[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1248-S1253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this issue of opioids--
heroin, prescription drugs, now fentanyl--coming into our communities. 
It is at epidemic levels. We have worked on this issue over the last 
year in a bipartisan way and have made some progress. But I come today 
to the floor to report bad news and also to report something that 
Congress could do to help to address a new problem.
  There was a report recently that came out by the U.S.-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission--very disturbing. It said that there is 
a new influx of what is called fentanyl coming in from China. This is a 
synthetic form of heroin. It can be up to 50 times more powerful than 
heroin. Think about that.
  The report says:

       The majority of fentanyl products found in the United 
     States originate in China. Chinese law enforcement officials 
     have struggled to adequately regulate the thousands of 
     chemical and pharmaceutical facilities operating legally and 
     illegally in the country, leading to increased production and 
     export of illicit chemicals and drugs. Chinese chemical 
     exporters covertly ship these drugs to the Western 
     Hemisphere.

  So that comes from an official report from this Commission on the 
United States and China. It is confirmed, unfortunately, back home. I 
was home this week meeting with law enforcement on Monday. They told 
me: Rob, the top issue in our community is now not heroin; it is 
fentanyl, and it is this synthetic form of heroin that is far more 
powerful.
  At least in their minds, they think that it is also more effective at 
making people addicted because it is less expensive and the trafficking 
of it is more aggressive. So this is a big concern because we were 
finally, I thought, making some progress on the prescription drugs and 
the heroin, and now this fentanyl, Carfentanil, and U4--it goes by 
various names depending on the chemical compounds--are coming into our 
communities.
  It is truly scary. The consequences are, I hope, obvious to everybody 
now. We are losing one American every 12 minutes. This speech will be 
about 12 minutes. We will lose another American to an overdose. But it 
is getting worse, not better. By the way, it is everywhere. Last year, 
in 2016, every single State in the Union had at least one forensic lab 
test positive for fentanyl.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
number of positive forensic tests for fentanyl in the United States 
doubled, in fact, from 2014 to 2015. We believe it is worse. We know it 
is worse than 2016 from the information we have. Unfortunately, even 
this year, this month and a half, we have seen more and more evidence 
of fentanyl coming into our communities.
  According to the China Commission's report, the top destination for 
Chinese fentanyl, by the way, is my home State of Ohio. We had more 
positive tests for fentanyl than any other State. By the way, 
Massachusetts--to my colleague who has been involved in this issue and 
worked on this issue and helped to try to stop the overprescribing of 
prescription drugs--was No. 2.
  We are talking about 3,800 positive tests for fentanyl in Ohio alone. 
I do believe this is something that is being confirmed at the local 
level, not just from my meeting on Monday but from what I am hearing 
from around the State. Just 2 days after the Commission's report came 
out, in Butler County, OH, police seized $180,000 in fentanyl-laced 
heroin after suspected fentanyl overdoses killed five people in just 2 
days.
  Drug overdoses in Butler County, by the way, have nearly tripled 
since 2012. When I was in Dayton, I met with the Dayton R.A.N.G.E., 
which is a law enforcement task force--the Regional Agencies Narcotics 
and Gun Enforcement Task Force. They told me that this is now their 
biggest problem.
  They said, because it is stronger, there are more overdoses and more 
deaths than there are with a similar amount of heroin or the number of 
people using heroin. They said that just over a 2-week period, they had 
seized more than 40 pounds of drugs off the streets, including 6 pounds 
of fentanyl last week. Now, 6 pounds of fentanyl, as I do the math, is 
at least 20,000 doses--20,000 doses in 1 town in Ohio.
  I want to thank Montgomery County Sheriff Plummer, the task force, 
and

[[Page S1249]]

all of our law enforcement for their hard work to get this poison off 
the street. But they need our help. They need some additional tools. 
They told me about a 14-year-old girl who had tried fentanyl for the 
first time. She had never tried, apparently, any other drug. She 
snorted it. The people she was with had snorted drugs before, but she 
had not, which is one reason she not only overdosed but she died 
immediately. At 14 years old, her promising life was cut short.
  It was in the Dayton suburb of Enon, a little more than a week ago, 
that a 5-year-old boy was seen running down the streets yelling: ``Mom 
and dad are dead. Mom and dad are dead.''
  A driver saw the boy and called the police. They went to his house 
and found his parents. They weren't dead, fortunately, but they were 
unconscious. Mom was on the kitchen floor. Dad was on the living room 
floor. His skin had already turned blue, which is a sign of someone who 
overdoses and is close to death.
  The first responders heroically saved both of them using Narcan--
naloxone--this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. 
By the way, it took six doses of naloxone to revive the boy's father--a 
good sign, according to law enforcement, that this was not heroin but 
that it was heroin laced with fentanyl, something far stronger than the 
normal heroin--six doses.
  We saw a 37-percent increase in drug overdose deaths last year in 
Dayton, OH, with victims as old as 87 and as young as 2 years old. Drug 
overdose deaths in Dayton are now on pace this year to be even more 
dramatic--54 deaths already in the last month and a half, which is more 
than any month and a half last year. Some 235 people have had their 
lives saved with naloxone. The Dayton Fire Department's call volume 
went up 17 percent compared to last January already.
  So, again, it is not getting better. It is getting worse.
  It is not just Dayton. It is not just cities. This addiction knows no 
ZIP code. In suburbs, rural areas, and the inner city--it is 
everywhere, and, by the way, in all demographics. In Medina County, OH, 
in Northeast Ohio, their overdoses doubled from 2015 to 2016. In Darke 
County, OH, north of Dayton, a rural county, they are on pace to 
quadruple last year's number of drug overdoses already this year.
  So why are these increases happening? One of the reasons is because 
of the increasing potency of these drugs on the street, particularly, 
again, this move from heroin to synthetic heroin that is more powerful.
  Dayton paramedic David Gerstner puts it this way:

       I don't want to say our overdose rate has increased 
     dramatically--because that doesn't even come close to 
     covering it . . . The potency of the drugs has increased to 
     the point that instead of patients needing 2 milligrams of 
     naloxone or 4 milligrams of naloxone or Narcan, we have had 
     patients who need 20 milligrams or more.

  Again, it takes many, many doses of Narcan, also called naloxone, to 
be able to save these lives. In Darke County, which, again, is north of 
Dayton, Rescue Chief Brian Phillips said:

       With the introduction of new illegally made synthetic 
     opiates [like] fentanyl and Carfentanil, heroin users are 
     overdosing at a more rapid rate. These derivatives are much 
     more potent and deadlier. The majority of our overdoses are 
     not breathing, and in some cases are in complete cardiac 
     arrest. We are also finding ourselves using more Narcan to 
     resuscitate these patients.

  So this is the word from those who are in the trenches dealing with 
this every day. It is not good news. In just the first week of 
February, by the way, in his department in Darke County, OH, they had 
12 overdose calls--in the first week of February. This is a town of 
13,000 people.
  So it is clear that these drugs are getting on the street, and they 
are stronger, more addictive, and more dangerous. Heroin is already 
addictive enough and relatively inexpensive compared to prescription 
drugs, which is why many people move from prescription drugs to heroin. 
Probably four out of five heroin addicts in Ohio started with 
prescription drugs, according to the experts.
  But now it is being laced, this more powerful synthetic drug. The 
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation tested 34 cases of fentanyl in 
2010. In 2015, they tested 1,100--a thirtyfold increase. Last year that 
number doubled again to 2,400 cases. Again, they have already tested 
for a record breaking number this year in the last month and a half.

  According to the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network, you can buy 
small doses of heroin and fentanyl for as little as $5 to $10 now in 
Southwest Ohio. A lot parents and family members of those struggling 
with addiction worried about this, and it is very easy to see why. As 
the coroner in Butler County said:

       Buying heroin today is like playing Russian roulette . . . 
     people don't know what's in the product they're going to use, 
     and it may not be the same [from] one use to the next.

  The coroner in my home town of Cincinnati, Lakshmi Sammarco, put it 
like this. You buy heroin, and ``you may be gambling with your life'' 
because it is more dangerous than ever.
  We have to get that message out there. We have not done a good job of 
communicating this basic message that you are gambling with your life.
  Dr. Richard Marsh, Clark County coroner, says:

       We're seeing a lot more fentanyl than heroin now. It 
     started about the middle of 2015 . . . there are all kinds of 
     labs producing it now and a lot of people think they're 
     buying heroin when in fact they're getting fentanyl, which is 
     fifty times as powerful.

  How powerful is that? Let me give you an example. According to the 
DEA, or the Drug Enforcement Administration, it takes only 2 milligrams 
of fentanyl, about the same as a pinch of salt--think about that--to 
kill you. That is how powerful it is.
  So again, going back to this China Commission report, they say most 
of these synthetic drugs are being made in labs in China and being 
shipped to the Western Hemisphere--to our country, to our communities.
  How is it coming in? People are surprised to learn that it is coming 
in through the mail system. These deadly poisons are coming in through 
the mail system.
  So unlike heroin, which primarily goes over land, primarily from 
Mexico, these drugs are actually coming in from Asia, from China and 
India, through the mail system. Unlike the private mail carriers, such 
as UPS or FedEx, our mail system does not require that people say where 
the package is coming from, what is in it, or where it is going. I 
think people are kind of surprised to hear that too.
  That, of course, makes it is easier for the traffickers and much 
harder for our law enforcement to be able to deal with this problem. 
They cannot scan these packages that are suspect for drugs like 
fentanyl or other smuggled products because there are just too many 
packages--millions of packages. But if they had that information, if 
that was required on every package--electronically, in advance, 
digitally; this data, where it is coming from, what is in it, where it 
is going--our law enforcement officials tell us they would have a 
better shot at being able to stop this poison and being able to 
identify those packages.
  I applaud my colleagues because with the Cures Act last year--it 
passed at the end of last year--we provided much more funding to our 
communities, to our States. Half a billion--$500 million--is going out 
to our States to be able to deal with the issue of drug treatment and 
recovery services. It is very important.
  That $500 million, by the way, is this year and next year. That is 
really important to fight the epidemic. I also, of course, applaud my 
colleagues with regard to the legislation called CARA, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This provides us with not 
just more funding but better practices with regard to prevention, 
education, treatment and recovery, and providing the police with Narcan 
training and providing more Narcan resources to our first responders, 
whom we talked about.
  So again, in the last year, Congress has taken some important steps 
forward. I commend the House and Senate for that. By the way, it was 
bipartisan from the start. I think that is beginning to make a 
difference. I wish the programs in the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act could be implemented more quickly.
  Unfortunately, there are still five more CARA grant programs that 
have yet to be implemented. Many of us pushed the last administration. 
Now we are pushing this administration to move quickly on that because 
this crisis is out there in our communities

[[Page S1250]]

now. We need the help. But we are getting that in place, and that is 
important.
  But we now need to build on those efforts because of this synthetic 
heroin that is coming in. An obvious step to me would be to simply say 
that the Postal Service has to require what the private carriers 
require so these traffickers are not favoring the Postal Service and so 
we can begin to stop some of these dangerous synthetic drugs from 
coming into our communities, but also so that we can give law 
enforcement a tool to be able to target this and so that, at a minimum, 
we can increase the cost of this poison coming into our communities. It 
seems common sense to me.
  Last week, Senators Klobuchar, Hassan, Rubio, and I introduced 
legislation called the Synthetic Trafficking and Overdose Prevention 
Act, or STOP Act, to simply close the loophole and require the Postal 
Service to obtain advance electronic data on packages before they cross 
our borders. We just introduced it 2 days ago. It simply closes the 
loophole and requires the Postal Service to obtain advanced electronic 
data along the lines I talked about: where it is from, what is in it, 
where it is going.

  In the House, by the way, there is companion legislation, which makes 
it easier to get this done because the House also understands this 
problem. My colleague, Congressman Pat Tiberi from Ohio, is one of the 
people who are focused on this issue. He is one of the cosponsors. The 
other cosponsor is from Massachusetts, Richie Neal. Their companion 
legislation will make it easier for us to get this job done.
  This bill is totally bipartisan--in fact, I would call it 
nonpartisan. It is based on expert testimony we had before our Homeland 
Security Committee, where we heard directly from law enforcement. It is 
a simple change that would make it much easier for them to detect these 
packages, particularly those from these Chinese labs that the China 
Commission report talked about.
  It is not a silver bullet. No one has that silver bullet. But our 
bill will take away a key tool of drug traffickers and help restrict 
the supply of these drugs, this poison in our community, making their 
price higher and making it harder to get.
  With the threat of synthetic heroin growing worse and worse every 
day, there is an urgency to this, so today I urge my colleagues to join 
us in this legislation. Cosponsor it. Let's get this through the 
committees.
  The Finance Committee will be taking up this legislation. I am on 
that committee. I hope we move very quickly to mark it up, get it to 
the floor, pass the legislation here in the Senate, combine it with the 
legislation that is working through the House, get it to the 
President's desk for signature, and begin to provide some relief to our 
communities from this influx of synthetic heroin that is continuing to 
tear our families apart, devastate our communities, and ruin lives.
  This is about ensuring that young people, like the young people who 
are with us today, the pages on the floor, have the opportunity to 
pursue their dream, whatever it is. This is about ensuring that we are 
stepping up as a Congress to deal with a global problem. It is coming 
in from overseas. It is an international problem. Certainly this is one 
where the Congress ought to act to ensure that our U.S. Postal Service 
does the right thing to help law enforcement be able to better protect 
our communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to 
savage environmental protections, and his administration has already 
started down this path of reversing some of our hard-fought progress to 
ensure we have a clean environment: clean water and fresh air. By 
nominating Mr. Pruitt, President Trump has chosen someone equally 
hostile to the very notion of defending our environment and our 
Nation's health.
  Respected voices on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar 
alarm over Mr. Pruitt's nomination. President George W. Bush's former 
EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Agency from 2001 
to 2003, stated in reference to Mr. Pruitt: ``I don't recall ever 
having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the 
Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.''
  This is a sentiment I have heard from over a thousand Rhode 
Islanders--environmentalists, researchers, conservationists, community 
leaders, parents, concerned citizens--who agree that Mr. Pruitt is a 
troubling choice for this role. They have contacted my office to 
express how distressed they are that someone with Mr. Pruitt's record 
and background could be chosen to lead the EPA.
  Last week I hosted a roundtable to hear these concerns directly from 
my constituents. These Rhode Islanders shared their worries about the 
state of our changing environment, anxiousness about Mr. Pruitt's 
nomination, and concerns over what they have seen so far, and fear is 
coming with respect to the Trump administration's approach to our 
environment. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that we 
have clean air and clean water because these natural resources are so 
important to our economy, our health, and our quality of life.
  I share that commitment. I have consistently voted for strong 
environmental policies that seek to limit pollution, promote renewable 
energy, and mitigate the effects of climate change.
  The EPA oversees the Federal Government's role in protecting our 
health and environment. It needs a leader who fundamentally believes in 
its core mission. Scott Pruitt has a record of working against the 
Agency's goals to protect Americans from pollution. That is the goal of 
the Agency. He does not believe or respect the scientific findings 
regarding climate change, and his close ties to the oil and gas 
industry are a serious concern.
  These kinds of beliefs and views should be of concern to everyone in 
this Chamber.
  As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA multiple 
times seeking to eliminate pollution regulations. He has a record of 
not only challenging the legal, scientific, and technical foundations 
of EPA rules, but he has also questioned the EPA's authority to issue 
them.
  Mr. Pruitt filed as the plaintiff in these lawsuits, many of which 
are still pending. If confirmed as the EPA Administrator, he would be 
switching sides to become the defendant in these lawsuits. And yet, he 
has refused to recuse himself from any of these or related cases. He 
has also failed to provide records of his communications with fossil 
fuel companies during the years he served as attorney general.
  It is abundantly clear that he cannot be impartial.
  This lack of transparency regarding Mr. Pruitt's connections to the 
oil and gas industry raises serious questions about what influence 
these conflicts will have on his ability to enforce regulations that 
protect everyday Americans from pollution generated by fossil fuel use.
  The EPA Administrator must be someone who will uphold and enforce 
Federal environmental laws impartially and honorably, with Americans' 
health in mind.
  One issue in particular that comes to mind is one I have worked on 
for decades across multiple Federal agencies--lead poisoning 
prevention. I have long advocated for better Federal policies and more 
funding to protect children from lead hazards. While the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention do much of this work, the EPA plays an important role as 
well.
  I think we saw that very clearly over the last year with the 
situation in Flint, MI.
  I was deeply concerned that when asked about lead poisoning among 
children during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt told the committee 
that he, in his own words, ``really wasn't familiar with the basic 
science surrounding

[[Page S1251]]

the health effects of lead poisoning.'' For the sake of his education 
on this issue--and to make all my colleagues who might not be aware of 
the impact--lead poisoning in children can cause serious and 
irreversible developmental and health problems.
  We need an EPA Administrator who is familiar with and committed to 
protecting the health of our children from these and other kinds of 
environmental health hazards. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. 
Pruitt is qualified to do so.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt also displayed a lack of 
understanding of the role human activity plays in climate change, as 
well as a disregard for the scientists who have spent their lives 
studying and carefully observing our Earth's changing climate.
  Our next EPA Administrator should understand the threat of climate 
change and base the Agency's policies on scientific data and findings 
without ideological influence. Many people across the Nation were 
distressed and deeply concerned by the removal of climate change 
reports from the EPA's website shortly after President Trump took 
office. I share that concern, and I am disturbed that the EPA has 
recently put a hold on issuing new grants and instituted a gag order on 
all communications.
  This is alarming. The halting of Federal funds means that our 
investments in our water infrastructure, remediation of our watersheds, 
and support for numerous others environmental initiatives so vital to 
our local communities and States will be affected, and this will 
seriously harm environmental protection efforts. In Rhode Island, these 
cuts could have devastating effects, such as hindering the State's 
ability to provide clean air and clean drinking water for all 
residents.
  We need an EPA Administrator who is committed to safeguarding clean 
water and clean air and who is experienced in environmental protection. 
This role demands someone who is prepared to preserve and defend our 
environment from harm, who can make decisions based on scientific 
evidence, and whose financial ties will not impact his decisions when 
it comes to protecting the American public from pollution.
  Scott Pruitt is not the EPA Administrator we need. The nature of the 
lawsuits he filed attempting to dismantle EPA regulations that protect 
clean air and water--the very regulations he would be charged with 
enforcing--demonstrates that he is not committed to defending our 
natural resources, our health, and our well-being. Mr. Pruitt, in my 
estimate, is unsuited and unqualified for this critical leadership 
position.
  For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to yield the remainder of my time on this nomination to my colleague, 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the 
Environmental Protection Agency, a nomination that marks yet another 
broken promise from the new President to put the needs of American 
families first over the wishes of big corporations and special 
interests. And just like we have seen with Betsy DeVos at the 
Department of Education or Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, we have yet 
another Trump nominee whose record demonstrates a direct conflict with 
the mission of the agency they wish to lead. On the EPA's website, that 
mission is pretty clear--``to protect human health and the 
environment''--and EPA achieves that by enforcing regulations based on 
laws passed by Congress. So I will be voting no on this nomination.
  I want to make two points on why Mr. Pruitt heading up the EPA would 
be wrong for our country and why it would be wrong for the families I 
represent in Washington State. It starts with his record and clear 
conflicts of interest.
  During Mr. Pruitt's term as the attorney general for Oklahoma, he 
filed no less than 19 cases to overturn environmental regulations, 
including one to topple the EPA's Clean Power Plan. These regulations 
specifically seek to protect public health by reducing harmful air and 
water pollution and are projected to save tens of thousands of lives 
each year.
  As if it wasn't bad enough that Mr. Pruitt spent so much time filing 
lawsuits in court and fighting policies designed to protect the health 
of the environment as well as people, it is pretty shocking that at the 
same time, he was collecting millions of dollars from the very 
industries he will regulate if he is confirmed. This is no small 
conflict of interest between his former and potentially future 
position, and that he was still nominated to be EPA Administrator is 
mind-blowing to me.
  I echo the sentiments of so many who have expressed serious concerns 
about Mr. Pruitt's conflict of interest, that his ties to the fossil 
fuel industry make him more indebted to backing policies that loosen 
environmental regulations, benefiting big oil and gas companies, rather 
than backing policies that protect the American people.
  Mr. President, I want to voice another concern my constituents have 
shared with me. It is unnerving to think the President would choose a 
climate change denier to set our national environmental policy. I don't 
see how someone who has openly denied the existence of climate change--
the devastating effects of which we are already beginning to see in 
Washington State and around the country--will effectively protect human 
health or the environment.
  This is about more than just the environment. A report by the 
Congressional Budget Office last year found that climate change is a 
serious threat to our economic stability. As the occurrence of national 
disasters continues to rise, the cost of disaster assistance and 
rebuilding rises too.
  If we want to be responsible about tackling our fiscal challenges--
which I would think the President and Mr. Pruitt would agree on--we 
need to take the impacts of climate change seriously. At a time when we 
are already seeing the very real effects of climate change in my home 
State, from longer, more devastating wildfire seasons to ocean 
acidification and rising sea levels, it is more important than ever. 
This brings me to how Mr. Pruitt's confirmation would be devastating 
for my home State of Washington.

  As someone who personally spends a great deal of time fishing and 
hiking in my home State of Washington, I am committed to conservation 
and preservation efforts so generations to come can appreciate the high 
quality of life we enjoy and experience the splendor of America's 
natural spaces, one of the most important being the restoration and 
recovery of salmon runs and habitat throughout the Pacific Northwest, 
which is a vital part of our Northwest economy and its heritage.
  I am deeply concerned about whether this support would continue under 
an EPA Administrator like Mr. Pruitt. I have similar concerns about the 
Hanford cleanup, a critical part of our State's history that EPA plays 
a very important role in to protect the health and safety of our Tri-
Cities community, Columbia River, and Washington State.
  I will fight against any EPA nominee or an Administrator who will not 
join us in the fight for a better future for generations to come. I 
sincerely hope the President and Mr. Pruitt truly understand the 
enormous responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, not 
only in protecting our environment for future generations but for the 
families we represent who rely on clean air and clean water right now.
  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to act now to 
avoid lasting, irreversible damage to our health, our environment, our 
economy, and our country's future. I am not confident in putting that 
future in Scott Pruitt's hands.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator 
Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Carper can receive 21 minutes of that 
time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Additionally, I yield the remainder of my time beyond 
that, of my postcloture debate time, to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.

[[Page S1252]]

  

  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to rescind my 
previous request and reclaim my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in 
opposition to the nomination of the Oklahoma attorney general, Scott 
Pruitt, to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency which we all know as the EPA.
  My concern--I have a number of them, but the principal concern of Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination is rooted in his record, which I believe is totally 
inconsistent with the mission of the EPA. That mission is to protect 
human health and the environment. We know the EPA achieves this core 
goal through the development and enforcement of standards to protect 
children and families from exposure to dangerous pollutants in our air 
and water.
  Protection of human health means ensuring that our children have 
clean air and clean water, tackling climate change, which leads to the 
kind of food insecurity that causes malnutrition in children throughout 
the world.
  I have to say that as a Pennsylvanian, I think I have an obligation 
to not only speak about these issues but to fight on behalf of policies 
that will advance the knowledge and mission of the EPA but will be 
consistent with the directive I am obligated to follow in my State's 
constitution. In Pennsylvania, if you go back to the founding of 
Pennsylvania forward, we had many generations, especially through the 
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, throughout most of the 1800s 
and into the 1900s, until about the midcentury point, where we didn't 
do a very good job of protecting our air and water and human health 
because we let one or another industry pretty much do whatever they 
wanted until the modern era. Fortunately, since that time, Pennsylvania 
has made a lot of progress. One of the measures of that progress and 
something I am bound by is a provision of the State's constitution, 
article I, section 27, that says people shall ``have a right to clean 
air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, 
historic, and esthetic values of the environment.''
  That constitutional provision goes on to talk about each of us as 
citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania being trustees of the 
environment--especially and ever more so if you are a part of State 
government, and I would argue the Federal Government as well. To say I 
feel an obligation is a major understatement. I think I am bound by 
that, and that enters into my determination and analysis of Mr. 
Pruitt's record.
  We know in recent years the EPA, acting under the authority it is 
granted through laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, has 
developed a number of important standards to advance these priorities--
rules like the mercury and air toxics standards, the cross-state air 
pollution rule, the ozone rule, the new source performance standards 
for the oil and natural gas industry, the Clean Power Plan, which is 
meant to obviously focus our policy on climate change, and other 
policies to reduce exposure to pollutants like methane, volatile 
organic compounds, mercury, and carbon pollution itself.
  According to the American Lung Association's ``State of the Air 
2016'' report, these rules reduce the likelihood of premature death, 
asthma attacks, lung cancer, and heart disease. I would hope that if 
you have a series of measures in place that reduce the likelihood of 
asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease, and premature death--I 
would hope we would not only advance those policies but make sure they 
are not destroyed, undermined, or compromised. It is just common sense 
to make sure we regulate pollutants like lead, mercury, arsenic, and 
acid gases, just by way of example.
  Yet Mr. Pruitt, who is the attorney general of Oklahoma, filed 14 
lawsuits against the EPA to halt the regulation of these pollutants 
that threaten our children's health. Mr. Pruitt has stood up for the 
interests of oil and gas companies but has failed to defend, in my 
judgment, the most vulnerable members of our society, or at least not 
defend them to the extent that I would hope he would, not only as 
attorney general of Oklahoma but as the EPA Administrator were he to be 
confirmed.
  When asked during his confirmation to name one clean air or clean 
water regulation he supported, he couldn't name one.
  I believe his record is clear. He fought to dismantle the Clean Air 
Act, the Clean Water Act, anti-pollution programs to target ozone and 
mercury in the air, the agreement to clean up the Chesapeake Bay--which 
I will get to in a moment--and has even denied the science of climate 
change. Suffice it to say, I have a number of basic concerns about his 
record and what he would do were he to be confirmed.
  One example of the concerns I have involve the Chesapeake Bay with 
regard to impact in Pennsylvania. Although Pennsylvania doesn't border 
the Chesapeake, the Pennsylvania Susquehanna River is the bay's largest 
source of freshwater. Improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay 
requires a sustained, coordinated commitment from all of the States in 
the watershed. I have repeatedly written to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture for increased funding and technical assistance for farmers 
in Pennsylvania so Pennsylvania can continue to improve the health of 
the Susquehanna River and the bay.
  Pennsylvania has made great strides in addressing the issue of 
nutrient and sediment runoff into the Chesapeake Bay, but there is more 
to be done, and Pennsylvania is far from meeting its 2005 Chesapeake 
Bay pollution reduction goals.
  Ensuring that all States in the watershed are coordinated and meeting 
their commitments is exactly the type of role the EPA should be 
filling. Mr. Pruitt called the EPA's Chesapeake Bay TMDL standard ``the 
culmination of the EPA's decade-long attempt to control exactly how 
States achieve federal water quality requirements under the Clean Water 
Act, and marks the beginning of the end of meaningful state 
participation in water pollution regulation.''
  Well, I disagree. We don't have time to outline all the reasons, but 
I strongly disagree with that assessment of the EPA's actions with 
regard to the Chesapeake Bay, but we do have a long way to go to make 
sure that we keep it clean. So on clean water, I think we have to 
insist that neither the EPA Administrator nor anyone in Congress does 
anything compromising when it comes to clean water.
  Climate change. This fall I had an opportunity to spend time in 
Pennsylvania with Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of the 
leaders in the Senate on the issue of climate change. We did a tour, 
and one of the places we went was the John Heinz National Wildlife 
Refuge. It is America's first urban refuge named after one of my 
predecessors, Senator Heinz, who tragically died in 1991, but his work 
on the environment is remembered in places like this wildlife refuge. 
This is a public space that allows us to enjoy wildlife, outdoor 
recreation, and environmental education opportunities right outside of 
a major city--in this case, Philadelphia. And this refuge also plays a 
vital role in climate change resiliency.
  Marshes help to filter pollutants from water and can absorb water 
during heavy rain events, thus helping to reduce the magnitude of 
flooding. However, the refuge is facing a number of environmental 
stressors.
  Sea level rise could have serious consequences for this fresh water 
marsh. Not only would rising sea levels lead to the loss of undeveloped 
dry land and habitat for wildlife, but increased salinity could change 
the plant makeup of this marsh at the wildlife refuge.
  According to EPA, Pennsylvania's climate has warmed more than half a 
degree Fahrenheit in just the last century. Sea level has also risen 
nearly 1 foot over the past century, according

[[Page S1253]]

to NOAA, measured by the tidal gauge in Philadelphia. That means that 
significant portions of the city of Philadelphia could be underwater, 
including the Philadelphia International Airport, if we fail to act.
  We know that 2016 was the warmest year on record for a third year in 
a row. Also, climate change is not some distant possibility in 
Pennsylvania or throughout the Nation; it is real, and we are already 
feeling the effects of climate change.
  I will close with one story from one mother who talks about air 
quality, or the impact of bad air quality and the issue of climate 
change itself. Jacqueline Smith-Spade, a mother from Philadelphia, 
recently wrote to me about her 6-year-old son Jonas's struggle with 
asthma and the emotional and financial toll it takes on her family:

       Every time there is an extreme or irregular climate shift, 
     I can pretty much predict that my son is going to end up in 
     the emergency room due to the effect of air quality.

  She goes on to say later in the letter:

       I routinely check the air quality to help predict what type 
     of day my son and my family might have: With or without 
     nebulizer?
       The physical toll on Jonas also creates a financial burden 
     on my family. The emergency visits cost $100 each time we go; 
     $30 copays for each specialist visit; $15 copays for each 
     pediatrician visit.

  She goes on to say:

       This is not cheap; however, my insurance greatly helps to 
     reduce the costs.

  She worries, of course, about what might happen on healthcare, but I 
will not read all of those portions.
  She concludes this part of the letter this way:

       A reduction in air pollution and climate change will make 
     life for my 7-year-old son, Jonas, much easier. His reactions 
     to those changes will be reduced. It will also save my family 
     countless dollars, stress, and panic attacks.

  So said one mom about her son Jonas.
  What we must do, and especially what Mr. Pruitt must do, were he to 
be confirmed, is to answer her questions--to answer her questions, 
Jacqueline's questions, and the concerns she has about her son Jonas. 
She is not only a taxpayer, but she is someone who will be impacted 
directly by the actions and the policies that come from this 
administration as well as the EPA itself.
  So I believe that Mr. Pruitt, if he were to be confirmed, must meet 
the expectations of Jonas and his mother. He works for them, or will 
work for them, were he to be confirmed.
  I know I am out of time. I will just conclude with this: There are a 
long series of reasons, some of which I wasn't able to get to today, 
that undergird and form the foundation of my decision not to support 
the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the next EPA Administrator.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.