Floor Statements

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

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.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Export-Import Bank--the program that is a vital tool of U.S. manufacturers and small businesses across the United States of America to help them grow jobs and gain access to international markets.

There has been a lot written in the last 24, 48 hours about this because there has been a lot of discussion about people who have previously supported the program--maybe voted for it five or six times--and now all of a sudden have either amnesia or have forgotten what is so important about this program.

I am here this morning to talk about this issue because I believe it is so vital to the U.S. economy and to the economic opportunities and challenges we face.

The Export-Import Bank basically gives assistance in the form of securitizing loans that are sought by the private sector when a U.S. company tries to sell a product overseas.

You can imagine that if you are a U.S. manufacturer--and you could be involved in lots of different things; in our State, there is everything from aviation to grain silos to music stands to agricultural products-- when you go and say, well, we want to sell to Ethiopia or we want to sell to a South American country or we want to sell to an Asian country--for example, a small businessperson in the State of Washington says: Well, OK, I have found a customer in one of those countries for my product--and I will use grain silos as example because there is a company in our State that now sells grain silos to 82 different countries around the globe--that customer in that country says: Well, how am I going to finance this deal? It is not exactly like this sophistication is present in every one of these developing countries. Yet we want U.S. products to be sold into these developing countries.

I guess we could sit back on our laurels and just think it is all going to happen on its own and let the Europeans sell products into that market or let the Chinese sell products into that market or we could hustle--which is what the United States of America does--and we can figure out a way to secure those deals when those customers have a challenge of financing within their country.

Now, it does not mean that the Export-Import Bank finances all of those deals. It means it provides, in a lot of cases, security so that when a private bank does finance the sale of that deal, there is certainty and predictability.

Why is that important? Well, as one vice president of a bank that operates in 19 different States and the District of Columbia told us: Most banks, even those as large as--in this case--PNC, cannot alone take risks for helping a U.S. company sell in countries with governments that may be less stable than the United States of America.

It makes sense. Right. Look at what we are seeing around the globe. We are seeing lots of change. You cannot count on a deal and account for the capricious nature of governments. If someone stiffs me in Pittsburgh, I will just go to a court in Pittsburgh and win a judgment against these individuals. Well, you cannot practically expand that to a government in Africa or in Asia. You cannot go to a court system here in the United States and say: Hey, that government failed to pay on that particular customer deal that was enacted. But you can, with the help of the Export-Import Bank, secure those loans and make sure that payment is received.

That is why so many small businesses across the State of Washington like and have used this program in conjunction with the private banking industry.

For example, there is a company: Manhasset music stands. I love that company because it makes music stands somewhat like this podium I am speaking in front of that is used for placement of music, and they sell all over the globe. In fact, China is one of their best customers. I love that there is a place in Yakima, WA, that is figuring out how to sell a U.S.-manufactured product in China and that they are continuing to compete with the Chinese every day and winning that battle.

I am so proud that company uses the Export-Import Bank to reduce their risk to those customers because those customers live in a place where the banking and security might not be there.

Why is this so important? Well, first of all, 95 percent of consumers in the world live outside of the United States of America. So unless we just want to sell to people in the United States of America, we better have a pretty good strategy of how we are going to sell to people outside of the United States of America.

So with 95 percent of consumers outside of the United States of America and a rising middle class around the globe--the middle class is going to double in the next 20 years. It is going to double. That means more people with more disposable income to buy products and to use services that are so critical.

Take aviation, for example. Because there is a rising middle class around the globe and a lot more people want to travel, that is 35,000 new airplanes that are in demand. That is how many we are going to have to build over the next 20 years--35,000 new airplanes.

Well, that could be really good news for the United States of America and U.S. manufacturing because those are great middle-class manufacturing jobs. But guess what. Those jobs are not secure. The Brazilians want to build airplanes. The Europeans already build airplanes. The Chinese want to build airplanes. They are all competing for that rising middle-class market that is demanding new airplanes. They all want to get in the action of having manufacturing jobs in their states.

So we need to make sure we implement the Export-Import Bank, which is about to expire on September 30 of this year. Without the Export-Import Bank, we are going to be hobbling businesses across the United States of America and not giving them these tools.

The Export-Import Bank has created thousands of jobs in the United States of America. It has increased exports by $37 billion and helped small businesses and created jobs. It also helps us pay down the Federal deficit. It has generated over $1.057 billion returned to the U.S. Treasury. So it has actually helped us pay down the Federal debt. So my colleagues who are now all of a sudden either having amnesia on why they supported the Ex-Im Bank or not coming forward to support it now need to remember what a vital tool this is to the U.S. economy.

I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds.

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.

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.''

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.''

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.

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.''

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.''

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Economic Development: Encouraging Investment in Indian Country.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Voting Rights Amendment Act, S. 1945: Updating the Voting Rights Act in Response to Shelby County v. Holder.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2 p.m. in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Election Administration: Examining How Early and Absentee Voting Can Benefit Citizens and Administrators.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dreams Deferred: Young Workers and Recent Graduates in the U.S. Economy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 25, 2014, in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``State of Play: Brain Injuries and Diseases of Aging.''

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I will explain to her later how Maine continues to play a very interesting role in such an important issue.

(The further remarks of Ms. Cantwell are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. President, I come to the floor because the patent office has just ruled that the name of the Washington football team is not patentable because it is a slur. We are so excited to know that finally people are recognizing this issue can no longer be a business case for the NFL to use this patent. They will not be able to

forcefully exclude other people for having derivatives of this logo or the name, thereby putting a big dent in the business case the NFL has.

So many people have helped in this effort. I want to applaud them, from Senator Reid and his leadership, to Amanda Blackhorse and Suzan Harjo. Those are the people who have been fighting this case before the patent office. To all of the people who have watched the video on changethemascot.org, a Web site that basically depicts why Native Americans want to be viewed as human beings and not a mascot, we want to thank all of them.

This is not the end of this case. But this is a landmark decision by the patent office that says the NFL team here in Washington, DC, does not have a patentable name, and that this is an offensive term, not patentable by the patent office.

I hope all the business decisions over there at the team will understand this is no longer a business case, and will get off of this spurious name that we need to change.

I thank my colleague in Maine for yielding me this opportunity to speak on this breaking important issue. I thank my colleagues here on the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Salvador Mendoza, Jr., to be a district judge for the Eastern District of our State. I applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee for favorably reporting Mr. Mendoza's nomination on a bipartisan basis out of the committee with a 17-to-1 vote, so he enjoys a great deal of support. We are happy because we filled one vacancy for the Eastern District bench earlier in April, and now it is time for the Senate to move forward in filling the last of the two vacancies by voting to confirm Judge Mendoza.

Judge Mendoza is a well-qualified, dedicated judge whose passion and perspective will serve the Eastern District of Washington very well. He has had experience serving as a superior court judge. He has served as a prosecutor, he has been in private practice, and he has been a community leader in the central part of our State. There is no question that he is ready for the challenge of being a Federal judge.

I also wish to speak in terms of the historic nature of this vote. Salvador Mendoza will become the first ever Hispanic Federal judge in Eastern Washington. That is a major step forward and one that is long overdue. One in every nine residents of Washington State is Hispanic. Yet we have not yet had a Hispanic Federal judge in the eastern part of our State. Judge Mendoza is the right man for the job and he is ready to make history.

Judge Mendoza personifies the American dream. Eastern Washington is home to a very large and growing Hispanic population. Many who settled in Eastern Washington did so for the very same reasons Judge Mendoza's family did. He grew up in a family of migrant workers who moved from California to Washington's Yakima Valley when he was just a small child. He went on from working alongside his parents in the fields to earn a bachelor's degree from the University of Washington and a law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Coming from very modest beginnings, Judge Mendoza has built a stellar legal resume. Judge Mendoza served as a deputy prosecuting attorney and spent 1 year as assistant attorney general. He has worked in private practice in a partner firm, and he went on to serve as judge pro tempore for Benton County Superior Court and Franklin County juvenile district court. Since 2013 he has served as Washington State's superior court judge for Benton and Franklin Counties.

A few years ago I had the honor of speaking with Judge Mendoza at a roundtable of Latino community leaders in the Tri-Cities. I came away very impressed with his intellect and his ability and keen understanding of our challenges in Central and Eastern Washington and of our legal system. He talked about the importance of an effective drug court to tackle the challenges facing Central Washington, and Judge Mendoza has shown his commitment to making his community a better place to live. He helped found the juvenile drug court program for Benton and Franklin Counties, which provides the opportunities for treatment for juvenile drug offenders. He is the main organizer of the Tri-Cities Youth and Justice Forum, an organization that encourages students from underrepresented communities to seek careers within the legal system. He also serves on many other boards, including the board of trustees for Columbia Basin College.

I think Judge Mendoza has earned this important position. I hope my colleagues will support him. I know my colleague Senator Murray, who just spoke, Governor Jay Inslee, and many other attorneys and judges across the State of Washington enthusiastically support Judge Mendoza's nomination. So I urge my colleagues to confirm him today.

Madam President, I rise to express my disappointment in today's earlier vote, that we weren't able to pass the student refinancing legislation.

I thank my colleague Senator Warren for sponsoring that bill and for my colleagues who did support it. I hope we will have a chance to bring up this legislation again, get bipartisan support, and get it passed.

We can agree education is the gateway to opportunity. I was first in my family to go to college and went to school with the help of financial aid, and I know how important it is to many in the State of Washington that we help them make education more affordable.

Student debt in this Nation quadrupled over the past 10 years, so the total amount of debt is $1.2 trillion. Many students in my State are anxious about this situation and they want to do something about it.

Over the past 4 years student debt has even surpassed credit card debt. So when we think about that, the fact that student debt is enough to pay every American's credit card balance and still have $450 billion left over tells us how much debt is being accumulated on behalf of students just to get an education, just to basically make their way in a changing economy.

We do live in an information age, and it means that everybody having a good

base education and being able to adapt--as new information comes along that changes industry--is going to be critically important.

The fact that student debt is now the second source of personal debt in America, only behind mortgages, puts a drag on our economy. Those who are suffering under this are real individuals.

We just had a roundtable in the State of Washington last weekend with some of the best and brightest at the University of Washington. These students talked about how they were trying to invest in their own skills so they could advance in their education, and many of the stories they told were not out of the ordinary, but I think it is something we don't think about.

In a lot of these cases, these individuals were talking about how they were trying to get an education. Other people in their family, their brothers and sisters, were trying to get an education, and their parents were also trying to upgrade their skills, because in an information age economy, that is what happens, everybody has to upgrade their skills.

So these students are trying to do everything. But I was truly moved by one student who said: I have a debt that seems to be the size of a mortgage for me, but I don't have a house that goes along with it.

He was trying to say: I am coming out of college with incredible debt and how am I going to even afford the basic things people look forward to--maybe not right after graduation but as they start their careers and start to move forward. These are individuals who contribute to our economy. They buy cars, they buy homes, everything. But this individual, a graduate of Central Washington University, told me he pays the same amount for rent as he does for student loans every month.

In Washington State the average student borrower owes more than $23,000 before they graduate. That is an increase of 22 percent over the last 5 years, $4,000 for the average student borrower at the University of Washington.

So over the next weeks thousands of students in Washington State will walk across and get their diploma, but when they accept this diploma and go into the world of opportunity, they will also be going with a lot of debt. We also heard from another student at the University of Washington, how at this point in her career, as she graduates, the debt will be almost $100,000. She wants to pursue a career, but when she thinks about how much she has to pay on that student loan, that is going to affect that. In fact, during her time at the University of Washington there were points at which she worked 60 hours a week. I don't know how anybody can continue their education and work 60 hours a week.

So these are students who want to be able to refinance and pay down. In this case, with somebody who has a 6-percent or 7-percent loan, this bill and legislation would allow them to refinance.

With the legislation, an undergraduate with $30,000 in student loans, for example, would save almost $5,000 over the life of their loan by a refinancing of that interest rate, if it was 6.8 percent, to the current direct undergraduate interest rate of 3.86. Those are real dollars to these individuals.

That means much needed help for 25 million borrowers across the country. It could save, on average, for all those borrowers, about $2,000 per loan. In my State it would mean relief for 451,000 students, just like the ones we spoke to last week.

The University of Washington in the Pacific Northwest took matters into its own hands and produced a report. The report showed that the typical University of Washington student would have to work 54 hours a week for a full year to pay for 1 year of student education.

I am so proud of these students. They did their own report and got it on the front page of the Seattle Times because it spells out what we have already known, that the days when students could raise the amount of money they needed to pay for education by doing summer jobs is gone.

The burden of debt and the amount of money owed is impacting students. There is no way they can work their way through college at 54 hours or 60 hours a week and be able to do their academic work.

Entrepreneurial activity among 20- to 34-year-olds is challenged. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has found that for the first time people with student loan debt are less likely to buy a house than those without, so it is showing up in our economy.

If you think about it, if this is what a generation of Americans are going to be faced with for the next decade or two, then that is going to have a ripple effect through our economy for several years.

A recent study by the Brookings Institution found that student loan borrowers are 60 to 70 percent less likely to apply for graduate school than those without student debt. So again now we have another complexity.

I look at this issue and I look at the fact that we have a worldwide demand for 35,000 new airplanes. We need 20,000 new workers in the aerospace industry. We have demands for computer scientists, something like 300,000 a year. We only graduate 70,000.

I look at it and say: Why aren't we helping to finance everybody who wants to get an engineering degree and a computer science degree? Why aren't we figuring out a way to make that more affordable? Because in an information age economy, that is exactly what we need to do, make an investment in education, but we can't make an investment in education on the backs of these students when they are coming out of college with this much debt or trying to struggle even to learn these careers that are so vital to our economy and they have to choose between working and actually studying. We would rather they commit themselves to these careers and these educations so we can have the workforce of the future.

I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't support this legislation, but the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would actually reduce the deficit by about $14 billion over the next decade.

That is important because we want to see policies that are going to help our economy in the short run and in the long run, but they have to be fiscally responsible.

So I say to those critics who say: Oh, well, if we make the interest rate lower, then students are going to borrow more money, I don't think students are looking to borrow more to add to their debt.

I don't think students whom I talked to who had loans as high as $180,000 want to borrow more money just because we are going to reduce the interest rate. They want to refinance, reduce their obligation, and get back to studying.

There is much more we need to do to mitigate the cost of higher education. I know my colleagues and I are going to be working on that, but the Bank on Student Loans Emergency Refinancing Act was a very good step to help students and to focus them on their careers and education.

Again, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will look again at this issue and get back to it. We need to make sure college education is more affordable. It is time for us to extend the same benefits we do for businesses and mortgages to students so they can refinance and that 25 million students in America could refinance their student loans.

I thank Senator Warren for bringing up this issue. I hope we will get back to it again.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time in quorum be equally divided between both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to thank my colleagues who have signed on to a letter to the NFL asking that they change the name of the Washington football team. I also thank Leader Reid for his leadership on this issue and for trying to accentuate the care and concern he has for 22 tribes in the State of Nevada and their interest in seeing the dignity and respect of those tribes with the name change as well.

I also come to the floor and ask my colleagues who have not signed to sign on to a letter asking the NFL to take action as aggressively as the NBA took action and to move on this issue. I will be sending a letter to each of my colleagues asking them to either sign on to this letter or to write their own letter, as one of our colleagues did. I am convinced that if each Member of this body speaks on this issue and is forceful in their resolve, we can help initiate change.

I know not everybody in America may understand why this is so important. Having personally worked with 29 tribes in the State of Washington, and for a short period of time having served as the chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and having been a Member of that my entire time in the Senate--this may not even be the top issue in Indian Country. We certainly have understaffed hospitals, challenging school situations, decaying infrastructure challenges, and concerns about fishing rights--whether they are the challenges that ocean acidification has to our fishing ability in the Pacific Northwest or whether it is in Alaska making sure that Alaska Natives who are on subsistence fishing are able to continue to do what they do.

There are many issues in what we refer to as Indian Country that are about the health, safety, and welfare of those individuals. Yet this issue is a reminder to all of us that intolerance in our communities is a problem.

We are here to say that we respect these tribal entities that have requested this name change. We are saying that we have a trust responsibility with these organizations and these individual tribes.

So when the National Congress of American Indians--an organization that represents millions of Americans with Native American backgrounds--calls for a change, the fact that we ignore that is a disrespect to those tribal entities.

There are many organizations across the United States of America who have joined this battle as well: the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the New York State Assembly, the National Congress of American Indians, the DC city council, the Prince George's County council. Even the President of the United States has spoken out on this issue.

So what is it going to take to get the name of this team changed? I say to my colleagues that even the Patent Office--the Federal agency determining whether a word can be protected in commerce--has said this term is derogatory slang and is disparaging to Native Americans.

We believe Commissioner Goodell should act; that he needs to do what the NBA did and make sure that one of their owners puts an end to the wrong use of a football term and to join the right side of history. We are not going to give up this battle.

Similarly, like organizations who have a Web site on changethemascot.org--which is a great 2-minute to 3-minute video of why Native Americans care so much about this issue--we need to continue to respect the dignity of these individuals, and it is time to update the relationship.

Yesterday at the White House there was an unbelievable ceremony, of which I am of course very proud of--the welcoming of the world champion Seahawks football team. They were walking into the White House where many Native Americans from the State of Washington were all decked out in Seahawks gear. I don't know if it was protocol for the White House. Even though they said nobody was to take pictures, telling a crowd from Seattle not to use digital devices is pretty hard to accomplish.

But there they were--Native Americans from our State who are partners with the Seattle Seahawks. They are advertising partners. They are suite owners. They advertise and participate together. The logo of the Seahawks was designed by a Native American. That is the relationship of the NFL and Native Americans today in the Pacific Northwest. Juxtapose that to here in

the Washington, DC, area where many people have spoken out and yet the owner remains in opposition of changing a name that has been clear to him is found to be racially offensive to Native Americans.

So we are here today to ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. Join us because it was hard to unite our side, but I know with a few of their voices we can move this issue further.

Why is tolerance so important? In the words of Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations:

Tolerance, intercultural dialogue, and respect for

diversity are more essential than ever in a world where

people are becoming more and more closely interconnected.

While that is a global view of the challenge we face, we need to practice that in reality here. That is why I was so happy we passed the Violence Against Women Act with a provision in it making sure that women in Indian Country would also be protected. We have to ask ourselves why did it take us so long to get that provision.

Even the U.N. Special Envoy on Indigenous Rights for Peoples around the world, James Anaya, also said that the NFL should change, basically saying it is a hurtful reminder and represents a long history of mistreatment in the United States of America. He cited the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

They use stereotypes to obscure the understanding and

reality of Native Americans today and instead help to keep

alive a racially discriminatory attitude.

So even the U.N., the world community, is calling on this community to deal with this issue and we should act. I hope my colleagues will help us in this effort to get the NFL to do the right thing.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleague, the senior Senator, to commemorate a great Washingtonian whom we lost last week, Billy Frank, Jr.

Senator Murray and I were able to attend his memorial service yesterday in the South Puget Sound area with 6,000 other Washingtonians. That is what happens when a great leader is lost; a community shows up to commemorate him and his spirit. Everybody who knew Billy Frank across the United States of America--and there are many people from all over Indian Country who do know or knew of Billy Frank--will want us to remember he was a legend who walked among us because what he did was champion environmental rights and the rights of Native American people to fish and in some ways championed the salmon to make sure we had good habitat.

Sometimes I wonder how a boy from the Nisqually River turned into being such a big Northwest Pacific hero, but for him, he started when he was a very young man listening to fishing stories of his father and many members of the Nisqually tribe. In a book about his life, his father Willie Frank, Sr., recalled a warden telling him, ``Your treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on.''

So while Billy's family faced beatings and incarcerations and explicit and inexplicit racism, he decided he was going to defend those rights all the way to the Supreme Court. As he grew into an adolescent, his father said to him: Keep fishing even if they arrest you. Keep fishing even if they beat you. Keep fishing even if they say the fishing claims aren't yours and they challenge them. Keep fishing. Because he knew those fishing claims were promised in the Medicine Creek Treaty.

So Billy was arrested more than 50 times in this struggle to secure the rights that were guaranteed to him by this government in a treaty. In fact, also in that book, he once was jailed and was asked by some of the people in jail--he called them bank robbers--what was he in for, and Billy just said, ``Fishing.''

So he took the beatings, and instead of turning all that into anger, he urged people to work in a nonviolent way, to stand for what they thought were important issues.

He had a great sense of humor. He once said:

If a salmon gets away from you, don't cuss. Don't say

anything. That salmon, he's going upriver. He's producing

more salmon for you and for all of us. The salmon--he's

coming home. And we have to take care of his home.

That is the vision that helped Billy win one of the greatest victories the tribes in the United States of America has ever seen. In a landmark decision, they abolished the regulations of discrimination against the Indian fishermen and allowed the tribe to self-regulate, comanage, and have the opportunity to catch up to half the harvestable catch.

We just celebrated the 40th anniversary of that historic Boldt decision, and yesterday we had a chance to pay tribute to a man who played a critical role in that decision. But as my colleague Senator Murray said, Billy Frank did more than just fight for that decision. He continued to focus on restoration of Puget Sound, including the Nisqually Delta Restoration, one of the largest tidal marsh restorations in the Pacific Northwest. This project has increased the potential for salt marsh habitat in the southern reach of Puget Sound by over 50 percent.

Because of his advocacy we have a program now called the Puget Sound Partnership, which is a public-private tribal partnership trying to improve the health of Puget Sound, and he is the reason we have an agreement called the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Agreement, which is a model for how people around the United States of America should try to resolve some of their differences on environmental issues instead of suing and going to court forever and ever and never having any kind of resolution. This kind of collaboration helped people address the environmental issues at hand.

So all of these things are things Billy Frank accomplished. As my colleague Senator Murray said, it was almost as though he was larger than life and did a job that could have, should have been for many people, but instead he just did it in his own way.

We will miss him, but we are thankful for all he did and for the people in the Northwest Fishing Commission for all they have done to help us in the Northwest set the right course. While he will not be there in person, we know Billy Frank will always be with us and with the salmon of the Pacific Northwest. We will miss him.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the nomination of Stanley Bastian to be a district judge for the Eastern District of Washington. Stan Bastian is exactly the kind of highly qualified Federal judge eastern Washington needs.

The Eastern District of Washington represents a wide swath of Washington that includes 20 counties that cover 63 percent of our State. Yet the court has been operating with two vacancies. So it is time for the Senate to move forward on filling this position, and I hope we confirm Mr. Bastian today. I also hope we can move forward on a vote on Salvador Mendoza in the coming weeks as well.

Mr. Bastian has been called an ``outstanding choice'' for the Eastern District bench, and I want to make sure we understand why. He was born in Washington and is well versed in Pacific Northwest issues. As my colleagues Mr. Wyden and Mr. Merkley will note, he is a graduate of the University of Oregon, but he also went to law school at the University of Washington. Mr. Bastian has handled a diverse portfolio of legal matters, including representing counties, public utility districts, fruit growers, medical clinics, brokers, and individuals, and he brings more than 30 years of experience to the Federal bench, including 25 years in private practice.

He has well rounded experience from all sides of the legal process, from civil and criminal trials to mediation, arbitration, and negotiations between various parties. Throughout his career, Mr. Bastian has shown a dedication to justice and equal access to the law. As an experienced trial attorney, he has earned the support and recognition of his peers.

When I interviewed Mr. Bastian, I was impressed by his respect for legal precedent and his commitment to the rule of law, his work to improve access to justice, and his local knowledge that has been very important in serving eastern Washington and all of Washington.

Mr. Bastian also served as a judicial pro tem in municipal courts, and recently he had the opportunity to lead the Washington State Bar Association. As the president of that organization, Mr. Bastian focused on ethics, professionalism, and civility in the legal profession. He has a long and wide-ranging background in the law and in the legal community, and that is exactly why we should put him on the Federal bench.

His legal career exemplifies public service, a commitment to access to justice, and a stellar legal intellect. I am confident he will serve the Eastern District well.

So I hope we move forward on these nominees this afternoon and confirm Mr. Bastian.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.