Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I vote no--

Mrs. GILLIBRAND.--on behalf of all the women who need health care.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. While we all support community health centers, and they are very useful in the State of New York as well, this is just another attempt to end the protections the Affordable Care Act provides for women. Nothing in this amendment will say that you cannot charge women more for health care just because they are women. Nothing in this amendment will say that you cannot charge women for health care or drop their coverage when they become pregnant. Nothing in this amendment provides for any restrictions on discrimination. It does not provide the mammograms, the preventive care services, the contraception care, and other affordable cancer screenings that women need. This amendment does not protect women's health care. They will still be discriminated against, charged more, and drop coverage as soon as they become pregnant. It is not acceptable. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 82. This amendment protects women's health care. Under the Affordable Care Act, we made many changes that made a huge difference in the lives of everyday American families. It said to women in America: You can't be charged more just because you are a woman. It said: You can't be dropped from coverage when you become pregnant. Imagine becoming pregnant and having your insurer drop your coverage because you no longer are economic or you cost too much money. Imagine being a cancer survivor and then having your coverage dropped because you survived cancer and you cost too much money. In the Affordable Care Act, we made sure contraception, preventive care service, health care screenings, and mammograms were affordable and accessible. If we take that away, these families are left without the basic care they need to survive. So if you love women and you love your mothers and daughters and wives, please do not unwind the Affordable Care Act. We need women's health protected, and that is what this amendment does.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of legislation to address a serious public health concern: the spread of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases in the United States. In my home State of New York, there were 37,977 reported cases of Lyme disease between 2005 and 2014, one of the most heavily affected populations in the country. This disease affects hundreds of thousands of people around the Nation and is the most commonly reported vector- borne illness in the United States, with an estimated 300,000 people becoming infected each year. The species of ticks that spread Lyme disease now live in 46 percent of the Nation's counties. If caught early, Lyme disease can be treated with antibiotics. Unfortunately, the disease can be difficult to diagnose because its symptoms mimic the symptoms of other serious diseases and because existing diagnostic tests still have many limitations. As a result, Lyme disease often goes undetected or misdiagnosed, making effective treatment of patients more difficult. Untreated Lyme disease can be debilitating and result in severe pain and suffering. To help address this epidemic, I urge my Senate colleagues to help pass the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, S. 1503. The House of Representatives approved this legislation over a year ago, and we must now come together to pass this bill in the Senate as soon as possible. The Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, would coordinate Federal efforts to address Lyme and other trick- borne diseases. It would create an advisory committee within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, made up of patients, advocates, researchers, health care providers, and government officials tasked with identifying best practices for combatting tick-borne diseases. It would also direct the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out activities coordinated across agencies to improve data collection, develop better diagnostic tests, enhance prevention and public awareness activities, and support clinical research into treatments. The prevalence of Lyme and other tick-borne disease cases in this country demands a strong and coordinated effort at the Federal level. The Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act is a critical step toward ending this epidemic. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor and help pass this legislation to improve our Federal response to tackling Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Thank you.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about three amendments to this bill that I think would help keep America safe from gun violence. After so many tragedies, including the mass murder earlier this month in Orlando, this Chamber has had one opportunity after another to do something about the gun violence crisis, and last night was our most recent chance. The American people are watching us, waiting to see what we will do, wondering if this time, after yet another mass shooting, after yet another hateful, angry person was able to have such easy access to a weapon of war to use it to quickly kill a crowd of innocent people-- maybe this time the Senate would act. But, no, this Chamber did nothing. The Senate didn't pass a single bill, not even a bill to prevent someone on the terror watch list from buying an illegal gun--not one. How many innocent people have to be killed by guns in this country before Congress is actually convinced to act? The Senate failed the American people last night, and there is no other way to put it. We aren't listening to our constituents who are desperate for Congress to act. This Chamber hasn't done anything to help keep the American people safe in the aftermath of so much violence. Every time a mass shooting happens somewhere in America--just like the one that occurred in Orlando--we hear the same calls for stronger, better, tougher laws. The American people overwhelmingly support them and nearly every time the gun industry and its powerful lobby do whatever they can do to block these bills to protect their own profits. It is the same cycle over and over again. Someone with no business handling a powerful deadly weapon of war has easy access to that weapon and then uses it to kill many people--quickly. We have to make it harder for hateful, violent, radicalized people to get their hands on weapons of war. The only way to change this--the only way--is if Congress fulfills its responsibility to protect the American people and pass new laws that help keep us safe. I have three amendments, new amendments, that have not been voted on this session. They are three amendments that actually could keep more Americans free of gun violence. First is a law enforcement bill. It is a bipartisan gun trafficking amendment which would finally make gun trafficking a Federal crime. One would assume that bringing weapons up I-95 and selling them out of the back of a truck to a gang member in New York City would be illegal, that it would be a Federal crime. It is not. It is not a Federal crime to do that. This bill is called the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act. It is named after two teenage girls who lost their lives because of gun violence in their neighborhoods. They were playing with friends, minding their own business, and a stray bullet shot them both down. Nyasia was killed in Brooklyn. Hadiya was killed in Chicago. These were two young girls. I met Nyasia's parents. They do not understand why their daughter had to die. Right now, there is no Federal law preventing someone from loading up a truck in Georgia, driving it up I-95, and reselling those weapons in a parking lot in Brooklyn to a gang member or other dangerous people who aren't eligible to buy guns anywhere else. This amendment would change that. It would give our law enforcement the tools they need to get illegal guns off the street and to prosecute those who are trafficking guns. The second amendment I would offer would require weapons dealers to keep physical inventories. This is something law enforcement has asked for. Without accurate inventory, it is impossible for law enforcement to know whether illegal gun sales are taking place or even if weapons have been stolen from that store. There are just a small number--a very small number--of bad gun dealers, but our law enforcement officials have a right to be able to find out who they are, why they are selling these weapons out of the back of their gun sales places and then selling them directly to criminals who drive them up I-95 and sell them to gang members in Brooklyn or the Bronx or in Harlem or in Buffalo. The third amendment is also a law enforcement amendment, something asked for by law enforcement. It would allow the ATF to ban foreign imports of military-style weapons, which tend to be used in crimes. Right now, many weapons with military-style features not intended for hunting, including those with high-capacity magazines and laser sights, are being dumped into the U.S. marketplace by foreign arms manufacturers. This amendment would help prevent those dangerous, military-style weapons from flooding our streets and ending up in the hands of criminals. No one in America should have to go through his or her daily life in fear of an angry, radicalized citizen who can easily buy a weapon of war and use it on innocent Americans. All of these amendments would help law enforcement do their jobs--be able to find criminals who are trafficking weapons, be able to find that small percentage of bad gun dealers and shut them down, and make sure foreign companies aren't flooding our market with illegal military weapons. These three changes would make a difference. They would help our law enforcement community keep our communities safe. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few moments before the gavel comes down at 12:30 p.m.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in questioning why this body, after so many horrific tragedies over the years, still refuses to pass laws that would make us safer from massacres like what happened in Orlando. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for leading this charge on the Senate floor. He knows too well what it is like to have his State fall victim to a mass murder. He knows what it is like to have happy, innocent lives cut short by gun violence. The massacre at the elementary school in Newtown took place more than 3 years ago, but it still feels like it was yesterday. Sweet, smiling children were slaughtered by someone so evil and so hateful and who was allowed to have easy access to an assault weapon, a weapon of war. It happened again last year in Charleston. Churchgoers who were praying were slaughtered by someone so evil and hateful and who was allowed to have easy access to a deadly, powerful weapon. It happened again in San Bernardino. Colleagues were in an office and celebrating at the end of the year. They were slaughtered by two people so evil and hateful and who were allowed to have easy access to an assault weapon, a weapon of war. The list goes on and on. After all of these mass shootings, Congress must do something, right? They must respond, right? No. Why didn't the Congress do anything? Why do they stand silent? Why do they not look those parents in the eye and say: This will not happen again. After all of these mass shootings, in each and every case, someone with no business handling a powerful deadly weapon has had easy access to that weapon and used it to kill people quickly, and now we have a new tragedy to add to this book. Like all of my colleagues here, I was devastated when I heard about the attack this past weekend in Orlando, and my heart goes out to everyone who was affected by this awful, hateful crime--the family and friends of 49 victims, the entire LGBT community, the entire Latino community. These were 49 happy people dancing together, laughing, celebrating who they are, in the middle of Pride Month, in a club that has always been a safe haven for them. But, once again, an evil and hateful person, a citizen of this country who was angry, hateful, and radicalized, was allowed by this Congress to have easy access to a deadly weapon of war. Let's be very clear about the kind of weapon this man used. The weapon is an AR-15. It was not designed to hunt deer. It was not designed for target practice. It was designed to kill large numbers of people quickly, at war. This is not a weapon used in hunting. Why are we allowing private citizens to have access--such easy access--to these weapons of war? Something has to change. No one outside of our military, which is trained to use these weapons, needs to have access to a weapon that can fire hundreds of bullets in a minute--hundreds of bullets in a minute. The only people with the power to change this are the men and women who serve in this Chamber--who serve in the Senate and House of Representatives. Is this slaughter not a wake-up call? Is it not enough to convince us to act? Where is our spine? The gun industry is a rich and powerful lobby in this country, but we weren't elected to protect the gun industry's profits. We were elected to protect America and its safety. We have to make it harder for hateful, angry, violent people to get their hands on a weapon--a weapon of war that is designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The only way we change it--the only way--is if Congress fulfills its responsibility to protect the American people and passes new laws that keep us safe. The people of Orlando, San Bernardino, Charleston, Newtown, New York--the entire Nation--none of them should have to go through their daily lives in fear of violence, in fear that an angry, radicalized citizen can buy and use a weapon of war against innocent Americans. We already have bipartisan reforms that are ready to go that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people--obviously, background checks that are more effective so would-be terrorists could not buy a weapon of war. They won't be able to do that. The American people support that. Let's stop allowing would-be murderers to legally buy weapons of war like the AR-15 without scrutiny. Let's lift our irrational hold on the CDC and allow them to actually study the issue of gun deaths the way we are allowed to study any other cause of death in this country. The American people support this as well. Let's stop the people who have been deemed too dangerous to fly an airplane from being allowed to buy guns. Let's stop tying the hands of law enforcement and preventing them from sharing crime data. Let's stop preventing ATF from requiring gun stores to conduct inventory and report any guns that have been lost or stolen, and let's stop blocking the ATF from preventing the dumping of nonsporting weapons into the American market from abroad. Let's finally crack down on gun trafficking and straw purchasing. These are all measures the American people strongly support. My State of New York suffers deeply from gun violence. Our biggest problem is the amount of illegal weapons that flow into our State every single day from other States. The amount of guns--90 percent--used in crimes come from out of State, and 85 percent of them are illegal. These are weapons literally sold out of the back of a truck from someone in another State to a gang member. And how many innocent lives do we have to lose because a stray bullet hits them while they are out with friends? It is unconscionable that this Congress stands and does nothing. I thank my friend from Connecticut for yielding the floor, and I will ask him this final question: What do you propose we should do to protect Americans from this type of senseless violence? What should we do now as Senators and as Members of this body?

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer amendment No. 4310, notwithstanding rule XXII, and the Senate vote in relation to the amendment; and that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak about the amendment. Under our current military justice system, when a servicemember is accused of sexual assault, the decision to prosecute isn't actually made by a trained prosecutor or a lawyer of any kind. In fact, it is made by a colonel or a brigadier general or another high-ranking military officer. Our commanders are the best in the world when it comes to tactics and strategy, but most of them have little to no experience in legal or criminal matters. And why should they have that experience? Our commanders are not prosecutors. They are not lawyers. They are warfighters, and their job is to keep our country safe, not make legal judgments about whether to prosecute a rape. The current military justice system has failed our sexual assault survivors for too long. This amendment very simply takes the decision about whether to prosecute these crimes and gives it to trained, experienced, independent military prosecutors. We have all the evidence we need that this problem has not gotten better in the last year. We have more data. We have looked at more case files. We have heard from more survivors. It is clear little has changed, despite the Department's persistent claims that things are getting better, that they are making progress. When the Department of Defense estimates that there are 20,000 servicemembers who are sexually assaulted in a year, that is not progress. When 8 out of every 10 military sexual assault survivors don't report the crime, that is not progress. When 62 percent of survivors are being retaliated against, that is not progress. When more than half of those retaliation cases--58 percent of them--are perpetrated by someone in the chain of command, that is not progress. When the percentage of survivors willing to report openly has declined for the past 5 years, that is not progress. When it was confirmed by the Associated Press that the Pentagon blatantly misled the Senate in order to skew our debate, that is perhaps the ultimate sign that there has been no progress. Our military justice system is broken. It is failing our members. And no matter how many marginal reforms we make, as long as commanders with no legal experience are continuing to make important legal decisions on whether to prosecute violent sex crimes, we are not going to solve the problem. Once and for all, let's take the decision to prosecute these crimes and give it to trained, independent military prosecutors. Let's give our military servicemembers a justice system that is worthy of their service.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his remarks, and I thank the leaders. I urge my colleagues to allow a vote on my amendment No. 4310. We now know far more about the extent of the military sexual assault problem than we did last year. We have more data, we have reviewed more case files, we heard from more survivors, and it is clear that very little has changed despite the Department of Defense's persistent claims that things are getting better and that they are making progress. When the Department of Defense estimates that 20,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted this year--the same number as in 2010--that is not progress. When an estimate of 8 out of 10 military sexual assault survivors don't report the crime, that is not progress. When more than half of all retaliation cases--58 percent of them--are perpetrated by someone in the chain of command of the accuser, that is not progress. When the percentage of survivors willing to report openly has declined for the past 5 years, that is not progress. When 62 percent of survivors have experienced retaliation since 2012 and there has not been one prosecution of this enumerated crime, that is not progress. When it is confirmed by the Associated Press that the Pentagon blatantly misled the Senate in order to skew our debate, this is perhaps the ultimate time that they are not making progress. Our military justice system is broken. It is failing our men and women who so bravely serve. No matter how many small reforms we make, as long as commanders with no legal experience are continuing to make these important decisions about violent sexual crimes, we are not going to solve this problem. Our commanders are great at winning wars and training troops. They are not prosecutors. They are not even lawyers. They are warfighters, and their job is to keep our country safe, not make legal judgments about whether to prosecute a rape. Once and for all, let's take this decision to prosecute these crimes and instead give it to trained military prosecutors. Let's give our servicemembers a justice system that is worthy of their service. This is our chance, and I urge everyone to vote yes if we have a vote. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked for S. 2943, notwithstanding rule XXII, that Gillibrand amendment No. 4310, the Military Justice Improvement Act, be considered in order postcloture, and that it be in order to offer amendment No. 4310, and the Senate vote in relation to that amendment with a 60 affirmative vote threshold, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I know that everyone here shares a desire to fix our chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and I appreciate the years of hard work that my colleagues, starting with the late Senator from New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg, put in to try to make this bill the best bipartisan compromise it could be. So many parts of this bill strengthen the standards and review process for chemicals, and I am pleased that we will finally be able to effectively regulate chemicals on a Federal level. However, there is one part of the bill that still concerns me: the preemption of State laws. Right now, a number of States, including New York, have taken the lead in chemical safety and have set standards for their own citizens that are higher than the standards set by the EPA. These State actions have brought the chemical companies to the table to finally create a strong federal system for reviewing chemicals for safety. But this bill would significantly limit the rights of individual States to set their own chemical safety standards from this day forward. It would prevent a State from regulating or enforcing regulations on a chemical if the EPA is studying but has not yet ruled on the safety of that chemical. But the EPA's review process can take far longer than a State's review process. As a result, if a Governor or a State legislature wanted to develop their own rules to protect their citizens from a particular chemical that they knew was toxic and posing an imminent threat, their hands would be tied because of this law, and it would be left to the EPA to determine whether the State's science is valid. Why would we take away this right from our States? The only recourse for States is a burdensome waiver process that does not guarantee that a State will prevail in obtaining a waiver to continue to protect the health of its families. That is not enough. When it comes to protecting public health, I firmly believe that Federal laws should set a floor, not a ceiling, and States should continue to have the right to protect their citizens from toxic chemicals--especially while they wait for the EPA to complete their own lengthy studies. No State should be prevented from acting to protect the health and safety of its people when the Federal Government fails to act. No State should be prevented from banning a dangerous chemical, simply because the EPA is taking time to review the substance. So despite all the hard work of my colleagues and the progress that has been made, I cannot vote to undermine my State's ability to protect our constituents, and I will vote no on this bill. Thank you. congressional intent behind specific provisions of the bill

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I am introducing along with Senator Grassley called the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. When our first responders make the decision to join a police department or a fire department or an EMT squad, they do so knowing they might encounter hazards on the job that threaten their lives or even end their lives. These men and women work in some of the highest pressure and most dangerous environments--shootouts, fires, natural disasters, terror attacks. Think about your own communities back home. When disaster strikes, when there is an emergency, who shows up first, speeding to the scene and ready to help? It is our police officers, it is our firefighters, and it is our EMT workers. Our public safety officers know that death or serious injury is a real risk in their jobs, but they show up to work anyway, ready to help and willing to sacrifice, if that is what it takes to keep their communities safe. When first responders die as a result of their work, we all have the responsibility to help take care of their surviving family members. In 1984, more than three decades ago, Congress did the right thing and created a program called the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program to help these families. Whenever a tragedy struck and a first responder was killed on the job or passed away because of their job, these grieving families could take a little bit of comfort in knowing they would have the financial support they needed with this program. They knew they would have help from this program, transitioning to a life without their loved one. In recent years, the families applying to the program have faced confusing and inconsistent requirements. They have faced long delays in receiving compensation. Before, when a loved one died on the job, the family would get compensation from this program without any serious delay. But now the burden to claim these funds and then retrieve them has been placed on the families--the same families this program is supposed to be helping. As a result, hundreds of families who are already grieving now have to dig through public records themselves. They have to endure an exhausting paper chase with no guidance. And they have to go far beyond a reasonable doubt to prove to the Justice Department that their loved one did, in fact, serve as a first responder and sacrificed his or her life for this job. Last fall, USA Today reported that of the more than 900 cases they reviewed, the average wait for a decision by the program about compensation was more than 1 year. For some families, it was 2 years, and for some, the wait was 3 years. This even includes our first responders who worked at Ground Zero. Think about the unnecessary stress these delays have placed on our families who lost loved ones. We know we must fix this program. We must fix this program. These families of our fallen public safety officers are not getting the compensation they deserve, that their loved ones have earned, in the timely manner they need. This bill--Senator Grassley's and mine--is a bipartisan bill that fixes this problem. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act would make this compensation program more transparent and more efficient, and it would make sure it works. The bill would require the program to report publicly the status of every claim so that families can know if and why their compensation is being delayed. It would give weight to the findings and records of Federal agencies, State agencies, and local agencies about the cause of the public safety officer's death so that families don't have to reproduce records that already exist. And this bill would reduce the wait for our families to receive the compensation they deserve and desperately need. I thank my colleague Senator Grassley for his strong leadership and his amazing advocacy, and I urge all my colleagues here to support this bill. Let's fix the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. Let's take care of these families--the families of our public safety officers--and let's do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a bill I am introducing along with Senator Grassley called the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. When our first responders make the decision to join a police department or a fire department or an EMT squad, they do so knowing they might encounter hazards on the job that threaten their lives or even end their lives. These men and women work in some of the highest pressure and most dangerous environments--shootouts, fires, natural disasters, terror attacks. Think about your own communities back home. When disaster strikes, when there is an emergency, who shows up first, speeding to the scene and ready to help? It is our police officers, it is our firefighters, and it is our EMT workers. Our public safety officers know that death or serious injury is a real risk in their jobs, but they show up to work anyway, ready to help and willing to sacrifice, if that is what it takes to keep their communities safe. When first responders die as a result of their work, we all have the responsibility to help take care of their surviving family members. In 1984, more than three decades ago, Congress did the right thing and created a program called the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program to help these families. Whenever a tragedy struck and a first responder was killed on the job or passed away because of their job, these grieving families could take a little bit of comfort in knowing they would have the financial support they needed with this program. They knew they would have help from this program, transitioning to a life without their loved one. In recent years, the families applying to the program have faced confusing and inconsistent requirements. They have faced long delays in receiving compensation. Before, when a loved one died on the job, the family would get compensation from this program without any serious delay. But now the burden to claim these funds and then retrieve them has been placed on the families--the same families this program is supposed to be helping. As a result, hundreds of families who are already grieving now have to dig through public records themselves. They have to endure an exhausting paper chase with no guidance. And they have to go far beyond a reasonable doubt to prove to the Justice Department that their loved one did, in fact, serve as a first responder and sacrificed his or her life for this job. Last fall, USA Today reported that of the more than 900 cases they reviewed, the average wait for a decision by the program about compensation was more than 1 year. For some families, it was 2 years, and for some, the wait was 3 years. This even includes our first responders who worked at Ground Zero. Think about the unnecessary stress these delays have placed on our families who lost loved ones. We know we must fix this program. We must fix this program. These families of our fallen public safety officers are not getting the compensation they deserve, that their loved ones have earned, in the timely manner they need. This bill--Senator Grassley's and mine--is a bipartisan bill that fixes this problem. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act would make this compensation program more transparent and more efficient, and it would make sure it works. The bill would require the program to report publicly the status of every claim so that families can know if and why their compensation is being delayed. It would give weight to the findings and records of Federal agencies, State agencies, and local agencies about the cause of the public safety officer's death so that families don't have to reproduce records that already exist. And this bill would reduce the wait for our families to receive the compensation they deserve and desperately need. I thank my colleague Senator Grassley for his strong leadership and his amazing advocacy, and I urge all my colleagues here to support this bill. Let's fix the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program. Let's take care of these families--the families of our public safety officers--and let's do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, April is actually Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and I rise to speak about two extraordinary women who were accepted into their dream colleges and then after they arrived on campus were sexually assaulted. They tried to seek help from their school, and they were blamed for their assaults by their school's administrators. A couple of years ago, these two young women walked into my office. They didn't have an appointment. They didn't have any connections on Capitol Hill. They certainly didn't have an expensive lobbyist to lead them in. Annie and Andrea had heard about my work to fight sexual assaults in the military, and they simply wanted to help. The same crisis was unfolding on college campuses across the country. When they tried to report their rapes, they were not believed. They were actually retaliated against. For them, justice seemed impossible. But instead of doing nothing, Annie and Andrea joined together and they created an organization called End Rape on Campus. They took their stories to college campus after college campus to be heard, to help other survivors like themselves, to make a difference, to achieve justice, and to hold these schools accountable. Together, Annie and Andrea have helped many other sexual assault survivors file dozens of title IX complaints for how their schools mishandled their sexual assault claims. These young women are changing lives. They are helping their peers find justice. They took a risk to raise their voices, and now we are closer than ever to passing a comprehensive, bipartisan piece of legislation to make sure campus sexual assault cases are handled with the professionalism and fairness all our students deserve. We are closer than ever to passing a bill that would finally give our colleges and universities an incentive to solve the problem of sexual assault rather than stay silent and pretend it doesn't exist because they are worried about application numbers or press releases. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this bipartisan bill, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, because when surveys keep confirming that one out of five of our women in college are sexually assaulted before they graduate, we know we have more work to do. We need to follow the example of Annie and Andrea and speak out about this crisis. I am going to use this moment to tell one story--the story of Andrea, what actually happened to her. She wrote a book with Annie called ``We Believe You.'' It is an incredible compilation of survivor stories. It is quite heartbreaking and very tough to read, but it is one of the most inspiring books I have ever read. There are thousands of stories just like hers. I have others to tell on the Senate floor, but now I am going to tell you Andrea's in her own words: After I publicly came forward as a survivor, I learned that the biggest triggers aren't actually the nightmares of my assault, but the nightmares of the betrayals that I've had to survive. When the media tells your story, it feels like open season on your truth. It's exposed to commentary, and a part of you loses control over it, and the vulnerabilities that you intended to share. When you tell your story to the media, you're at the mercy of their portrayal, and the portrayal of others. I've been betrayed by friends who struggled to understand what happened to me, and to accept that the same person who put forth strength and composure could fall apart. I wish I could have said the right things to get them to understand that I was broken, and that my confidence was a lie to both of us. I've been betrayed by the university that I love so dearly, whose seal I wear around my neck, and whose quads and bricks hold pieces of me--pieces of who I was before, and of who I am today. Andrea is one of many young men and women whose lives have been shattered by a violent sexual crime and then shattered again by a second betrayal when their schools chose not to believe them or to offer justice. These survivors deserve better. They need Congress to act. We have to do the right thing. We have to be their voice. We have to stand for them. The bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act does exactly that. Please, let's all do our jobs and pass the bill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

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

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, after another whole year, a very unfortunate milestone has once again arrived. Today is Equal Pay Day. This is the day in 2016 when the average working woman, after all last year and the first 3 months of this year, finally earns as much money as the average man did only during last year. So if we started the clock in 2015, the average woman had to work an extra 103 days to earn the same amount of money as a man. Imagine two people were both hired at a company. They both work hard. They have the same amount of experience and the same qualifications, but they have one very important difference: One of those workers is a man, and the other is a woman. As a result, they will not be paid the same. Right now, on average, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes only 79 cents. That is the average for all women. Many other groups of women have it even worse. Working mothers earn only 75 cents for every dollar working fathers make. African-American women earn just 60 cents for every dollar a white male makes. And our Latina women have it the worst. They earn just 55 cents for every dollar a white male makes. The United States of America still doesn't pay its men and women equally for the same exact work, and it is unacceptable that in the year 2016 we are still fighting to fix this basic problem. Think about how this pay gap affects our families. More women than ever are earning their family's paycheck. Four out of every ten mothers are either the primary breadwinner of the family or the only breadwinner in their family. Because of this pay gap, their children are getting shortchanged. We need equal pay for equal work. It shouldn't matter if you are a nurse or a lawyer or even one of the best female athletes in the world. Just a couple weeks ago, the women's national soccer team filed a Federal lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation over wage discrimination. I strongly support these women, and they are doing the right thing. They are raising their voices about a serious injustice, and I urge all of my colleagues in this Chamber to listen to these women--listen to the women in their States, and listen to the women in this country that deserve equal pay for equal work. The women on our national soccer team are some of the most successful American athletes alive, and even they have to deal with this pay gap. It is shameful and inexcusable that women are still paid less than men for the exact same work in this country. I urge everyone here to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. Let's get with the times. Let's finally make it illegal to pay our women less than our men for the very same work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I wish to request that, for the second year in a row, the U.S. Government officially recognize the last week in March as Black Women's History Week. During the week of March 28, 2016, as part of Women's History Month and in honor of the second year of the United Nation's International Decade for People of African Descent, several leading social justice organizations will be holding their second annual week of events to honor Black women and recognize their current struggles in American society. This week will shed light on the reality that Black women confront many intersectional challenges in American society, yet their concerns are often pushed to the margins of public attention and intervention. This week marks the perfect occasion to attend to the often hidden experiences of Black women and to generate attention to address the challenges they face. Black women have traditionally gone above and beyond the call of duty in their contributions to American society. Black women have been inspirational symbols of strength and perseverance through their high voter turnout and historic leadership of racial justice movements. Even in the face of grave oppression throughout our Nation's history, Black women have continued to stand strong and contribute to the well-being of their families, their communities, and our country as a whole; yet at the same time, Black women continue to face undue burdens and obstacles to their own well-being. Acknowledging both the centrality of Black women in our history and social fabric as well as the unique inequalities they face is critical in our efforts to build a society that ensures equality and justice for all. In conjunction with the congressional declaration, a coalition of organizations advocating for the well-being of women and communities of color will partner to elevate the stories, histories, and realities of Black women's lives, building off the momentum generated by Black Women's History Week in 2015. Our charge is to ensure that the lives of Black women and girls are not overlooked and that efforts to generate information about their well-being is widely shared across public agencies and partner institutions. Thank you.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of amendment No. 3354. I filed this amendment with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Capito, who has been a leader in our fight against opioid addiction. The opioid addiction problem in our country is severe. It is growing, and it is not going to end unless Congress comes together to pass a law that targets the root causes of this epidemic. The stakes are simply too high to ignore. Last year alone, in communities all across our country, including many in New York, 1.4 million more Americans started abusing opioids. Every day, 44 more people are killed by an overdose. We have seen enough data to know that our opioid addiction problem is spiraling out of control. Opioid addiction is destroying too many lives in our cities, too many families in our rural communities, and too many young men and women in our suburbs. I wish to tell the story of one of my constituents whose name is Sean Murdick. Sean was a really special and gifted young man. He was cocaptain of his high school football team and had that rare ability to bring people together and connect with anyone. Sean didn't care if you were on the football team or had a disability, he was always the first one there to help you when you needed it. After high school, Sean loved working with his hands, so he got a good job as a construction worker. One day Sean broke his arm. Sean's doctor gave him a prescription for oxycodone, a powerful opioid to mask his pain. By the time his prescription ran out, Sean was already addicted. He couldn't shake the addiction no matter how hard he tried. He started using heroin and tried to quit many times, but the system failed. The system failed him nearly every step of the way, and last fall Sean overdosed and died. I would like to tell you Sean's story from the perspective of his parents. My hometown paper, the Times Union, did an incredible story about his life. I can imagine the pain they suffer because I have two young sons. The Murdicks had many questions but very few answers, and they have been lost in a fog of grief since their son's death 2 months ago. The Times Union wrote: They want to speak out in Sean's memory, to reclaim what heroin stole from them in the hope that it might help other parents struggling with a child's addiction. ``Sean did not die in vain,'' his father said, choking back tears. ``We tried our best to save him. It wasn't enough,'' his older brother said, his voice cracking. . . . His mother walked over, embraced her son and spoke soothing words into his ear. The father buried his head in his hands. It was a tableau of sorrow. We have seen this happen far too often. When their son spiraled down into addiction-- His parents could see something was wrong with Sean. He lost a lot of weight and seemed distant and fidgety. He nodded off at the dinner table. His father found a syringe in the bathroom and confronted Sean. ``Dad, I'm sick. I need help,'' he said. ``This is not me. I don't want to be like this.'' The parents told their story to our paper. The paper says: It was a revolving door of failure: detox, intensive outpatient care, relapse. He did not qualify for the most intensive and costliest level of care, inpatient residential treatment. They denied him because he was not homicidal or suicidal and had a stable home environment. ``It was a never- ending battle with the insurance companies,'' his mother said. ``They treated him like the scum of the Earth.'' Now imagine being a parent and going through this with your son-- going from treatment center to treatment center. When Sean finally died, he had the best care. He was in a treatment center. When he called his mother, he said: ``Mom, I've gotta go. My steak's ready,'' he said. ``Love you, mom.'' He went into the bathroom, and he overdosed. Sean left his parents a final solace. Not long before he died, he thanked them for their unconditional love and how they supported him through a long road of misery. ``You did everything right,'' he told them. I don't know how a parent can hear those words and think they did everything right, but I can tell you as a Senator that the U.S. Congress is not doing everything right. Too many parents are telling these stories about their children who have died and too many patients are being prescribed opioids, such as Percocet, Vicodin, and OxyContin for acute pain. This medication is prescribed to patients for a broken wrist or when they have a wisdom tooth pulled--medication that they may need for only 2 or 3 days. Why in Heaven's name are they sent home with a dose of 30 oxycodone pills? What happens to those pills? Are they given to kids at a party? Are they sold to addicts? We know there is a huge issue with how prescriptions are being made, how much medicine is being given to patients for this acute care, and right now there are no guidelines--no guidelines--given to doctors. I have a bill to create that guideline. We need a guideline for the CDC. Our amendment is very simple. It would require the CDC to issue clear guidelines to our medical community for when it is appropriate to prescribe opioids instead of something nonaddictive, such as Extra Strength Tylenol. Our amendment simply requires the CDC to issue these clear guidelines for how much opioid medication our medical professionals can prescribe without putting a patient at high risk for addiction. These guidelines are already being done for chronic pain, so they should also do them for acute pain. We need to do something. As Members of Congress, we need to respond to the suffering of so many of our constituents. It is truly an epidemic, and it needs a response. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life of an extraordinary woman named Anita Ashok Data. She was a mother, a daughter, a sister, and a dear friend to those who knew her. Anita was born in Pittsfield, MA, and was raised in Flanders, NJ. She was a graduate of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and School of International and Public Affairs, where she attained a master's in public health and a master's in public administration. At the time of her death, Anita was a resident of Takoma Park, MD. Anita dedicated her life to helping others. She was an international public health expert and development worker who traveled the world, working tirelessly in pursuit of one powerful goal: to improve the lives of those less fortunate. Anita began her career in the Peace Corps, where she volunteered for a 2-year tour in Senegal, a country in a part of the world that she had come to love so much. After graduating from Columbia University, Anita moved to the Washington, DC, area where she continued her career as an international development worker. In addition to her day job, Anita helped found the not-for-profit Tulalens, an organization dedicated to connecting low-income women in underserved communities to quality health services. But out of all of her many accomplishments, Anita was most proud of her son, Rohan. Rohan was the light of her life. Anita loved working to make the world a better place for him. Anita's inspiring life was cut short on November 20, 2015, in a senseless act of violent terrorism in Bamako, Mali. But Anita and her life--and the lives of the thousands of people she touched--are far bigger than the tragic event that occurred on that day. Anita's love, spirit, and dedication to making the world a better place will have a lasting effect. The world is a better place because of Anita and the work that she did. I extend my deepest, heartfelt sympathies to Anita's family and friends--especially to her son, Rohan.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment about a great man and a wonderful friend of mine. His name is Ray Pfeifer, and he is an incredible leader and an inspiration to many, myself included. Ray was a New York City firefighter for 27 years and 220 days, by his count. He called it the best job in the world, and he said he was proud to put on the uniform. But Ray had to retire last September--years before he wanted to--because he has cancer. His cancer has spread throughout his body--to his ribs, his leg, and now to his brain. We know that cancer can strike randomly, sometimes with nothing to blame, but there is nothing random about Ray Pfeifer's cancer. Ray now has cancer because he was a first responder at Ground Zero, because he was one of thousands who rushed to help after we were attacked on 9/11. He served in Engine 40, Ladder 35, in the 9th Battalion, and most of the members of his battalion were killed on 9/11. Ray spent months on the pile searching for his friends. He wouldn't leave. He spent months digging for bodies in the rubble. He spent months there, breathing in horrible, toxic air that hung over Ground Zero like a deadly mist. Many Members of the Senate would actually recognize Ray because he has been down here so many times--dozens of times--working the Halls of Congress, asking Senators to do the right thing and support the 9/11 bill. He was a strong, smiling man in uniform, traveling in his wheelchair from office to office, with contagious optimism and unmatched grace. Ray Pfeifer has never wavered. He has never been deterred. He has never even given up his efforts to pass the 9/11 health program. But you must know, Ray was never doing this for himself; he was doing it so other first responders didn't have to. Ray wanted to be here today to see this bill passed because he had worked so long and so hard, but last week Ray had to go back to the hospital because his cancer had spread to his brain. Ray is physically in New York right now, but Ray's indomitable spirit is with us in the Capitol. His strength is with us. His unmistakable grace is with us. Ray, I know you are listening. We never ever could have gotten this done without you. You did it. But I must tell you, Ray, this speech isn't for you; this speech is for your wife Caryn and your son Terrance and your daughter Taylor. Terrance was actually sworn in as a New York City firefighter earlier this year, just like his dad. This speech is for them because they shared you with all of us. This speech is for all the responders who fought for all these years so that our 9/11 heroes could have the health care for the rest of their lives. The city of New York and the United States of America owe Ray and his family a debt of gratitude that can never truly be paid. Ray is the embodiment of everything we strive to be as Americans: selfless, kind, brave, optimistic, someone who fights for what is right and never gives in. Ray, I know you are a fighter, and I know you will get through this. You have the prayers of more people than you know, and may God bless you and your family. I look forward to celebrating this hard-fought victory in person with you soon. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, across the country, many State and local governments, including counties in New York, have moved to ban products that contain plastic microbeads. Because of their leadership and because of the advocacy from scientists and others who have shown us the damage that microbeads can do, Congress came together to unanimously ban plastic microbeads from rinse-off cosmetic products. This is a great bill, and it shows that we can pass smart environmental legislation here in Washington. Plastic microbeads are the tiny pieces of plastic that we often see in toothpaste, hand lotion, or various other personal care products. When we brush our teeth and wash our face, most of us don't consider these acts to be harmful in any way. But plastic microbeads are smaller than 5 millimeters in size, which means they are too small to be captured by the filtration systems in our water treatment centers. So these plastic microbeads end up leaching into our lakes, our rivers, our streams, our bays, and even our drinking water supplies. It might be surprising that a piece of plastic so small can cause such outsized damage. But we have heard from a wide range of constituents and business groups that all recognize the damage, and all recommended that Congress act to remove plastic microbeads from the marketplace. We have heard it from the fishing industry, from the tourism industry, from the culinary industry. Even the cosmetics industry is supportive of this ban. Many cosmetics companies have already voluntarily stopped using microbeads themselves. When tiny plastic microbeads get into the water, they attract pollutants that are already in the water, and they concentrate these pollutants to potentially dangerous levels. Fish don't know what microbeads are, so they eat them and end up ingesting all of the pollutants stuck on the microbeads. This disrupts the food chain, it contaminates huge portions of the wildlife population, and it hurts our commercial and recreational fishing industries, because they can't sell--and we can't eat--fish that are filled with toxic plastic. Many of our counties, cities, and States took the lead on this issue, and they should be commended for that. But local action isn't enough to solve a nationwide problem like this--not when so many communities in different States are connected by the same bodies of water--because no one is immune when our waterways are contaminated. Congress had a responsibility to act--to stop the flow of microbeads into our waterways. And today we are doing our job in passing this Federal ban on these products. The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 will prohibit the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads starting in 2017 and will ensure that they are off retail shelves by 2018. And while this bill preempts States from regulating rinse-off products containing plastic microbeads differently from the Federal ban, individual States will still have the ability to restrict microbeads in other types of products. Additionally, the preemption language in this bill restricts their manufacture and distribution in interstate commerce and should not prevent States or local governments from regulating how microbeads are disposed of under laws such as the Clean Water Act. States can also co-enforce the Federal ban by enacting identical laws. This is a great bipartisan bill. And it is a smart step forward, as we look for new ways to protect our environment.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I wish to speak today in recognition of Mr. Julio N. Infiesta of Lynbrook, NY, who served in the Social Security Administration for 42 years in the New York region. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Mr. Infiesta for his years of dedication and public service and to congratulate him on his retirement. In 1973, Julio began his career with the Social Security Administration, serving in various local offices in the New York metropolitan region, including in the South Bronx, where he was an operations supervisor, and in Long Beach, where he was selected as branch manager. In 1976, he became a social insurance specialist in the New York regional office in field operations. Mr. Infiesta also served as assistant district manager and district manager in the Jamaica and Flushing offices until 2001, when he entered the agency's Advanced Leadership Program. Mr. Infiesta was promoted to the position of deputy assistant regional commissioner for management and operations support and also served as the acting assistant regional commissioner for management and operations support. As a member of the Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program, he served as an area director and as the director for disability in the office of the deputy commissioner for operations. In 2003, Mr. Infiesta was selected as the region's assistant regional commissioner for management and operations support and was elevated to deputy regional commissioner in 2014. As Social Security's second senior ranking official in the New York metropolitan region, Mr. Infiesta oversaw Social Security operations in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These operations included an annual administrative budget of $400 million for more than 3,900 employees in 113 field offices, four teleservice centers, four Social Security Card Centers, the Northeastern Program Service Center, and the New York regional office. In the New York metropolitan region, Social Security pays $7.3 billion in monthly cash benefits to 6 million retirees, workers with disabilities and their families, and the families of workers who have died. Social Security pays an additional $461 million in monthly Supplemental Security Income cash benefits to 835,000 people aged 65 and older, as well as people who are blind or disabled, regardless of age. Mr. Infiesta and his wife, Joanne, are longtime residents of Lynbrook, in Nassau County, Long Island. Mr. President, I ask that we give tribute on December 10, 2015, to the 42 years of service that Mr. Julio N. Infiesta gave to the Social Security Administration and to the people of the United States.