Joseph T. Burns: “we know we can use very emotional examples to draw our attention to this issue. My first thought, I don't think there is…”

“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.…”