Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been only a few short weeks since the needless government shutdown that cost the Treasury more than $20 billion, disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and their families in every State, threatened to wreak havoc with the world's financial markets, and accomplished nothing.

But an important deadline, one critical to determining how we resolve the current budget crisis, is just a few days away. While this approaching deadline does not come with the threat of another government shutdown, if Congress is going to complete work on appropriations bills before the continuing resolution expires on January 15, we need a top-line number from the budget conferees by the end of this week.

By Friday, the budget conferees need to find enough common ground to agree on a level to fund the Federal Government for the remainder of the fiscal year. While many have expressed their doubts, there is no reason this cannot be done. People are fed up with putting the process of setting and funding our national priorities on autopilot. It is an abdication of responsibility and a wasteful way to do business.

It is equally important that the level of funding replace sequestration. A long-term continuing resolution that funds the government at the House level of $967 billion would be a disaster. Sequestration would become the new normal, funding programs and agencies at levels far below those passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee and below fiscal year 2013.

It is stunning--and frightening--that instead of looking to replace sequestration's devastating cuts, we hear from some Members that it is ``working.'' If their intention is to stunt the economic recovery and indiscriminately slash services upon which American families and businesses depend, then I guess they are right. But I don't think most Members of Congress, or most Americans, see it that way.

For those of us who want to support our communities and invigorate and sustain our economic recovery, another year of sequestration would be catastrophic. While we are still trying to gauge the full impact of the first round of cuts this year, one thing is clear--another year would be far worse.

Agencies have exhausted their carryover funds and creative budgeting options to avoid layoffs, furloughs, and eliminating programs.

Absent a budget agreement, the entire Federal Government, from the Department of Defense to the Department of Labor, will suffer significant, mindless cuts. I have spoken several times about the impact of another full year continuing resolution at the House's funding level.

I want to take a minute to describe what it would mean for America's children, teachers, and families. LIHEAP, which provides lifesaving home energy assistance, would not receive the $325 million increase over the level included in a continuing resolution, cutting off assistance to about 760,000 more households this winter and next summer. Nearly 40,000 Vermont families rely on LIHEAP in the cold Vermont winters.

Early Head Start Programs won't be expanded as the Senate appropriations bill intended, and the 177,000 children who would have received Head Start services will be turned away. Nearly 1,600 Vermont children depend on this assistance every year.

Schools around the country already facing budget shortfalls look to the Federal Government to fund services to disadvantaged children through title I grants. Those schools would not receive the $852 million included in the Senate appropriations bill. They would have to look elsewhere for money to provide those services to 1.3 million students in need.

Schools would also lose $748 million in grants for special education that were included in the Senate appropriations bill, to help cover the costs of employing more than 9,000 additional special education aides in our schools.

NIH would not receive the $2 billion in additional funds included in the Senate appropriations bill and instead would not be able to award 1,300 new research grants. This means that 1,300 additional opportunities to achieve scientific advances that could lead to lifesaving treatments and cures would be missed opportunities.

Under a continuing resolution, 159,000 families looking for assistance through the section 8 housing program to help keep a roof over their heads will be turned away because the funding won't be there. In Vermont, 774 families would face losing their housing assistance.

The WIC Program won't be able to provide food to the nearly 500,000 infants, children, and families the Senate appropriations bill would help, and working families won't receive the $291 million in additional funding the Senate provides for childcare subsidies.

Beyond our borders, we would lose the additional $389 million included in the Senate appropriations bill for global health programs to combat HIV/AIDS and other preventable infectious diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and pneumonia, as well as malnutrition.

The consequences of such a cut can be measured in lives. Tens of thousands of additional deaths would result from these diseases, tens of thousands of additional children would be orphaned by AIDS, and there would be millions fewer lifesaving immunizations for children, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths that could have been prevented.

A full-year continuing resolution would cut the international development assistance account that supports the basic needs of people in the poorest countries by nearly $115 million, including for primary education, food security, and clean water and sanitation programs.

The examples go on and on. What we face is, in fact, not a hard choice. It is a choice between doing what is right or scoring political points. The budget conferees have an opportunity to reach meaningful compromise, to replace the ``never supposed to happen'' sequester, and to prove to the American people that they can put partisanship aside when it is in the national interest.

That is what is at stake, and I commend the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, and her counterpart in the House, Chairman Rogers, for the united stand they have taken for the good of the country. I hope the budget conferees follow their example.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to tell the Senate about Mr. Robert Rossi, a Vermonter who captures the distilled essence of Vermont, and who will be celebrating his 100th birthday this Friday, November 22, 2013. Mr. Rossi represents an inextricable link between where my State, and our country, was, and what it has become, over this most remarkable century. Mr. Rossi was born and has always lived in Barre, VT, the same city where my father was born. Even while defending America in Normandy, or honeymooning with his wife in New York City, his home and his heart were always in Barre.

Mr. Rossi grew up in Barre and his father, like my maternal grandparent, immigrated to the United States and Vermont from Italy. He was a product of the Barre school system, and had a football scholarship to Green Mountain Junior College. Shortly after that he was called for service by the United States Army.

He arrived at Camp Edwards on Cape Cod the same day Pearl Harbor was attacked, and he then was stationed in Northern Ireland just before his departure to Normandy on that fateful day in the summer of 1944. When he returned stateside, he did not dwell on his experiences abroad, but rather returned to his beloved home, where he was instrumental in one of Vermont's leading industries for nearly four decades of his life: the Barre granite and stone carving industry. It has been estimated that one-third of all public and private monuments in the United States were crafted from or by Barre's quarries and its international association of sculptors and artisans. Mr. Rossi is a man of true character, and it is my pleasure to call the Senate's attention to this notable citizen of the Green Mountain State.

I join all Vermonters in offering my sincerest congratulations to Robert Rossi for his genuine lifetime of achievement. I would also like to share a recent article from the Rutland Herald and Times Argus that told his remarkable story and captured many accolades about his illustrious life.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I read with interest an article this week penned by the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, about a dear friend, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. Amidst the partisan gridlock of today's Congress, it is hard to remember a time when Members from both sides of the aisle routinely came together for the common good, rather than for the sake of political ideology. As a daughter of a public servant, Nancy Kassebaum had civic duty in her blood and represented the State of Kansas for nearly two decades. During her time in the Senate, Nancy's leadership, and determination to fight for those who needed it most, was exemplary.

Her ability to put politics aside and work across the aisle has had a lasting impact on millions of women and children today. Nancy became the first woman to serve as Chair of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Here she worked to create the Office of Women's Health Research within the National Institutes of Health, and she fought tirelessly alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to protect abused and neglected children. Nancy was an invaluable resource as chair of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, and a strong champion condemning the apartheid atrocities during Nelson Mandela's incarceration. Nancy Kassebaum exemplified the determination and leadership it takes to make a remarkable legislator and I am equally proud to call her my friend.

I ask unanimous consent that the Politico article, ``Friendship without Ideology'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for generations, Vermonters have contributed to our national culture, through art, music, film and prose. Peter Miller is one such artist whose impressive work throughout his life as both a photographer and author has showcased Vermont and its residents and enriching us all.

As an amateur photographer, I have followed Peter's work for decades with admiration. From his early beginnings as a U.S. Army photographer to his travels across Europe with Yousuf Karsh, he has channeled his passion and energy into a remarkable art. Over the past 20 years, his unique ability to capture the Vermont spirit has been well documented and his consistent approach to producing authentic depictions of the Vermont way of life is unparalleled. He shuns the commercialization of art and instead creates his work solely to share and promote the values of our small and community-based State. This attitude was evident more than ever when, being honored as the Burlington Free Press ``Vermonter of the Year'' in 2006 for his book ``Vermont Gathering Places,'' he frankly said ``I don't shoot for galleries. I shoot for myself and the people I photograph.''

His appreciation and respect for the traditional culture that defines Vermont is readily evident in his work. He has photographed farm-dotted landscapes, village communities, and generations of Vermont families. When writing the forward to his 2003 book ``Vermont People,'' I noted that ``the Vermont faces in this book speak worlds about living in the State that gave them character, wrinkles and wisdom . . . through their faces, you can see Vermont.'' Peter's most recent work, ``A Lifetime of Vermont People,'' is another testament to his tenacity and tact as a Vermonter. A product of over a year's worth of photography, fundraising, and self-publishing, this

book is truly a labor of love. His addition of background stories helps provide greater insight and meaning to the photographs included and through his photography and the recent addition of writing to his repertoire, he gives a face, and a voice, to Vermonters.

Peter lives the lifestyle he captures in his photography. A Vermonter for over five decades, he has embraced the way of life that makes the State so special. Like his black and white photographs that draw focus squarely on the subject of the piece, rather than relying on flashy colors to convey a message, he is not interested in glitz and glam. His books have themes that exemplify Vermont: farm women, gathering places, small communities. He laments the waning of iconic farms, the erosion of small town values, and the fading of the once impermeable Vermont way of life. His resiliency is remarkable and his uncanny ability to display the beauty of Vermont in a way words cannot do justice serves as an inspiration for photographers everywhere. I ask unanimous consent that an article in the VT Digger that highlights the lifetime of accomplishments of this extraordinary man be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Mr. Sant was appointed to the Smithsonian Board of Regents on October 24, 2001. He served as chair of the Executive Committee and the Board during the Smithsonian's governance reform efforts. As a leader in the energy field and a committed conservationist, Mr. Sant has generously supported the National Museum of Natural History. His gifts to the Smithsonian have supported the Sant Ocean Hall, the Sant Chair for Marine Science, and an endowment to support the Director's position at the National Museum of Natural History. His service and generosity have kept with and advanced the Smithsonian's founding mission to promote and share knowledge.

Mr. President, Patty Stonesifer's leadership and experience in the corporate sector, coupled with her committed philanthropic work, helped the Smithsonian secure major grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create an endowment to expand youth access to the Smithsonian; to support the construction of the National Museum of African American History and Culture; and to support interdisciplinary scholarship and projects to address the Smithsonian's Four Grand Challenges of ``Understanding the American Experience, Valuing World Cultures, Understanding and Sustaining a Bio-diverse Planet, and Unlocking the Mysteries of the Universe.'' Her service helped advance the very mission of the Smithsonian, and her commitment to public service continues today through her work at Martha's Table.

Mr. President, I applaud the Senate's adoption today of a resolution Senator Hatch and I submitted supporting the goals and ideals of runaway prevention month. It is a sad reality that millions of young people are living on the streets. We as legislators must do all we can to prevent homelessness and support youth who find themselves without a place to call home.

Every child in America deserves a fair shot. This is why I championed the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, RHYA, reauthorization in 2008 and why I continue working to improve and to extend this important law this year. Under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, every State receives a basic center grant to provide housing and crisis services for children and their families. Community-based groups around the country can also apply for funding through the Transitional Living Program and the Street Outreach Program. These programs and others authorized by RHYA have helped countless runaway and homeless youth and their families in Vermont and across the Nation over the last 30 years. We must continue these essential programs, too many of which are now unfunded or underfunded due to sequestration and other fiscal constraints.

We must recognize the importance of investing in our Nation's youth and direct resources where they are needed most. It is just not acceptable that homeless children are turned away from shelters due to a lack of beds or that services providers are being forced to downsize. We can and must do more.

The RHYA's most recent charter expired at the end of September. I hope that we can work to reauthorize and improve this vital law by ensuring it meets the needs of children in our most vulnerable communities. Too often LGBT youth find themselves in need of shelter and support because their families are unaccepting. Programs authorized by RHYA should be trained to respond to LGBT youth and, when possible, strive to reunite them with their families through counseling. We must also update the statute to reflect the tragic reality that runaway and homeless youth are vulnerable to trafficking and sexual exploitation. We should ensure grantees are able to meet the needs of young victims of trafficking or exploitation or offer referrals to other qualified service providers. We need smarter training and more resources to help our grantees meet the needs of young victims, and that is exactly what the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides.

Madam President, the American patent system has long been the envy of the world. Two years ago, Congress took important action to update and modernize this system for the 21st century by passing the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The Leahy-Smith act has made key improvements to the patent system, strengthening it for the long term. Unfortunately, there are bad actors who are misusing the system by unfairly targeting small businesses and others with lawsuits that are often based on low-quality patents. That is why I joined on Monday with Senator Lee, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Klobuchar to introduce legislation that will build upon the success of the Leahy-Smith act and curb abuses by so-called patent trolls.

The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act will take important steps to rein in the most egregious abuses of the patent system. It will improve transparency of patent ownership so that trolls cannot hide behind shell corporations and obscure the true owner of the patents that are being asserted. It will help customers who are sued simply for using a product that they purchased by allowing the case against them to be stayed while the product's manufacturer litigates the suit. The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act will also take steps to crack down on abuses of demand letters that are all too often sent to small businesses simply to extort monetary settlements.

When small businesses in Vermont are threatened with lawsuits simply for using document scanners in their offices or offering wi-fi service to their customers, we can all agree that the patent system is not being used as intended. I thank Senator Lee and our cosponsors for joining me in this important effort and applaud Chairman Goodlatte for the work he is doing in the House to address this problem. I look forward to working with all members of the Judiciary Committee, as well as with the House, to pass bipartisan and bicameral legislation that will crack down on these abuses while at the same time preserving the parts of the patent system that have made it the greatest in the world and an engine for job creation.

Madam President, on November 15, according to information I have received, three armed men attacked the offices of the Asociacion Pro-Busqueda de Ninas y Ninos Desaparecidos in El Salvador, dousing computers, archives, and confidential documents with gasoline and then lighting them on fire.

For Senators who may not be aware, Pro-Busqueda is a small organization devoted to locating Salvadorans who, as children during the civil war, were forcibly taken from their parents, some of whom were killed by Salvadoran military officers, and either ``adopted'' by those officers or sold to other families including foreigners. Pro- Busqueda works to support the Salvadoran birth parents who lost their children to these forced adoptions, and uses DNA technology to help family members find each other. Years ago, a member of my staff visited Pro-Busqueda's office in San Salvador, met the courageous staff and observed the research they were doing.

This deplorable attack on Pro-Busqueda followed the abrupt decision by San Salvador's Archdiocese to close Tutela Legal, the highly respected human rights office of the Roman Catholic Church which played an indispensable role in investigating and documenting violations of human rights during the war, including the assassination of Archbishop Romero. The office collected key testimony and other documentary evidence, and there is more of that work to be done.

The attack on Pro-Busqueda also followed the welcome but controversial decision by the Salvadoran Supreme Court to accept a case challenging the Amnesty Law, which has provided immunity from prosecution to former Salvadoran military officers implicated in atrocities during the war.

I join those who have expressed condolences to the staff of Pro- Busqueda, and urge the Salvadoran Government to conduct a thorough investigation and to punish those responsible. It is tragic that two decades after the signing of the peace accords that ended the war, attempts to determine the fate of kidnapped children elicits this kind of hateful, violent response. It illustrates how much remains to be done to fulfill the promise of the accords and overcome the painful and divisive legacy of that war.

Mr. President, I realize the Presiding Officer is not allowed to respond, but I want to add my words to those of the distinguished Senator from Colorado that I am delighted to see the Senator in the Chair. Again, as I did the other day, I welcome him to the Senate.

More than 12 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, as we see our military presence in Afghanistan wind down, it is time to take a hard look at our counterterrorism policy. We need to consider which of our policies are working and which, while perhaps well-intentioned when they were adopted in the highly charged weeks and months after 9/11, are not making us safer. There is ample evidence that the status quo is unsustainable.

As recent revelations have made clear, we need a careful review of our surveillance activities. For example, this summer many Americans learned for the first time that Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans' phone records on an unprecedented scale.

Despite the massive privacy intrusion of this program, the executive branch has not made the case that this program is uniquely valuable to protecting our national security, and that is why I introduced the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act with Congressman Sensenbrenner. We want to end this dragnet collection and place appropriate safeguards on a wide range of government surveillance authorities.

We also must close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. In the coming days the Senate will take up and debate the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. That act contains many provisions that are central to our national security, and many of those provisions will help our allies around the world.

Among the most important are provisions that would help make it possible to close the facility at Guantanamo. As long as Guantanamo remains open, it doesn't protect our national security. It serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists, it needlessly siphons away critical national security dollars, and discredits America's historic role as a global leader that defends human rights and the rule of law. As a United States Senator, I feel that this is not the face of America I want the world to see.

Currently, 164 individuals remain detained at Guantanamo. Most of them have been there for more than a decade. More than half--84--have been cleared for transfer to another country, but efforts to do so have stalled largely due to irrationally onerous restrictions imposed by Congress. These unnecessary and counterproductive hurdles have made it all but impossible to close Guantanamo, and they have also severely damaged our credibility when we criticize other governments for their use of indefinite detention. We used to be able to do that. Now they look at us and say: How can you speak?

Provisions in the 2014 NDAA would ease these restrictions. While they are incremental, they would streamline procedures for transferring detainees to other countries, and, where appropriate, allow them to be transferred to the United States for trial or detention. These are common sense changes and they are necessary if we are serious about putting an end to what I believe is an ugly chapter in our history.

There are some who will come to the floor of this Chamber over the next several days to tell us how dangerous and irresponsible it would be to close Guantanamo. I would answer that the facts are simply not with them. The bottom line is that Guantanamo hurts us; it does not help us.

Guantanamo does not make us safer. We are all committed--all of us in this body--to protecting the national security of the United States and the American people, but Guantanamo undermines those efforts. Our national security and military leaders have concluded that keeping Guantanamo open is itself a risk to our national security.

The facility continues to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. It weakens our alliances with key international partners.

Guantanamo does not hold terrorists accountable. The military commission system for trying these detainees does not work. Federal courts have recently overturned two Guantanamo convictions in opinions that will actually prevent the military commission prosecutors from bringing conspiracy and material charges against detainees--a fact acknowledged by the lead military prosecutor at Guantanamo.

These charges, however, can be pursued in Federal courts where our prosecutors have a strong track record of obtaining long prison sentences against those who seek to do us harm. Since 9/11, Federal courts have convicted more than 500 terrorism-related suspects, and they remain securely behind bars.

Guantanamo is also diverting scarce resources from critical national security efforts at a time when the Department of Defense faces deep and ongoing cuts. Most Americans would be surprised to know how much it costs to maintain Guantanamo. It costs about $450 million a year to house 164 individuals. That means we are spending about $2.7 million per detainee every year--every year--year in, year out, and some have been there for more than a decade.

In Federal prisons, it costs less than $80,000 a year to hold an individual, compared to $2.7 million at Guantanamo. So $80,000 at our most secure Federal prisons, which have housed hundreds of convicted terrorists for decades. There has never been an escape. And, despite the fact the Pentagon rejected a request earlier this year to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to overhaul the aging compound, House Republicans included this spending in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act.

We can't get money for school lunches for our children, we can't get money for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, but we can continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more for Guantanamo. Our priorities as Americans are upside down.

The money squandered on this long-failed experiment would be better served helping disabled veterans returning home from war and soldiers preparing to defend our Nation in the future. We don't have enough money to do that, but we have enough money to keep Guantanamo open. Come on. This waste must end.

Guantanamo has undermined our reputation as a champion of human rights. Countries that respect the rule of law and human rights do not lock away prisoners indefinitely without charge or trial. We condemn authoritarian states that carry out such practices and we should not tolerate them ourselves, even for our worst enemies. We are a better people than that.

The status quo at Guantanamo is untenable and I appreciate President Obama's renewed vow to shutter this unnecessary, expensive, and counterproductive prison. But in order for the President's plan to be successful, Congress has to do its part.

We have to pass common sense provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this issue as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I stand solidly with Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and others who have long recognized that it is in our national security interest to close Guantanamo. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do, it is the morally responsible thing to do, and, above all, it will actually make our country safer.

For over a decade, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo has contradicted our most basic principles of justice, degraded our international standing, and harmed our national security. It is shameful we are still debating this issue. The status quo is unacceptable. Close Guantanamo.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I once again express my strong support for the efforts of the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Mikulski, and the chairwoman of the

Budget Committee, Senator Murray, as they work to reach agreement with their counterparts in the House of Representatives to resolve the impasse over the fiscal year 2014 budget.

Washington today is filled with naysayers. But as broken as the budget process is, and as pessimistic as many people are, I remain hopeful about the possibility of reaching a compromise that can bring us back to some semblance of the regular order everyone claims to want.

If there ever were two Senators who could find a way through the morass, it is Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray. And they should know there are a great many of us, including some on the Republican side of the aisle, who are 100 percent behind them. I encourage all Senators to read David Rogers' piece in Tuesday's edition of POLITICO, entitled ``Barbara Mikulski's fight: Protecting appropriations''. It tells the story, and in doing so, it pays tribute to Senator Mikulski.

I am not naive about the obstacles ahead, not the least of which is the shortness of time. We need a top line number from the budget conferees by the end of next week if we are to complete appropriations bills by January 15 when the current continuing resolution expires.

There is no mystery about what needs to happen. There must be compromise by both sides on two key issues--increasing revenues and decreasing spending. There will not be agreement without both. But in the absence of agreement, the operations and programs of every Federal agency will be drastically reduced by the combined effects of sequestration and a full year continuing resolution.

People will lose their jobs and programs will be cut deeply or terminated altogether. Infrastructure projects will be cancelled. The American people will pay the price in far more ways than any one of us can imagine.

I want to mention a few examples of the effects that a full year continuing resolution, at the level the House proposes, will have in lost jobs and canceled infrastructure projects in this country.

Under a full year continuing resolution, the National Science Foundation would receive $542 million less than the amount in the Senate bill. The funding included by the Senate would provide funding for 1,500 more competitive grants and support 17,000 scientists, technicians and students. Under a CR, those jobs and that research would not be possible.

The $500 million included in the Senate bill to fix thousands of deteriorating and aging bridges around the country would disappear.

Under a CR, the Federal Aviation Administration would not receive the $559 million in the Senate bill to hire air traffic controllers needed to keep the skies safe. Instead, the FAA would be faced with having to impose a hiring freeze and furlough air traffic controllers and aviation safety inspectors.

Funding for agricultural research would receive nearly $242 million less than the levels included in the Senate bill and America's standing as the world leader in food production could be in jeopardy, because we simply won't be able to compete with the $4.5 billion China spends on agricultural research annually.

The EPA's funding for clean and safe drinking water would face significant cuts, putting Americans' access to clean water at risk. It would also mean 6,500 fewer American jobs.

These are just a few examples of how another long term continuing resolution will neglect the infrastructure needs of our Nation and prevent the creation of thousands of jobs.

I hope the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that put an end to the needless shutdown will enable the budget conferees to reach agreement on a top line funding level so Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mikulski and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers can help us get back to work and pass the bills needed to fund these essential services.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Rogers' article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it was not very long ago that it seemed as if the ivory trade was on the decline and that the survival of African elephants in the wild was assured. In recent years, we have seen that confidence shattered, as thousands of these magnificent animals have been systematically killed for their tusks. Similarly, the rhinoceros, already endangered, is now in great jeopardy due to the voracious appetite in China and elsewhere

in Asia for concoctions manufactured from their horn which can fetch thousands of dollars per ounce.

Large-scale poaching of these and other wildlife species has become endemic in sub-Saharan Africa. It is estimated that up to 17,000 African elephants have been killed for their tusks since 2011, and just last month poachers used cyanide to poison 300 elephants in Zimbabwe. It was only a couple of years ago that we saw the extinction of the western black rhinoceros, another victim of rampant poaching. This devastating slaughter should serve as a deafening wake-up call to the world. It has implications that extend far beyond wildlife conservation.

The international ban on ivory sales enacted in 1989 had a positive, albeit temporary impact on the protection of elephant and rhinoceros populations, but it has since spawned a black market industry in wildlife and wildlife parts. As I mentioned, some of the market is in carved ivory products and potions prized in Asia for their supposed medicinal or other properties. But this illicit revenue is increasingly being used to fund violent extremist groups in the subcontinent. The profits from this trade fuels trafficking in weapons, drugs, and humans, as well as terrorism in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, and beyond.

Vermonters take pride in being well informed about international affairs, as well as on the impact that we as individuals have on the world we live in. The people of my State know that many of the products we buy, services we support, and actions we take have global implications, positive and negative. That is why it was no surprise when more than 300 people gathered last month in the University of Vermont's Ira Allen Chapel to view the National Geographic documentary ``Battle for the Elephants'' and discuss the grave threat that poaching poses to the world's elephant population. The consensus was that while the outlook is ominous, the fact that people are increasingly focused on this crisis is reason for hope that these animals can be saved. Vermont's own Laurel Neme, a renowned environment and wildlife policy expert, noted that technological advancements, especially in regards to tracing the origins of illegal ivory, have made encouraging strides.

The United States has moral as well as strategic interests in combatting trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products. As I have mentioned, it is not only decimating elephant and rhinoceros populations it is also funding traffickers and terrorist groups. For these reasons, the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, of which I am chairman, included $45 million for fiscal year 2014 to combat wildlife poaching and trafficking, including by training and supporting African park rangers and other law enforcement officials. The Obama administration has also recognized the need to address this crisis more forcefully and is allocating additional resources.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the African countries to protect and conserve their wildlife populations. But they cannot do it alone. It is imperative that we work with them and other donor governments and organizations to martial the resources to combat the black market trade in wildlife.

Mr. President, since the early 1980s, Congress has provided legislative authority for Supreme Court Police to protect Supreme Court Justices, their employees, and guests when they leave the Supreme Court grounds. That authority is set to expire at the end of next month and merits extension. The House voted by an overwhelming majority of 399 to 3 to pass a bipartisan bill which would extend this authority through 2019. All Democrats have cleared this bill for passage. I urge the minority to do the same so the Senate may swiftly pass this extension to ensure the continued safety of our Supreme Court Justices and their employees.

Mr. President, I commend President Obama for renominating Judge Patricia M. Wald to serve as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, ``PCLOB''. The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Wald to this post on August 2, 2012. The President renominated Judge Wald to this position in March, and the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the nomination without objection months ago. During her tenure on this important oversight board, Judge Wald has served with great professionalism and dedication. And next week, she will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor that the President can bestow.

For the past several months, we have been engaged in a national debate about the ever-growing need for limits on the government's surveillance powers. In the coming weeks, the House and the Senate will consider bipartisan legislation to rein in those expansive powers in an effort to protect Americans' privacy and to increase transparency and oversight. While I look forward to that debate and consideration of this important legislation, it is urgent that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board continue to operate at full strength to safeguard our constitutional rights. The PCLOB has held two all day hearings on these surveillance matters in recent months, and plans to issue an important report to the President and Congress. Judge Wald has been a key participant in these proceedings. Should the Senate fail to confirm her nomination before we adjourn, however, Judge Wald would be forced to step down from the PCLOB at a critical time when the board is conducting its work to evaluate the privacy and civil liberties implications of the Nation's surveillance programs.

Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike have supported the important work of this nonpartisan board. Unfortunately, a secret objection on the Republican side is needlessly delaying Judge Wald's confirmation. I urge the Senate to promptly confirm this well qualified nominee, so that the PCLOB can carry out its important responsibilities. If a single Republican Senator has a concern about Judge Patricia Wald's impeccable credentials, they should come forward with the reason they are holding up her confirmation.