[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 [email protected].
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]