13016 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS June 18, 1981 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS THE SUPREME COURT several toxic substances in the workplace, cost-effective rule-making," said spokesman PROTECTS THE BALANCE among them asbestos, chromium and cadmi­ Jack Glawson. um. "And the Supreme Court did not say oth­ The administration singled out the cotton­ erwise. All that a majority of the court did HON. ANTHONY TOBY MOFFETT dust standards when it announced in March say is that the Occupational Safety and that it intended to review, and possibly Health Act does not require OSHA to OF CONNECTICUT relax, all federal standards limiting employe engage in cost-benefit balancing when it IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES exposure to toxic substances. sets health standards for toxic substances." Thursday, June 18, 1981 In making the announcement, Thorne But AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Auchter, head of the Occupational Safety Thomas R. Donohue, whose union members e Mr. MOFFETT. Mr. Speaker, yes­ and Health Administration, called cost-ben­ in the textile industry will benefit from the terday the working men and women of efit analysis "an important tool in produc­ court's ruling, said the ruling means "you America won an important victory in ing efficient regulation .. .. That's why we can't invent a cost-benefit analysis and the battle for healthful working condi­ plan to apply cost-benefit analysis to the somehow inject it into the law." At a news tions. cotton-dust standard, to see how regulatory conference yesterday, Donohue said the The Supreme Court ruled that the costs and benefits can be weighed in an court "has hopefully put to bed the concept safety of workers, and not the balanc­ actual case." that the measure for the effect of a statute ing of costs and benefits, was the pri­ But the court ruled yesterday that the is cost-benefit analysis." mary function of the Occupational intent of Congress was to protect workers in OSHA is still reviewing a number of any "feasible" way, and that any effort to standards for other toxic substances in the Safety and Health Act. The Court balance the benefits of protection against workplace, and administration officials yes­ ruled that only the feasibility of pro­ the costs would be inconsistent with the law terday were unwilling to speculate on tection should limit the degree to as passed by Congress. whether those reviews will be halted or, if which workplace protections are of­ An official of the administration's White necessary, legislation introduced to permit fered. House-level regulatory task force acknowl­ cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analysis has its place. edged that the decision was a setback for Meanwhile, lawyers were still debating OSHA will still be able to fashion OSHA's deregulatory efforts, but said the the extent of the ruling- if, for instance, rules for which compliance can be government-wide effort to impose cost-effec­ the court intended to permit the use of cost­ achieved in a cost-effective manner. tiveness on regulation will continue. benefit analysis in areas other than those " It would be fair to say that we're in some concerning health standards. But an important principle has been ways disappointed in it," said task force "You can be sure this is not the last case brought home by the Court decision; counsel C. Boyden Gray. "But it doesn't to be litigated under the OSHA act," said a that is, that worker safety is not a fad, affect the overall effort." lawyer for the textile industry. it is not a convenience of happier eco­ Gray said the ruling "seems to preserve nomic times, but it is a sine qua non of the executive order and the things we want [From the Washington Post, June 18, 1981] the American workplace. to do at OSHA." The executive order, he noted, does not require cost-benefit analysis HIGH COURT REFUSES To EASE LAWS ON JOB I would ask that the following arti­ SAFETY, HEALTH cles describing the decision be printed where forbidden by statute, on emergency regulations or on regulations being issued to <By Fred Barbash) in the RECORD: satisfy court orders. The Supreme Court, rebuffing the CFrom the Washington Post, June 18, 1981J "The executive order says we can only do Reagan administration in a decision with COTTON-DUST RULING MAY BE WARNING TO what's allowed by law," he said. potential repercussions throughout the reg­ ADMINISTRATION ON STRATEGY As far as the cotton-dust issue goes, he ulatory field, yesterday refused to ease <By Cass Peterson) said, "The court has spoken on that. Cost­ stringent occupational safety and health The Supreme Court technically came out benefit analysis cannot be used under that laws to save money for business. on the government's side yesterday in its statute." Deciding one of the most debated regula­ cotton-dust ruling, but in the process it also In a statement yesterday, OSHA's tory questions in a decade, the cost-benefit may have invalidated one of the main de­ Auchter claimed victory for both OSHA and controversy, the court ruled that regulators vices by which the Reagan administration for the cost-benefit principle. are not required to temper worker protec­ had hoped to lighten the federal regulatory The decision in the case, which had been tions against hazardous and poisonous sub­ burden on business. submitted to the court under the Carter ad­ stances to make their costs reasonable to in­ In rejecting the application of cost-benefit ministration, "achieves a major goal, that is, dustry. analysis to cotton-dust standards, the court it maintains the cotton-dust standards in The health of workers outweighs "all warned the administration that it may not effect, protecting textile workers," he said. other considerations," Justice William J. always be able to achieve its deregulation But at the same time, he said the court Brennan wrote in the 5-to-3 decision up­ goals in the job-health field by just rewrit­ also supported the argument that "long­ holding textile factory cotton dust exposure ing the rules. · term profitability and competitiveness of standards designed to combat brown lung Instead of this shortcut, in some cases it is the industry is an appropriate test in deter­ disease. going to have to take the long way through mining what is 'feasible.' . .. The court sug­ Congress intended that compliance be Congress, a path far less certain to take the gested that the agency may be required to "part of the cost of doing business," he said. administration where it wants to go. use cost-effectiveness studies to determine "Any standard based on a balancing of costs The administration's "shortcut" is Presi­ what particular methods should be used to and benefits . .. would be inconsistent" dent Reagan's executive order of February, achieve the required levels of protection." with the law, Brennan said. calling for a "regulatory impact analysis" Auchter noted that the court "did not spe­ The majority pointedly refused a Reagan describing the potential costs and benefits cifically exclude" cost-benefit analysis in administration request that the court with­ of every major regulation, defined as those areas other than health standards, and did draw from the controversy while the Occu­ likely to cost $100 million or more. not decide the legality of such analysis pational Safety and Health Administration High on the administration's list of tar­ under other statutes. experiments with cost-benefit analysis for gets for this cost-benefit analysis were fed­ The American Textile Manufacturers In­ regulated industries. eral standards limiting employe exposure to stitute, plaintiff in the cotton-dust suit, also The decision did not say specifically that toxic substances, which industry had com­ attempted to put the best possible face on cost-benefit analysis is prohibited. But plained were too rigid and expensive. the ruling. A spokesman said the institute Brennan said it would be contrary to the In his "Dunkirk memo" to Reagan last was "disappointed in the decision." intent of the law, and lawyers debated yes­ November, Office of Management and "We continue to believe, as does the ad­ terday whether that wording could be read Budget Director David A. Stockman recom­ ministration, that cost-benefit analysis is an as a prohibition by lower court judges in mended modifications in the standards for important element in achieving rational and future cases. e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member on the floor. June 18, 1981 · EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 13017 Unless Congress answers it, that question halfway by deciding that the law required a The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals undoubtedly will set off a new round of showing of "significant risk" to worker ageed, and the Justice Department, saying court cases, which itself could sidetrack health in promulgating regulations. But it that the ruling could damage its effort Reagan's regulatory program, in which cost­ was unable to reach agreement on the cost­ against racketeering, sought the reversal. benefit analysis is a centerpiece. benefit issue. The court ruled 8 to 1 yesterday in U.S. vs. Thorne Auchter, Reagan's new OSHA Yesterday it did. Upholding all but one minor element of Bazelon's ruling, Brennan Turkette that the law applied to both legiti­ head, tried to hail the ruling as a victory, mate and illegitimate enterprises. Stewart apparently because the agency defended the cited the section of the law governing regu­ regulations before the Supreme Court lations for toxic materials and harmful sub­ dissented. during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. stances: OSHA, it says, "shall set the stand­ The justices also ruled in a Connecticut Reagan's OSHA, however, announced in ard which most adequately assures, to the case that inmates are not constitutionally March that it would apply cost-benefit anal­ extent feasible .