[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S5248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      BAD SCIENCE AND BAD POLITICS: THE NEED FOR REGULATORY REFORM

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, these days, just about every aspect of our 
daily existence is regulated in some way by the Government. And in most 
instances, it makes sense because we must protect human health and the 
environment. We would all agree that food and drugs should be 
inspected, work conditions should be considered and safety measures 
must be enacted.
  On the other hand, the Federal regulatory system is notorious for 
producing top-down, one-size-fits-all regulations that are often 
inefficient and ineffective. These regulations impose tremendous costs 
on business and industry, increase the costs of goods and services and 
reduce economic growth. Most importantly, too many regulations fail in 
what they are trying to do.
  As I look more closely at the patchwork of regulation this Government 
has created in the last few decades, however, I see regulation for 
regulation's sake. We are witnessing an eruption of regulation based on 
inaccurate science, poor judgment, and bad politics. Most shocking is 
the fundamental lack of trust in the ability of the American people to 
take responsibility for their own actions.
  I think it's time we returned to the basics, Mr. President. The 
central goal of regulating is to significantly protect human health, 
safety or the environment. When held to this standard, many regulations 
fall short of the mark. So how do we get from here to there?
  First, agencies must begin issuing regulations based on sound 
science. This means one thing--that any Federal regulation issued must 
be justified by solid science. This principle sounds very simple, but 
many agencies have become obsessed with the power to regulate, 
forgetting that there must be sound scientific reasoning behind their 
action.
  The time has come to raise the level of debate. No longer can 
agencies be allowed to dream up and order a regulation without genuine 
oversight or input from the outside scientific world. I know that the 
more informed Congress is about an issue, the better public policy 
decision we will make. The same should be true of regulatory agencies. 
With so many experts in the academic, Federal and private sectors, it 
is a shame to limit the scope of debate to one elite group of 
scientists. I have heard some agencies claim that their rulemakings are 
indeed reviewed by outside experts, but a closer look reveals that 
these objective scientists are not completely independent. I do not 
think it unreasonable to ask that there be some consensus among truly 
independent outside scientific experts as to the proper course of 
action before issuing a rulemaking.

  The bottom line is that, to effectively regulate, agencies should not 
issue rules based on anything but honest, peer-reviewed science. 
Period.
  Second, agencies must learn to correctly assess risk. Beginning with 
sound science, agencies should look at the real world risks of a 
situation, recognizing that not every risk is avoidable. Sometimes I 
think that these agencies are on a mission to create a 100 percent 
risk-free, accident-free--possibly industry-free--world. They also need 
to acknowledge that all risks are relative. Regulating small risks can 
have adverse side effects, resulting in greater risks and less 
protection. We should focus our efforts and our resources on the 
greatest risks.
  Agencies should also realize that exposure to a chemical doesn't 
automatically present a risk or indicate a cause and effect 
relationship. The risk associated with a given dosage level should be 
examined. Where exposure to a truckload of almost any toxin poses a 
significant risk, in most cases, an extremely diluted version may not 
present any danger at all. Regulators should be sensitive to risks as 
they relate to dosage instead of assuming that any contact with 
chemicals presents too great a danger. Too often, regulations are 
issued based on a better safe than sorry mentality. This can leave us 
less safe and considerably sorrier.
  In closing, Mr. President, I reiterate the dire need for regulatory 
reform. The invasive regulatory hands of Government are slowly choking 
the life out those whom they seek to save. Let's get back to the 
basics. Using sound, peer-reviewed science, agencies should make a 
valid assessment of real world risks and determine a solid cause-and-
effect correlation before taking action.
  I am committed to enacting regulatory reform in the 105th Congress. I 
welcome the input and support of my fellow Senators.

                          ____________________