have worried us before the shutdown. It should frighten us 
at this moment.
  Currently, air traffic controllers work 10-hour shifts. It is a 
stressful job--an important, stressful job. There is hardly any person 
more on the frontline of public safety than an air traffic controller. 
They are expected to concentrate--to concentrate exclusively--for 10 
straight hours on each shift. Because of a shortage of air traffic 
controllers, they now are working 6 days a week.
  If you can only imagine for a moment what it is like, and, if you 
have been to an air traffic control tower, you know what it is like--at 
least from an outside observer's point of view. There they are, with a 
screen full of dots. In each one of them is an airplane, and in each 
airplane tens, maybe even hundreds of lives, and they are trying to 
make certain that nothing terrible occurs.
  Imagine the added burden they face now on the 35th day of this 
government shutdown. As of today, they will have missed two pay 
periods. The last paycheck came last year. I listened to these air 
traffic controllers explain what it meant to them. For some of them, it 
has gotten down to the basics. In the St. Louis area, one of the air 
traffic controllers has to drive a long distance each day. They didn't 
have the cash for gasoline. He sold his plasma in order to fill the 
tank to go to work.
  At another air traffic control meeting in Aurora, one of the 
controllers came to me and said that one of his colleagues, who had 
been working for some time, came to him and said that he only had 5 
days left that he could continue doing this--working for nothing--and 
then he would have to go look for other jobs and possibly jeopardize 
his future in air traffic control.
  The stories came to me one after another. There was a young family 
where a little child of the family is suffering from medical illnesses 
of a serious nature. Luckily, they still have health insurance when 
they are not being paid. When it comes to the out-of-pocket expenses 
and copayments, they don't have money for it.
  Those are the realities these men and women face. They are the 
realities that have to be on their minds every waking moment. We pray, 
as passengers in these aircraft, that the only thing on their mind is 
their job. Instead, for many of these people, it is just basically 
getting by, keeping their family together.
  A lady came up to me at the airport at O'Hare and told me that she 
and a lot of friends run a food pantry in Oak Park, which is west of 
the city of Chicago, and she said to me: We have problems. The Federal 
employees who are coming around now are in desperate need of help, and 
we are running out of supplies at our food pantries.
  Has it come to that in America, where we have to rely on food 
pantries and charity for men and women who are performing such a vital 
function as air traffic control? That is the reality of the situation.

[[Page S668]]

  Yesterday we had two votes on the floor of the Senate. I know that 
every Federal employee and their families were tuned in, in the hopes 
that this shutdown would end yesterday, that we would muster the 
courage and political will to come together on a bipartisan basis. We 
didn't. We fell short of the 60 votes needed on both of the measures 
that were called.
  There is a ray of hope but only a small one. The conversations at the 
highest level continued last night and even into today. My only hope is 
that the President will decide that this shutdown has to come to an 
end.
  He alone stood in the beginning and said he was proud to claim that 
he was the author of this shutdown. I don't see how anyone can be proud 
of what has happened in this country. It is time to put it behind us. 
It is time to move forward with serious negotiations about border 
security and other issues but not at the expense of 800,000 Federal 
employees.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. President, last year, my staff prevailed on me to make a trip 
which I really wasn't sure I should do. It was to Caracas, Venezuela. I 
had never been to that country, and I was visiting there at the 
invitation of their government. Nicolas Maduro was the President of 
Venezuela, and he did not enjoy the very best of reputations, but yet 
he was willing to see me.
  So for several days I went down to Venezuela, met with President 
Maduro, met with the opposition, met with the American who was being 
held prisoner by the Maduro regime, and in matter of a few days, got an 
impression of what was happening in Venezuela.
  It is hard to imagine that 30 years ago, Venezuela was one of the 
most up-and-coming countries in South America. It was considered one of 
most prosperous. Their oil industry was generating money in amounts 
they had never imagined before. The lifestyles of people were 
improving. There were a lot of things to be said on the positive side 
of the ledger, but over the span of the next 20 or 30 years, things 
became tremendously worse.
  Last year, as I had this opportunity to travel in Venezuela and meet 
with then-President Maduro, I met also with members of the elected 
National Assembly, civic and humanitarian groups, medical 
professionals, and the exceptional men and women who were working at 
the U.S. Embassy.
  What I found was that this once-proud and relatively wealthy 
democracy, last year was on the verge of political, economic, and 
humanitarian collapse.
  The stories I learned in that short period of time were 
heartbreaking--of children fainting at school because they were hungry, 
the return of diseases that had once been eradicated, a massive outflow 
of millions of refugees from Venezuela to neighboring countries, some 
rates of infectious disease being rivaled only by war zones in this 
world. So many children were going so hungry while the government 
cronies were siphoning off millions of dollars from the state food aid 
program. It was infuriating and disgusting.
  I walked down the streets of Caracas and saw firsthand Venezuelans 
emaciated, waiting in long lines at ATM machines, and I asked: Why is 
it every hour of the night and day there is a long line at the ATM 
machine? Inflation was so bad in that country that people had to wait 
patiently in line to max out each day's withdrawal from their accounts 
so they would have enough money for a roundtrip bus ride the next day.
  I walked through one of the private hospitals, and I heard of 
unimaginable shortages of key medicines, shortages even worse in the 
state hospitals, where simple blood tests were no longer possible.
  In fact, just this week, a collaborative and brave Venezuelan media 
effort entitled ``Petrofraude'' released a devastating investigation. 
It details how the Venezuelan Government decimated the nation's oil 
supply to enrich the cronies of President Maduro and attempt to buy 
diplomatic support, all while its people were dying of malnutrition, 
and inflation was soaring beyond 1 million percent.
  When I met President Maduro last year, I told him--this was in 
April--that if he proceeded with the planned, rigged election, he would 
find himself even more isolated in the world, and he would bring even 
greater suffering on his people. He ignored me, and of course, sadly, 
that is what happened.
  In May, he went forward with a bogus election whose illegitimate 
results were not recognized by many countries in the region.
  Maduro also then kicked out America's top diplomats at the time--two 
of our finest whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with 
on the trip.
  Yet, during my visit, I was also inspired and found some hope. There 
were brave civic leaders who were looking for public service for the 
right reason--healthcare workers, doing the best they could with almost 
nothing, and the next generation of young elected members of the 
National Assembly, the only legitimate democratic body left in the 
nation of Venezuela.
  These young leaders had notably won election in areas that once 
supported Hugo Chavez, supposedly the patriarch of the country and the 
godfather of Maduro, but they had prevailed in districts that had gone 
for Chavez in previous elections because the people in those areas had 
grown disillusioned with the years of corruption, repression, and 
movement toward dictatorship by Mr. Maduro.
  Among this group of patriotic elected officials were some 
extraordinary leaders with whom I managed to have dinner one evening.
  We went to a somewhat secret location on the second floor of a 
neighborhood restaurant. There were five of them. They were on the 
opposition side from President Maduro. They were careful not to meet or 
be seen too much in public, and I sat and talked to them about why they 
were in politics. They weren't even being paid. Maduro had decided to 
stop paying them after they were elected, and yet they continued to try 
to serve.
  At one point, one of them said to me: Senator, if you come back next 
year, I can tell you that of the five of us, two will likely be in 
prison, two will be exiled, and one may have disappeared. That is what 
happens when you oppose the Maduro regime.
  I thought to myself, there is a heavy price to pay for politics in 
our country, but it doesn't get close to what these young people were 
facing.
  Seated at that table that night was a young 35-year-old man. His name 
was Juan Guaido--the same Juan Guaido who was recently chosen as 
President of the Venezuela National Assembly.
  This last Wednesday, he did a courageous and dangerous thing. He 
announced that under the Constitution, he believed he had the power to 
take control and to call for a free and credible election, and he 
announced that he would be the interim President of Venezuela under 
that Constitution.
  It was a dramatic move. Guaido now finds himself as the interim 
Venezuelan leader--35 years old.
  What has happened since he made that announcement? The United States 
has recognized him, as has Canada, and virtually every other country in 
South and Central America, save three, and I will spell them out: 
Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua which refuse to recognize him.
  The Secretary General of the Organization of American States has also 
recognized him.
  Under article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution, if the Presidency 
of the country is deemed unfilled by a vote of the National Assembly, 
then the National Assembly President ``shall take charge of the 
Presidency'' and lead a timely transition back to a legitimate 
government.
  This is what has happened on the streets of Caracas because of his 
courage: The National Assembly passed a measure finding that the Office 
of the Presidency was vacant due to a clearly stolen election.
  So Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United Kingdom have 
all recognized Guaido as Venezuela's legitimate leader, in addition to 
the United States and Canada, I might add.
  Earlier this week, I also joined in support of his effort, calling on 
him to fulfill his constitutional role to help Venezuela return to the 
community of democracies and to do so with a thoughtful and timely 
transition to a credible election in which the Venezuelan people can 
once again choose their leaders through a fair, transparent process.

[[Page S669]]

  Yesterday I had the privilege to speak at length with President 
Guaido and offer my support for his transition. Just as when I met with 
him last year in Caracas, he was deeply thoughtful and expressed his 
love of his country that he serves. That couldn't have been more clear 
in our conversation.
  He knows how much the Venezuelan people have suffered, how the Maduro 
regime bankrupted the nation and destroyed its democracy and economy, 
and how desperate the people of this country are to rejoin the 
community of democracies.
  I told him we in the United States stand ready to help, and the 
Venezuelan people need our help to rebuild their country's democracy 
and economy and to help return the millions of Venezuelan refugees 
safely.
  Yesterday the administration pledged $20 million of humanitarian 
support to the opposition, to those who are in the streets trying to 
reclaim democracy in that country.
  I support that $20 million and hope other countries will join us. It 
is just the beginning of the help they will need.
  This once-proud country can return to the community of democracies. 
It can start to restore the faith of the people in their government. It 
can start to answer the basics.
  To think of what they are going through, to think that children are 
fainting in school because of malnutrition and that basic antibiotics 
are not even available in the hospitals, these are unthinkable 
developments in any modern country in our hemisphere. I hope this 
effort, as dangerous as it may be for the new interim President, leads 
to a credible free election and the restoration of democracy in 
Venezuela.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, obviously, the news that is dominating 
Washington, DC, and indeed the Nation is the shutdown.
  Yesterday, I joined in a colloquy with other colleagues, both 
Democrats and Republicans, asking that we find some middle way. The 
President clearly has moved. He has offered to reopen the government, I 
am told, if only a downpayment will be made to construct the wall, and 
has come forward with a good-faith effort. Ms. Pelosi--I would ask that 
she, as the Speaker, who seems to be the chief negotiating partner, do 
the same.
  I myself have two pieces of legislation that I will be offering today 
or Monday that will ease the burden on those Federal workers who are 
still working and not getting paid--and we thank them so much for doing 
so--as well as come up with an alternative way to perhaps fund the 
wall.


                      NFC Championship Controversy

  Mr. President, with the seriousness of that, I also want to address 
one other issue that is particularly serious to folks in Louisiana. I 
hope it doesn't seem out of place with the shutdown, but I can state 
that to the folks back home, it is something that continues to disturb 
them.
  I would like to bring up the NFC championship game. The State of 
Louisiana is outraged because of what happened in the Superdome last 
Sunday. Televisions were broken, Super Bowl boycott concerts scheduled, 
billboards were put up in Atlanta, and fans filed lawsuits. My 
colleague in the House of Representatives is calling for the NFL 
commissioner, Roger Goodell, to testify in front of Congress on the 
travesty that occurred 5 days ago.
  What happened, in my belief and the belief of many, was the most 
blatant and consequential blown call in NFL history. For those who 
missed it, on Sunday night during an NFC championship game, the score 
was tied with less than 2 minutes to go. It is third and long, and the 
Saints are in position to score. Drew Brees throws a pass, which is 
right there. There is the ball, there is the receiver, and there is the 
defender.
  For those not familiar with football--and I know the Presiding 
Officer played at the University of Arkansas; not a bad school, even 
though it is not a Louisiana school--the defender is not looking back 
at the quarterback. He is not looking to intercept. He is only looking 
to plow through the receiver.
  Every drunk sitting on a stool in every bar throughout the Nation 
looked up at that TV and said: There is interference.
  What you don't see from this picture I am showing, though, is there 
is also helmet-to-helmet contact, which is also a penalty.
  It was a twofer. On one play, the Los Angeles Rams defender committed 
two egregious penalties, and everybody in the Superdome and everybody 
watching knew it happened--except for him, the referee.
  I don't mean to pick on this referee. I am sure he is a nice man, a 
good family man, et cetera. But he missed a call with less than 2 
minutes that everyone agrees would have changed the course of the game. 
The Saints would have had a first down automatically, they would have 
drained the clock, they would have then kicked a field goal, and the 
game would have been over.
  LeBron James, Dez Bryant, Melvin Gordon, Richard Sherman, J.J. Watt, 
and even Hulk Hogan took to Twitter to call out this absurd call.
  The defender said: I interfered with him.
  He admitted it.
  I thought I was going to get called, but I didn't.
  The pass interference was not called, and now the Rams will play in 
the Super Bowl against the Patriots instead of the Saints, which is 
kind of a shame. It really is a taint upon the Super Bowl. It won't be 
the two best teams; it will be the two teams that got there, at least 
in one case, because someone did not see an obvious call.
  Now, I don't just mean to kvetch--and obviously all Saints fans 
continue to be upset--but it is actually, if you will, about the 
integrity of the game. If you speak of the NFL, it almost becomes a 
metaphor for that which is the most competitive, the highest quality, 
where coaches and athletes dedicate themselves, honing their skills to 
the absolute highest level. As folks say, if you can win in the NFL, 
you can win anywhere. It is a metaphor. The Saints--every football team 
invests heavily in this. Football fans really come to town on this.
  So the question is to the NFL. We have a few questions for you.
  How are the officials selected for this game? For example, they grade 
officials after every game. Were the best officials sent to this game, 
or was it just a rotation? If it is just a rotation, how did the 
referees who officiated this game grade?
  I don't want this to be too personal, but if somebody commits a 
penalty during a football game, the referee will say: No. 74 was 
offsides, and the NFL has accountability in the performance of 
everybody in the game. So I think Saints fans would like to have an 
accountability for the referees.
  Did people look into conflicts of interest? It has been pointed out 
that the referee who missed the call lives in Los Angeles. Is he a 
diehard Rams fan?
  Again, how did these referees get scored in this game? After every 
game, the referee is kind of given a grade. Was it an A-plus or a C-
minus? And if it is a lower score, what was the comment on this 
particular play?
  Saints coach Sean Payton said the senior vice president of 
officiating admitted to him in a private phone call that the official 
messed up, but there is still no official statement from the NFL. 
Perhaps they can answer these questions in an official statement.
  Football is not only a game; it is part of our culture. I would state 
that the NFL has a responsibility to the millions of fans across the 
country to ensure the integrity of the game and to answer these 
questions and perhaps a few others.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this morning the FAA grounded planes at

[[Page S670]]

LaGuardia Airport, averaging more than 1,000 flights a day. They made 
this decision because of a shortage in air traffic control staff, who 
are not being paid because the President fulfilled his promise to shut 
down the government 35 days ago.
  The FAA's website crashed as people looked for information. Stocks 
for airlines took a hit, and air traffic in other airports, including 
Philadelphia and Newark, were delayed because of staffing shortages. We 
will continue to see the ripple effects of this today. It is not like 
if travel in and out of LaGuardia is disrupted, it will be business as 
usual at other airports. More flights will be delayed. LaGuardia has 
resumed operations, but what is clear is that the ATC, or the air 
traffic control staff, is thin, and they are making game-time 
decisions--go, no go.
  Apparently, we need another reminder that this shutdown is stupid and 
dangerous, that it leaves communities and commerce on the edge, because 
the voices of those affected already--Native Americans, Coast Guard 
servicemembers, FBI agents, IRS employees, National Park Service 
workers, and domestic violence victims--weren't enough. The FAA is 
unique because they have an obligation and the authority under the law 
to make a go-no-go decision based on safety. They can look at their 
staffing numbers and say: We can't do this safely, so stop. But the FBI 
and the Coast Guard don't get to say: Hey, hold off, everybody.
  TSA agents and the TSA itself does not have the authority to make a 
similar call. They can raise the alarm, but they do not have the 
authority to stop people from coming through checkpoints. They just 
have to make do. The same goes for all of the families affected by the 
shutdown. There is no ``go-no-go'' decision. They just have to try to 
make it work.
  The FAA decision demonstrates what is happening throughout the 
government and throughout society right now. People are right on the 
edge. Some of them have fallen off that edge. Today, the shutdown 
became an inconvenience to the very small percentage of Americans who 
fly regularly, but, more importantly, today is an indicator of what is 
happening to the government, of who matters to the government.
  I certainly hope, as lots of pundits, and journalists, and 
politicians have mentioned, that once air traffic starts to slow, once 
airports get snarled, we are at the end of this process and the 
shutdown will end shortly. I don't know if that is true, but I sure 
hope it is true.
  On another level, it should precipitate a little shame, a little 
introspection about how we got here, because to fix this now, when 
airports are snarled, is to say we were OK with people not getting food 
stamps, we were OK with Native American health clinics running out of 
medicine, Federal workers working without two paychecks, and Coast 
Guard men and women deployed without paychecks, so long as the 
President can build his wall. But if flights are delayed, if the elites 
are imperiled or inconvenienced in any way at the all, game over, and 
shame on us if that is what it takes to shut down this shutdown.
  This entire time, as funding has run out for food banks and domestic 
violence shelters, everyone has been focused on whether or not Speaker 
Pelosi will win the State of the Union exchange with the President, and 
what are the polling numbers, and how are Democrats and Republicans 
positioning this, and will these polling drops matter in 2020?
  But the moment the elite of this country have a moment of 
inconvenience, this thing seems to be wrapping up, and shame on us.
  Everyone is focused on this slow, horrible train wreck that they can 
watch with some distance. Suddenly, air travel stops and everybody 
freaks out. Shame on us. It is day 35. People have gone without--
without food, medicine, gas in their car, paychecks--but delayed 
flights is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
  This has to end. But it should never have even started. It shouldn't 
have taken a day like this to be, possibly, maybe not the end, maybe 
not the beginning but the beginning of the end of this shutdown.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Ninety-First Senate President Pro Tempore

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer a few 
reflections in these opening days--now opening weeks--of the 116th 
Congress.
  On January 3, I was honored to be sworn in as the 91st Senate 
President pro tempore. As many of you know, I love history. I studied 
to be a history teacher, and I have devoted six decades of my life to 
public service where, maybe, I helped make a little history along the 
way. I have represented the people of Iowa as a legislator since 1958.
  At the age of 25, as the youngest legislator in the Iowa State House, 
I never dreamed that one day I would be named a constitutional officer 
in the Senate.
  For the last 38 years, it has been my great privilege to serve and 
represent the people of Iowa as a Senator. It is with great pride on 
behalf of my home State that I step into this leadership role and 
follow in the footsteps of my predecessors as President pro tempore of 
the Senate. In fact, one of those predecessors is from my home State. 
It was 100 years ago exactly that Iowa Republican Senator Albert Baird 
Cummins became the 68th Senate President pro tempore. He served as 
President pro tempore from 1919 until 1925.
  In my nearly four decades here in the Senate, I served alongside 
seven Presidents pro tempore: Senator Thurmond, of South Carolina; 
Senator Stennis, of Mississippi; Senator Byrd, of West Virginia; 
Senator Stevens, of Alaska; Senator Inouye, of Hawaii; Senator Leahy, 
of Vermont; and Senator Hatch, of Utah. Each served with honor and 
distinction, bringing their own style and substance to this office.
  When Senator Byrd was elected to this office, he noted that ``the 
election of a Senator to the office of the President pro tempore has 
always been considered one of the highest honors offered to a Senator 
by the Senate body.''
  I am proud to join the ranks of this impressive and respected group 
of public servants and legislators. Article I of the Constitution 
directs that a President pro tempore be chosen by the Senate. The 
President pro tempore serves as the President of the Senate when the 
Vice President is unavailable and serves a number of other ceremonial 
and ministerial functions.
  I appreciate the support of my colleagues who elected me to this 
position. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison considered it a virtue 
that Senators have ``more advanced age and a longer period of 
citizenship.'' Traditionally, the President pro tempore has also served 
as a senior statesman for the Senate, standing up for the values that 
make the Senate the world's greatest deliberative body. Perhaps that is 
why it is customary for a Senator of the majority party with the 
longest record of continuous service to become President pro tempore.
  When you have been here as long as I have, you learn some very 
valuable lessons. You learn that you have to work hard, put your 
constituents first, and stand up for your principles. That is also how 
you happen to get reelected by the people of your State. Because the 
Senate is not a majoritarian body, you also learn that in order to get 
anything important done, you have to seek consensus and develop 
relationships, and develop those relationships on both sides of the 
aisle. You have to learn the art of negotiation and bipartisan 
compromise, something that seems to be missing right now as the 
government is shut down. You also learn that it is not enough to pass 
laws. You also have to make sure that those laws are followed and that 
the taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately according to what Congress 
intends in the law.
  The humorist Will Rogers once said that about all he could say about 
the Senate is that it opens with a prayer and it closes with an 
investigation. In my experience, that is not always a bad thing because 
it is by conducting oversight and investigations that we hold the 
executive branch responsible to the

[[Page S671]]

taxpayers--no matter which party is in power. That is why I have always 
dedicated a significant amount of resources to oversight, even when I 
was a new Senator. That is why, when some have suggested that Agencies 
should only respond to the oversight requests of committee chairmen and 
ranking members, I have fought back--even when 2 years ago, the new 
administration under Trump tried to say that only chairmen and ranking 
members should get this information--because I believe that every 
Senator has a duty to the taxpayers who sent us here to take an active 
part in congressional oversight efforts.
  The Supreme Court observed in Watkins v. United States that ``the 
power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the 
legislative process.'' Oversight helps us to write better bills and to 
be wiser with taxpayer dollars. It is also how we make the Agencies 
accountable to the American people.

  Over time, as our government has grown in size, Congress has 
delegated more and more power to the executive branch--probably more 
power than we should have. Some of the delegation is necessary for the 
government to function efficiently, but there is an inherent danger 
whenever Congress delegates power to the executive branch, especially 
if we delegate legislative authority.
  When they drafted the Constitution, the Founders of our Nation were 
rightfully concerned that those in power would be tempted to abuse 
power in favor of their own interests. As we all studied in high school 
government, to prevent this, the Founders divided power among three 
branches of government and set up a system of government in which, to 
paraphrase James Madison in Federalist No. 51: Ambition [is] made to 
counteract ambition. It is through this system of checks and balances 
between ambitious branches of government that our fundamental liberties 
are protected. The concentration of too much power in the executive 
branch upsets the careful balance of the separated powers that was 
envisioned by our Founders.
  As legislators, it is our duty then, as the Founders rightfully 
intended, for us to protect and defend the interests of our branch of 
government. So, when we write laws, we must be careful not to cede too 
much authority to the executive branch, and we must make sure that if 
we have delegated authority, we conduct rigorous oversight to make sure 
it is being used appropriately. It is only through rigorous oversight 
that we make sure that the government of the people and by the people 
then works for the people.
  As President pro tempore, I will assure my colleagues and my 
constituents that I will bring the same Iowa work ethic, decency, and 
integrity to this job that I have cultivated throughout my years of 
public service. Like my President pro tempore predecessors, I will work 
to uphold the dignity and decorum of this body and to defend the 
Senate's institutional interests. It is what our Founders expected and 
the American people deserve.
  Each Member of the Senate is privileged to serve. I especially 
welcome nine of the newest Members to the Senate. There are seven 
Republicans and two Democrats who are new: Senator Blackburn of 
Tennessee, Senator Braun of Indiana, Senator Cramer of North Dakota, 
Senator Hawley of Missouri, Senator McSally of Arizona, Senator Romney 
of Utah, Senator Rosen of Nevada, Senator Sinema of Arizona, and 
Senator Scott of Florida.
  To my newest colleagues whom I have just named and, of course, to all 
of my colleagues who have been around here for quite a while, I want 
you to know my door is open. As I tell a lot of new colleagues--and I 
can repeat it for older colleagues--if you want to know anything about 
what Chuck Grassley is thinking or doing, just ask me. I will bet, 99 
percent of the time, I will be able to tell you exactly what it is. If 
I can't, I will be glad to tell you why I can't tell you. I look 
forward to working with each of you in the weeks, months, and years 
ahead.
  With great honor and, of course, humility, I look forward to my 
service as President pro tempore. Like my good friend and our most 
recent President pro tempore, Orrin Hatch, I look forward to opening 
the people's business each day in the Senate. I will then work the rest 
of that day to deliver on my commitment to find solutions to our 
country's most pressing problems, to seek common ground with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and to exercise rigorous 
oversight over the other branches of government. Our Nation's most 
pressing problem today is that of getting the government opened up.
  I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________