Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if I heard right, the previous two amendments were criticized for being overly broad and indiscriminate in the ways that they attacked spending in this particular underlying legislation. Well, I am laser focused. I am laser focused with my amendment.

My amendment would restrict funds from going to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. That program is supposed to be developing impartial science-based toxicity assessments on chemicals for uniform use within EPA, and if that is what they were doing, I would not be standing before you today. But as I came to know all too well as I worked with former Chairman Lamar Smith and while serving as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment in the last Congress, the reality is different.

Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific methods, which have led to some significantly flawed risk assessments over the years. In fact, GAO first added IRIS to its list of government programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in 2009. In the decades since, IRIS has made very few steps towards significant improvement.

I strongly believe that instead of allowing a flawed and poorly managed agency like IRIS to continue to operate, we should return chemical assessments to the relevant program offices within the EPA itself.

In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms I have outlined. That bill was reported out of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee last fall. I have reintroduced that bill again in this session, but it is laying in the Science Committee without further action.

I believe that until there is a root-and-branch reform of the chemical assessments process at the EPA, we simply cannot allow IRIS to spread misinformation to the public as it is doing now

I urge all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for those in the Chamber who may not be aware, IRIS is an information-collecting entity, not a regulator. If IRIS were eliminated, EPA would still maintain an office of research and development, which would perform chemical assessments in coordination with a specialized program office within the Agency. What will compromise public safety is a poorly run government office spreading misinformation.

I also want to point out that both the nonpartisan NAS and GAO have repeatedly criticized IRIS over the past 10 years. Even the few NAS and GAO recognitions of improvements to IRIS over the years have been strongly tempered by caveats that far more work needs to be done.

For instance, the 2018 NAS report, which has been cited, suggests that IRIS still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its operations, even though that recommendation was made more than 4 years ago. This agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a basic handbook.

Just to add a little bit more color to this debate, here is an example of how absurd IRIS risk assessments can be. It sets the risk value of the chemical ethylene oxide, which is often used to sterilize medical equipment, at 100 parts quadrillion. That is a 1 with 15 zeros behind it. That value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring level of ethylene oxide in the human body. For perspective, OSHA sets the risk level for ethylene oxide at one point per million, which is a vastly higher threshold than IRIS itself.

I can speak similarly about flawed IRIS risk assessments related to formaldehyde or acetone, a substance found naturally in breast milk.

To sum up, absurdly assessed risk either creates unwarranted public panic or cynical disregard. Neither outcome creates a safer society.

Even worse, if IRIS is overly focused on evaluating the safety of low-risk or, in some cases, effectively no-risk chemicals, then it is likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances.

Again, I invite my colleagues to support this very important laser- focused amendment. We are not overly broad here. We are focusing on one program that has been completely--not repudiated, but certainly been highly criticized by the National Academy of Science and the GAO.

I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source