Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - CLEARING THE AIR: SCIENCE-BASED STRATEGIES TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM COVID-19 INFECTIONS</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	CLEARING THE AIR: SCIENCE-BASED STRATEGIES
	TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM
	COVID 19 INFECTIONS

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON
	WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
	U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2021

	__________

	Serial No. 117-1

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

	__________


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	43-839 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



	COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

	ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

	RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
	JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
	GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
	Northern Mariana Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
	FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
	SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
	MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
	ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
	MARK De SAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
	DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
	PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
	JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
	SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
	LUCY Mc BATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
	JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah
	ANDY LEVIN, Michigan BOB GOOD, Virginia
	ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA C. Mc CLAIN, Michigan
	HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
	TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
	MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
	KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
	FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
	JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair MICHELLE STEEL, California
	MARK POCAN, Wisconsin Vacancy
	JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas Vacancy
	MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
	JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
	ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
	KWEISI MFUME, Maryland

	Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
	Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
	------

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

	ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman


	MARK TAKANO, California FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania,
	DONALD NORCROSS,New Jersey Ranking Member
	PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
	ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
	HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan BURGESS OWENS, Utah
	MONDAIRE JONES, New York BOB GOOD, Virginia
	JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
	ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia MICHELLE STEEL, California
	VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex
	officio)

	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page

	Hearing held on March 11, 2021................................... 1

	Statement of Members:
	Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
	Protections................................................ 1
	Prepared statement of.................................... 5
	Keller, Hon. Fred, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce
	Protections................................................ 6
	Prepared statement of.................................... 8

	Statement of Witnesses:
	Marr, Linsey Ph.D., Professor of Civil and Environmental
	Engineering, Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State
	University, Blacksburg, VA................................. 10
	Prepared statement of.................................... 12
	Michaels, David, Ph.D., Professor of Occupational and
	Environmental Medicine, The George Washington University,
	Former Assistant
	Secretary of OSHA, Washington, DC.......................... 76
	Prepared statement of.................................... 78
	Muhindura, Pascaline, RN, COVID Progressive Care Unit,
	Research
	Medical Center, on behalf of National Nurses United, Kansas
	City, MO................................................... 24
	Prepared statement of.................................... 26
	Rath, Manesh, Partner, Keller and Heckman LLP, Washington, DC 68
	Prepared statement of.................................... 70

	Additional Submissions:
	Chairwoman Adams:
	Letter dated March 1, 2021............................... 124
	Mr. Keller:
	Prepared statement from American Hospital Association.... 128
	Prepared statement from Construction Industry Safety
	Coalition.............................................. 131
	Prepared statement from National Retail Federation....... 142
	Questions submitted for the record by:
	Chairwoman Adams




	Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of
	Minnesota



	Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
	Dr. Marr................................................. 147
	Ms. Muhindura............................................ 150
	Dr. Michaels............................................. 156


	CLEARING THE AIR: SCIENCE-BASED
	STRATEGIES TO PROTECT WORKERS
	FROM COVID-19 INFECTIONS

	----------


	Thursday, March 11, 2021

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
	Committee on Education and Labor,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m.,
	via Zoom, Hon. Alma S. Adams (Chairwoman of the subcommittee)
	presiding.
	Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Norcross, Jaypal,
	Omar, Stevens, Jones, Yarmuth, Scott, Foxx, Stefanik, Keller,
	Miller-Meeks, Good, Cawthorn, Steel.
	Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Jordan Barab,
	Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel;
	Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Eli
	Hovland, Policy Associate; Ariel Jona, Policy Associate; Andre
	Lindsay, Policy Associate; Richard Miller, Director of Labor
	Policy; Max Moore, Staff Assistant; Mariah Mowbray, Clerk/
	Special Assistant to the Staff Director; Kayla Pennebecker,
	Staff Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Theresa
	Thompson, Professional Staff; Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff
	Director; Gabriel Bisson, Minority Staff Assistant; Courtney
	Butcher, Minority Director of Member Services and Coalitions;
	Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; Georgie
	Littlefair, Minority Legislative Assistant; John Martin,
	Minority Workforce Policy Counsel; Hannah Matesic, Minority
	Director of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications
	Director; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary.
	Ms. Adams. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will
	come to order. Welcome everyone. I note that a quorum is
	present. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony
	on, ``Clearing the Air: Science-Based Strategies to Protect
	Workers from COVID-19 Infections.''
	I note for the subcommittee that Mr. Courtney of
	Connecticut is permitted to participate in today's hearing with
	the understanding that his questions will come only after all
	Members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle were
	present, and have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
	This is an entirely remote hearing. All microphones will be
	kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary background
	noise. Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting
	themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when they wish
	to seek recognition.
	I also ask that Members please identify themselves before
	they speak. Members should keep their cameras on while in the
	proceeding. Members shall be considered present in the
	proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they shall be
	considered not present when they are not visible on camera.
	The only exception to this is if they are experiencing
	technical difficulty and inform Committee Staff of such
	difficulty. If any Member experiences technical difficulties
	during the hearing, you should stay connected on the platform,
	make sure you are muted, and use your phone to immediately call
	the Committee's IT Director whose number was provided in
	advance. Should the Chair experience technical difficulty, or
	need to step away to vote on the floor, Mr. Scott of Virginia,
	as a Member of this subcommittee, or another Majority Member of
	the subcommittee if he's not available is hereby authorized to
	assume the gavel in the Chair's absence.
	This is an entirely remote meeting. And as such the
	Committee's hearing room is officially closed. Members who
	choose to sit with their individual devices in the hearing room
	must wear headphones to avoid feedback, echoes and distortion
	resulting from more than one person on the software platform
	sitting in the same room.
	Members are also expected to adhere to social distancing,
	and safe healthcare guidelines including the use of masks, hand
	sanitizer and wiping down their areas, both before and after
	their presence I the hearing room. In order to ensure that the
	Committee's five-minute rule is adhered to, staff will be
	keeping track of time using the Committee's field timer.
	The field timer will appear on its own thumbnail picture
	and will be named 001_timer. There will be no one minute
	remaining warning. The field timer will sound its audio alarm
	when time is up. Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up
	promptly when their time has expired.
	And while a roll call is not necessary to establish a
	quorum in official proceedings conducted remotely or with
	remote participation, the Committee has made it a practice
	whenever there is an official proceeding with remote
	participation for the clerk to call the roll to help make clear
	who is present at the start of the proceeding.
	Members should say their name before announcing they are
	present. This helps the Clerk, and also helps those watching
	the platform and the livestream who may experience a few
	seconds delay.
	At this time I ask the clerk to please call the roll.
	The Clerk. Chairman Adams?
	Ms. Adams. Present.
	The Clerk. Mr. Takano?
	Mr. Takano. Present.
	The Clerk. Mr. Norcross?
	Mr. Norcross. Present.
	The Clerk. Ms. Jayapal?
	Ms. Jayapal. Present.
	The Clerk. Miss Omar?
	Ms. Omar. Present.
	The Clerk. Ms. Stevens?
	[No response.]
	The Clerk. Mr. Jones?
	Mr. Jones. Present.
	The Clerk. Mr. Yarmuth?
	Mr. Yarmuth. Present.
	The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
	[No response.]
	The Clerk. Mr. Keller?
	Mr. Keller. Present.
	The Clerk. Miss Stefanik sorry?
	Ms. Stefanik. Present.
	The Clerk. Ms. Miller-Meeks?
	[No response.]
	The Clerk. Mr. Owens?
	[No response.]
	The Clerk. Mr. Good?
	Mr. Good. Present.
	The Clerk. Mr. Cawthorn?
	Mr. Cawthorn. Present.
	The Clerk. Mrs. Steel?
	[No response.]
	The Clerk. Chairwoman Adams, that concludes the roll call.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you, thank you for that.
	Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening Statements are
	limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
	hear form our witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
	adequate time to ask their questions.
	I'll recognize myself now for the purpose of making an
	opening Statement.
	I want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Work
	Force Protection Subcommittee and the 117th Congress. Today we
	will discuss the imperative to protect worker's health and
	safety. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed one of the most
	significant threats to worker's health and safety in a century.
	Across the country tens of thousands of workers have been
	infected by COVID-19 on the job, and many thousands have died.
	Meat packing workers, healthcare workers, transportation
	workers, correctional workers, and other frontline workers are
	all struggling with the severe physical and emotional trauma of
	the pandemic.
	And while some of us have the luxury of working from home,
	these workers who are disproportionately low-income and people
	of color are risking their lives to keep our communities
	afloat. And one of our witnesses today, Pascaline Muhindura is
	a nurse at a hospital in Kansas City. Her coworker Celia Yap-
	Banago died of COVID-19 due to unsafe working conditions.
	Miss Yap-Banago's family is watching today's hearing. I
	want to express our condolences for your loss and appreciation
	for the critical work for which Miss Yap-Banago gave her life.
	These tragic losses are even more heartbreaking considering
	that until recently the Occupational Safety and Health
	Administration, or OSHA, was missing in action, and
	opportunities to save lives were lost.
	Under the Trump administration the Federal agency charged
	with protecting workers refused to issue new enforceable safety
	standards leaving workers vulnerable to workplace infections.
	The agency made it harder to keep track of workplace illnesses
	and industries. The political appointees at OSHA failed to
	leverage the agency's resources to adequately inspect
	worksites, and allow multi-billion dollar corporations to get
	off with meager penalties, while ignoring worker deaths that
	were likely linked to COVID-19.
	And during a hearing last year OSHA's acting Assistant
	Secretary even refused to acknowledge that COVID-19 possesses
	or poses a grave danger for workers. OSHA's inspectors and
	staff have worked hard to keep workplaces safe given the
	resources they have. But the Trump administration's political
	leadership abandoned OSHA's mission, and left workers with
	little to no help from their government.
	As a recent report from the Department of Labor's Inspector
	General found, worker complaints have skyrocketed during the
	pandemic, but OSHA inspections have fallen dramatically over
	the past year. The report also calls on OSHA to consider
	issuing an emergency temporary standard.
	A recent Wall Street Journal investigation revealed a
	litany of major workplace COVID outbreaks, OSHA complaints, and
	insufficient responses from Federal OSHA or State OSHA plans.
	The main argument for inaction Federal OSHA had no COVID-
	related standards. The Journal identified more than 1,000
	worker deaths from COVID-19 that were likely linked to
	workplace transmission of the virus, but had never been
	investigated by OSHA.
	Employers had failed to report many of these fatalities to
	OSHA. So today our witnesses would help us assess how the Biden
	administration can recover from these failures and keep workers
	safe and healthy moving forward. First OSHA must swiftly issue
	a strong emergency temporary standard, or ETS to protect
	workers against COVID-19 infections.
	For more than a year Chairman Scott and I urged the
	previous administration to issue an ETS, but OSHA refused.
	Thankfully, the Biden administration has moved quickly to
	restore OSHA's purpose by directly OSHA to consider issuing an
	ETS. And I'm hopeful that we will see this ETS soon, but we
	must do far more to protect workers.
	And as our witnesses will share, we must better protect
	workers from the airborne transmission of COVID-19. We now know
	the virus spreads not just through large droplets that quickly
	dissipate, but through microscopic particles that can travel
	long distances and for long periods.
	This has major implications for protecting workers who are
	frequently in close contact with others. Yet the Centers for
	Disease Control and Prevention has not updated its workplace
	guidance to reflect this clear scientific evidence, which is
	essential to shape a strong OSHA standard.
	We also need a plan to get vaccines to all of the essential
	workers who have risked their lives to keep our economy going.
	Americans across the country are thankfully starting to get
	vaccinated, but we still have no national strategy to ensure
	that in addition to emergency responders and healthcare
	workers, grocery store clerks, meat processing workers,
	teachers, transportation workers, corrections officers and
	others are not left behind.
	We must also take clear steps to track workplace COVID-19
	infections. Shockingly, the Federal Government has no system
	for monitoring the number of workers who have gotten sick, or
	where they are employed. The previous administrative
	effectively gutted requirements for employers to report COVID-
	19 related worker hospitalizations.
	And so we cannot hope to learn from the lessons of this
	pandemic without the data to understand how to protect workers
	in the future. Any discussion about protecting healthcare
	workers must also address the disproportionately high rates of
	violence that healthcare and social service workers face on the
	job.
	Today we will discuss legislation introduced by
	Representative Courtney that requires OSHA to promptly issue a
	workplace violence prevention standard to protect healthcare
	and social service workers. Finally, in order for OSHA to
	identify and address the most dangerous workplaces, it must be
	able to collect accurate injury and illness data.
	Today our witnesses will also discuss legislation
	introduced by Representative Takano that would allow OSHA to
	more effectively enforce its injury and illness recordkeeping
	requirements. National emergencies, such as this pandemic, are
	the exact reason why OSHA was first established, yet for far,
	far, too long OSHA's leadership was asleep at the wheel costing
	the lives of workers. Now we have the opportunity to restore
	OSHA's mission and protect workers health and safety at a time
	when they need it most.
	Today's hearing is an important first step toward that
	goal. I'd now like to recognize the distinguished Ranking
	Member for the purpose of making an opening Statement.
	[The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

	Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
	Protections

	I want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Workforce
	Protections Subcommittee in the 117th Congress. Today, we will discuss
	the imperative to protect workers' health and safety.
	The COVID-19 pandemic has posed one of the most significant threats
	to workers' health and safety in a century.
	Across the country, tens of thousands of workers have been infected
	by COVID-19 on the job and many thousands have died. Meatpacking
	workers, health care workers, transportation workers, correctional
	workers, and other frontline workers are all struggling with the severe
	physical and emotional trauma of the pandemic. While some of us have
	the luxury of working from home, these workers-who are
	disproportionally low-income and people of color-are risking their
	lives to keep our communities afloat.
	One of our witnesses today, Pascaline Muhindura, is a nurse at a
	hospital in Kansas City. Her coworker, Celia Yap-Banago, died of COVID-
	19 due to unsafe working conditions. Ms. Yap-Banago's family is
	watching today's hearing. I want to express our condolences for your
	loss and appreciation for the critical work for which Ms. Yap-Banago
	gave her life.
	These tragic losses are even more heartbreaking considering that,
	until recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or
	OSHA, was missing in action.
	Under the Trump Administration, the Federal agency charged with
	protecting workers refused to issue new enforceable safety standards,
	leaving workers vulnerable to workplace infections. The agency made it
	harder to keep track of workplace illnesses and injuries.
	The political appointees at OSHA failed to leverage the agency's
	resources to adequately inspect worksites, and allowed multi-billion-
	dollar corporations to get off with meager penalties while ignoring
	worker deaths that were likely linked to COVID-19.
	And, during a hearing last year, OSHA's Acting Assistant Secretary
	even refused to acknowledge that COVID-19 poses a ``grave danger'' for
	workers.
	Now, OSHA's inspectors and staff have worked hard to keep
	workplaces safe given the resources they have. But the Trump
	Administration's political leadership abandoned OSHA's mission and left
	workers with little to no help from their government.
	As a recent report from OSHA's Inspector General found, worker
	complaints have skyrocketed during the pandemic, but OSHA inspections
	have fallen dramatically over the past year. The report also called on
	OSHA to consider issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard.
	A recent Wall St. Journal investigation revealed a litany of major
	workplace COVID outbreaks, OSHA complaints, and insufficient responses
	from Federal OSHA or State OSHA plans. The main argument for inaction:
	Federal OSHA had no COVID-related standards. The Journal identified
	more than 1,000 worker deaths from COVID-19 that were likely linked to
	workplace transmission of the virus but had never been investigated by
	OSHA. Employers had failed to report many of these fatalities to OSHA.
	Today, our expert witnesses will help us assess how the Biden
	Administration can recover from these failures and keep workers safe
	and healthy moving forward.
	First, OSHA must swiftly issue a strong Emergency Temporary
	Standard, or ETS, to protect workers against COVID-19 infections. For
	more than a year, Chairman Scott and I urged the previous
	Administration to issue an ETS, but OSHA refused. Thankfully, the Biden
	Administration has moved quickly to restore OSHA's purpose by directing
	OSHA to consider issuing an ETS. I am hopeful we will see this ETS
	soon, but we must do far more to fully protect workers.
	As our witnesses will share, we must better protect workers from
	the airborne transmission of COVID-19. We now know the virus spreads
	not just through large droplets that quickly dissipate, but through
	microscopic particles that can travel long distances and for long
	periods. This has major implications for protecting workers who are
	frequently in close contact with others. Yet, the Centers for Disease
	Control and Prevention has not updated its workplace guidance to
	reflect this clear scientific evidence, which is also needed to shape a
	strong OSHA standard.
	We also need a plan to get vaccines to all the essential workers
	who have risked their lives to keep our economy going. Americans across
	the country are thankfully starting to get vaccinated. But we still
	have no national strategy to ensure that-in addition to emergency
	responders and health care workers-grocery store clerks, meat
	processing workers, teachers, transportation workers, corrections
	officers and others are not left behind.
	We must also take clear steps to keep track of workplace
	infections. Shockingly, the Federal Government has no system for
	monitoring the number of workers who have gotten sick or where they are
	employed. The previous administration even effectively gutted
	requirements for employers to report COVID-19-related worker
	hospitalizations. We cannot hope to learn from the lessons of this
	pandemic without the data to understand how to protect workers in the
	future.
	Any discussion about protecting health care workers must also
	address the disproportionally high rates of violence that health care
	and social services workers face on the job. Today, we will discuss
	legislation introduced by Representative Courtney that requires OSHA to
	quickly issue a workplace violence prevention standard to protect
	health care and social service workers.
	Finally, in order for OSHA to identify and address the most
	dangerous workplaces, it must be able to collect accurate injurity and
	illness data. Today, our witnesses will also discuss legislation,
	introduced by Representative Takano, that would allow OSHA to
	effectively enforce its injury and illness recordkeeping requirements.
	National emergencies, such as this pandemic, are the exact reason
	why OSHA was first established. Yet, for far too long, OSHA's
	leadership was asleep at the wheel, costing the lives of workers. Now,
	we have the opportunity to restore OSHA's mission and protect workers'
	health and safety at a time when they need it most. Today's hearing is
	an important first step toward that goal.
	I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Keller, for his opening
	Statement.
	______

	Mr. Keller. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm disappointed that
	today's hearing is being held in a completely virtual format.
	As I can show you in today's Washington Post, the people
	working in the House chamber show up every day and do their
	jobs, and I think we should be here in our committee's hearing
	room.
	I'm currently in committee hearing room and it can
	comfortably accommodate the 16 Members of this subcommittee.
	This hearing should be in person, and we can participate and do
	this work safely. After all, the subject to today's hearing is
	science-based strategies to protect workers, and Members of the
	subcommittee should have the opportunity to set a positive
	example by conducting this hearing in person while adhering to
	the most current workplace safety guidelines.
	Over the last year the pandemic has created unprecedented
	challenges for all Americans, especially workers and job
	creators. The top priority for employers throughout this crisis
	has been, and will continue to be preventing the spread of
	COVID-19 in the workplace to ensure the health and safety of
	workers and customers.
	Thankfully, a year to the date after the World Health
	Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, America now is
	equipped with much greater and thorough scientific knowledge of
	the virus and innovative employers have developed effective
	procedures and policies to keep workplaces as safe as possible.
	Over the past year business centers have worked around the
	clock to operate safely under the evolving State and local
	mandates. CDC and OSHA guidelines, and industry-recognized best
	practices to protect their workers. The vast majority of
	businesses, regardless of size and location have invested
	significant resources to implement comprehensive and effective
	safety precautions specific to their workplaces.
	And now thanks to the successful efforts of Operation Warp
	Speed, essential workers have been prioritized for vaccination,
	and President Biden has Stated that the U.S. should have enough
	vaccine doses for every eligible adult in the United States by
	the end of May.
	We are not out of the woods yet, but America is on the path
	to recovery, both in terms of health of our citizens and our
	economy. Under the Trump administration the Federal Government
	collaborated with businesses across the country, updating them
	as new information arose on the newest guidelines and
	procedures to keep workers and customers safe.
	This dialog allowed businesses the flexibility to create
	health and safety plans that fit their specific workplace,
	creating an efficient path forward for businesses. My Democrat
	colleagues have said almost from day one of this pandemic that
	it is necessary for OSHA to issue an emergency temporary
	standard, or ETS. A rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation
	specific to COVID-19 that would apply to every workplace
	throughout the country.
	Not one ETS has been issued since 1983 because of legal
	challenges and lack of due process for affected stakeholders.
	In 2021 an ETS would do far more harm than good to workers,
	employers and the American economy by denying businesses the
	opportunity to respond quickly to new scientific findings and
	industry-specific needs.
	Not all workplaces are the same, yet democrats are eager to
	impose rigid and inflexible mandates on businesses. This
	inflexible lagging method to keep workers safe will only hinder
	our economy recovery, and make it more difficult for employers
	to ensure safety in their respective workplaces.
	If OSHA had enacted an ETS a year ago as committee
	democrats demanded it, it would be woefully inadequate in
	protecting workers today. Issuing an ETS is not a science-based
	approach, and is instead yet another example of overbearing
	government policy that will do nothing but constrict employers
	from safely running their businesses.
	Four States across the country have adopted State-wide
	emergency temporary COVID-19 regulations. In California we're
	already seeing its negative effects. Since issued in November,
	the regulations have conflicted at various points with CDC
	guidance for workplaces, causing massive confusion for
	employees and their employers.
	Additionally, the California emergency rule places many new
	significant burdens on employers and job creators related to
	workplace testing, paid leave, and required reporting to public
	health authorities. This is no way to help an already suffering
	economy. More mandates from Washington, including an OSHA ETS
	would not only add burdens and regulations on employers that
	stifle creatively and ultimately hold them back.
	Instead, the Federal Government should be focusing on
	ensuring adequate vaccine supply and distribution to vaccinate
	all workers and providing timely public health guidance to our
	employers as this Nation works toward economic prosperity. I'd
	like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today and I
	look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you and I yield
	back.
	[The statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]

	Statement of Hon. Fred Keller, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
	Workforce Protections

	Thank you, Madam Chair. I am disappointed that today's hearing is
	being held in a completely virtual format. The Committee's hearing room
	that I am currently sitting in can comfortably accommodate the 16
	Members of the subcommittee.
	This hearing should be in a hybrid format, so Members who want to
	participate in person can do so safely.
	After all, the subject of today's hearing is ``Science-Based
	Strategies to Protect Workers'' and Members of this subcommittee should
	have the opportunity to set a positive example by conducting this
	hearing in person while adhering to the most current workplace safety
	guidelines.
	Over the last year, the pandemic has created unprecedented
	challenges for all Americans, especially workers and job creators. The
	top priority for employers throughout this crisis has been, and will
	continue to be, preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace to
	ensure the health and safety of workers and customers.
	Thankfully, a year to the date after the World Health Organization
	declared COVID-19 a pandemic, America is now equipped with much greater
	and thorough scientific knowledge of the virus, and innovative
	employers have developed effective procedures and policies to keep
	workplaces as safe as possible.
	Over the past year, business owners have worked around the clock to
	operate safely under evolving State and local mandates, CDC and OSHA
	guidelines, and industry-recognized best practices to protect their
	workers. The vast majority of businesses, regardless of size and
	location, have invested significant resources to implement
	comprehensive and effective safety precautions specific to their
	workplaces.
	And now, thanks to the successful efforts of Operation Warp Speed,
	essential workers have been prioritized for vaccination, and President
	Biden has Stated that the U.S. should have enough vaccine doses for
	every eligible adult in the United States by the end of May.
	We are not out of the woods yet, but America is on the path to
	recovery, both in terms of the health of our citizens and our economy.
	Under the Trump administration, the Federal Government collaborated
	with businesses across the country, updating them as new information
	arose on the newest guidelines and procedures to keep workers and
	customers safe. This dialog allowed businesses the flexibility to
	create health and safety plans that fit their specific workplace,
	creating an efficient path forward for businesses.
	But my Democrat colleagues have said almost from day one of the
	pandemic that it is necessary for OSHA to issue an Emergency Temporary
	Standard, or ETS-a rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation specific to
	COVID-19 that would apply to every workplace throughout the country.
	Not one ETS has been issued since 1983 because of legal challenges
	and a lack of due process for affected stakeholders. In 2021, an ETS
	will do far more harm than good for workers, employers, and the
	American economy by denying businesses the opportunity to respond
	quickly to new scientific findings and industry-specific needs. Not all
	workplaces are the same, yet Democrats are eager to impose rigid and
	inflexible mandates on businesses. This inflexible, lagging method to
	keep workers 'safe' will only hinder our economic recovery and make it
	more difficult for employers to ensure safety in their respective
	workplaces.
	If OSHA enacted an ETS a year ago, as Committee Democrats demanded,
	it would be woefully inadequate in protecting workers today. Issuing an
	ETS is not a science-based approach and is instead yet another example
	of overbearing government policy that will do nothing but constrict
	employers from safely running their businesses.
	Four States across the country have adopted State-wide emergency
	temporary COVID-19 regulations. In California, we're already seeing its
	negative effects. Since issued in November, the regulations have
	conflicted at various points with CDC guidance for workplaces, causing
	massive confusion for employers. Additionally, the California emergency
	rule places many new and significant burdens on employers related to
	workplace testing, paid leave, and required reporting to public health
	authorities. This is no way to help an already suffering economy.
	More mandates from Washington, including an OSHA ETS, will only add
	burdensome regulations on employers that stifle creativity and,
	ultimately, hold them back.
	Instead, the Federal Government should be focused on ensuring
	adequate vaccine supply and distribution to vaccinate essential workers
	and providing timely public health guidance to our employers as this
	Nation works toward economic prosperity. I'd like to thank all our
	witnesses for joining us today and I look forward to hearing your
	testimony.
	______

	Ms. Adams. Thank you to the Ranking Member. Without
	objection all of the Members who wish to insert written
	Statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
	Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word by 5 p.m.
	March 25, 2021.
	I'd now like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness
	will be Dr. Linsey Marr. Dr. Marr is the Charles P. Lunsford
	Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia
	Tech. She's one of a small number of researchers in the world
	who study viruses in the air. She holds a BS in engineering
	science from Harvard and a Ph.D. in civil and environmental
	engineering from US Berkeley, and she completed her post-
	doctoral training at MIT.
	Our next witness will be Miss Pascaline Muhindura. Miss
	Muhindura is a registered nurse in Kansas City, Missouri. She
	works in a critical care unit. And since March 2020 she's been
	caring for COVID patients. She's a member of the National
	Nurses United and serves as a nurse representative and a member
	of the Professional Practice Committee for her union.
	Following Ms. Muhindura will be Mr. Manesh Rath. Mr. Rath
	is a partner with Keller and Heckman in Washington, DC. He
	represents employers in a wide range of matters related to
	occupational safety and health, law, litigation, wage and hour
	and class action litigation and association law.
	Our final witness will be Dr. David Michaels. Dr. Michaels
	is an epidemiologist and Professor of Environmental and
	Occupational Health at George Washington University. He served
	as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and
	Health Administration from 2009 to 2017, and he was a member of
	the Biden Harris transition COVID-19 Advisory Board.
	To our witnesses we appreciate you for participating today.
	We look forward to your testimony, and let me remind you that
	we've read your written Statements, and they will appear in
	full in the hearing record, pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and
	the committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral
	presentation to a five-minute summary of your written
	Statement.
	I also want to remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title
	18 of U.S. Code Section 1001 it is illegally to knowingly and
	willfully falsify any Statement, representation, writing,
	documents, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise
	concealed, or cover up a material fact. So before you begin
	your testimony please remember to unmute your microphone.
	During your testimony staff will be keeping track of time, and
	a timer will sound when time is up.
	Please be attentive to the time. Wrap up when your time is
	over and re-mute your microphone. If you experience technical
	difficulties during your testimony or later, in the hearing you
	should stay connected on the platform and make sure you are
	muted. Use your phone to immediately call the committee's IT
	director whose number was provided in advance.
	So we will let the witnesses make their presentations
	before we move to Member questions. When answering a question
	please remember to unmute your microphone. I want to recognize
	first Dr. Linsey Marr.
	Dr. Marr.

	STATEMENT OF DR. LINSEY MARR, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF CIVIL AND
	ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, VIRGINIA
	POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, BLACKSBURG, VA

	Dr. Marr. Thank you. Chairwoman Adams, Ranking Member
	Keller, and Members of the subcommittee my name is Linsey Marr,
	and I am a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
	Virginia Tech. I have studied airborne transmission of viruses
	for the past 12 years, and have published more than 30
	scientific papers on the topic.
	I co-authored the recent letter to the Biden administration
	and the CDC calling for immediate action to address inhalation
	exposure of SARS-CoV-2 to prevent COVID-19 infections and
	deaths. Today I will address four major points. One, how COVID-
	19 is transmitted mainly by breathing in aerosol particles
	carrying the virus.
	Two, how best to protect workers and the public through the
	use of appropriate face coverings and other controls. Three,
	what updates are needed to CDC's guidance. And four, what needs
	to be done to protect workers and the public from becoming
	infected.
	There are three possible ways for the virus to be
	transmitted. You can touch an object that has been contaminated
	with the virus and transfer it to your eyes, nose, or mouth, or
	you could be hit by large respiratory droplets that fly out of
	a sick person's mouth and land directly in your eyes, nose or
	mouth. Or finally, you can breathe in small aerosol particles
	from the air that float around for an extended period of time
	like cigarette smoke.
	There is now overwhelming evidence that inhalation of tiny
	virus-containing aerosols is the main route of transmission for
	COVID-19. When people breathe, talk, sing, laugh, cough or
	sneeze, they release far more aerosols than large droplets as
	shown in this diagram.
	These aerosols shown in red are most concentrated close to
	the sick person, and they don't fall quickly to the ground like
	the large droplets which are shown in blue. The aerosols remain
	floating in the air and follow air currents for more than six
	feet like cigarette smoke, filling a room and building up over
	time if the space does not have good ventilation, as also shown
	in the diagram.
	When people are talking in close proximity, it is much more
	likely that they will breathe in each other's respiratory
	aerosols than shower each other with large droplets of spittle.
	Workers require special consideration because they may spend 8
	to 12 hours in a poorly ventilated environment where they
	cannot avoid sharing the air with other people, much longer
	than a customer who briefly passes through the space.
	If ventilation if inadequate, or workers do not wear a good
	mask or respirator, they could breathe in enough viruses from
	the air to become sick with COVID-19. The most effective way to
	protect workers is to control the source of infection.
	Unfortunately, workers may be exposed to members of the public
	who are unmasked, especially in restaurants and some
	businesses.
	The next priority is to use engineering controls such as
	ventilation, to dilute the virus in the air. Respirators and
	masks are considered the final line of defense. Because SARS-
	CoV-2 is transmitted mainly by aerosols, the appropriate PPE
	for workers at elevated risk is a high-performance mask or a
	respirator.
	Unfortunately, most CDC guidance has not yet been updated
	or strengthened to address and limit inhalation exposure to
	aerosols. To use a technical term, it is as clear as mud. Their
	webpages downplay aerosols and airborne transmission, a
	position that is exactly opposite the best scientific evidence.
	Their guidance continues to put workers and the public at
	serious risk of infection, and undermines the effectiveness of
	an OSHA standard. I coauthored a letter calling for CDC to
	update and strengthen its guidelines to fully address
	transmission via inhalation of aerosols at both close distances
	and farther away.
	We also urge OSHA to issue an emergency standard on COVID-
	19 that requires implementation of control measures including
	ventilation and respiratory protection against aerosols for all
	healthcare workers and other workers at high risk, including
	those in meat packing, corrections and public transit.
	It is clear from the evidence and our experience over the
	last year that only strong CDC guidance and OSHA standards that
	are based on the best available science will enable us to
	safely reopen workplaces and schools while ending this pandemic
	and better preparing us for the next one. Thank you.
	[The prepared Statement of Dr. Marr follows:]

	Prepared Statement of Linsey Marr
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much Dr. Marr.
	We'll now hear from Miss Pascaline Muhindura. You're
	recognized ma'am.

	STATEMENT OF MS. PASCALINE MUHINDURA, REGISTERED NURSE, COVID
	PROGRESSIVE CARE UNIT, RESEARCH
	MEDICAL CENTER, KANSAS CITY, MO, ON BEHALF OF
	NATIONAL NURSES UNITED

	MS. Muhindura. Good morning. And thank you Chairwoman
	Adams, Ranking Member Keller, and Members of the subcommittee
	for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I'm a critical
	care nurse at Research Medical Center, an HCA healthcare
	facility in Kansas City, Missouri. And I'm a proud union member
	of National Nurses United.
	I will make three main points today. First, my employer has
	failed to protect us. Second, the CDC and OSHA have failed to
	protect us. And third, the CDC and OSHA must take immediate
	steps to ensure that nurses and other workers get the
	protections we need.
	For more than a year I have been caring for patients in a
	COVID unit in my hospital. Every single nurse and healthcare
	worker in my unit has contracted COVID because we were not
	given the protections we need. My colleague Celia lost her
	life. As Dr. Marr outlined SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted through
	the inhalation of aerosol particles.
	That means that nurses and other frontline workers must be
	given respiratory protection. At minimum, we need N95
	respirators which are only safe for a single use. Power aired
	purifying respirators and elastomeric respirators are more
	protective, and are safely reusable.
	In January 2020, nurses urge our employer to prepare for
	COVID. They didn't. When the pandemic started in March none of
	the COVID nurses had been fit tested for N95's. Management had
	not implemented our recommendation from January. On March 21
	management collected all of the PPE in the hospital, locked it
	up, and began rationing N95's.
	The next day a patient was transferred from the emergency
	department to the cardiac telemetry unit. The nurses on the
	unit recognized the patient had signs of COVID and the asked
	management for N95's. Management refused. The patient later
	tested positive, and as a result of her exposure to this
	patient, my colleague Celia Yap-Banago contracted COVID and
	lost her life.
	Despite Celia's death, the hospital continues to ration
	N95's. Management is still forcing us to unsafely reuse the
	same N95 for an entire shift, and is recommending that we use
	surgical masks with COVID patients. To be clear, nurses on my
	unit are still caring for COVID patients without adequate
	protection.
	This isn't just happening in my hospital. In NNU's February
	2021 survey of nurses across the country, more than 81 percent
	report that they still have to reuse at least one type of
	single use PPE. As union nurses, my colleagues and I have been
	fighting these dangerous policies every step of the way. As
	registered nurses we know that as long as our safety is
	compromised, our patients are also at risk.
	In all of our conversations with management they have told
	us the same thing. They're following CDC guidelines. The CDC
	guidelines are not based on science. To this day the CDC does
	not recognize aerosol transmission of COVID. The guidelines
	allow healthcare employers to give nurses surgical masks,
	instead of respirators, and to reuse N95's.
	Management withholds PPE and they used CDC guidelines as
	their justification for putting our lives at risk. My union
	filed a complaint with OSHA last spring about the circumstances
	that led to Celia's death. OSHA found clear evidence Celia and
	other nurses have been exposed to COVID because of our
	employer's failure to provide PPE.
	But OSHA could not cite my employer because the CDC
	guidelines are weak, and because OSHA doesn't have a standard
	on infectious disease. As union nurses, with our practice
	rooted in science, we have clear recommendations for what we
	need to be able to care for our patients safely.
	First, we need the CDC to update its COVID guidelines to be
	based on scientific evidence, especially regarding aerosol
	transmission. The CDC needs to revoke the crisis standard on
	optimization of PPE which are based on supply consideration,
	not science. Second, we need a thorough OSHA standard that
	requires our employers to protect our health and safety at
	work. If these recommendations had been implemented 1 year ago,
	my colleague Celia, along with thousands of other healthcare
	workers would be alive today.
	We need immediate action so that nurses and our patients
	get the protections we need.
	[The prepared Statement of Ms. Muhindura follows.]

	Prepared Statement of Pascaline Muhindura
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Ok thank you. I'm going to
	go vote now on the floor and Mr. Scott will you please assume
	the gavel?
	Mr. Scott.[Presiding] I will thank you.
	Our next witness is Mr. Rath.

	STATEMENT OF MANESH RATH, PARTNER, KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP,
	WASHINGTON, D.C.

	Mr. Rath. Thank you very much. Good morning Chair Adams,
	Mr. Scott. Thank you Ranking Member Keller and Members of this
	subcommittee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak before
	this subcommittee on this issue today, Clearing the Air Science
	Based Strategies to Protect Workers from COVID-19 Infections.
	I'm Manesh Rath. I'm a partner at the law firm Keller and
	Heckman LLP, here in Washington, DC. I work with employers to
	develop effective improvements in workplace safety and health.
	In my testimony today I'm expressing only my own understanding
	of an experience in the field of occupational safety and health
	law and administrative law, and I'm not here as a
	representative of any other entity.
	Today I will address some of the efforts that I have seen
	employers undertake in response to COVID-19 during the pandemic
	this past year, and some of the conclusions that employers have
	drawn from their experiences. During this pandemic, employers
	with whom I have worked have engaged in a continuous cycle of
	evaluation and improvement as scientific and healthcare
	understanding about COVID-19 has evolved. Employers have
	implemented fundamentally for interventions, and some simple
	interventions have endured because they work, for example
	universal use of face masks, hand washing, disinfecting
	frequently touched surfaces, and distancing where achievable,
	and installation of temporary barriers which distancing is not
	achievable.
	We have also seen creative solutions that only the private
	sector could have developed, and could not have emanated from
	government. For example, employers have deployed private
	transportation networks for workers to isolate them from public
	transportation exposures. One, a manufacturer with whom we've
	worked, fabricated cooling booths, equipping those booths with
	air-conditioning to allow manufacturing workers to take
	periodic maskless, heat stress breaks.
	We've seen employer deploy temporary portable adjunct space
	for additional meeting and brake rooms. Several employers we've
	worked with have increased their janitorial staff
	substantially. A couple of employers I've worked with have even
	engaged their own epidemiologists in order to respond more
	rapidly than could be seen from OSHA or the Centers for Disease
	Control and Prevention to adapt to changing science about
	COVID-19.
	In addition, we've seen employers that have willingly tried
	interventions that have had diminishing value. For example,
	employers early in the pandemic quarantined inventory for 24
	hours if the inventory may have been exposed to positive
	workers, positive cases. We now see that that's been used less
	and less frequently, and even the CDC has recently opined in
	October 2020 that contaminated surfaces comprise an uncommon
	transmission vector.
	In another example, every employer I've worked with
	implements symptom screening and temperature check at the
	beginning of every shift for every employee, and yet we now see
	evolving science demonstrate that asymptomatic and pre-
	symptomatic cases comprise a significant fraction of
	transmission spread.
	The many changes we've seen at the CDC have also taught us
	the importance of a flexible guidance-based approach to COVID-
	19 in the workplace. For example, on April 6, 2020 the CDC
	recommended avoiding all non-essential travel, even intra-city.
	Within 48 hours the CDC revoked that guidance, and again
	updated it in February 2021.
	We've seen on February 10, 2021 the CDC released an updated
	mask recommendation recommending both a disposable mask, and on
	top of that a cloth mask. So even a year after the onset of the
	pandemic the CDC's guidance has been updated on something as
	simple as masks based on data-driven science.
	If OSHA had implemented any of these recommendations in an
	emergency temporary standard a year ago, those requirements
	would have been quickly antiquated by science, dismissed by the
	public, and a discredit to the agency. In its wisdom, OSHA
	chose instead to issue guidance documents, and indeed in a one-
	month period issued 13 guidance documents, some of which were
	industry specific, all of which could be rapidly revised to
	meet the changing conditions and science of the pandemic.
	As with the examples I have discussed, employers have
	already demonstrated the ability to quickly adapt and implement
	new interventions faster than government can develop policy.
	For the same reason, agency guidance that can be rapidly
	updated, is better suited to our evolving understanding of
	COVID-19 than emergency regulations could be.
	Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and I
	look forward to addressing any questions you may have.
	[The prepared Statement of Mr. Rath follows:]

	Prepared Statement of Manesh Rath
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Scott. Thank you.
	Dr. Michaels.

	STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID MICHAELS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF
	OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON
	UNIVERSITY, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF OSHA, WASHINGTON, DC

	Dr. Michaels. Thank you Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
	Foxx, Ranking Member Keller, Members of the subcommittee for
	inviting me to testify today. My name is David Michaels. I'm an
	Epidemiologist and Professor at the Milken Institute School of
	Public Health at the George Washington University.
	From 2009 to January 2017 I served as assistant Secretary
	of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
	OSHA. I was also a member of the Biden Harris Transition COVID-
	19 Advisory Board. Workers are at the core of this pandemic.
	Millions work 8 or more hours a day in close proximity to
	coworkers or members of the public in poorly ventilated
	settings with inadequate protection performing the activities
	necessary to maintain the economy and social functioning.
	They can't avoid exposure to the virus which has sickened
	or killed an enormously large number of them. These workers
	bring the virus home to their families and communities, helping
	drive the disproportionate and tragic impact COVID-19 has had
	on communities of color. This is the crisis for which Congress
	enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act 50 years ago,
	but OSHA was missing in action during the Trump administration.
	It failed to take the steps necessary to require employers
	to protect workers from the virus. It did few inspections, and
	it issued miniscule fines. At one meat factory for example,
	where hundreds of workers were sickened and six died, OSHA
	issued a $15,000.00 penalty, not even a slap on the wrist for a
	multi-billion dollar corporation.
	Fortunately, the Biden administration has committed to
	reinvigorating OSHA. The agency is expected to soon issue an
	emergency temporary standard that will require employers to
	assess the risks of exposure in their workplaces, and take
	steps appropriate to each workplace to limit it.
	President Biden has famously promised that his
	administration will ``follow the science''. To do so as Dr.
	Marr has just testified, the CDC must update its guidance,
	acknowledge the danger of inhaling infectious particles, and
	advise employers to take appropriate measures, and OSHA's
	forthcoming standard must reflect the newest science on COVID
	transmission and worker protection.
	There is still much to be done. After thousands of cases,
	and hundreds of deaths, workers in meat and poultry plants are
	still forced to work shoulder to shoulder instead of being
	provided improved ventilation, filtration, and adequate
	distancing. Many meat and poultry firms hang plastic sheathing
	between workers who are standing on cutting lines elbow to
	elbow even though that sheathing is ineffective in stopping
	exposure.
	And astonishingly, we have seen some Governors and all mask
	and density mandates, these ill-advised actions will likely
	conflict with OSHA's forthcoming regulation, and is expected to
	require employers whose workers come in close contact with
	other workers or customers or the public, to mandate facial
	covering for all people in the workplace.
	The nation also needs to do more to ensure that front line
	workers are prioritized for vaccinations. Unfortunately, many
	States have no plan to do so, or they're conducting
	insufficient outreach to help those workers get vaccinated.
	Needed is a national plan for increasing vaccinations among
	these workers, especially those who are more difficult to reach
	because of language or cultural barriers, or the nature of
	their jobs. And despite the huge impact on this Nation's
	workers, there are a few, if any, sources of complete accurate
	data on the impact of the virus on workers in any industry or
	occupation.
	There's no centralized effort to compile a census of
	workers who have been affected or died of the disease. Now this
	is truly a lost opportunity because there are enormous lessons
	to be learned about preventing transmission in future
	pandemics. The Federal Government needs to make concerted
	efforts to collect these data. While it may be too late to
	conduct a census of deaths, other types of studies could be
	launched that would help understand the actual toll of the
	pandemic on the Nation's workers and how to prevent future
	pandemics.
	Now while hospitals have hailed nurses and other medical
	staff as heroes, these workers remain vulnerable to workplace
	assaults. I strongly support the Workplace Violence Prevention
	for Healthcare and Social Services Workers Act, H.R. 1195 and
	grateful to Representative Joseph Courtney who reintroduced the
	bill last month with bipartisan support.
	In addition, the accurate reporting of workplace injuries
	and illnesses by employers is vital to help OSHA target the
	most hazardous workplaces. I strongly support H.R. 1180, the
	Accurate Workplace Injury and Illness Record Restoration Act,
	which Representative Mark Takano introduced to restore OHSA's
	ability to cite employers who systematically fail to record
	workplace injuries and illnesses.
	Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward
	to your questions.
	[The prepared Statement of Dr. Michaels follows:]

	Prepared Statement of David Michaels
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Scott. Thank you. Now we'll have Member questions and
	I'll begin with myself. I recognize myself for five minutes.
	Dr. Michaels we heard a comment about the problem of
	incorporating guidance in an ETS, and if the guidance changed,
	the ETS changes. How complicated and confusing, would that be
	if at all?
	Dr. Michaels. Thank you for that question Chairman Scott,
	and thank you for your work in this area. You know that's a
	caricature of an OSHA standard, and it's totally wrong. The key
	part of the emergency temporary standard as I understand it,
	what we might expect to see is essentially telling employers,
	look. Assess what's going on in your workplace. Do a hazard
	assessment, and then look at the guidance that comes out of
	CDC. Look at what we understand about how workplace
	transmission takes place, and take steps accordingly.
	Now I very much agree with Mr. Rath that we don't need to
	be doing you know major disinfection. And that really turned
	out not to be effective, and it's really I believe that if CDC
	changes their guidance on that, you know, employers will do
	much less of that.
	So right now the problem is CDC guidelines are out of date,
	and whatever the OSHA standard is, it's going to say use that
	CDC standard. And when CDC standard's change, workers get
	better protection because CDC has improved their thinking about
	how to protect workers.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you. And Dr. Michaels are you familiar
	with the Virginia ETS and now permanent standard?
	Dr. Michaels. I am. Virginia was the first State to issue
	an ETS, and the first State to issue a permanent standard to
	protect workers from airborne infectious diseases.
	Mr. Scott. And how effective is that standard, and how
	burdensome is it?
	Dr. Michaels. Well I believe it's very effective. Look, you
	know as you've heard from Mr. Rath, some employers do the right
	thing without being required to, but many employers don't. And
	that's why Virginia issued the standard. I think it's been very
	effective in making sure that those employers who wouldn't
	normally have made those steps to protect workers are now doing
	so.
	They know they have to provide social distancing. They have
	to provide masks in workplace. And they've also given
	information to the Virginia government that's really important.
	There's a requirement to notify the Virginia State Health
	Department when cases are found and when there's a cluster at a
	workplace, Virginia OSHA is told, so they can actually go out
	and do some inspections.
	Mr. Scott. Now did you follow the regulatory adoption of
	that standard.
	Dr. Michaels. Yes I did. The Virginia Board included
	representatives workers of workers, of employers in the public,
	voted on it and it was passed by a large majority.
	Mr. Scott. Did that include the employer representatives?
	Dr. Michaels. Yes it did.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you. You were at OSHA before. Can you tell
	us the importance of accurately recording data so that under
	Mr. Takano's bill, what difference does accurate recording of
	data--what difference does that make?
	Dr. Michaels. Oh. That is such an important question. You
	know OSHA requires most employers to keep track of injuries and
	illnesses, and that information is really important for that
	employer, for the workers in that workplace, because recording
	injuries and illnesses accurately and completely provides a
	roadmap to prevent future injuries from occurring.
	Unfortunately, we've gotten into a situation where there
	really is no enforceable requirement for employers to record
	data accurately, and the result of that is many of these OSHA
	logs are incomplete, and so it's hard to actually figure out
	the best way to prevent future injuries.
	Mr. Scott. And finally, Mr. Courtney's bill on violence
	prevention essentially requires employers to have a plan to
	deal with violence. Can you tell us what those plans look like
	and how effective they are?
	Dr. Michaels. Well again, every employer will make a
	different plan. You know this idea that there's a one-size-
	fits-all OSHA requirement, each employer if it's a psychiatric
	hospital, it would like one way. If it's an emergency room it
	would look another way, but it would say this is what we're
	going to do to make sure workers are protected, so they can do
	their jobs, they can take care of their patients.
	That plan might say for example, in certain situations you
	can't have a worker by themselves with a patient with a known
	psychiatric violent problem where every room has to have an
	emergency button that could be pushed to bring a security guard
	when necessary.
	So each one would be different, but each would be
	appropriate, and that would certainly make healthcare much more
	less stressful, less dangerous for the workers, and better for
	all of us who essentially see those healthcare professionals
	and need their help.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Mr.
	Keller you're recognized for five minutes.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you. Mr. Rath since the COVID-19 pandemic
	was declared and became a threat to the U.S. workplaces in
	early 2020, the scientific understanding of the virus has
	dramatically changed, and continues to do so. Can you explain
	how the public health guidance for preventing the spread of
	COVID-19 in the workplace from CDC and OSHA has evolved since
	the early days of the virus, and how employers have responded
	to adopt the necessary precautions over time.
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for your question Ranking Member
	Keller. This is a good question. What we've seen over the past
	year at the employer level is that they have spent an enormous
	amount of energy rightly so, trying to stay up to date with
	changes in our science, and our healthcare understanding of
	COVID-19, and its transmission at the workplace.
	Some of those developing standards or guidance's that have
	come from the CDC have been helpful and at some point they were
	rolling out changes multiple times a week and employers were
	doing their best to keep up with those changes, and contemplate
	and implement changes in the workplace accordingly, including
	the questions of what are the symptoms?
	That list was rapidly developing in the early months. We
	saw the list expand, we bifurcated into higher and lower levels
	of specificity and then be compressed into a singular list
	again, how long people should be quarantined, or isolated if
	they were positive or came in close contact with a positive
	case.
	And employers have done an excellent job that I've worked
	with in trying to implement well-intentioned policies to keep
	up with that science. That science has been changing, and it
	continues to change, and as I mentioned earlier just a month
	ago the CDC revised its view on mask wearing to State its
	recommendation that two masks be worn--a disposable mask
	underneath a cloth mask.
	These are data-driven changes from the Centers for Disease
	Control, and employers have continued to very rapidly, make
	changes in the workplace accordingly. Far more rapidly we've
	seen employers make changes, and then later on we've seen the
	Centers for Disease Control, or OSHA-issued guidance for
	example, two employers I've worked with have engaged their own
	epidemiologists, and have looked directly to scientific
	studies, bypassing, much more rapidly bypassing, the
	implementation of a change of policy at the Centers for Disease
	Control and Prevention, and far more rapidly still than
	guidance could be issued by OSHA.
	Once OSHA issues an emergency temporary standard it has one
	chance to do so, and then that is immutable and intransigent
	against successive evolutions in science. And so that has been
	a success story with the employers with whom I've worked.
	Mr. Keller. So, some of the employers have taken it upon
	themselves to make sure when they've investigated and found a
	better way to do things, they've been ahead of OSHA and CDC in
	some cases?
	Mr. Rath. In several instances that's correct. They've
	looked directly to the scientific journals and scientific
	studies as soon as they've been published, evaluated those
	studies and made changes quickly, and then you've seen those
	changes manifest themselves in CDC guidance, and then far later
	still sometimes through OSHA guidance.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you. And another question Mr. Rath,
	Ranking Member Foxx and I sent a letter to acting Secretary of
	Labor Al Stewart asking the department to consider the impact
	that a one-size-fits-all OSHA regulation could have on small
	businesses. Can you explain the customary process in which OSHA
	fulfills its small business feedback related to regulatory
	initiatives?
	Mr. Rath. That's an excellent question Ranking Member
	Keller, thank you for asking it. Under traditional rulemaking
	there is a step in the rulemaking process where the agency has
	to solicit the input of small businesses, small business
	representative entities, and it has to also separately,
	evaluate the impact of a regulation on small businesses.
	That in addition to scientific data. Scientific data cannot
	write a regulation. It has to be alloyed with this small
	business impact consideration as well as technical and economic
	feasibility considerations. All rules have to go through these
	processes. And if you go through an emergency temporary
	standard, that would exclude the small business stakeholders
	from being able to contribute comments as to how it would
	impact small businesses.
	Mr. Keller. So an emergency temporary standard would bypass
	America's small businesses which are the backbone of our
	economy?
	Mr. Rath. That's correct. It would go straight to
	developing a rule without small business input.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you. And how important do you think it is
	to solicit the feedback from small businesses before an
	emergency temporary standard related to COVID-19 is
	contemplated?
	Mr. Rath. Small businesses are a special case because they
	comprise the largest fraction of the work force, and safety and
	health in small businesses is therefore just as important or
	more so, than the large employers that comprise a much lesser
	fraction of the total work force.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you. And I just want to make the point. I
	worked in a factory and my experience was that employers do
	value and appreciate the people that come to work every day.
	And for us not to consider all of America's small business,
	they're innovators, our neighbors, the people that make our
	communities so great. I think it would be a huge mistake by our
	government to discount and not hear their voices, so thank you
	and I yield back.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentlemen's time has expired. Mr.
	Takano are you there?
	[No response.]
	Mr. Scott. Mr. Norcross?
	[No response.]
	Mr. Scott. Ms. Jayapal?
	Ms. Jayapal. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Scott. Ms. Jayapal you're recognized for five minutes.
	Ms. Jayapal. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Estimates from the CDC
	put the total number of COVID cases at over 28 million, and
	over half a million people have died. I think we have a real
	duty in Congress to learn what we can from the stories of
	people, particularly the workers that have suffered the worst
	of the pandemic, and to confront the stories they tell us about
	inequalities that are tearing our society apart.
	I think we have to learn what we can to turn the tide
	against this virus, and to ensure that our country leaves
	future generations better prepared. Dr. Michaels, is it true
	that the Federal Government has no comprehensive system to
	track worker deaths or infections from COVID-19?
	Dr. Michaels. Representative Jayapal. Unfortunately, that
	is correct. Essentially the Federal Government leaves it up to
	the States to even classify cases and deaths being work-
	related, not even work-related, but to collect information
	about industry and occupation.
	And the States have inadequate resources, and have not been
	able to do that. There really has been no effort made to have
	an overall number. I'll give you an example. We know that you
	know hundreds of thousands, 400,000 healthcare workers have
	reported to become infected. But we have actually the status of
	their healthcare workers are less than 20 percent of all cases.
	So the number could be far, far higher.
	And while the number is important, more important is
	understanding why people were exposed. What happens to them
	after they're exposed? What happens to their communities? And
	while there have been some studies being done, there really
	aren't that many, and the feds have not stepped up to the plate
	to do this.
	Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I think it is incredibly important
	for all those reasons for us to have that national strategy,
	and to do the research that you're talking about. It seems like
	we could start by paying attention to the COVID-19 related
	whistleblower complaints from workers who face retaliation when
	exercising their workplace health and safety rights.
	In your opinion has OSHA's response to whistleblower
	complaints been adequate, and if not, what do you recommend
	that the subcommittee or Congress do about it?
	Dr. Michaels. You know this is a complicated question in
	that I mean there's no question that OSHA's response has not
	been adequate. OSHA received thousands of complaints of
	whistleblowers during the last year of workers who have
	complained that they've been retaliated against for raising
	concerns.
	OSHA has attempted to close some of those cases, and
	they've been overwhelmed. In addition to I think the lack of
	commitment of the previous administration, the whistleblower
	protection provisions of the OSHA law are miserably weak, and
	there were many hearings on this. I certainly testified in
	front of Congress several times.
	A whistleblower who is retaliated against for calling OSHA
	for example, has only 30 days to apply for--to complain to
	OSHA, and OSHA has limited availability to get them back to
	work. They have to go to court if the employer doesn't agree.
	So I think the thing that we should be thinking about is
	how to improve the protections of workers so they can raise
	concerns about their health and safety, or their coworkers, and
	really get the protection that they need to have.
	Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. Let me stay on this topic of
	whistleblowers for a second. Miss Muhindura thank you so much
	for your service on the front lines, taking care of people
	every day, and in such difficult circumstances. We are truly
	grateful to you and nurses across the country.
	In your experience, what does it mean for black, brown, and
	immigrant workers when whistleblower complaints don't receive
	an adequate response?
	Ms. Muhindura. Congresswoman Jayapal thank you so much for
	the question. There's a large percentage of brown and black
	immigrant workers who are on the frontline. And so when
	employers do not give us the protection that we need it is
	upsetting, it makes us feel that we're disposable.
	In addition to having the CDC and OSHA abandon us, it was
	extremely disappointing, and it adds to the anxiety and the
	traumatic experience that we are already experiencing because
	of COVID.
	Ms. Jayapal. And do you have statistics on the disparities
	that you want to put before us and enter into the record beyond
	what you said in your testimony?
	Ms. Muhindura. I do not.
	Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I've looked at some of the data on
	this, and it seems to me that this is you know these
	disparities are shameful. We have a real obligation to address
	them, and I think the lack of reliable data on workplace
	infections, because we don't have this national strategy and
	these things in place, the research that Dr. Michaels was
	talking about, it puts all workers at risk, and particularly
	those who are black, brown, immigrant, who lack the other
	workplace protections that are really essential.
	So I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to
	ensure that the CDC and OSHA adopt the latest scientific means
	to stop the spread of COVID-19 at work, and I thank you Mr.
	Chairman and yield back.
	Mr. Scott. Thank you. I see that the Chair has returned.
	Madam Chair the Ranking Member is the next to be recognized,
	Dr. Foxx, so if you could recognize her then you'll be given a
	list from there on.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much Mr. Scott. I want to
	recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
	Ms. Foxx. Thank you Madam Chairman and thank you Mr. Scott.
	Mr. Rath if the Federal Government adds additional mandates on
	employers related to COVID-19 without considering the real-
	world feasibility of such a decree, what impact would this have
	on keeping workplaces safe during the pandemic?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you Ms. Foxx for this question. It's a good
	question. Two things emerge to mind immediately. The first is
	that if an emergency temporary standard was the vehicle by
	which OSHA decided to regulate the subject, the science which
	has continued to evolve will evolve over the top of that
	emergency standard, and it will quickly become outdated, and
	the agency will have little means by which to update it.
	Whereas, by contrast guidance documents can be updated
	quickly and iteratively any number of times to meet changes in
	our scientific understanding. The second thing I'd say is that
	the stakeholders have expertise.
	They have developed an acquired experience and learning
	about what works and what doesn't, and their input would yield
	a substantially better set of policies by the agency and at the
	workplace than an emergency temporary standard which excludes
	and disenfranchises the expertise of employers, scientists, the
	healthcare community and employee representative groups.
	Ms. Foxx. Thank you Mr. Rath. Another question. Ranking
	Member Keller and I sent a letter to acting Secretary of Labor
	Al Stewart on February 25th inquiring about the steps the
	agency's has taken to determine whether an OSHA emergency
	temporary standard is necessary to protect workers from COVID-
	19, and encouraging the agency to solicit feedback from
	businesses and workers before they made that determination.
	I'm a strong proponent of evidence-based policymaking. In
	your view would feedback from employers and workers who have
	been on the front lines of keeping workplaces safe over the
	last year, be helpful to the Labor Department in making this
	determination?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question Representative Foxx.
	That is an excellent question, and the answer is yes, clearly
	employees and employers have acquired a substantial amount of
	valuable experience and knowledge, not only as to what works in
	terms of interventions, but what hasn't worked, and what hasn't
	been effective.
	And as well, the scientific community and the healthcare
	community should be provided the opportunity to comment and
	that is the value of traditional rulemaking. It is a part of
	administrative law that we've recognized for between 80 and 90
	years, and shouldn't be lightly dispensed with during the
	pandemic.
	Ms. Foxx. A followup. What impact would new and complex
	regulatory requirements from OSHA which would override the
	guidance issued by the CDC and State public health agencies
	have on the universal adoption of basic health measures in
	preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. I'll limit myself to
	my experience, which is strictly as an attorney representing
	employers in the field of occupational safety and health law.
	And I would suggest that employers who have carefully examined
	the experience that they're witnessing at the workplace, have
	been better able to identify the kinds of interventions that
	work and don't work.
	And that their consultation with epidemiologists and
	healthcare, members of healthcare industry, has fashioned
	better policies and practices of workplace at the workplaces
	that I've been able to collaborate with employers.
	Ms. Foxx. Well it's my experience that employers want very
	much to protect their employees. They care for their employees.
	In many cases they're like families to them. And unfortunately,
	our friends on the other side of the aisle don't see things
	that way.
	One more followup. Over the last year employers have made
	significant efforts and investments to adopt health and safety
	precautions to protect their workers and prevent the spread of
	COVID in the workplace.
	You eluded to this, but what have been some of the most
	innovative measures adopted by employers, and how effective
	have they been in ensuring safe workplaces?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question Representative Foxx.
	We've worked with employers who as I said before have engaged
	their own epidemiologists on engagement so that they can stay
	up to date with current science.
	We've worked with employers who have rolled in temporary
	adjunct space so that they could have additional space for
	breaks. One employer has manufactured separate cooling stations
	so that manufacturing workers on the plant floor could take
	mask less breaks.
	I'll add to what we've discussed before. When we talked to
	an employer who has developed their own testing capacity, so
	that they can engage in more rapid testing on a regular basis
	of their work staff to keep the work force going, healthy,
	safe, and the business running.
	Ms. Foxx. Thank you Mr. Rath and again, I know employers
	want to keep their employees safe and healthy. And that's the
	attitude we should have. How can we help them do better with
	what they know to do, but they're smart people and they'll do
	it. Thank you Madam Chairman I yield back.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize myself
	now for five minutes. Mr. Rath let me just cut right to the
	heart of the issue. Do you think that COVID-19 presents a grave
	danger to workers? Can you give me a yes or no?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question Miss Chair. Yes.
	There's no question that COVID-19 presents a health and safety
	risk to the work force. It is also a community risk.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you.
	Mr. Rath. And employers have a substantial role in it, but
	not of course the only role in a community spread environment.
	Ms. Adams. All right let me move on. I've got five
	questions. Thank you. Dr. Michaels, do you think COVID-19
	presents a grave danger to workers? A yes or no?
	Dr. Michaels. Yes.
	Ms. Adams. OK. Miss Muhindura what about you? Do you think
	COVID-19 presents a grave danger to workers? Yes or no?
	Ms. Muhindura. Totally yes.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you. Dr. Marr can you describe some of the
	overwhelming evidence that inhalation of virus containing
	aerosols is the main route of transmission for COVID-19?
	Dr. Marr. Dr. Adams thank you for the question. Yes. The
	first piece of evidence is super spreading events. We've heard
	of these. The choir practice where 53 out of 61 attendees
	became sick and two of them died. Gym classes where 55 out of
	81 people became sick, even though they were six feet apart.
	Inhalation of aerosols in shared air is the best explanation
	for these types of events which can also happen in workplaces,
	as clearly not everyone has spent 15 minutes close to the
	infected person.
	There's also we know transmission by people who are
	infected, but who do not yet have symptoms, asymptomatic or
	pre-symptomatic. They're not coughing. They can transmit anyway
	because the virus is released in aerosols that come out when we
	just breathe and talk.
	We see substantial indoor transmission, almost no outdoor
	transmission. That means that's because these aerosols are
	rapidly diluted in outdoor area. In a study that traced over
	7,000 cases of disease there was only one instance of
	transmission that occurred outdoors, and then there have been
	many scientific studies where we look at, collect virus
	samples, or air samples in hospitals. We know the various
	survives for many hours in the air. I could go on, but I don't
	want to take up all of your time.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you. Miss Muhindura
	you testified that you and every nurse on your unit became
	infected with COVID-19. Can you describe your experience?
	Ms. Muhindura. Yes. When I tested positive for COVID, it
	was a terrifying experience. I was very anxious. I was lucky to
	have relatively mild symptoms, but my anxiety came from the
	fact that I had been caring for extremely sick patients that
	had been infected with COVID.
	So that was always in the back of my mind what would happen
	if I got that sick. I was also angry because I knew I got sick
	because I wasn't protected at work. And to make matters worse
	it was the week of Thanksgiving and I missed my daughter's
	birthday because of that because I was under quarantine, so
	yes.
	Ms. Adams. So OSHA refused to cite your hospital despite
	obviously preventable hazards that led to the death of a nurse,
	and their excuse was that there was no OSHA standard. Instead
	they sent your hospital voluntary recommendations in a hazard
	alert letter that told your employer that you may voluntarily
	provide this area office with progress reports on your efforts
	to address COVID-19 hazards in your workplace.
	So what effect did this hazard alert letter have on
	improving conditions in your workplace?
	Ms. Muhindura. Thank you so much for the question. I
	believe the hazard letter was sent sometime in February of this
	year, and fortunately, I'm part of the National Nurses United,
	and I feel like most of the measures that have been
	implemented, were implemented because of the advocacy that we
	had been doing since last March.
	And I don't particularly see a lot of changes that have
	come out of the hazard letter.
	Ms. Adams. So if your management, your hospital would have
	taken safety more seriously if there had been an enforceable
	OSHA standard, do you think that they would have taken it more
	seriously, you think?
	Ms. Muhindura. Yes. I definitely think after reading the
	OSHA response it was clear that OSHA could not site my employer
	because OSHA doesn't have a standard. So as long as OSHA
	doesn't have a standard, our employers were not being held
	accountable for putting the employees at risk. So I definitely
	think an OSHA standard would enforce that.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
	testimony. I'm going to recognize Miss Stefanik from New York.
	You're recognized ma'am. Oh she's not here. Mrs. Miller-Meeks
	of Iowa you're recognized.
	Ms. Miller-Meeks. I'm trying to unmute. There we go.
	Ms. Adams. OK.
	Ms. Miller-Meeks. I was trying to unmute myself. Thank you
	so much Chair Adams and Ranking Member Foxx. So you know I'm a
	physician, former nurse, so Miss Muhindura, thank you very much
	for your activities as a nurse. Also former Director of the
	Iowa Department of Public Health.
	So it is new information to me that there is vast
	aerosolization of COVID-19, and I think that's why it's not on
	the CDC site, so with all due respect to the science, and in
	addition to which I don't think on the CDC site there's also
	recommendations for improving your immune system such as
	Vitamin C, Vitamin D and Zinc, which I have actually started
	taking myself at the beginning of the pandemic.
	We certainly know, and I think was asked about COVID-19 and
	representing a risk to workers, and workers are not in
	isolation. Workers live within a community, so the only place
	where COVID-19 is contracted is certainly not at the workplace
	which leads to my question.
	Dr. Michaels, a yes or no question. Have you visited a meat
	processing facility during the pandemic?
	Dr. Michaels. Not during the pandemic. Previously I have. I
	haven't left my house much during the pandemic.
	Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you for that. I have not been able
	to visit the meat processing facilities in Iowa in my
	congressional district or in my Senate district, but working
	with our public health departments, our county public health
	departments, and our meat processing facilities very early in
	the pandemic, we went through changing shift work, adding
	additional shifts, separating workers, putting up barriers,
	temperature checking on infants, separate dining facilities,
	altering the rotation for when people could dine, separating
	utensils not to have any reusable utensils, or grabbing
	utensils out of a common container.
	And also even limiting, not putting salt and pepper shakers
	there so people could not contract COVID-19 through that. So it
	seems to me that because this is a public health issue in our
	communities, not just a workplace safety issue, it's hard to
	determine.
	And I have worked in fact with my local health departments
	on testing and contact tracing, that it's difficult to
	determine where an individual contracted COVID-19. So Mr. Rath
	what is OSHA's current policy on recording of COVID-19 cases on
	employer, and on employer injury and illness logs, and what are
	the challenges in trying to determine where an individual
	contracted COVID-19?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. Employers are
	required by OSHA to record work related injuries and illnesses,
	and this includes illnesses through COVID-19. So there is a
	requirement to record COVID-19 cases in the injury and illness
	record keeping form.
	There is a problem for employers. As you note this is a
	community spread phenomenon and so employers are challenged.
	And they struggle, even with the best of intentions it's
	difficult to know which cases are contracted in the workplace
	and which ones come from community spread.
	This is a disease that is inherently idiopathic in its
	etiology. And the presumption of work relatedness is certainly
	a starting point, but knowing that employees in 75 percent of
	their work week are outside of the workplace makes it difficult
	to know which cases are work related, and which cases are non-
	work related.
	Therefore the data, given all the confounding factors, is
	of necessarily limited value, but it is important to make those
	record entries nevertheless, to see if the data will yield
	something of any benefit.
	Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. And again Mr. Rath, now that
	vaccines are available, and when we're looking at where an
	individual contracted COVID-19 and perhaps they're looking to
	their workplace for workman's compensation. If an individual
	refuses a vaccine should that play into if COVID-19 was
	contracted, and you can't prove where it was contracted from,
	how do you think that that interplay will occur if an employee
	does refuse or decline vaccination, especially if offered at
	the workplace.
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question. The question you're
	asking essentially goes to the intersection between
	occupational and safety health law, as well as several other
	areas of workplace law. For example, an employee may have
	declined a vaccination out of a generally held, or sincerely
	held religious belief, and there may be a medical opinion for
	that particular employee that's an underlying condition which
	would qualify for coverage under the Americans With
	Disabilities Act, may motivate the employee not to take a
	vaccination.
	And so employers have to find opportunities to understand
	whether or not they need to accommodate those particular
	circumstances before rendering a workplace decision on merely
	the mere fact of a declination for a vaccination.
	Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you Chair Adams. I yield back my
	time.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
	California, Mr. Takano you are recognized.
	Mr. Takano. I'm trying to unmute myself Madam Chair. Thank
	you. Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to hone in on Mr.
	Michaels, Dr. Michaels question that Chairman Scott began to
	ask you. Can you tell me what the Volks rule is, what the Volks
	rule was?
	Dr. Michaels. Yes. The Volks rule was a regulation that we
	put out when I was running OSHA that essentially said that
	employers have to maintain a complete and accurate log for five
	years, actually five and a half years after the injury
	occurred. It was in response to a court decision that said that
	the previous rule that OSHA had was not well-written.
	They need to be essentially fixed. OSHA long has had the
	policy that employers must keep track of injuries for five
	years. That means its on their premises, so they can use it,
	workers can see it, and OSHA inspectors can see it. The Volks
	rule was overturned by Congress in a congressional review act,
	and so essentially OSHA has no ability to issue a fine against
	the employer if they find an injury was not on the log if 6
	months after the injury occurred.
	Mr. Takano. Thank you Mr. Volk--thank you Dr. Michaels.
	This rule also would have required them to record illnesses as
	well, is that right?
	Dr. Michaels. Absolutely.
	Mr. Takano. OK. And I want to be clear this was overturned
	by a congressional review act in 2017 by the republican
	controlled Congress and signed by President Trump.
	Dr. Michaels. Yes that's correct.
	Mr. Takano. So tell me why this rule was so important.
	Dr. Michaels. Well you know we've seen that employers
	realize if they're never going to get caught by OSHA, there's
	no reason to record the injuries and illnesses. Now some
	employers always want to do the right thing and have very
	accurate records because they know that helps them prevent the
	injuries and illnesses in the future.
	But not all employers are like that, and many take the low
	road and try to avoid that. In addition we have a regulation
	that says that employers have to provide OSHA with summary
	data, and that is going to be made public. And so they don't
	want people to know if things are really bad at their work
	place, they don't want people to know that.
	And so this is the opportunity to essentially to lie about
	that. So it's really a problem.
	Mr. Takano. Mr. Rath do you agree that it's important for
	employers to keep records? I think you in your response to Dr.
	Miller-Meeks you said you know it's not necessarily
	determinative that an illness occurred at the workplace, but
	it's important to have that data. You would agree with that?
	Mr. Rath. Yes and that's a good question. Thank you. There
	are four constituents that would want that data, employers who
	want to define a story, a pattern from the data, employees who
	have a right to know. Government should want to see the data,
	should have access to the data if it wants to see it, and
	researchers should also have access to that data.
	This is important, but the question at stake is whether or
	not an omission or an error from more than 180 days ago
	constitutes a continuing violation. It does not. It is well
	accepted, and that's what Congress said 40 years ago when they
	had enacted the OSH Act that it was a discreet moment of
	violation and not a continual violation.
	Mr. Takano. Well it's still important necessarily, you
	would concede that it's important to keep these records.
	Employees have a right to know whether illnesses are occurring
	at workplace. Health officials need to know whether it's a
	pattern for a number of reasons. Dr. Michaels as you know I
	have legislation which I've introduced, H.R. 1180, the Accurate
	Workplace Injury and Illness Record Restoration Act, which
	would restore OSHA's ability to cite employers who
	systematically fail to record workplace injuries and illnesses.
	Do you think this is an important tool for OSHA to have in
	order to be able to provide safety for workers in the
	workplace?
	Dr. Michaels. There is no question. It is a vital tool, and
	that's why I'm a strong supporter of H.R. 1180. You know OSHA
	citations for recordkeeping violations have dropped by more
	than 50 percent in recent years.
	And that means data isn't accurate. No one really knows
	what's going on in workplaces, and we can't prevent injuries
	and illnesses if we don't know what's going on.
	Mr. Takano. Well thank you. Very quickly Dr. Marr. Why is
	it that you think, do you have an opinion about why the CDC
	hasn't taken a firm stand on aerosol or particle transmission
	of COVID-19 standards?
	Dr. Marr. Thank you that's a great question. On March 5,
	2020 over a year ago I tweeted out let's talk about airborne
	transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses and explained how
	it works. There is a reluctance though among the medical
	community to acknowledge this because I think you can't see
	aerosols, so they're harder to understand.
	There's been a long-standing bias against transmission of
	viruses through the air. There's also a concern in hospitals
	because the word airborne has a special meaning. And then last
	early in the pandemic there were concerns about limited
	supplies of N95's and so that drove some of the messaging.
	Mr. Takano. I wish I could ask some more questions, but I
	yield back Madam Chair. Thank you.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you Mr. Takano. I want to recognize the
	gentleman from Utah, from Virginia I'm sorry, Mr. Good from
	Virginia. You're recognized sir.
	Mr. Good. Thank you Madam Chair. It's great to be with all
	of you this morning and I appreciate this opportunity to talk
	with our witnesses. And my questions are going to be directed
	to Mr. Rath. Mr. Rath with the House Oversight Committee
	reporting that over 13,000 regulatory guidance documents have
	been issued just since 2008, I would hope that we could all
	agree that a high threshold should be reached before we subject
	businesses to more regulations that are difficult and costly to
	comply with, and that are disruptive to their essential
	operations.
	Furthermore, since the communication regarding the
	effectiveness of mask mandates has been inconsistent at best,
	it even seems to contradict decades of pre-COVID lockdown
	studies, we should be cautious to say the least about
	continuing, let alone increasing related regulations,
	restrictions and mandates on citizens and businesses.
	We know that masks can help with large droplets, but
	there's conflicting reports regarding whether they truly help
	with small aerosol droplets such as those which transmit the
	viruses. And it seems that we're unable to prevent those small
	aerosol droplets from circulating in a normal course of life
	which is needed for all of us to survive and prosper.
	Most of us were already practicing social distancing in the
	workplace, and frequently washing our hands pre-COVID, and now
	we're even more aware of course of that importance with the
	COVID virus, and those with other health factors, or working in
	higher risk professions need to take greater precautions.
	Furthermore, we have seen reports that some 70 percent of
	COVID infections actually take place among family members, or
	those living together at home, while only 1 percent of
	infections have come from people visiting a public place such
	as a bar or restaurant.
	Now that said Mr. Rath, are you aware of any documented
	cases of anyone contracting or transmitting the virus while
	visiting a business without a mask?
	Mr. Rath. Well that's a good question Congressman, I have
	not had access in my capacity as an occupational safety and
	health law attorney to understand that level of data. And I
	think that that data may be properly the sphere of public
	health agencies, or of the employer themselves.
	But I will say that when employers that I've worked with
	look at the questions of which interventions to interpose, they
	look for opportunities to achieve the greatest gains in safety
	and health the most quickly in order to preserve the greatest
	number of employees health and lives, and that has been
	something that every employer I've worked with has been
	sincerely committed to, and that's the question that they
	debate every day when it comes to universal adoption of masks,
	universal adoption of hand-washing and distancing, where
	distancing is not possible the installation of barriers, et
	cetera.
	Mr. Good. Well thank you, and again your answer was that
	you were not aware of any case--any documented case, of someone
	contracting or transmitting the virus while visiting a business
	without a mask. How about are you aware of any documented case
	of anyone contracting or transmitting the virus to or from a
	coworker because of the failure of one or both to wear a mask?
	Mr. Rath. Well Representative, that's a very good question
	and again as an occupational safety and health attorney I don't
	have the access to that kind of data. What we do work with
	employers on is how to make sure that that kind of transmission
	happens as infrequently as possible or not at all.
	Mr. Good. Are you aware of any documented case of a
	customer contracting or transmitting the virus to or from an
	employee because of a failure of one or both to wear a mask?
	Mr. Rath. That's a good question. That question the
	understanding of how a customer and worker might transmit the
	disease is inherently unknowable because of the high degree
	of--high number of confounding factors such as the conduct
	behavior and exposures of both parties outside of their brief
	interchange.
	Mr. Good. How about if we take that a little bit broader
	rather than going individually. Can you point to any conclusive
	data, or scientific evidence showing higher COVID virus
	contraction or transmission rates based on whether customers or
	employees were required to wear masks in general. Can we point
	to any data, any evidence of that?
	Mr. Rath. I would not have in my role any access to that
	kind of data. But we do know that the employers we've worked
	with without any exception, have embraced and stringently
	adopted a universal mask requirement in order to preserve the
	health of their work force.
	Mr. Good. Well we understand that people might embrace
	that, or people might choose to apply that, but take it even
	broader. Can you point to any conclusive comparison data
	regarding the virus transmission rates for companies or
	organizations, counties within a State, States themselves, or
	even countries.
	So conclusive comparison data regarding the virus
	transmission rates for again, for a company or organization,
	for a county within a State, for a State itself, or a country,
	based on the degree of mask restrictions, mandates or
	compliance?
	Mr. Rath. I personally am not aware of any such data.
	Mr. Good. So each of these questions that I've asked you
	have been answered in the negative that we don't have any data
	that we can point to, any documentation that we can point to,
	to justify mandates, regulations, restrictions being forced
	upon companies and organizations. And so I thank you for your
	answer, and I yield the balance of my time.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize Mr.
	Jones from New York.
	Mr. Jones. Well thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to the
	witnesses for their testimony today. I am struck by some of the
	issues you have highlighted. As you know New York was the
	epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic last spring in my district,
	which covers parts of Westchester and all of Rockland County
	was hit especially hard during that extremely difficult time.
	Even today Rockland County has the highest rate of COVID-19
	infection of any county in the entire State of New York. Mr.
	Rath, I'm going to start with you. You testified about the
	great things some employers are doing to protect their workers,
	but we've heard testimony today that many other employers have
	been ignoring measures to protect their workers.
	Isn't it obvious that national standards would ensure more
	employers protect their workers?
	Mr. Rath. That's a very good question Representative Jones.
	Thank you for the question. The problem with a universal
	national standard is that as we've already seen in the past
	year, science quickly evolves, and rules over standard making
	the intransigent standard unable to adopt or adapt to our
	newfound science, or healthcare understanding of the disease.
	And for that reason guidance is a more effective policy
	instrument.
	Mr. Jones. Mr. Rath, but couldn't there be a rule or a
	standard that allows for new scientific information to be
	uncovered and to adapt accordingly?
	Mr. Rath. That's a great question. Unfortunately, we see
	OSHA has issued public Statements numerous times complaining
	that the standards that it passed in the 1970's and the 1980's
	have become outdated, and that the rulemaking process to revise
	that is not only time-consuming and resource-consuming, but it
	won't be implemented quickly enough to make the difference that
	employers can make, and that agencies like CDC and OSHA can
	make through guidance.
	Mr. Jones. I'm reclaiming my time. Thank you so much. You
	said in your testimony that an emergency temporary standard is
	not a suitable vehicle for government intervention in the
	pandemic, and that employers will prevail against the spread of
	Coronavirus. But respectively sir, I think we see how the
	thoughts and prayers approach plays out in for example the gun
	violence context, where the government literally does nothing
	to address that epidemic, thankfully, by the way today House
	democrats are doing something about gun violence.
	But also your approach to addressing COVID-19 in the
	workplace is in line with the previous administration's
	position. The Trump administration downplayed the danger COVID-
	19 posed to workers and the general public. The administration
	even failed to protect its own staff.
	We know that from September to January as many as 48 White
	House staff and associates tested positive for Coronavirus,
	including top officials in the President's inner circle, all of
	this while the President told Americans to drink breach.
	And so today marks one year since the World Health
	Organization declared a global pandemic. Nearly 550,000 people
	have died in this country since then, many of them essential
	workers on the frontlines and their family members.
	Unfortunately, we don't know how many of those who died
	contracted COVID-19 in the workplace. I'll grant you that. But
	as we've heard in this hearing there have been outbreaks in
	workplaces across many industries, and workplaces like at JBS
	and Smithfield Foods meat packing facilities.
	And we've seen companies take retaliatory actions against
	workers who raise safety concerns around COVID-19. In my home
	State of New York, we saw an incident in which an employee at
	an Amazon fulfillment center was fired for demanding better
	protections.
	That's the previous administration's record on workplace
	safety in the pandemic. And most Americans understand we need
	that to change. We need OSHA to issue an enforceable standard
	to ensue people can be safe at work because the problem sir,
	with voluntary guidelines is that there are too few volunteers.
	And so with my time remaining I'll ask Miss Muhindura you know
	my district has around 20,000 nurses, many of whom have had to
	deal with the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic as you have
	described it.
	Can you briefly tell me about the nurses you work with. Who
	are these people?
	Ms. Muhindura. Yes Congressman Jones. Thank you so much for
	the question. I work in level one trauma which is obviously the
	highest traumas around the Kansas City area. And I have the
	privilege of working with some of the most amazing nurses that
	I have ever met.
	Some of the strongest people I have ever met, physically
	and emotionally, but we have all been affected by this, by
	taking care of these patients because it's taken a tremendous
	toll on us.
	Mr. Jones. Thank you. You all deserve recognition for your
	incredible work on the frontlines, and Madam Chair I yield
	back.
	Ms. Adams.
	[Silence.]
	Mr. Cawthorn. Madam Chair I believe I'm next up in the
	line. Do you mind if I go ahead and start? Dr. Adams I believe
	you're muted.
	Ms. Adams. Am I unmuted now?
	Mr. Cawthorn. Yes ma'am.
	Ms. Adams. OK. I apologize. I'm having some technical
	difficulties. Mr. Cawthorn go ahead, you're recognized sir.
	Mr. Cawthorn. Thank you very much ma'am. So to all the
	witnesses I genuinely appreciate all of you coming on. Mr. Rath
	I really thank you for everything that you've done, and also
	I've been--my life has been saved more times by nurses than it
	has by doctors, so I genuinely appreciate all the nurses that
	are on and representing.
	Mr. Rath I've got a question for you. In your testimony you
	State that if OSHA had adopted strict standards on any of these
	issues in an emergency temporary standard a year ago, that
	these requirements would have quickly become antiquated by
	science, dismissed by the public, and that it would discredit
	the agency as you said.
	So that's the end of the quote, but you know we've hard a
	lot about science regarding preventing COVID-19 transmission.
	Chairwoman Adams in an eloquent opening Statement she said we
	can't properly respond to this pandemic unless we truly
	understand all of the data.
	And so I'm wondering in your view what is the appropriate
	role of science in informing regulatory policy? More
	specifically, how do statutes such as the Administrative
	Procedural Act, you know, which governs the procedure--the
	process by which Federal agencies develop and issue regulations
	allow for related input when regulations are proposed. As we
	know science changes very often.
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question Representative
	Cawthorn. The process of developing a rule at OSHA should start
	with sound data and the best available evidence. But that is
	merely the starting point.
	All OSHA regulations have to start with the best available
	evidence and be alloyed with traditional rulemaking principles
	such as technical feasibility, economic feasibility, the impact
	on small businesses, consideration of flexible options in
	rulemaking, and then finally the experience and acquired wisdom
	of the stakeholder community, employee representatives,
	employers.
	The scientific community and the healthcare community all
	can play a part in hammering out a better and more workable,
	and more effective standard at the end of the process that
	starts with science.
	Mr. Cawthorn. Mr. Rath thank you for that answer. But just
	to get a little more detail, is there a way that OSHA can be
	utilizing the information that's on the ground? You know I
	always, the reason why I love State government so much more
	than the Federal Government is you know it's closer to where
	the actual information is.
	And I believe the information, the decisions are coming
	from where the information lies. I think that it works better
	for every single industry that OSHA touches. Is that something
	that's possible to have OSHA receiving that input, you know,
	and the new scientific guidelines, and then to be flexible with
	it?
	Mr. Rath. Yes. There's no question that OSHA has used
	guidance's over the past year and issued a number of helpful
	Statements for the employer community that have adopted the
	evolving science. They refer specifically to the Centers for
	Disease Control and Prevention Guidance, which has been even
	more frequently updated.
	And by that method employers have looked to the CDC's
	guidance to figure out what the best practices in their unique
	workplaces should be.
	Mr. Cawthorn. Fantastic. Well Mr. Rath thank you very much
	and all the witnesses. I do appreciate it. With that Madam
	Chair I yield back.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize Miss
	Stevens from Michigan. You're recognized five minutes ma'am.
	Ms. Stevens. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to our
	witnesses for this critical hearing and part of why I'm so
	delighted to be on this subcommittee under the great leadership
	of Chair Adams.
	You might have seen last year, actually almost a year ago,
	it might have been 53 weeks ago, 53 or 54 weeks ago, I did a
	letter to the agencies asking for an interagency task force to
	report the real time, scientific guidelines as we were getting
	them right, with a novel virus to be communicated through the
	you know, the Secretary of HHS, the communications to our
	employers and employees right.
	A year ago this week. I'm with my chief of staff. This is
	the last time we were all fully in the office, and I said I
	have got to call the grocery stores, because all of a sudden
	they're an essential workplace, you know, they're like our
	general stores. Do they have what they need?
	So just commending the work around the enforceable
	standards, an interagency approach. Part of what today's
	hearing is doing is not only coming up with strategies to
	protect essential workers from COVID-19, but it's also helping
	us think through what we do the next time a novel Coronavirus
	hits.
	So Dr. Marr, you know, we've seen oh brother, you know some
	States recently lift their mask requirements all right. And
	last week, you know, the Retail Industry Leaders Association,
	you know they released a press Statement opposing the lifting
	of mask mandates stating that relaxing common sense, non-
	intrusive, safety protocols like wearing masks is a mistake.
	We see some friction with the private sector in some of
	these States that are lifting the mask mandates a little bit
	prematurely. But Dr. Marr just for the record, can you share
	who is going to be most impacted by the removal of these
	requirements at this stage that we're at in the pandemic if you
	don't mind please?
	Dr. Marr. Absolutely. There is no question that mask
	mandates work or universal masking works. This has been shown
	in many scientific studies. It's hard to point to individual
	cases, but we can analyze population level data and showing
	that there is a decrease in the rate of number of cases with
	mask, greater masking.
	The real victims of lifting of these mandates are the
	people who are going to contract COVID-19, some of whom will
	die, and because of the lifting of this, we're going to have
	more cases and more deaths than we would otherwise, besides
	bringing tragedy to the families of those who died, this also
	places an additional burden on our already exhausted healthcare
	workers.
	Ms. Stevens. Yes. And so would you say this has an effect
	on the safety of workers who are in frequent contact with the
	public for 8 or more hours a day? I just recently had a grocery
	store worker share with me you know they're in contact with
	somewhere between 500 and 1,000 customers on a daily basis.
	Do you have anymore information on the safety of workers
	who are in contact with the public for eight or more hours a
	day?
	Dr. Marr. Sure. These individual interactions are brief in
	time, so they may not fall under the 15 minute rule for contact
	tracing, but they add up. And so over that 8 to 12 hour
	workday, the grocery store worker can be in contact. And we
	know with aerosols you don't need to be close to that person.
	So masks are effective as source control reducing the
	amount of virus that people release into the air. They may not
	know that they're sick. If people are not wearing masks that
	could happen, and workers could be exposed. I'm worried about
	the workers who will now be exposed to much greater amounts of
	virus in the air than before if they lift the mask--if the mask
	mandate is lifted.
	Ms. Stevens. Right, right, right, because it's with our
	droplets. OK. So noted for the record. And you know Dr.
	Michael's we were hearing from Mr. Rath his testimony casting
	doubt on whether the OSHA ETS would reduce the number of work-
	related illnesses and deaths. I know we've kind of been
	covering this in this testimony here in this hearing, and all
	of you are fabulous by the way, Pascaline you're just shining
	today. We're glad to have you and your fabulous background here
	as well.
	But Dr. Michaels, do you think that an ETS would have a
	benefit of reducing infections during the 180 day efficacy
	period? Can we just say it again for the record.
	Dr. Michaels. Of course. You know this idea of going
	through the long OSHA administrative procedure makes no sense
	in an emergency. We need to do this now. We need to do it you
	know, six months ago. But it will clearly make a difference
	because while not all employers are as exemplary as Mr. Rath's
	clients, it will impact millions of employers and reduce
	exposure to many millions of workers and will save lives.
	Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And I yield back Madam Chair.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Is Miss Steel of
	California, a young lady from California you're recognized.
	Ms. Steel. Thank you Chairwoman Adams and all the witnesses
	today. Independently owned small businesses, including retail
	and restaurants are the backbone of our local communities.
	There are more than 22,000 small employer businesses in Orange
	County in California.
	These businesses employ more than 183,000 people and
	generate almost 10 billion dollars in payroll for our
	community. These business owners and employees that are working
	hard to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and trying their best to
	keep their employees safe and employed.
	But prolonged lockdowns have led to almost 50 percent of
	small businesses throughout the State of California at risk of
	closing, or never reopening. We need to work in collaboration
	with local businesses and hear their stories, not rush to
	implement one-size-fits-all OSHA regulations that could halt
	the safe re-openings that are already in process.
	We need to empower our communities and help businesses
	thrive while also keeping customers and employees safe. That is
	why I have worked on the Fresh Air for Business Act to empower
	businesses to modernize their ventilation systems in order to
	reduce the transmission of airborne diseases including COVID-
	19.
	Having set that Mr. Rath, thank you very much for coming
	out today. You mentioned how businesses in southern California
	were impacted when Cal OSHA hastily approved an emergency plan
	where stakeholders were preventing from weighing in and making
	the standard more workable or effective. We have both seen how
	local California business owners have been affected by Cal OSHA
	compliance.
	So should the Federal Government rush misguided actions
	that could have long-lasting, unintended consequences to
	employers and employees, just rush burdensome standards?
	Mr. Rath. Thank you for that question Representative Steel.
	Had California taken into account the feedback from the
	stakeholder community, employees and employers, they would have
	avoided unnecessary mistakes. For example, the California
	Emergency Temporary Standard imposes upon employers the duties
	that are traditionally associated with public health agencies
	like contract tracing, continuous testing, and paid leave,
	housing, transportation.
	These kinds of mistakes could have been avoided. And since
	then the California OSHA has issued three revisions to its
	frequently asked questions, several press releases, fact
	sheets, to try and clarify ambiguities or Statements that they
	have made in their original emergency temporary standard that
	they quickly came to regret as having been poorly thought out.
	Ms. Steel. So in your opinion, what does government have to
	do when we have you know, some emergency situations such as
	COVID-19.
	Mr. Rath. Well I think it's important to solicit the input
	from those with real experience, employee groups, employees,
	employee representative groups like the ones that Ms. Muhindura
	is a member of. The scientific community like Dr. Marr, and of
	course the agencies have a particular role to play as well.
	But collectively, that input will fashion a better set of
	policies than an agency unilaterally driving policy by self.
	Ms. Steel. So you think that it's going to be really
	helpful that you know, you prepare for this kind of pandemic,
	hopefully not in the future, but prepare those professional
	people just grouped together, and just to all get ready for the
	next pandemic or COVID-19, something like that coming in.
	Mr. Rath. I think that there has been a tremendous amount
	of experience and knowledge and wisdom acquired in the
	workplace community that can contribute to being better
	prepared for the next pandemic should one ever develop.
	Ms. Steel. I really appreciate it. Madam Chair I yield
	back.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. I think if all committee
	Members have asked their questions, I believe they have, I want
	to now recognize Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.
	Mr. Courtney. Thank you Chairwoman Adams, and thank you for
	again bringing H.R. 1195 onto this agenda again as Dr. Michaels
	indicated, this is the bill that we passed in the House last
	year by a rather healthy bipartisan majority, 251 votes in
	favor, again that dealt with what was then described as an
	epidemic by the CEO of the Mayo Clinic, namely Workplace
	Violence for Healthcare Workers and Social Workers.
	Just a month ago we had another terrible tragic incident
	that took place in Buffalo, Minnesota where a disgruntled
	patient showed up at Alliance Health Clinic, shot dead one of
	the healthcare employees and three others were critically
	injured. Again, with no sort of early warning systems or
	measures in place, which OSHA had developed as voluntary
	guidelines for many, many years.
	But again, because we don't have a national standard, are
	just not being implemented. Ms. Muhindura again, thank you for
	your testimony today. Again, your organization has been a
	staunch advocate for workplace violence protections. And I was
	wondering if you could take a moment to talk about this other
	epidemic that again people who are going to work every day in
	the caring professions face.
	Ms. Muhindura. Yes, thank you so much Congressman Courtney
	for the question. As nurses we've faced workplace violence for
	many years. Luckily, I'm part of a union that has fought very
	hard for the nurses and we have gained a lot of protection
	simply because of the advocacy that we can get through our
	union.
	We have such things as panic buttons in our hospitals we
	can push if we have a violent intruder, or just a patient that
	becomes violent suddenly, and security is able to respond
	quickly. But unfortunately, not everyone has these protections
	throughout the country.
	I used to work for a hospital that was not part of a union,
	and they had no such protections. And to add to that it feels
	like violence has gotten worse in the past year. You see an
	increase in anxiety and agitation in patients with COVID
	related to the strict isolation. So I feel like we could
	definitely use some more protection.
	Mr. Courtney. Thank you for that because again there is
	some narrative well you know, because patient volume may have
	gone down because of elective procedures that you know, the
	workplace violence issue has diminished, but in fact we've seen
	surveys that unfortunately, it continues unabated just like the
	incident that I just mentioned.
	Dr. Michaels you know last year or 2 years ago when we
	debated this bill, you know we were assured, and I think in
	good faith by opponents of the bill that the Trump
	administration was moving forward with a rulemaking process.
	And unfortunately, every single initial hearing was postponed
	four consecutive times.
	We are absolutely at ground zero in terms of any movements
	within the agency. Again Mr. Rath to his credited, note that
	OSHA moves slowly. And unfortunately, we're talking about life
	or death issues in terms of protecting people in healthcare
	institutions and social work.
	Again I wonder if you could just sort of talk about that,
	about whether you know given the gravity of this issue of
	workplace violence, as well as the pandemic, you know, whether
	or not you know we can just rely on the normal rulemaking
	process to do anything in a remotely timely fashion.
	Dr. Michaels. Well these are exactly the right points
	Representative Courtney. OSHA takes 10 years or more to issue a
	standard. One of the last things I did when I was running OSHA
	was accept a petition from the National Nurses United, and from
	other unions telling OSHA, asking OSHA to move forward on this
	because the problem was so severe.
	The stories we heard were heartbreaking. We cried at
	meetings when you heard what happened to healthcare workers and
	social service workers. But without Congress setting a
	deadline, it will take at least ten years for OSHA to get this
	thing out. That's the normal route.
	I mean we've already lost years and years because really
	nothing happened during the Trump administration. They said
	that it was going to move forward but it didn't. And for your
	bill which gives OSHA 42 months to get it done, would be a huge
	step forward and really make a difference. It would make the
	lives better of nurses and others who provide this important
	work, but also it would make healthcare and social services
	better because people can't work if they're under threat of
	assault.
	Everybody I talk to that works in an emergency room says
	yes, it impacts you when you're always looking around to make
	sure no one is going to hit you. I mean this is just simple
	common sense, and OSHA standard would not be one-size-fits-all.
	It would say figure out how to address the problem in your
	community, in your workplace, and that's what we really badly
	need.
	Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And thank you to all the
	witnesses. I yield back.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you Mr. Courtney. I want to remind my
	colleagues that pursuant to committee practice, materials for
	submission for the hearing record must be submitted to the
	Committee Clerk within 14 days following the last day of the
	hearing, so by the end of business, the close of business on
	March 25, 2021.
	Preferrable in Microsoft Word format. The material
	submitted must address the subject matter of the hearing. Only
	a Member of the subcommittee, or an invited witness may submit
	materials for inclusion in the hearing record. Documents are
	limited to 50 pages each, and documents longer than 50 pages
	will be incorporated into the record via an internet link that
	you must provide to the Committee Clerk within the required
	timeframe, but please recognize that in the future that link
	may no longer work.
	Pursuant to House rules and regulations, items for the
	record should be submitted to the Clerk electronically by
	emailing submissions to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="026766636c666e63606d702c6a6763706b6c6571426f636b6e2c6a6d7771672c656d74">[email protected]</a>.
	Member offices are encouraged to submit materials to the
	inbox before the hearing or during the hearing at the time the
	Member makes the request. Now I want to again thank the
	witnesses for their participation today. Members of the
	subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we
	ask the witnesses to please respond to those questions in
	writing.
	The hearing record will be held open for 14 days in order
	to receive those responses. I remind my colleagues that
	pursuant to committee practice, witness questions for the
	hearing record must be submitted to the Majority Committee
	Staff, or Committee Clerk within 7 days.
	The questions submitted must address the subject matter of
	the hearing. I want to recognize now the distinguished Ranking
	Member for his closing Statement.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you Madam Chair. I ask unanimous consent
	to place into the record a Statement from the American Hospital
	Association and letters from the Construction Industry Safety
	Coalition and the National Retail Federation raising concerns
	with the potential OSHA emergency temporary standard on COVID-
	19.
	Ms. Adams. For.
	Mr. Keller. Thank you. The American economy is diverse, and
	it would be naive for us to believe that broad mandates handed
	down from Washington, DC could ever accurately represent every
	workplace throughout the country. If we want to have a
	conversation about that, about what is best for our businesses
	and workers, then it only makes sense for them to be brought
	into the fold as part of the discussion.
	I suspect the last thing Main Street America needs right
	now is more bureaucratic red tape and barriers dictating how to
	properly keep their workplaces and teams safe. I appreciate the
	majority calling this hearing and look forward to engaging with
	my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we can
	work together on smart policies that properly consider the
	realities of America's workplaces. Thank you and I yield back.
	Ms. Adams. Thank you very much.
	I now recognize myself for the purpose of making my closing
	Statement. What we heard today is that our Nation's workers
	need and deserve updated CDC guidance and a strong OSHA
	emergency temporary standard that reflect the best science.
	This committee has flagged the importance of considering
	airborne transmission of the virus in a March 1, 2021 letter to
	the administration. I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter
	into the record. So ordered. We have only recently emerged from
	a year of national crisis where OSHA, the only Federal agency
	with the authority to enforce safe working conditions left
	workers on their own. This was not just disappointing, this was
	a tragedy for tens of thousands of workers in this country, and
	their families who were infected by COVID-19, and the thousands
	who died preventable deaths because they lacked adequate
	protections on the job.
	Swift action to protect workers is exactly how the
	architects of the Occupational Safety and Health Act envision
	OSHA's response during a work-related crisis. The Act tells
	OSHA that it shall issue an emergency temporary standard if it
	determines workers are exposed to a grave danger, or from new
	hazards and that a standard is necessary to protect workers
	from that hazard.
	Now I think it's clear that COVID-19 meets these two legal
	conditions. We welcome the Biden administration's clearly
	Stated intention to act on that emergency authority. We also
	urge the administration to focus its efforts on a national
	strategy to ensure that vaccination of essential workers is
	prioritized, not only in principle, but that every effort is
	made to ensure that needles enter their arms as soon as
	possible.
	Furthermore, in order to learn the lessons of this pandemic
	and ensure the safety of workers in the next pandemic, all
	relevant agencies of the Federal Government need to put their
	heads together to develop a way to quantify the impact of
	COVID-19 on this Nation's work force.
	And finally OSHA cannot effectively carry out its mission
	without resources. The number of inspectors is recovering from
	a record low. The number of safety and health complaints has
	piled up, and the backlog of whistleblower claims is daunting.
	The American Rescue Plan Act, H.R. 1319 passed by Congress
	yesterday sent to President Biden for his signature provides
	200 million dollars to the Department of Labor for worker
	protection activities related to COVID-19.
	Not less than half that amount, 100 million is directed to
	OSHA to meet this moment. I'd like to thank all of my
	colleagues in the House and Senate for making that happen. And
	I want to thank the witnesses again for their testimony. If
	there's no further business without objection the subcommittee
	stands adjourned.
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

	[all]
	</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body></html>