Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know that so many of my colleagues are looking forward to wrapping up this year's business and hopefully getting home soon for the holidays. I wish to take a few minutes to speak about a couple of issues. First I wish to give some remarks about my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, on her retirement, and to mention a few things that have been going on in the small business committee which will be wrapping up business. The small business committee and Senator Landrieu are kind of synonymous in my mind because my colleague Senator Landrieu has been, for the better part of the last couple of years, the Chair of that committee and has done some incredible work. As legislation is moving through the final days in the U.S. Senate, we have been very successful in getting some important legislation passed for small business. One piece of legislation we were able to make a part of the Defense authorization bill is sole-source contracting for women entrepreneurs so they can more easily get contracting with the Federal Government. That is going to help us have their great products and services more easily contracted and get access to those contracts. There is also money for microlending programs. My colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, has pioneered an idea that is so important to women entrepreneurs and that involves the kind of lending they would like to see from the Small Business Administration, which is microlending, and for women to be able to get access to microloans. They also want an intermediate loan level of $200,000 or less. That helps them target some of the business interests they have, because we definitely need more women entrepreneurs in our country. The third item is the STEP program, which is a small business export assistance program that works with States. The Federal Government and the Small Business Administration work with States to help them target businesses within their States that can use export assistance to become exporters. This is such an important issue for our country, because we, with a growing middle class around the globe, have a great opportunity to sell new products and services around the globe. But many of our small businesses are challenged by the risk of making those kinds of attempts to sell in those markets. So this export assistance program, which had been a pilot, is now going to be a funded permanent program. So we are excited about that and excited it is moving through. Tribute To Mary Landrieu I also didn't get a chance last week to speak about my colleague Senator Landrieu on the floor, so I wanted to take a few minutes now to remind my colleagues that as someone who has served with her on the energy committee and served with her on the small business committee, I have been so impressed with the accomplishments she has achieved in her career here in the U.S. Senate. For much of the time she was talking the other day--rightfully so--she shared a lot of moments of her career and a lot of personal moments. I wanted to remind my colleagues of some of the very big challenges she faced as a Senator and how impressed I am with what she was able to actually overcome. Many people know that obviously being hit by Katrina was one of the biggest economic challenges not just in Louisiana but to our country, and her impassioned leadership and calls to hasten the efforts to make sure we were doing everything we could for those individuals to receive medical aid and shelter and help find loved ones was nonstop for many days. She successfully, as she mentioned on the floor, urged OMB to fully fund the repairs of the levee system in southeast Louisiana and continues that work. She succeeded in passing legislation that directed the Army Corps of Engineers to analyze, design, and strengthen the storm mitigation systems against category 5 hurricanes. Now if any of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate have ever worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, say no more. You know how challenging it is. We don't control them. They base all of their work on science. They have a budget. It is never enough money. It can seem as though we are fighting them for ever and ever to get something we think is essential to protect the people in our State to move forward. So she did all of that and moved the focus to make sure we establish a defense against category 5 hurricanes. Also, if any of my colleagues ever had a flood or a storm in their State post-Katrina, they know the first person they were going to hear from was Mary Landrieu. She didn't stop her efforts in Louisiana. She wanted to take everything she learned from that emergency and call you up and tell you these are the things you need to do immediately and this is how you should get prepared. I know she did that for many of my colleagues and we so appreciated it. Then another catastrophe happened--the Deepwater Horizon oilspill. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I can tell my colleagues I spoke to her many times about issues as they related to the Clean Water Act and what was eventually passed, the RESTORE Act, which was a bipartisan effort. Basically, the bill made sure that 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines from BPA went directly into the Gulf States, making this the biggest individual investment in environmental conservation and restoration in our country's history. That was no easy task. There were a lot of people at the time who wanted to focus on many different aspects of that disaster, and so many events have taken place since then. But I can remember clearly the catastrophe and what it meant for the fishing community, the individuals, the States' economies--all of the questions. A lot of people were looking backwards about what happened, but the Senator from Louisiana was looking forward to make sure those funds were invested right there in the gulf. That was a big challenge that she was successful in meeting. Obviously, she used her voice for many issues related to Louisiana, but I wish to emphasize to my colleagues how much she also used her voice for many other people who didn't seem to be here in the Halls of Washington and made sure that those issues were at the top of the agenda. We had the 2009 economic crisis in our country and many people remember because it had such a huge economic impact to individual families. The Senator from Louisiana made sure she was standing up for small businesses during that time period. There were millions of Americans who lost their jobs during that time period, and as everybody was here talking about what to do to help these big banks--and we all know that they got a bailout--many small businesses across the country actually had performing lines of credit cut out right from under them. So they didn't have anybody knocking on the door to make sure they were being helped. But the Senator from Louisiana got very vocal here about the prioritization of making sure that we did something about conventional lending and tried to tackle this issue. From 2007 to 2009, the number of SBA borrowers dropped by more than half and the amount of loans dropped by more than one-third. Many of these small businesses were paying the price. So Senator Landrieu got busy fighting for what was the Small Business Jobs Act. If my colleagues remember that debate, there were many times that some people on the other side of the aisle didn't want to support that legislation or even moments when Treasury didn't know if they wanted to support that legislation. She was successful in the end in getting that legislation passed 61 to 38. The Small Business Jobs Act leveraged more than $42 billion in loans to more than 90,000 businesses throughout the SBA. The bill, along with other measures, helped target about $12 billion in tax cuts for small business. So while the big banks had immediate relief, they had someone here in DC fighting for small businesses, and that was Senator Landrieu. That legislation also saw a small business lending fund increase so that there was more capital on Main Street for small business. As a result of the legislation, 2011 and 2012 were the two biggest years on record for the 7(a) and the 504 program, which are kind of the premier programs for the Small Business Administration. That went a long way to helping small businesses begin to recover. Also, the small business credit initiative helped small businesses get access to capital. So all of these things were what my colleague from Louisiana fought for to help small businesses. I think it is a perfect example, along with those other things about how she used her voice to try to bring clarity to the challenges we were facing and stand up for those who weren't being heard. She also, though, lent her voice to another group that is often--we don't necessarily always understand all of the issues surrounding it. I kind of think that she took over for Senator Byrd who was a great advocate on behalf of animals and spoke a lot about his dog, and many of the stories he shared warmed everybody's heart. Senator Landrieu last year was the Humane Society's Legislator of the Year for her consistent work to prevent the cruel practices of horse slaughter, to protect wild animals, and strengthen provisions against animal fighting. So she clearly deserved that title and we certainly appreciate her efforts there. She was also a voice for the District of Columbia. People get committee assignments, and, yes, she had that committee assignment, but the thing about Senator Landrieu is that once she took an assignment, she was tough on making sure those issues were addressed. She did that for the District of Columbia. I want to add my sincere thanks to the Senator from Louisiana for all of her work and public service here in the Senate. She will be missed. I know she and I share a passion for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and something she has tried in her time in the Senate to get fully funded. We are going to continue that work on her behalf in the energy committee. Again, I thank my colleague and dear friend for her incredible passion and for fighting for those whose voices were not always heard. There is no mistake her voice was heard here in the Senate. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alison Mueller, of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, be granted floor privileges for the rest of December 9, 2014.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation that will be before the Senate shortly that will help women entrepreneurs across the country break through the glass ceiling. Earlier this year, as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I released a report entitled ``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship.'' These barriers, according to our report, show that women entrepreneurs were not getting a fair shot at access to capital, not getting a fair shot at competing for Federal contracts, and needed more programs tailored specifically to their needs and certainly needed more access to capital and at smaller amounts of money. This chart shows the various things that were relevant from that report: equal access to Federal contracts, access to capital, and relevant business training. We heard an earful from women entrepreneurs all across America, and it spurred us to take action and make major changes. That is why we introduced legislation called the Women's Small Business Ownership Act of 2014, and this legislation did three things: It said, let's focus on sole-source contracting authority for women- owned businesses when they are working with the Federal Government, let's improve the counseling to women, and let's make sure women get the access to capital that they deserve. Additionally, the issue of sole-source contracting was taken up by two of my colleagues, Senator Shaheen and Senator Gillibrand. I should say that my predecessor on the committee, Senator Landrieu, had worked on this issue of access to capital for women for a long time, and we certainly applaud all she did as chairwoman of the Small Business Committee. The sole-source contracting provision is in the Defense bill we are going to be taking up shortly. I thank all of my colleagues--as I said, Senator Shaheen, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Landrieu--and also the SBA Administrator, Maria Contreras-Sweet, for their support in getting more federal contracts to women-owned businesses. There are more than 8 million women-owned businesses in the United States, but they only get a tiny percent--about 4 percent--of Federal contracts. We want to make sure this is changed. I think we have a second chart that describes this problem. We have a Federal goal of making sure that small businesses get access to contracts at each Federal agency so that we are doing all we can to grow small businesses in America. If you think about it, many small businesses have the technological expertise to do the work. What they often don't have is the manpower to wade through the lengthy and complicated federal contracting process. So sole-source contracting allows the Federal Government to streamline the procurement process when selecting a company. So we want to make sure this is changed, and the FY 15 NDAA legislation will do just that. Twenty years ago, Congress established the goal of awarding 5 percent of all Federal contracts to women-owned small businesses, but we did not make sure there was fair representation in the marketplace to achieve this goal. Last year, the Department of Defense accounted for 68 percent of Federal procurement opportunities; yet the Department of Defense only issued 3.6 percent of those contracts to women-owned small businesses. In my State, the State of Washington, women received only 1.67 percent of Federal contracts. We heard from women across America, when they came to testify before the Small Business Committee this summer, exactly how challenging this process is. I want to point out a last chart, which shows that 28 percent of businesses in the United States are women-owned, and we certainly want to increase that. Part of our challenge economically is to make sure various groups are getting access to adequate capital, getting opportunities to compete for federal contracts, and getting the counseling and training they need, so they can participate in the economy as small business owners. But we can see on this chart that the percentage of federal contracts to women-owned businesses is minuscule. We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to help these women. Trena Payton, a business owner and veteran from my home state of Washington, is one of these voices fighting for this provision to be made into law. Trena testified at a Small Business Committee hearing on Veterans' Entrepreneurship. In 2003, Trena decided to open her own business. It took her more than a year to land her first contract. She said at the hearing: As the head of a women-owned small business, I can tell you that access to the federal marketplace is a huge issue. Today, Trena's company, ABN Technologies, has grown to employ twelve people and last year generated revenues of 8.1 million dollars. On sole-source contracting, Trena said, this change ``would help millions of women break through barriers to accessing federal contracts.'' I also want to talk about Charlotte Baker, who owns Digital Hands in Tampa, FL. Charlotte's company provides cyber security services and IT business to the government. Her company is developing new, innovative solutions to deter cyber threats. That is a service we need, but she may never win a contract through the regular process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that is coming over from the House and give women the tools they need to be successful. I would like to thank the many organizations, small business advocates, and staff who have worked to get the women's sole-source provision enacted into law: Women Impacting Public Policy--especially Ann Sullivan, Barbara Kasoff, John Stanford, and Martin Feeney; the National Women's Business Council; the Women's Business Enterprise National Council; the Women President's Organization; the National Association of Women Business Owners; the National Women Business Owners Corporation; the U.S. Black Chambers; the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; the Association for Enterprise Opportunity; the Business and Professional Women's Foundation; Enterprising Women; the Path Forward Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship; the REDC Center for Women's Enterprise; the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Women in Trucking; the Women's Business Development Council; the Women's Exchange; and the Association of Women's Business Centers. From staff, I'd like to thank Jonathan Hale, Alison Mueller, Nick Sutter, Ami Sanchez, Carl Seip, Jane Campbell, Kevin Wheeler and LeAnn Delaney. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back on both sides.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to call the Senate's attention to one of the most important economic issues before us, and that is the issue of Net neutrality. We face a pivotal moment in the fight to preserve an open and fair Internet. Last week, the President called on the FCC to protect the bedrock principle of Net neutrality. A strong, open Internet is one of the best ways to protect the innovation that supports millions of American jobs. It is one of the best ways to protect the competitiveness of the digital economy. Now the FCC is working on formulating ways to protect a robust Internet. We know that the FCC received over 4 million comments on the issue of Net neutrality, and it registered many concerns by the public in making sure that we protect what has been a great resource for them. They have spoken. They want to protect innovation, and they want to protect a free Internet. Consumers should know for a fact that their Internet service is being held to the same standards as everywhere else. But we know now there are concerns about the concentration of players in the cable and large telephone market as it continues to develop. Maybe two providers will provide as much as 85 percent of the provider market, which raises concerns to many consumers. Today I am calling on the FCC to take forceful action that adopts the strongest rule possible to provide maximum protection for consumers-- maximum flexibility to promote the Internet economy. I encourage the FCC to adopt robust and durable rules to prevent locking, throttling, fast lanes, and to safeguard transparency for consumers. These rules should apply both to the wired and wireless broadband networks so that your Web browser, your personal computer, your apps on your phone, all are treated in the same way. This important policy would provide certainty to startup and business communities the same way as it will to support the Fortune 500 companies. In other words, we will treat an entrepreneur who started their company in their garage the same way we treat a big multinational corporation. We need to send a clear message: We do not want artificial toll lanes on the innovation economy of the future. It is my hope the FEC arrives at a conclusion next year and issues these rules. The Internet has been an engine for unprecedented economic growth for our country. Today, the text-up sector represents 3.9 millions jobs, according to Pew Research, and it is continuing to grow. It really does represent the American entrepreneurial spirit. YouTube was created in a garage in San Mateo; Facebook launched in a dorm room in Cambridge, MA; Amazon--when Jeff Bezos came to Bellevue, WA--has now become a juggernaut in downtown Seattle for new growth and development. These companies might have started in a garage, but they are supporting thousands of jobs across our country. So today we want to make sure the Internet is not under attack by those who would prefer a pay-for-play system. The biggest telecom companies are trying to write the rules of the road that would crowd out some of these opportunities for unique entrepreneurs to continue to grow the application economy of the future. That is why we can't allow Internet service providers to set up fast lanes for those who can pay and slow lanes for those who can't. Our innovation economy depends on equal access for ideas. Between 2007 and 2012, development of applications for smart phones and tablets created over 466,000 high-tech jobs and generated more than $20 billion in annual revenue. A tiered Internet system would put all of that at risk. It would allow Internet service providers to cut back from the deals to determine what information America can access on line. We live in an economy based on speed, and a tiered Internet system would give the power to set speed limits to those few Internet service providers and what they wanted to do. This has a major ripple effect. Imagine your doctor examining a patient via telemedicine or a student trying to access a report through a university server, all of this put at challenge by whether they have fast access. As an editorial in the Seattle Times said: America's democracy is in trouble when information is throttled or controlled by a few. The FEC must reverse this shameful trend. What they are really trying to say is that creating additional barriers is tantamount, in my mind, to creating a tax on the Internet. A tiered Internet provider would have the range of control, and it means that individual users could be challenged. Strong Net neutrality rules will help maintain the same Internet we have today, and that is why the FEC should act. Across the country, innovators, entrepreneurs, are experimenting with different app designs and different content creation and they rely on this open Internet to pursue those new business models. Nearly every startup relies on understanding that their product can reach any user connected to the Internet. So allowing Internet service providers to erect toll lanes would threaten the fundamental nature of the Internet and every business plan of every startup that relies on the consumer's ability for equal access to content. We must do better than what has been done so far, and I encourage this body to make sure we too are going to stand up and protect the American spirit of entrepreneurship by making sure that Net neutrality is the law of the land. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator Murray in commemorating this important day in American history. Seventy years ago, when the B Reactor went critical, it forever changed history and thrust society into the Atomic Age. On September 26, 1944 the Manhattan Project overcame a major obstacle when the B Reactor--the first full- scale nuclear reactor--proved that it was possible to develop plutonium in large quantities, and the world was forever transformed. Our constituents in Washington State are reminded of that change daily, as the workers at the Hanford Reservation continue their efforts to clean up the legacy of the B Reactor and the eight other reactors built and operated at Hanford. The history of this fateful day and the entire Manhattan Project must be remembered so that our Nation has the opportunity to reflect on and learn from the important lessons this facility has to offer. Our collective work to designate the B Reactor as a national historic landmark is a great start, but the Manhattan Project story cannot be told at the B Reactor alone. This is why I am working with Senator Murray and our colleagues in Tennessee and New Mexico to establish the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The Manhattan Project National Historical Park Act would commemorate the historic achievements made by the workers at the Hanford Reservation and at other Manhattan Project sites across the country. The men and women who worked on the B Reactor played an unforgettable role in our Nation's history, and it is important that we remember their lasting impact.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and the legislation that we are soon going to be seeing on a continuing resolution that was just voted on by the House of Representatives. While I am happy that there is a CR--a continuing resolution--that keeps our government open, I am very distressed with the fact that the House is sending us a simple 9-month extension of the Export-Import Bank to expire June 30 of next year. The reason why that is so frustrating to me and many of my colleagues over here is because this is a jobs issue. It is about our economy, and we have heard today at various venues throughout the Capitol how people are actually losing jobs right now because of the uncertainty of the Export-Import Bank. So I know that some of my colleagues in the House of Representatives--Republicans--are proud they have helped to reauthorize the bank for 9 months. Make no mistake about it; this will cost us jobs in the United States of America during that time period. We had a press conference today. I was proud to be joined by my colleagues Senator Kirk, Senator Graham, Senator Manchin, and various leaders in the energy industry--the Nuclear Energy Institute; Combustion Associates, Inc.; Itron, which is a company in the Northwest; Westinghouse; and FirmGreen--to talk about how many energy jobs are dependent upon the Export-Import Bank. You can see from this chart: 46,000 U.S. energy jobs and $7.7 billion in energy exports. Just last year these transactions helped these energy jobs in the United States of America by putting investments in projects overseas. That is why we want to see a long-term reauthorization of the Export- Import Bank. While this uncertainty exists in the continuing resolution, all you are going to do is to exclude U.S. companies from closing deals. That is because a credit agency is critical to U.S. companies actually being at the table. We heard from one firm today, FirmGreen, that they were actually excluded from participating and getting a deal simply because of the uncertainty of the Ex-Im Bank: A credit agency guaranteeing financing the deal was not at the table and we lost out to an Asian competitor. So during these 9 months of uncertainty, that is exactly what is going to happen to more U.S. companies. They are going to lose out on these energy jobs that we are looking for overseas. I am talking about things that are part of our energy strategy-- everything from Sub-Saharan Africa, wind turbines in Central America, and powerplants in Africa to various investments in the nuclear facilities. A short-term 9-month extension doesn't provide a large enough window for companies to build a pipeline, to construct a wind turbine or to develop a nuclear facility. So it will hurt us by slowing down on these energy projects just at a time when we are trying to fund the training of troops to combat ISIS. We are going to be creating uncertainty in places such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iraq on water projects, construction projects, and road projects that might not get done because U.S. companies won't be able to get the financing of a credit agency. So this is a national security issue, and we are already hearing from exporters about this. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a list of 30 different newspapers with editorials supporting the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

Ms. CANTWELL. The Roanoke Times was one of those newspapers. It typifies what companies are saying, that ``to really increase manufacturing jobs, you need to increase exports.'' That is why we feel so strongly about this. The Roanoke Times also said: It's a global economy. Policymakers need to put U.S. manufacturers on an even playing field with foreign competitors in emerging markets, not take them out of the game. That is exactly what happens when we give a short-term reauthorization for 9 months. No deal of this size and magnitude with energy companies gets done in a 9-month period of time. It takes the bank basically 3 months just for the processing. The discussion of being at the table, closing the deal, and competing with your competitors takes much longer, and no one is going to be interested in closing a deal when they don't know whether the bank is going to continue to exist. That is why other newspapers such as the Times-Picayune has said that one of their companies--basically a CEO of Reliable Industries of New Orleans--said: ``The Export-Import Bank is a major reason his firm has built an export business with 600 customers in 60 countries.'' I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the other side of the Capitol who don't understand business: The notion that you don't get is that the export opportunities for our economy are the biggest chances to grow GDP in America, and you are foreclosing on that for the next 9 months because you are creating uncertainty and unpredictability. Well, you know what I say to that? You are basically shipping jobs overseas. That is exactly what you are doing. You are participating in shipping jobs overseas because you don't want to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the United States right now in manufacturing has a supply chain of small businesses all throughout the United States that help in the farm economy in building farm equipment, help in the aerospace industry building airplanes and airplane-related products, and in the energy economy, as we focused on today at our press conference. All of these suppliers, when they cannot get financing for their products, are going to look to overseas suppliers who can get support from the credit agencies in their country, whether that is China, whether that is in France or whether its in Germany or other countries. So people who don't support giving predictability on the Export-Import Bank are supporting shipping jobs overseas. Our economy is struggling too much and our national security interests are at stake to be shipping jobs overseas and not having the investments in these countries such as Iraq and Egypt and other places where we want to build security. I believe in the long-term interest of fighting our challenges with extremism around the globe with economic power. I know people are going to talk about military power and people are going to talk about soft power. I believe in economic power. Having an Export-Import Bank that is doing business like building roads and building water and building energy facilities actually helps to stabilize these areas of the world. I am glad to see that General Petraeus also agrees. General Petraeus basically said that the Ex-Im Bank ``is integral to our country's security interests.'' Integral--he has watched this on the ground and he knows and understands what the Export-Import Bank is, and he is asking us to give it more certainty and predictability than what a 9- month extension does, because, as I said, business deals cannot get done in that short a period of time. Here is a person who understands these issues both from a military perspective and an economic perspective. I wish more of my colleagues would understand that they are basically just shipping jobs overseas. Newspapers around the country are continuing to try to help echo this issue. The Charlotte Business Journal said: ``Executives say the Ex-Im Bank is a key to a competitive U.S. nuclear industry.'' They have been trying to focus on this issue. The Boston Globe said: ``Billions will be lost unless Congress reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank.'' It also went on to call exactly what this game is that is happening right here and now in Washington, DC. The Boston Globe in their editorial in support of a longer reauthorization said: ``Conservative hardliners rallying to shut down the agency are risking a serious, self-inflicted economic wound.'' That is because we don't have to be at this point. If you want to talk about reforms for the Ex-Im Bank, we have a lot of opportunity to do that, but hardliners don't want to reauthorize the bank. Having been in business, I am somebody who believes in trend lines. I would ask my colleagues who are going home and thinking they are going to campaign about jobs to ask themselves what kind of message are they sending to the global community about the Export-Import Bank when just a few years ago an agency that should have a 5-year reauthorization was only reauthorized for 2 years--just 2 years. Now you are going to go into the international community and say, wait a minute, we only believe in this bank for 9 months. So the trend line is it used to be 5 years. For basically about 80 years it used to be 5 years, but because the conservative tea party people are having their way--not the majority of the people in the House but the tea party conservatives are having their way--this has gone from a 5-year reauthorization to a 2- year reauthorization to now a 9-month reauthorization. Who knows what they will propose next. We know they don't support the bank. We know they want to get rid of it. I think the Charlotte Business Journal, again, characterized this issue very well because they know this industry: ``The United States will lose its lead in nuclear technology if it is not involved in the construction boom overseas.'' You are not going to be very involved in the construction boom over the next 9 months because you are not going to be able to get people to close long-term deals when they think the other side of the aisle just wants to kill the Export-Import Bank. I think the Columbian in my State said it best. They said: ``While complaining about the Ex-Im Bank might make for sound bites that pander to conservatives, in the end it amounts to legislative negligence.'' They are talking in general about those who want to kill the Export- Import Bank, but the very day that the House proposed a 9-month extension, the Republican study group also proposed killing the Export- Import Bank. So make no mistake about it, there are those who are pandering to very conservative views who basically just want to end the Export-Import Bank. Thank God we have other businesses in this country. The Louisville Courier-Journal said: ``When a small company is attempting to navigate the international marketplace, it can be difficult to manage the risks related to financing and growth and securing payment.'' That is a local company in Louisville, KY, that knows what it takes to compete in an international marketplace. That industry leader also said that the Ex-Im Bank has helped them manage the risk and as a result their export business has grown strong in recent years. That is what is at stake for these small businesses and supply chains to getting this business done. I think for us right now the challenge is to try to get people to understand that a 9-month extension is not going to solve this problem. It is going to exacerbate the lack of confidence in our ability to get this bank reauthorized for a long period of time. The Wichita Eagle editorial also added a this great comment: ``Failure of Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would be a philosophical victory for some--but a badly timed blow to Kansas companies trying to compete in the global marketplace.'' They went on to say to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. So, while I know the House is sending us 9 months, and I know that some people are trying to take comfort that they have dodged this issue instead of taking a really hard vote on it or improving the bank, all they have done is left the marketplace with a great deal of uncertainty. It will cost us jobs; it will shift jobs overseas, and Congress--here in the Senate we need to act to get a long-term reauthorization for the Ex-Im Bank. The Wichita paper had it right. Reauthorize this bank--not a short- term Band-Aid, but give the certainty that businesses need to compete in the global economy and help our economy at home by growing jobs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my colleague, cochair of the Joint Economic Committee, for her report on the importance of the contribution of exports to our economy and for the Export-Import Bank. The report she is issuing today has a picture of cargo container ships leaving the Port of Miami. I could say that this picture could be any number of ports around the United States of America, certainly in my State, where one in three jobs is related to trade. I very much appreciate the Joint Economic Committee highlighting at this point in time how important the export economy is to the U.S. economy. My colleague comes from a similar State where we like to say we make a lot of great manufactured products--and we are very proud they are sold in the international marketplace--but now is no time to basically curtail credit agencies' ability to help make those sales a reality when we have had fabulous U.S.-made products. So I very much appreciate the Joint Economic Committee's release of this report. It is showing that our economy--even though we faced this very disastrous financial collapse 6 years ago--that report basically shows that last week the trade deficit continued to decline. A headline just recently said: ``Trade deficit at 6-month low as exports climb.'' So it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a growing middle class around the globe is an excellent opportunity for us to sell U.S. manufactured products. In fact, the middle class is going to double over the next 15 years. So that is a great opportunity for us to take American-made products and get them into this marketplace. In fact, last year American companies exported more goods and services--totaling $2.3 trillion in value, 13.5 percent of our gross domestic product. So that is a step in the right direction. But that is being threatened if Congress does not reauthorize this important credit agency to make sure these deals get closed. That is why today we are here to make sure that a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is implemented. Now, I know we already have about 240 Members of the House of Representatives who are on record saying they support a long-term extension of the Export-Import Bank. I know there are many Senators here in the Senate who support that. So why is this taking so long? Some people are even suggesting that we can do just a 2-month extension or a 3-month extension. Well, I can tell you how ridiculous that idea is because it does not give any certainty and predictability to businesses that are trying to close deals. In fact, one business exporter from Texas said: The Export-Import Bank is absolutely essential to maintain and grow our businesses. . . . Recent reports on the uncertainty of the Bank's future may have already impacted our bottom line. Our customers need the certainty of export credit to continue many of their sales abroad. So this individual Texas company is such a reflection of the fact that exports are U.S. jobs. In fact, it is $2.3 trillion in goods and services, and 11.3 million jobs in the United States are related to exports, many of those in manufactured products. So why would we take and risk these kinds of numbers with the uncertainty of a credit agency that helps close these deals? With that many jobs and that much economic impact at stake, why would we suggest that we only want to reauthorize it for a couple of months? I think that is a very wrongheaded approach. We have heard from many other companies. One from Georgia was able to increase its annual sales from roughly $500,000 to over $20 million in just a few years and was able to do so with the Export-Import Bank. We have 21 days left to get this right and to help our economy continue to grow, but we have to do something here in the Senate; and that is, pass the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. While we were home in August, we heard many people talk about this issue. In fact, I would like to put up a few newspaper headlines that we saw around the country. One is from the Roanoke Times, which was an editorial that said: ``In our view, small businesses need this.'' They called for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Another newspaper, the Wichita Eagle, editorialized in support: ``Reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.'' And the Columbus Dispatch editorialized: ``Ohioans benefit from Export-Import bank.'' So these are just three of the editorials heard all around the country that are asking us to reauthorize this important credit agency and make sure we are giving small businesses and manufacturers the tools it takes to export. But my colleague, who is the Joint Economic Committee chair, brought up an even more specific point; that is, where are we going to be in competition as it relates to China when they are chasing economic opportunity all around the globe? In fact, an editorial that was in the Chicago Tribune on August 15 said: ``Sub-Saharan Africa's economy is growing about 5.4 percent a year--outpacing the global rate of 3.6 percent . . .'' So here is Africa with lots of economic opportunity. It is home to many very fast-growing economies in Angola, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. They go on to say: ``The Ex-Im Bank plays a vital niche role in the U.S. economy as backstop because commercial banks and other financial firms often find ways to say `no' to deals involving selling goods in developing countries.'' That is from the Chicago Tribune. So newspapers around America get it. This is a key tool for us to access new opportunities that are emerging in developing countries. The fact is, China is already there, they are selling products, they are using their credit agency to help close deals. Why? Because a lot of banks are uncomfortable, either with the size of the deal, the lack of financial players in those emerging markets, and the inability to get these deals closed without the export bank and its assistants. Another editorial that was in the Boston Globe actually talked about a U.S. company that lost a deal because of our inability to make a decision here. A California company ``lost a $57 million contract this year because of ideological posturing in Washington.'' It is ``a self- inflicted economic wound.'' They are talking about a firm that ``lost its bid to sell technology'' that was going to be used in the Philippines only because the Korean competitor could guarantee that their export-import bank would be there. That is another example that we are not even waiting right now to have the negative impact; we are already having the negative impact because we are not getting this done. So it is very important we make sure we reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. As one company in my State said, the Norwest Ingredients company: ``Loss of the export insurance provided by EX-IM Bank would be devastating to my business . . .,'' that a short-term extension of the Export-Import Bank does not provide the certainty that we need to finance these deals. I think this is so much what we need to be focusing on. I appreciate my colleague's contribution from the Joint Economic Committee to this report. She talked again about the specifics of what other countries are doing. This chart shows you the percentage of credit agency resources against a country's GDP--how much they are investing in selling their products around the globe. So we can see what India, China, France, and Germany are doing to basically dwarf what we are doing as far as making sure our products are sold around the globe. I wish the financial market was there to help close these transactions. But just as we have a small business administration that helps get financial backers to back small businesses, the Export-Import Bank helps U.S. manufacturers sell their products overseas. We have too much of a supply chain in the United States of America, with manufacturing in aerospace, in agriculture, and in automobiles, to give it all away by simply not reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank in a timely fashion. So I again appreciate the cochair of the Joint Economic Committee in the release of a report focusing on why exports are so important to our economy. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues to introduce legislation to empower women entrepreneurs and to help address the persistent challenges women face when trying to start and grow a business. It was just 26 years ago that Congress enacted landmark legislation, the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 that eliminated requirements that women obtain the signature of their husband or other man to secure a business loan. Between 1997 and 2013, the number of women-owned businesses in the United States grew by 59 percent, but significant barriers for women still exist and there is still much more work to do. Last week, the Small Business Committee released a report entitled ``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship'' that assesses the current challenges faced by women-owned businesses. The report also makes policy recommendations to increase economic opportunity for women and help to put them on a level playing field with other business owners. Our committee report makes four critical findings and includes policy recommendations to help remedy the business climate for women entrepreneurs. First, women business owners face challenges in getting access to capital. The report highlights a study by the Urban Institute finding that only 4 percent of the total value of all conventional small business loans goes to women entrepreneurs. That means only $1 of every $23 is being loaned to a women-owned business. The report also notes that women are forced to rely on personal savings, loans from family or friends, or high interest credit because they cannot get traditional small business lending from banks. Second, the report finds that women business owners still face challenges in getting access to loans of the right size. Women-owned businesses have been very successful with the SBA's Microloan program, under which they can obtain loans of up to $50,000 through intermediaries that also provide assistance in the development of business plans. However, this program has not been updated since 1991. The report highlights the importance of reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program that expired in 2013 and provided capital for women business owners who were ready to take out loans that exceeded the $50,000 provided by the SBA's Microloan Program, but were not yet able to take advantage of the SBA's 7(a) lending program. Third, the report finds that women entrepreneurs face challenges obtaining relevant business training and counseling. Women's Business Centers provide specialized counseling and training designed to address the unique challenges women face in starting a small business. The report shows that the Women's Business Center program has not been re- authorized since the 1990s and is in need of a 21st century modernization. Last, the committee report finds that women business owners face challenges getting access to Federal contracts. Despite the growing number of businesses owned by women, the Federal Government has never met its goal of awarding 5 percent of its contracts to women-owned small businesses. Our report notes that if the government met this goal, women-owned small businesses would have access to additional market opportunity worth up to $4 billion a year. That is why we are introducing the Women's Small Business Ownership Act. This legislation follows the policy recommendations made in the committee report and helps to address the glass ceiling many women entrepreneurs still encounter in the 21st century. While women-owned businesses as a whole continue to grow and succeed, to do so many women must overcome barriers men do not face. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act increases the flow of capital to women business owners by modernizing the SBA's Microloan program and reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program. Women have been particularly successful in using microloans, which are loans of under $50,000, and receive about half of all SBA Microloans. The Microloan program would be modernized by increasing the total amount lenders can loan, as well as allowing lenders to provide flexible terms and improved technical assistance to better suit the needs of borrowers. The Intermediary Lending Program is also an important program, which this legislation reauthorizes to address a gap in lending options for small businesses, including women-owned small businesses that are unable to obtain financing from traditional lenders. The Intermediary Lending Program offers low-interest loans of between $50,000 and $200,000 and closes the gap that can exist for small businesses that have outgrown the SBA's Microloan program, but are not yet able to take advantage of SBA's other lending guarantee programs. This legislation removes barriers to the federal contracting marketplace by allowing sole source contracts to be awarded to women- owned small businesses. Every other small business in a unique socioeconomic category, including HUB Zone firms, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses, can receive a non-competitive or sole source contract, but women's small businesses cannot. Women-owned companies deserve parity with other programs and a fair shot to grow their businesses. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act ensures that the SBA's Women's Business Centers are adequately and effectively meeting the needs of women entrepreneurs in the 21st century. It provides the resources for Women's Business Centers to provide the technical support and counseling tailored to the unique challenges for women-owned businesses. Women make up 51 percent of the population and have tremendous potential as business owners and job-creators. We need to empower women to break through the glass ceiling so it will be easier for even more women to succeed in the 21st century, grow the U.S. economy and create more U.S. jobs. When women have equal opportunity to access capital, obtain the right business counseling, and compete for federal contracts, the economy grows and the country moves forward. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am joining with my colleagues to introduce legislation to empower women entrepreneurs and to help address the persistent challenges women face when trying to start and grow a business. It was just 26 years ago that Congress enacted landmark legislation, the Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988 that eliminated requirements that women obtain the signature of their husband or other man to secure a business loan. Between 1997 and 2013, the number of women-owned businesses in the United States grew by 59 percent, but significant barriers for women still exist and there is still much more work to do. Last week, the Small Business Committee released a report entitled ``21st Century Barriers to Women's Entrepreneurship'' that assesses the current challenges faced by women-owned businesses. The report also makes policy recommendations to increase economic opportunity for women and help to put them on a level playing field with other business owners. Our committee report makes four critical findings and includes policy recommendations to help remedy the business climate for women entrepreneurs. First, women business owners face challenges in getting access to capital. The report highlights a study by the Urban Institute finding that only 4 percent of the total value of all conventional small business loans goes to women entrepreneurs. That means only $1 of every $23 is being loaned to a women-owned business. The report also notes that women are forced to rely on personal savings, loans from family or friends, or high interest credit because they cannot get traditional small business lending from banks. Second, the report finds that women business owners still face challenges in getting access to loans of the right size. Women-owned businesses have been very successful with the SBA's Microloan program, under which they can obtain loans of up to $50,000 through intermediaries that also provide assistance in the development of business plans. However, this program has not been updated since 1991. The report highlights the importance of reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program that expired in 2013 and provided capital for women business owners who were ready to take out loans that exceeded the $50,000 provided by the SBA's Microloan Program, but were not yet able to take advantage of the SBA's 7(a) lending program. Third, the report finds that women entrepreneurs face challenges obtaining relevant business training and counseling. Women's Business Centers provide specialized counseling and training designed to address the unique challenges women face in starting a small business. The report shows that the Women's Business Center program has not been re- authorized since the 1990s and is in need of a 21st century modernization. Last, the committee report finds that women business owners face challenges getting access to Federal contracts. Despite the growing number of businesses owned by women, the Federal Government has never met its goal of awarding 5 percent of its contracts to women-owned small businesses. Our report notes that if the government met this goal, women-owned small businesses would have access to additional market opportunity worth up to $4 billion a year. That is why we are introducing the Women's Small Business Ownership Act. This legislation follows the policy recommendations made in the committee report and helps to address the glass ceiling many women entrepreneurs still encounter in the 21st century. While women-owned businesses as a whole continue to grow and succeed, to do so many women must overcome barriers men do not face. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act increases the flow of capital to women business owners by modernizing the SBA's Microloan program and reauthorizing the Intermediary Lending Program. Women have been particularly successful in using microloans, which are loans of under $50,000, and receive about half of all SBA Microloans. The Microloan program would be modernized by increasing the total amount lenders can loan, as well as allowing lenders to provide flexible terms and improved technical assistance to better suit the needs of borrowers. The Intermediary Lending Program is also an important program, which this legislation reauthorizes to address a gap in lending options for small businesses, including women-owned small businesses that are unable to obtain financing from traditional lenders. The Intermediary Lending Program offers low-interest loans of between $50,000 and $200,000 and closes the gap that can exist for small businesses that have outgrown the SBA's Microloan program, but are not yet able to take advantage of SBA's other lending guarantee programs. This legislation removes barriers to the federal contracting marketplace by allowing sole source contracts to be awarded to women- owned small businesses. Every other small business in a unique socioeconomic category, including HUB Zone firms, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, and small disadvantaged businesses, can receive a non-competitive or sole source contract, but women's small businesses cannot. Women-owned companies deserve parity with other programs and a fair shot to grow their businesses. The Women's Small Business Ownership Act ensures that the SBA's Women's Business Centers are adequately and effectively meeting the needs of women entrepreneurs in the 21st century. It provides the resources for Women's Business Centers to provide the technical support and counseling tailored to the unique challenges for women-owned businesses. Women make up 51 percent of the population and have tremendous potential as business owners and job-creators. We need to empower women to break through the glass ceiling so it will be easier for even more women to succeed in the 21st century, grow the U.S. economy and create more U.S. jobs. When women have equal opportunity to access capital, obtain the right business counseling, and compete for federal contracts, the economy grows and the country moves forward. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I join my colleague from Washington who was just on the floor to take a moment to recognize the heroic efforts that are underway in the State of Washington, battling wildfires with individuals who are trying to protect their homes and property. Our hearts go out to the family and friends of Robert Koczewski, a retired State trooper and veteran who suffered a heart attack and died while trying to save his own home. I thank the local, State, and Federal agencies that are working together to meet the logistical needs of extinguishing these multiple fires and for the efforts they have already made to help save lives and minimize damage in what is the largest wildfire in our State's history. I thank all of the community organizing individuals who have done so much work in their individual communities to support the efforts of the firefighters and to work with everybody in the community to make sure every aspect of security and safety is there for the families who have lost their homes. I thank the individuals who have been working to provide shelter and to help their neighbors no matter what it takes. There is a huge spirit alive in the Okanogan people who are working very hard to make sure they are also contributing. They have a great deal of self-reliance, spirit, and they want to make sure that, as FEMA and others are moving in, they are also responsible in helping with fighting the fires and to work to make sure as many people as possible in the community can be saved from this devastation. We are hearing many moving stories of Washingtonians donating their time, volunteering goods, things everybody in the community needs. So I thank the people of Washington and particularly in the central part of the State for everything they are doing to help battle this fire. Export-Import Bank Madam President, I also come to the floor to talk about the Export- Import Bank and the fact that we still need to work out a deal on the Senate floor so we can move this legislation. Time is running out. We only have a few days before the August recess and literally only a few legislative days when we return to make sure we reauthorize this important credit agency that helps manufacturers export their products. When you grow U.S. manufacturing, you grow U.S. jobs. What we want to do is make sure our manufacturers have a fair shot at getting their products sold overseas. So it makes no sense to me that the fate of an organization that is such an important tool to businesses and comes at no cost to the taxpayers cannot get reauthorized. In fact, I am sure there are colleagues in the House of Representatives who would, if they had a chance, just outright kill the credit agency altogether. Last week 31 Governors signed a letter that basically called for the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. That brings the total number of Governors to 37. I am proud my Governor, Jay Inslee, along with Governor Robert Bentley from Alabama, led an effort to say to the Congress: This is important to do. They see the result in their States as it relates to jobs, and they want to make sure we get this reauthorized. There are Governors from all over the political spectrum--liberal Democrats, to moderate Democrats, to moderate Republicans, and even tea party Republicans--so there are Governors out there from Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, to Governor Paul LePage of Maine, who want to get this important tool reauthorized. Even though they are from many different spectrums, they see that this creates jobs in their State. I would like to point out that nine of those signatures come from Republican Governors, plus five Republican Governors sent their own letter. So that is 14 Republican Governors who joined a chorus of voices in the legislative body to make sure we are doing what is right for the economy and renew this charter for the important Export-Import Bank. I wish to point out from the letter that it basically says that without the financing, U.S. firms would have lost sales to overseas competitors. So this is what the Governors are trying to tell us. They are stewards in their States of jobs and the economy, and they are very concerned about the Export-Import Bank. So we want to make sure we continue to listen to those Governors and get their help in making sure their Members of Congress from their individual States support this legislation. They also are talking to thousands of small business owners who are saying that failing to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank would lead to fewer exports and a loss of jobs in all 50 States. They are out there trying to make sure they are drumming up support in the congressional delegations of their States. That is because trade is a critically important aspect to our economy. I just talked to one of my colleagues today who was telling me how much their State was recovering, but in the areas where they were doing the most exports, their State was really growing--that particular part. In 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion in goods and services. So exports across the Nation that are attributable to the Ex-Im Bank support about $37 billion worth of U.S. exports and about 205,000 related jobs. So you can see that the Export-Import Bank is a vital tool to creating jobs in our U.S. economy, and it does all of this returning $1 billion to the Federal Treasury. To me, it is a win-win for taxpayers and it is a good aspect for jobs. As I said, it is 205,000 export-related jobs and $37 billion in exports. That supports over 2,000 small businesses throughout our country. That is actually the direct impact of businesses that are exporting with the help of the Export-Import Bank. I say that because there are so many more people who are involved in the supply chain, and we talked about that last week. I would like to address one issue today that I hear about from a lot of colleagues: Well, isn't this just something the private sector can do? I guarantee you, if the private sector could just do it and would do it, we would be very happy. I am here to debunk that myth. In fact, in the words of the private sector, it is all about them needing the help of the bank to actually make deals work. Anyone who thinks they know what they are talking about, I want to make sure they understand. First and foremost, in the bank's charter, it prohibits them from competing with private financing and requires that all financing have a reasonable chance of repayment. So literally in the bank's charter it says they are not there to compete with these banks. Yet I hear so many times my colleagues on the other side trying to say: Oh, well, this is just something that we, the government, should not be involved in. I just pointed out that we actually make money off of it. So that part is really good for us because it helps us pay down the Federal deficit. And I just mentioned how banks want to partnership with this credit agency because it helps them, but it is actually in their charter that it prohibits them from doing so. Specifically, the charter says, in section 2, that the bank should ``supplement and encourage, and not compete with, private capital''--``not compete with, private capital.'' So there it is in their own charter, exactly how they are supposed to operate. So this is not a bank that is somehow competing with banks across America. They are partnering with financial institutions that see risks in overseas markets that they think are undeveloped and do not have the banking and financing institutions in their organization to help get these things done, and so they want to partner with the Export-Import Bank. It is helping businesses all across our country. In fact, 98 percent of the Export-Import Bank's transactions were involved with banks throughout 2013. So it is not taking business away from them; it is actually helping businesses throughout our country. The Export-Import Bank is a leading indicator for U.S. companies in how to get business done in these developing markets, and it is often in the national and local banking interest to have a partner such as this because they see deals and opportunities that come through their local communities. I know there are banks--the Presiding Officer's major banks in parts of the Midwest, KeyBank--and others have talked to me about how important it is because they have homegrown businesses that come to them, and they see the opportunity but they also see the risk, and having this credit agency be a partner with that local bank helps them secure the deal. As we look at this chart, it basically shows that 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank transactions are involving commercial banks. So, again, there is this notion that somehow this bank is competing with the private sector when, in fact, it is basically prohibited in their charter, and 98 percent of the deals are actually done with an individual bank, which shows that this is really a tool for our commercial banking. So these are banks everywhere, from the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank in Anchorage, to the Wallis State Bank in Texas, as well as national banks such as Wells Fargo and others. So they find it a very viable tool and something that is important to do. According to a recent statement by the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade and the Financial Services Roundtable, the Export- Import Bank of the United States plays a critical role ``in international trade and US job creation by providing export financing products that help fill gaps in trade financing otherwise not provided by the private sector.'' So we are hearing from these individual banks that are saying this and basically articulating that this is a tool. In fact, one CEO, John Stumpf from Wells Fargo, recently talked about his work with a company called Air Tractor. Air Tractor is a Texas company that manufactures agricultural aircraft, with 50 percent of its business being overseas. He said how important it was that the Export-Import--I am going to quote him: Air Tractor would not be where they are today without the Export-Import Bank and there are certain things that would not have been done without them. I want to go back to the fact that the banking industry really does believe the Export-Import Bank is a necessary tool. ``The Ex-Im Bank remains a vital partner for the lending community,'' according to the bankers association. I think this shows there are people who are just not educated on the structure of the bank, how it works, how important it is to be an important tool for us. I want to make sure we understand why the private sector cannot do these loans. If people understand how the bank works, some still want to come back and say: Well, they still should be doing it themselves. I want to go to one chart that basically shows some of the challenges bankers face when they are dealing with this. They face bank balance sheet limitations; that is, the ability to hold all of those deals on their books over the period of the loan. They have the added risk of exporting to foreign markets, which can be challenging at best. And they have the lack of the financial sector presence in those emerging markets. So as to all of those things, if you are, as I just mentioned, one of these banks--from the Wallis State Bank in Texas to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank--you can see that they want to help this business in their State export or like this company I mentioned--Air Tractor in Texas that manufactures aircraft for agricultural purposes. You can see they want to help them. But, again, is the Wallis State Bank going to be able to go out and assess all these international marketplaces and assess whether that end customer is going to be able to continue to pay on the life of this purchase? No. This bank is not figuring out how to do that. So basically they are just turning this business down. Yet we have a U.S. manufacturer that has figured out a great product, figured out how to make it, figured out how to get customers overseas, figured out how to compete with international competitors, and we have people here strangling the one tool they need--the credit agency that helps the local bank in their community finance the deal. So I just want to say I hope we resolve this issue with the Export- Import Bank. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come to terms with the amendments that are necessary to move this bill to the Senate floor. I know last time we had a similar debate and a lot of discussion, but in the end there were about 79 votes for the Export- Import Bank. I guess I would ask all of my colleagues now to think about our economy and how much U.S. manufacturers need to sell in overseas markets. We are having an unbelievable growth in the middle class around the globe. It is going to double in the next 15 years. That is 2.7 billion more middle-class consumers who could buy U.S. products and U.S. services, but they will not if we hamstring the export-import credit agencies that help support banks in the financing of U.S. manufacturers' goods sold overseas. I hope my colleagues will help us get this bill to the floor, get it reauthorized, and not for a short term, not for 3 months, not for more mischief to be had, but to give predictability and certainty to people who are actually growing jobs in the United States of America, our manufacturers. Unanimous Consent Agreement Executive Calendar Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the confirmation votes on Mendez, Rogoff, and Andrews occur following the vote to confirm the Disbrow nomination, and with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono.) Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Virginia. Export-Import Bank

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Protect Women's Health Care from Corporate Interference Act. I thank my colleague Senator Murray from Washington and my colleague Senator Udall from Colorado for introducing this bill and Senator Murray for her long championed efforts on women's health. I am very proud to support this bill. I guess I would say to my colleague, who I know feels passionately about these issues, that the issue is really how important prescription benefits are to women's health and particularly how important contraception is to women and the fact that it is not an add-on to our health care but, rather, an essential part of our health care. So I hope it doesn't really take us getting a majority of women on the Supreme Court to convince people how central this issue is to the health care of women and why we don't want to deal with a boss who decides to say: I don't want to cover that in employee benefit packages. I hope I and my colleagues will get a chance to vote on this legislation because I think the Supreme Court's ruling in this case 2 weeks ago really set us on a slippery slope. In a 5-to-4 decision they held that corporations can deny contraceptive coverage for women who are their employees if the owner--if the owner--professes a religious objection. I know my colleagues think, why don't we just make this product more available so that women can pay an out-of-pocket amount for it? It is an essential part of women's health and should be part of an employee's package and should not have to be a component she has to add on later. This precedent by the Court is a troubling precedent. The decision threatens access to critical preventive health services for women, and it opens the door for employers to deny other health care services just because of the owner's religious beliefs. Many of my colleagues have come to the floor and articulated how this is not about the religious exemption part of the Affordable Care Act that can be sought by churches and religious organizations; this is about employers who are corporations. So those exemptions for people who do have religious beliefs and don't want to offer these health care services are still preserved. But what is not preserved is a woman's ability to say to her employer: Why are you discriminating against me and my health care insurance that you are going to provide when you are not providing the full range of benefits for women? So, as I said, it really is a slippery slope, and the question is, How many other things are going to be thrown into this same area? I am getting a lot of letters. I have heard from several people from the Northwest. In fact, this one individual wrote to me saying, ``I am terrified that affordable access''--affordable access, not an add-on. Just because I am a woman and I work for an employer, now I have an add-on because you are discriminating against what my health care services are. She said, ``I am terrified that affordable access to my medically indicated preferred method of birth control may be in jeopardy due to the recent Supreme Court decision.'' So, yes, we are hearing from a lot of people that the decision imperils the ability of women to access evidence-based, clinically effective contraceptive methods in their health care plans. These are health care plans they pay for through their hard-earned wages as part of their benefit package when they sign on to work for a company. We know this is a vital component of health care, and it helps women with everything from family planning to reducing risks of ovarian cancer and other medical conditions. So we want to make sure these recommendations, such as the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which says to include reproductive health care methods as preventive services--we want those services to be offered. As a result of those recommendations, about 675,000 women in Washington State now have robust access to a set of 20 FDA-approved contraceptive methods as part of a preventive services package. These services are covered free of coinsurance, free of copays, and free of deductibles. Now we are basically saying that because a person is a woman and even though this is an essential part of health care, all of a sudden, because of the Supreme Court decision, a woman might work for an employer who is going to ask her to pay for that instead out of her own pocket. I think this decision threatens real progress for our health care delivery system. We know this well because in Washington State employers denying women basic health coverage is not a new issue. In fact, women in my State have been fighting for decades. In 1999 Jennifer Erickson was supervising as a pharmacist at Bartell Drugs in Bellevue, WA. Upon starting her job, she learned that her company didn't cover one prescription that she needed--birth control pills--so she appealed to the company asking them to cover that benefit. She was denied. She went on to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the company's nonunionized employees. In a landmark ruling, the Federal district court--Judge Robert Lasnik--held that Ms. Erickson had the legal right to access birth control under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What is more, the decision was based on a Supreme Court precedent. Unlike the district court, though, the Supreme Court has gotten this wrong, and the ruling is a dangerous precedent to allow employers to deny other health care benefits just because the owner wants to proclaim that his religious beliefs don't want him to offer those coverages. As Justice Ginsburg said, would the exemption the Court holds that has been used on contraceptives based on religious grounds--would there be other examples, such as blood transfusions because they are a Jehovah's Witness or antidepressants because they are a Scientologist or medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia and other things, because certain other ethnic groups--Muslims, Jews, or Hindus-- said they didn't want to provide those services? Does it set us up for a lot of medical necessities not being covered by corporations simply because the CEO or many owners of that company decide it is in their religious beliefs not to offer those important services? It is very important that we vote to make sure we speak on behalf of these women who are writing to us now, that we give them the kind of coverage for health care they deserve and that ensures every employer who sponsors a health care plan has these same benefits included in the package. The good news is that 60 percent of working women in Washington State get their coverage through their employers. But we need to make sure the employers--just because the CEO all of a sudden has now become the judge of whether they want to cover important health care services, we have to make sure we pass this legislation to protect those employees. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I ask that the time during the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut, and I come to the floor to talk about a very important issue, U.S. manufacturing jobs and what the Senate needs to do to make sure we are protecting U.S. manufacturing jobs. I am speaking of the need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, a credit agency that helps U.S. manufacturers and small businesses sell their products to overseas markets. Some of you may have read recently comments by some of our colleagues where they have shifted their position. The agency is set to expire on September 30 of this year, and it is so critical that we reauthorize this program because it is such an important tool for U.S. manufacturers. Over the last few weeks, fringe organizations and activists have suddenly tried to turn this into a political casualty, saying we should kill the program, and I am here to advocate that it is a win-win situation for American manufacturers, for American taxpayers, and for the jobs it creates. That is because the Export-Import Bank supports about 1.2 million jobs, it returned $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury last year alone, and it supports between 35,000 suppliers of manufactured parts, and that was just in the year 2011. As this chart shows, the Export-Import Bank helps us generate export sales and supports 1.2 million jobs. That is between 2009 and 2013. One would think a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers any money, actually helps us pay down the deficit, helps create that many export sales and that many jobs would be something we would want to reauthorize and give predictability to businesses all across the United States. In fact, if the credit agency is not reauthorized, nearly 90 percent of the companies that would be harmed are small businesses. Sure, there are big companies such as Boeing or General Electric or Caterpillar that help sell products around the globe, and some of my colleagues want to criticize that somehow we should be apologizing for the fact that we actually make expensive products and sell them. I am quite proud that we sell products from the United States to China and various parts all around the globe that are actually expensive products. We should be proud we are making something worth millions of dollars that people want to buy. So I am glad that ``Made In the USA'' is actually closing deals all across the globe. Today we also want to highlight that all of these companies that are in the manufacturing sector are part of a manufacturing chain. We know this well, because in the State of Washington, when we look at who makes aerospace products, while we can say there is a company in Everett, WA, named Boeing, there are hundreds of companies, thousands of companies across the United States that are part of what is called the supply chain. Behind every 777 or Caterpillar tractor there are thousands of workers who are working every day to refine their product, stay competitive, retrain, and refocus to make sure we build the very best products in the United States and that we are competing on a global basis. When these larger companies and small businesses they work with try to win deals overseas, they run into lots of different challenges. That is why we are here today to say making sure we reauthorize this program is critically important to small business manufacturers and suppliers throughout the United States. So with all of these small businesses and companies--30,000 to 35,000 companies across the United States--there is actually a supplier in every State in the United States, but let's look at some of the numbers. In Georgia, there are over 833 different companies, such as United Seal and Rubber Company and other important companies, that make products just for aviation or for Caterpillar or for other products. In the State of Florida, there are over 1,252 different small businesses and manufacturers that are helping to produce products that are sold on an international basis, and those companies want the Export-Import Bank reauthorized. In the State of Wisconsin, there are over 1,397 different suppliers, such as Hentzen Coatings in Milwaukee, which provides primer, sealer, and wing coating. These are companies that also want to see the reauthorization of this important tool that helps products they help manufacture and build be sold in international markets. Of course, there are places, such as Texas, which have a lot of people in the supply chain. Here are just some of the companies that are involved in manufacturing that take advantage of this important export-created agency by building products into final assembly. They are all over the State of Texas. In fact, here is another continued list of these companies from Texas that are part of building products that are then using the Export- Import Bank to sell their products around the globe. But we can't go over all of those in Texas because there are actually 4,355 different companies in the State of Texas that are involved in the supply chain of companies that are selling products through the export credit agency and its assistance. So we can see this is not a program that just affects one State or one region; it is an example of small business manufacturers working everywhere to stay competitive, to sell products, and win in the international marketplace. Personally, having visited many of these companies in the State of Washington, I find it very frustrating, as these people are working night and day to make the best airplanes, to make the best manufactured product, to take the risk to go and sell in overseas markets, to compete with international competitors, to retrain and reskill a workforce, that we have people in Congress who don't have the good common sense to understand what an important tool the Export- Import Bank is in helping U.S. manufacturers sell into new emerging markets. I know there are other States--we are not going to show charts about them--but in Ohio--I know the Presiding Officer is from Ohio--there are over 1,700 suppliers. These companies are companies such as Hartzell Propeller. They are a family-owned propeller manufacturer in Southwest Ohio. Hartzell is part of the Dayton aviation economy that dates back to the Wright brothers. In fact, it was Orville Wright who suggested that the Hartzell family build an airplane propeller. Today the Wright brothers are gone, but this company is still here and they are still innovating. In fact, I think they are part of the spirit of innovation in America that makes it so great. I am so frustrated that people here don't understand that innovative spirit, don't understand what it takes, don't understand that they are hampering--truly right now almost torturing--small businesses by not giving them the certainty and predictability for the export assistance program. This company builds crop-dusting plane propellers. Hartzell has grown its company from about 13 to about 300 people in the last 3 years, and that is because these crop-dusting planes have been sold using the Export-Import Bank. The loans haven't come directly to Hartzell as part of the Ex-Im supply chain, but companies similar to them that make these propellers are important companies to making sure we win in the international marketplace. The President of this company, Joe Hartzell, I thought said it best. He said: If you take Ex-Im away from my customers, you might as well bring unemployment checks to their offices, because you're going to put people on the street. If they're not building as many airplanes, then I'm going to have a jobs problem. Here is a manufacturer--I heard the same thing in Seattle a few weeks ago when I was there--a company in Ohio saying if we don't get this program reauthorized, we are going to have bigger problems. So people such as Hartzell are trying to tell everyone here we need to keep working to make sure we get this reauthorized. We need to make sure companies throughout the Midwest, such as in Wichita, KS, or people in the West, such as in Tempe, AZ, or companies in Irving, TX, everywhere where we are part of this huge supply chain, are doing the work we need to do. Another area that is big on the supply chain is in the general area of aviation, and it supports over 200,000 jobs. So 200,000 jobs represents the number of people who are involved in aviation today, and those are individuals, businesses that are doing their best to stay competitive in aviation, even though we have incredible competition. This incredible competition comes from the fact that there are so many different companies around the globe that also want to build airplanes. There is a demand for 35,000 new airplanes over the next 20 years. So we can imagine every country wants to try to build airplanes. China wants to build airplanes. Brazil is already in the business, Canada, the Europeans. Everybody wants to build airplanes. The good news for us is we actually have a supply chain in the United States, and this chart represents that supply chain of 15,000 manufacturers and over 1.5 million jobs. These are all companies throughout the United States of America who are involved in using the Export-Import Bank to make sure their products are sold on an international basis. There are actually jobs in companies in every State of the Union that take advantage of being part of this supply chain. And why it is so important to keep the supply chain? Because if you keep the supply chain in your country, then you have the skill set it takes to keep innovating, because each of these companies is working on the individual parts and making them the best they can possibly be. That way we get the efficient airplane of today. This innovation is taking place all across the country, and we have to stay competitive. Now, get rid of the Export-Import Bank and over time this supply chain will start to disappear. Why? Because in Europe they will still have an Export-Import Bank, and companies such as Airbus will continue to use that product and they will have a supply chain, and over time all these small businesses and all this expertise in aviation will move out of the United States of America to somewhere else. Then what manufacturing jobs will we have in the United States? Aviation is one of the best sectors for manufacturing that we have today. With over 1.5 million employees, we need to keep aviation manufacturing competitive in the United States of America. That is why we need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. There are other sectors of aviation, such as Gulfstream, which is another company, based in Savannah, GA, and has been one of the foremost makers of business jets. They have watched their international competition increase steadily over the last decade, and the Export- Import Bank has helped them be competitive. The Gulfstream supply chain has about 3,500 different businesses and about 13,000 employees, and all those employees are working hard to try to stay competitive. They are working to make sure we keep those jobs in the United States of America. But they also have to have the Export-Import Bank so they can then continue to win in the international marketplace. Gulfstream actually sells product to China. So jobs in Georgia and throughout the supply chain are helping us win in the international marketplace. Whether they are composite companies or light industrial or fuselage skins, all of these things are helping people be competitive. Right now, Gulfstream and the supply chain has sold 8,000 planes to China. That helped support 2,100 jobs, and most of those jobs were right in the Savannah, GA, area. So if we are going to cancel the Export-Import Bank, how are they going to get these products financed and how are they going to get them sold? While we are very appreciative of both sectors of aviation--the commercial sector and general aviation sector, and we haven't even talked about the others, such as the defense sectors of aviation--these are two big components to our economy. Some people might think, well, there is a way to get these planes sold, or these are big companies, these are integral parts to our U.S. manufacturing base, and we need to keep it. The demand of the United States, as I said earlier, is for 35,000 new planes over the next 20 years, and 80 percent of those planes will be delivered outside of the United States. That means if we want to keep winning the race for airplane sales, we are going to have to work outside the United States. Yesterday, Standard & Poor's reported that if the Export-Import Bank is not reauthorized, it would be a huge benefit to Airbus. In fact, they said: . . . Airbus would still be able to offer . . . financing, and this could be a deciding factor for some new aircraft contracts, especially in emerging markets and for sales to start-up or financially weak airlines. In other words, we would be sending U.S. jobs overseas, and that is not what we want to do. Countries are building up their investment to try to compete with us, and the Export-Import Bank is a key tool for U.S. manufacturers to compete. Trade is a critically important part of our economy. In 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion worth of goods, and a key part of that export growth can be attributed to this program. The Export-Import Bank supported $37.4 billion worth of U.S. exports which supported over 200,000 jobs in the United States. That alone is enough information for me to say the Senate ought to act quickly to reauthorize this program. There are many other aspects of the Export-Import Bank that help small businesses and manufacturing. In fact, there are about 12 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, and 1 in 4 jobs is tied to exports. That is why, when I think my colleagues try to portray the Export-Import Bank as an issue that maybe a few big companies would benefit from, I think they have it totally wrong. This is an issue about the competitive nature of manufacturing and the supply chain of manufacturers all across the United States, and whether we want to keep manufacturing jobs--because they are high-wage, high- skilled jobs--in the United States. While my colleagues would like to talk about other things in the economy, I think it is important to realize how manufacturing jobs are a higher wage. They are a higher wage than service-sector jobs, they help stabilize the middle class, they help the U.S. economy grow because of those large export numbers, and they help the United States continue to innovate and stay ahead in a global marketplace. All of these are reasons why the Export-Import Bank is such a viable tool. Think about it from the perspective of being a critical part of manufacturing, and these are the high-wage jobs and it supports that supply chain I just went through. Then we can see why it is so important that this get done before the end of September. Right now, what is happening is my colleagues not only want to threaten to not reauthorize this program, they actually want to kill it. My guess is they would like to say: OK, we will agree to a short- term extension of a few months, only in hopes of killing it later. I want to make sure all my colleagues know how important it is not only that we reauthorize this, but we reauthorize it for several years so companies have the predictability and certainty to know the program is going to be there and they have the support. The Export-Import Bank has four primary tools. It has loan guarantees that provide security to commercial lenders who make loans to foreign buyers of American products. For example, the loan helped Goss International in New Hampshire sell their printing presses in emerging markets in Brazil. We have export credit insurance, and companies such as Manhasset in Yakima, in my State of Washington, used it to help get their music stands sold across the globe and make sure there was credit insurance to protect them. There are loan programs, for example, to help foreign buyers of U.S. products such as FirmGreen in Newport Beach, CA, which is run by a disabled veteran who helped to sell their goods in Brazil. It also provides working capital like in Morrison Technologies manufacturing in South Carolina which used the tools to purchase materials needed for a recent surge in business that couldn't have been met without that financing. So here they are, all these companies throughout the country using the Export-Import Bank and staying competitive. I personally would make the Export-Import Bank bigger. When we look at what China is doing or what Europe is doing, they are making a bigger financial investment in helping their businesses become exporters. In the United States, the Export-Import Bank finances less than 5 percent of U.S. exports. A significant portion of the capital of exports is done in the private sector, but this tool helps commercial banks and helps commercial manufacturers get their product when other avenues aren't available in the private sector. Here is an example of one of the programs and how the Export-Import Bank works. We can see the U.S. exporter sells to the foreign buyer and that commercial financing is still part of the equation. The Export- Import Bank is only used as a safety net to make sure that financial commercial obligation is secure in this situation. So it is not as if we are replacing commercial banking, it is not as if we aren't even making market rates. We are for products such as aerospace. The issue is, we need to make sure commercial banks are willing to guarantee these kinds of sales. We are providing a safety net with the Export-Import Bank. And what has the cost been to the U.S. Government? Well, we have had incredible success, because everybody pays fees into this system, and those fees and the success of the program has helped us pay down the Federal deficit. That is right; it has actually made money for U.S. taxpayers and helped us pay down the Federal deficit. It supports 1.2 million export-related jobs, it has helped support $37 billion in exports from the United States, which helps our economy, and it has returned more than $1 billion to U.S. taxpayers. I would call that a win-win situation for American jobs and American taxpayers. We have 73 days left until that program expires. I don't want to let that happen. So today we are announcing that over 200 different supply chain companies are sending a letter to the Senate and House of Representatives asking them to urgently support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. We are also hearing from lots of businesses and business organizations that also support the immediate reauthorization: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, National Association of Businesses, the International Association of Machinists, National Grain and Feed Association, and many more organizations. All of them want to be able to say ``Made in the USA,'' and have their products sold overseas. I hope my colleagues will be there to help ensure this program gets reauthorized in a short amount of time. I personally hope the Senate will take up this legislation in the next few weeks before we adjourn for the August recess. I would hate to see what happens to all the business deals these manufacturers have on the table if they go home in August and people are saying: Well, the bank only has a few days left to be reauthorized; I am not going to do business with you until I know. Or if somebody tries to stick a 5-month reauthorization on some bill, and then everybody still says: When is this program going to be reauthorized? Otherwise, I am not going to do a deal with U.S. manufacturers. Of all the things we are doing in sending a message to the actual competitors of creating jobs in today's economy, why are we sending such a message of uncertainty in this situation? These are real jobs in a marketplace that is growing. The middle class is going to grow from about 2.3 billion to about 5 billion people outside the United States over the next 15 years. We are going to see a doubling of the middle class. That is where products are going to be sold in emerging markets. Those emerging markets don't all have the financial tools to make those deals a reality, but the Export- Import Bank can help. They can help make sure a customer pays, that U.S. manufacturing wins, and that we keep our marketplace. We hope all our colleagues will support this legislation. Time is running out. Know that this program has returned over $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury. That is a pretty good deal for us. If somebody on the other side has a better way of growing jobs and paying down the Federal deficit, I would like to hear it, because this is an important tool, and time is running out. I urge my colleagues to help support the Export-Import Bank. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from companies asking to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I was proud to be an original cosponsor for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which protects American women against violence and human trafficking. I am especially proud of the tribal provisions we included in VAWA, which are critical because nearly 40 percent of American Indian women will endure domestic violence in their lifetime, compared to 24 percent in the general population. VAWA ensures that violence prevention programs receive strong Federal funding and gives law enforcement powerful tools to fight violence and trafficking. Violence against women is not just a problem in the United States; it is a challenge around the world. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the International Violence Against Women Act. One key step to empowering women around the world is through access to education. Unfortunately, for many young women around the world today, educational opportunities are limited. According to the United Nations, only 35 percent of young women in Sub-Saharan Africa will receive a secondary education, let alone the college degree that opens up new opportunities for women in the workplace and in leadership positions around the world. But even though gender disparities in education remain high, especially in the developing world, countries and nongovernmental organizations are stepping up to the plate to make a difference. Today, I want to share the story of an organization which empowers young women in Rwanda by helping them receive a strong secondary-school education. Rwanda was devastated by the war and genocide in 1994, but against all odds Rwandans have managed to rebuild their country and become a model of low corruption, economic growth, and gender parity in government. The constitution mandates a minimum 30 percent representation for women in Parliament, and today, remarkably, it is 64 percent women. These women have been instrumental in the reconciliation and rebuilding of the country and continue to lead today. However, women are not represented at this level in all sectors, and in the rural areas many parents are skeptical of the value of educating their girls. As is typical in many developing countries, if parents have limited money to send their children to school, many will send only their boys and keep the girls at home to help with household chores like collecting wood and tending to younger siblings. In Rwanda, 97 percent of girls attend primary school, but less than 13 percent attend secondary school, meaning that only a small fraction of Rwanda's young women will have the opportunity to go to university. Rwanda Girls Initiative, RGI was founded in 2008 in Seattle, WA, with the mission of educating and empowering girls of Rwanda to reach their highest potential. RGI believes that education is the foundation on which all other development is built, and educating girls can exponentially increase this impact. With this belief and with a strong partnership with the Government of Rwanda, RGI started the Gashora Girls Academy of Science and Technology in 2011. Gashora Girls Academy is an upper-secondary university prep boarding school for 270 girls in grades 10-12 located in the Gashora sector of Bugesera District, a poor, agricultural area located an hour to the south of Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. This area was particularly devastated during the country's genocide in 1994. Gashora Girls Academy offers a curriculum that focuses on STEM subjects--science, technology, engineering, and math--with an underlying belief in the importance of educating and nurturing the ``whole girl.'' Beyond the STEM coursework, students focus on developing life skills, leadership, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities. Crucially, they get an education in a safe environment, free from the violence that is all too common for many young women in Rwanda and around the world. In October 2013, Gashora Girls Academy graduated their first class of seniors. Of 85 graduates, 25 are admitted to schools in the United States, including Harvard, Yale, Smith, the University of Pennsylvania, and Seattle University. Two more girls are going to McGill University in Canada. These 27 girls coming to North America will be receiving approximately $4.8 million in financial aid in order to attend world- class institutions. Other graduating students are attending schools in Costa Rica, China, South Africa, Ghana, and right at home in Rwanda. These girls will become national leaders, doctors, scientists, teachers, and more, each contributing to the success of their country. Enatha Ntirandekura is a recent graduate from Gashora Girls Academy. Both of her parents are subsistence farmers and the very little income they make is from a small plot of land. Though Enatha was always a strong student, some in her village discouraged her parents from allowing her to continue her studies. They said that a girl shouldn't be educated. At one point, someone in the village burned her family's coffee trees, their sole source of income. But her parents continued to send her to school, and she had the top score in her district on the national exam after middle school. She was offered a scholarship by the Rwanda Girls Initiative to attend Gashora Girls Academy. Enatha is a tenacious student and scored perfectly on the national exam she took after graduating this past year. Because of her success, she has been selected as a Presidential Scholar and will receive a full scholarship to an American university this fall. She hopes to study agriculture and then go back to Rwanda to work on the problem of malnutrition and food scarcity to help her community. As we can see from Enatha, educating a woman is a tremendous investment. When Enatha returns home with her degree in agricultural science, that one scholarship to Gashora Girls Academy will empower her to help many more people in Rwanda. And Enatha's story is not unique; in fact, it is the norm. One extra year of secondary school increases a girl's future wages by 15 to 25 percent. When a woman in the developing world receives 7 or more years of education, she marries later and has fewer children. When women and girls earn income, they reinvest 90 percent of it into their families, creating a ripple effect for coming generations. Helping Enatha and the young women like her become doctors, teachers, and leaders will transform not only individuals, but entire communities. Educating girls and young women is the surest way to empower them. Education empowers them to teach, to lead, and to stand up against violence. I am honored to stand with my female colleagues to draw attention to this important issue. A great education transforms lives and can lift up entire communities and countries. I look forward to working with my colleagues to empower women and girls around the world.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Trade Enforcement: Using Trade Rules to Level the Playing Field for U.S. Companies and Workers.''

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Future of US-China Relations.''

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled, ``NextGen: A Review of Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities for Improving Aviation Safety and Efficiency.''

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Financial Stability Oversight Council Annual Report to Congress.''

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I want to close by saying that other countries use these same financial tools. So a lot of my colleagues can see that other countries, for the same reason, when the marketplace does not provide a private sector financial tool to securitize these products-- it is important that the United States stay competitive with everybody chasing global market opportunities. Let's not hobble U.S. manufacturing. Let's get the Export-Import Bank out of committee and reauthorized. I yield the floor.