Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the regular order.

Mr. BURNS. That is correct.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we do not have it yet.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I assure the Senator from California, I know we have it somewhere, and I will find it.

Mr. BURNS. That is reassuring; isn't it? Everybody gets to read it-- that is different in the Senate. We have it. Amendment No. 1068

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we better open up this morning and characterize what the Burns-Chambliss-Inhofe amendment does compared to what is being advocated by my friend from California. Our amendment directs the administrator of EPA to conduct a thorough review of all third-party intentional human dosage studies based on six principles listed at the National Academy of Sciences in their February 2004 report. The National Academy report found that, in certain cases, the societal benefits of such studies outweigh the risks. This amendment also directs the administrator to issue a final rule that addresses applying ethical standards to third-party studies involving intentional human dosing to identify or quantify toxic effects within 180 days of enactment of this act. In other words, they have an open end now where they drag their feet as far as offering reports to Congress. By the way, I ask unanimous consent Senator Brownback of Kansas be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we know we can use very emotional examples to draw our attention to this issue. My first thought, I don't think there is a chemical engineer or a scientist in this Senate. I can't say that for sure, without having a degree in chemical engineering. Nonetheless, we have to rely on reports. We also have to rely on reports that are peer reviewed from many different sources. What the Senator from California has brought to the Senate this morning has a few flaws. First of all, they are quoting from a staff draft of a study, and we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know what the final rule will look like. The administrator has not even seen it, let alone made any recommendations to be agreed to. That is No. 1. Basically, the Senator's amendment prohibits the EPA from conducting or accepting research involving intentional dosing of human subjects. She referred to the CHEERS study. What is the CHEERS study? In the CHEERS study, the agency proposed to monitor children's exposure to pesticide in a specific population. That is what it is was for. The proposed CHEERS study, developed by the Office of Research and Development at EPA, was an observational and biomonitoring study and not a dosing study. As a result, her amendment does not impact CHEERS or any other similar type of study. I want that in the Record. We should be very clear about that. We are not chemists or chemical engineers. We are not scientists. All of the warnings and all of the charts we have seen this morning are a result of studies, be they EPA, through peer review or third-party studies with peer review. We would not know this information had there not been studies, third party or by the EPA. Her amendment is very clear. It just says we stop testing. So I ask my colleagues, on this issue: How do we know? How can we find out? Because we need this information. Do we allow chemists or chemical engineers to do this, with no backup, working for a private corporation in the business of selling pesticides, fumigants, herbicides, detergents, car washes, carpets, the padding on our chairs? Everything we touch or we live with has a so-called chemical element to it. Do we just take their word for it, those who are in the business of selling these products? Unless there are third-party studies, with peer review and EPA studies with the same standards of peer review, that would be the case. This is not like the testing of prescription drugs. Having no test on chemicals, no information on chemicals that we use in the production of food and fiber and shelter in this country is not a very good idea. It is not a good idea. As I said, would we know about the warnings that were used today had it not been for testing? Senator Boxer's amendment is so far reaching that between 60 and 70 chemicals and 1,300 tolerances, or the allowable pesticide residue on foods, would be affected. It would mean taking those reports, putting them away, and never referring to them again. That does not make a lot of sense. Not only is there the time, money, and effort involved, but also some of the results we know of today we would not have known this morning in order to make this debate. For example, I have a letter from the American Mosquito Control Association, which opposes this amendment offered by my good friend from California. By the way, they support our amendment. I am going to offer this letter in its entirety for the Record, but I want to read one little paragraph that I think speaks to the essence of this debate. I quote: The emergence and spread of West Nile Virus in the United States has re-emphasized the need for safe and effective mosquito control strategies that reduce the risk of acquiring this devastating disease. Personal protective measures such as repellents figure prominently in these strategies--as do federally-registered public health pesticides, when indicated. This amendment, as written, will effectively cease future research on alternatives to DEET and curtail sound, ethical studies on the toxicology of public health pesticides. The AMCA considers the availability of scientifically sound and ethically-obtained toxicology data to be essential in determining levels of risk from both disease and the means used to control it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS. Studies of this kind on safety must move forward or we will have a public health situation being created by the unintended consequence of not performing those studies. Now, if I have not convinced you to vote with me yet, I also have an extensive list of pesticides that rely on human studies to determine safe exposure levels for more than 50 crops grown in our States. In fact, these pesticides, cited by Senator Boxer's and Representative Waxman's June 25 study, have critical uses in 39 States. A few of these States include: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Ohio, and West Virginia. I say to the Presiding Officer, I am sorry, they did not mention South Carolina. But these pesticides, for every State listed, are used in the production of food and fiber for this country. Now, I realize there are a lot of folks who do not really understand agriculture maybe that much, but you have to understand the second thing we do in this country every day--after we get up--is eat. For the first thing we do, we have a lot of options. But the second thing we do is eat. The largest industry probably contributing to the GDP of California is agriculture. If it is not the largest industry, I would be surprised. Think about your brussel sprouts, strawberries, apples, dry beans. Look at all your almond production, beats, peppers, celery, cauliflower, pistachios. The list goes on and on of these chemicals, these pesticides, these fumigants, these herbicides, all used in the production of food and fiber for this country. It is pretty amazing. Senator Chambliss and I are offering a reasonable alternative from the amendment offered by the Senator from California. Our amendment is plum simple. It directs the Administrator of the EPA to ``conduct a thorough review of all third-party intentional''--``intentional''-- ``human dosing studies'' based on the National Academy of Sciences February 2004 report. I think it is found in this book offered as a guideline. I will give you the headings: ``The Four-Step Process of Human Health Risk Assessment.'' Step one: ``Hazard Identification,'' ``Dose Response Assessment,'' ``Exposure Assessment,'' and ``Risk Characterization.'' That is the guideline. Pretty simple--a little book. Anyone can order it. Send me your check and $5 for handling for mail, and I will get it out to you. But that is what it says. We are directing the EPA to ``issue a final rule that addresses applying ethical standards to third-party studies involving intentional human dosing'' ``within 180 days of the enactment of this Act.'' We are putting them on a time line. We want to know. The public has a right to know. Everyone involved wants to know. People who work on allergies, many things that are normal in our everyday lives, want to know: Quit dragging your feet. Let's have it. Let's get the report because we think it is pretty important. There are ethical standards established. They are already in place. Let's get the final rule. That is what we are telling this Director. That is what we are telling this agency--that we want to know--because as policymakers, we do not want to get caught in this idea of an unintentional consequence. None of these warnings that we have on the label of our shirt or on our detergent when we wash our dishes at night--none of those warnings would be there had there not been extensive work in risk assessment and public health at heart if those tests had not been carried out. Since that standard is set, what we are saying now is not to proceed just blindly down a path using no guidelines, but to write the rule that allows policymakers to move forward with adopting the public's attitude toward this issue. And we can make a mistake. We usually base all our decisions on history. As to the history of this, we study this without going blindly off a cliff. We usually use history. If we monkey with it, if we take part of it out, and that is not available to us either, or to the EPA, or anybody else who is making a decision as to the reliability or the safety of that particular product, then we have done an injustice to the people who make the decisions. That seems pretty logical to this nonscientist, nonchemist from the State of Montana. Let's take the emotion out of it, and let's look at things as they really are in the world around us. We do not touch anything, folks--we do not leave the garage, we do not even get up in the morning, we do not do anything in this environment around us where there are no chemicals. Some of them are even added by man. But we live in that kind of a world, with our relationship even with the Sun, the soil, and the water. We live in a chemically reactive world. The more we know about it, the more we know about our own environment and those steps we have to take in order to protect it. So what I and my colleagues are proposing in this Burns amendment is that we proceed with standards and direct the EPA to make their rule final and publish it in the Federal record for all to see--and all to either uphold or criticize. That is all we are doing. It is pretty straightforward. But we cannot just say: Stop, stop the clock. We cannot do that. That is not fair to the American people. It is not fair to the American consumer, and it is not fair to the folks who are involved in producing food, fiber, and shelter for this country. If you want more of your food to come from offshore, where there are no tests, there is no way to regulate, then you just stop the process because that is where it will be coming from, even with our tremendous ability to produce for a society that we think is probably the healthiest in the world. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, my amendment, to answer the National Academy of Sciences point, the six quantifying objectives, as mentioned, come from the book ``Intentional Human Dosage Studies for the EPA, Respiratory Purposes, Scientific, and Ethical Issues.'' They were taken from that book. The National Academy is found in the amendment. Again, we can characterize it any way we would like. I would just say that we still base our decisions on history. This amendment is paramount. And I understand, nobody likes the idea of human dosing. If we could get around it, if there was any sure way we could get around it, we would. I don't like it either. But nonetheless, as we talk about this, we are holding up testing on the world around us. We cannot afford to lose any time or information. We owe that to the American people, to the consumer. We also owe it to the people who produce food and fiber. How much time is remaining on the other side?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have a vote coming up, and we probably can get to that in the next 5 or 10 minutes, if that is OK with the Senator from California.

Mr. BURNS. If you want to close, I will make a short statement. Then we will go to the vote.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1023

Mr. BURNS. I yield to the Senator from California on her amendment. She has 1 minute.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, it just makes sense that we do not suspend testing at all, as this amendment would do. It is bad logic to throw aside almost over 20 reports that give us the history and the institutional knowledge to complete the work for the safety of the consumer and also the people who produce food, fiber, and shelter in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed do. Amendment No. 1025

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, by previous order, we move to the Dorgan amendment No. 1025.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. The Senator from New Mexico is correct.

Mr. BURNS. I will be happy to consider the Senator's request should funding become available.

Mr. BURNS. I understand the importance of the Highlands Region. Should funding become available during conference proceedings, I will work with my colleagues to seek funds to support land conservation partnership projects and open space purchases from willing sellers in the Highlands region. amendment no. 1031

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to thank a lot of folks for their work on this bill we have considered today and over the last few days. This has been a bill we have worked our way through. I wish we could have sped it up. I thank the minority staff, Peter Kiefhaber and Rachael Taylor and Brooke Thomas. Of course, I thank my good friend from North Dakota who has really been good to work with. Also, over on our side, I thank Bruce Evans, Rebecca Benn, Leif Fonnesbeck, Ginny James, Ryan Thomas, Michele Gordon, and Ellis Fisher. I thank that staff because they have done yeomen's work. They have worked very long hours in order to pass this bill. I ask the Senator, do you have any closing remarks?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for third reading.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.