    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       EXAMINING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
                           ACTIONS TO PROTECT WORKERS
                                 FROM COVID-19

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

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

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 28, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-57

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-104 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

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

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

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

    Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
    Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
    Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
      Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
    Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
    Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
    Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
    Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
    Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
    Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Steve Watkins, Kansas
    Kim Schrier, Washington              Ron Wright, Texas
    Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
    Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
    Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
    Andy Levin, Michigan*                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Van Drew, New Jersey
    David J. Trone, Maryland
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
    Susie Lee, Nevada
    Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
    Joaquin Castro, Texas
    * Vice-Chair
                                     ------

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

    Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bradley Byrne, Alabama,
    Mark Takano, California                Ranking Member
    Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
    Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Ron Wright, Texas
    Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
    Haley M. Stevens, Michigan

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 28, 2020.....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Adams, Hon. Alma S., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Workforce
          Protections................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     6
         Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
          Workforce Protections......................................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    11

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Howard, Dr. John,MD, MPH, JD, LLM, MBA, Director, National
          Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington,
          D.C........................................................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Sweatt, Ms. Loren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
          Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington,
          D.C........................................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    17

    Additional Submissions:
        Chairwoman Adams:
            Letter dated January 30, 2020............................   109
            Letter dated March 5, 2020...............................   136
            Letter dated March 18, 2020 from the U.S. Department of
              Labor..................................................   113
            Letter dated May 15, 2020................................   123
            Letter dated May 20, 2020 from AFSCME....................   115
            Letter dated May 20, 2020 from the U.S. Department of
              Health and Human Services..............................   118
            Letter dated May 26, 2020 from the U.S. Department of
              Labor..................................................   125
            Letter dated May 27, 2020 from the United States Senate..   128
            Prepared statement from National Safety Council (NSC)....   132
            Letter dated May 29, 2020 from Chairman Scott............   138
            Letter dated June 10, 2020 from the U.S. Department of
              Health and Human Services..............................   140
            Prepared statement from UFCW.............................   142
        Mr. Byrne:
            Letter dated April 30, 2020..............................   145
            Letter dated May 27, 2020 from the American Hospital.....    96
            Letter dated May 28, 2020 from the Coalition for
              Workplace Safety (CWS).................................   100
            Letter dated May 28, 2020 from the National Association
              of Manufacturers.......................................   104
        Questions submitted for the record by:
            Chairwoman Adams

            Mr. Byrne

            Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, Congressman from the State of
              Washington.............................................   156
            Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., a Congressman from the State of
              North Carolina.........................................   151
            Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Congressman from the State
              of Virginia............................................   153
        Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
            Dr. Howard...............................................   158
            Ms. Sweatt...............................................   177

                       EXAMINING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
                           ACTIONS TO PROTECT WORKERS
                                 FROM COVID-19

                                  ----------

                             Thursday, May 28, 2020

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,

                       Committee on Education and Labor,

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:19 a.m., in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Alma Adams
    [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Adams, Takano, Jayapal, Wild,
    McBath, Stevens, Scott (ex officio), Byrne, Walker, Cline,
    Wright, Murphy, and Foxx (ex officio).
        Also Present: Representatives Levin, Shalala, Bonamici,
    Courtney, Castro, Roe, Walberg, Guthrie, Comer, Grothman,
    Watkins, Meuser, Smucker, Johnson, and Keller.
        Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Jordan Barab,
    Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Ilana Brunner, General Counsel;
    Ijeoma Egekeze, Professional Staff; Christian Haines, General
    Counsel; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology;
    Eli Hovland, Staff Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy
    Communications Director; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Special Assistant
    to the Staff Director; Richard Miller, Director of Labor
    Policy; Katelyn Mooney, Associate General Counsel; Max Moore,
    Staff Assistant; Mariah Mowbray, Staff Assistant; Veronique
    Pluviose, Staff Director; Joshua Weisz, Communications
    Director; 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; Jeanne Kuehl, Minority Legislative
    Assistant; John Martin, Minority Workforce Policy Counsel;
    Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of Operations; Carlton
    Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; and Kelly Tyroler, Minority
    Professional Staff Member.
        Chairwoman Adams. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Workforce Protections will come to order.
        Welcome, everyone. I note that a quorum is present. I note
    for the Subcommittee that Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, Ms.
    Bonamici of Oregon, Mr. Norcross of New Jersey, Dr. Shalala of
    Florida, Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Castro of Texas, Dr. Roe of
    Tennessee, Mr. Walberg of Michigan, Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky,
    Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin, Mr. Smucker of Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Banks of Indiana, Mr. Comer of Kentucky, Mr. Watkins of Kansas,
    Mr. Meuser of Pennsylvania, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr.
    Keller of Pennsylvania, are all permitted to participate in
    today's hearing, with the understanding that their questions
    will come only after all Members of the Subcommittee on
    Workforce Protections on both sides of the aisle who are
    present, either in person or via remote participation, pursuant
    to House Resolution 965 and the accompanying regulations
    thereto, have had an opportunity to question the witnesses.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today for a hearing to hear
    testimony on examining the Federal Government's actions to
    protect workers from COVID-19. All microphones, both in the
    hearing room and for those Members participating remotely, will
    be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary background
    noise. Members will be responsible for unmuting themselves when
    they are recognized to speak or when they wish to seek
    recognition.
        While a roll call is not necessary to establish a quorum in
    official proceedings conducted remotely or with remote
    participants -- participations, wherever there is an unofficial
    proceeding with remote participation, the Clerk will call the
    role to help make clear who is present at the start of the
    proceeding.
        At this time, I ask the Clerk to call the roll.
        The Clerk. Chairwoman Adams?
        Chairwoman Adams. Present.
        The Clerk. Mr. DeSaulnier?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Takano?
        Mr. Takano. Present.
        The Clerk. Ms. Jayapal?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Ms. Wild?
        Ms. Wild. Present.
        The Clerk. Mrs. McBath?
        Mrs. McBath. Present.
        The Clerk. Ms. Omar?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Ms. Stevens?
        Ms. Stevens. Present.
        The Clerk. Chairman Scott?
        Mr. Scott. Present.
        The Clerk. Mr. Byrne?
        Mr. Byrne. Here.
        The Clerk. Mr. Walker?
        Mr. Walker. Here.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cline?
        Mr. Cline. Here.
        The Clerk. Mr. Wright?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Murphy?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Ms. Foxx?
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Chairwoman Adams, this concludes the roll call.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements -- let
    me remind all of the Committee Members, whether you are here or
    if you are particularly remote, please mute your microphone.
    Thank you.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are
    limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to
    hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
    adequate time to ask questions.
        I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
    statement.
        Today's Subcommittee hearing will explore the performance
    of the Federal Government in protecting worker safety during
    the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to thank OSHA Deputy Assistant
    Secretary Sweatt and NIOSH Director Howard for joining us
    today.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the worst worker
    safety crisis in OSHA's 50-year history. Nothing compares. In
    the past 4 months, more than 62,000 healthcare workers who we
    have asked to risk their lives without protective equipment
    have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and at least 291 have died.
    And this is an underestimate. According to CDC, these shocking
    numbers are a mere fraction of the true toll due to the absence
    of reporting by as many as 27 States, New York City, and the
    District of Columbia.
        As we know, infection outbreaks have not been limited to
    healthcare facilities. More than 17,000 meat-processing workers
    have been infected and an estimated 66 have died. One Iowa
    Tyson plant saw 60 percent of its employees test positive. A
    Greely, Colorado, meat-packing plant closed after hundreds fell
    ill. Although the plant promised to test every worker before
    reopening, the plant identified so many positive cases that it
    stopped testing and reopened anyway.
        Prisons, long-term care facilities, grocery stores,
    transportation systems, and warehouses have all experienced
    deadly outbreaks. Earlier this month, the CDC reported 2,778
    infections and 15 deaths among staff employed in correctional
    and detention facilities. From late January to late April,
    fully 36 percent of all reported infections at correctional
    facilities were suffered by staff.
        At least six employees of one warehouse in New York have
    died from COVID-19. 129 New York City transit workers have died
    of the virus.
        As of last week, 1,424 Veterans Administration employees
    have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and 31 have died.
        Some 2,400 postal workers have tested positive and 6 have
    died from COVID-related illnesses. United Parcel Service is
    facing an outbreak of 36 cases at its facility in Tucson.
        But as we will discuss today, we don't really know the toll
    to workers because this Nation has no system for collecting
    data on COVID-19 infections in the workplace, and employers are
    not obligated to publicly report these infections. Some
    government agencies refuse to make this information public due
    to employer concerns about adverse publicity, leaving workers
    and the public unaware of what risks they are facing.
        We cannot lose sight of the fact that this is largely a
    tragedy inflicted on our Nation's essential workers, people who
    don't have a choice on whether they have to go to work, people
    who don't have a choice on whether they -- and many of those
    are frontliners. They are low-income workers and
    disproportionately people of color who don't have the luxury of
    teleworking from home.
        COVID-19 is largely a workplace disease and a community
    tragedy. In Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, coronavirus cases
    linked to meat workers represent 18, 20, and 29 percent of the
    States' total cases, respectively, according to the
    environmental working group. My home State of North Carolina
    leads the Nation with the number of meat-packing plants facing
    an outbreak, with the State Department of Health and Human
    Services reporting that at least 23 plants have outbreaks with
    more than 1,300 worker infections.
        Yet OSHA, the agency that this Nation has tasked to protect
    workers, have been largely invisible. It has failed to develop
    the necessary tools that it needs to combat this pandemic and
    it has failed to fully use the tools that it has, instead,
    focusing principally on issuing press releases and voluntary
    guidance.
        This hearing will focus on why that is and the price that
    this Nation's workers are paying for OSHA's inaction.
        Deep into this pandemic, OSHA has still not developed any
    enforceable standards for employers to follow that can protect
    workers from the airborne transmission of the novel
    coronavirus. And OSHA's existing enforcement tools to combat
    this pandemic, which include standards covering respirators and
    personal protective equipment, are inadequate and unused.
        While guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention can be useful, it is not binding. Only OSHA can
    enforce safe working conditions.
        And although OSHA says it uses its enforcement authority to
    protect workers, OSHA's own data shows that the majority of its
    inspections are conducted only after workers have died. And
    OSHA has conducted complaint inspections for less than 1
    percent of the complaints filed.
        While the Secretary of Labor says it does not need an
    Emergency Temporary Standard because OSHA already has the tools
    that it needs to enforce its guidelines through the general
    duty clause, the embarrassing truth is that OSHA has not issued
    a single citation under the general duty clause to enforce that
    guidance. Not one.
        This worker safety crisis was clearly foreseeable, and OSHA
    was warned. It was clear after the H1N1 swine flu, the pandemic
    in 2009, that an infectious disease standard was needed that
    requires employers to assess the infectious disease risks in
    the workplaces and mitigate the hazards. Such a standard was
    well along the way at the beginning of the Trump
    Administration, but in February 2017, that draft standard was
    mothballed and relegated to the long-term regulatory agenda,
    where it languishes today.
        On January 1, I joined Chairman Bobby Scott in calling on
    OSHA to put the infectious disease standard back on the active
    agenda. In that letter, we also urged OSHA to issue a
    compliance directive for the healthcare sector and to issue an
    Emergency Temporary Standard if the situation deteriorated. At
    the time of our request, there were just five confirmed COVID-
    19 infections in the U.S.
        Hearing nothing back, on March 5, we wrote OSHA again
    describing how hundreds of healthcare workers had been exposed
    and stated the obvious, that OSHA urgently needed to issue an
    Emergency Temporary Standard, an ETS.
        In mid-March, OSHA rejected an ETS on the grounds that the
    healthcare industry fully understands the gravity of the
    situation and is taking the appropriate steps to protect its
    workers.
        In April, with more than 720,000 infections nationwide,
    OSHA finally issued enforcement guidance but only covering the
    healthcare sector.
        In mid-May, as workers continued to face risks of
    infection, illnesses, and death, the agency is still refusing
    to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard to protect workers
    from exposure to coronavirus.
        And here is what OSHA Act says. It says, ``shall provide .
    . . for an Emergency Temporary Standard'' if it determines
    ``that employees are exposed to a grave danger . . . '' from
    ``new hazards,`` and ``that such emergency standard is
    necessary to protect employees from such danger.''
        Circumstances like this pandemic are the exact reason that
    this authority exists, yet OSHA continues to sit on the
    sidelines.
        So my question to the Secretary of Labor is, after tens of
    thousands of workplace infections and hundreds of worker
    deaths, why is OSHA missing in action?
        OSHA's failure to take meaningful action has sent a clear
    message to workers across the country that they are on their
    own.
        On Friday, May 15, the House of Representatives passed The
    Heroes Act, H.R. 6800, which included the ``COVID-19 Every
    Worker Protection Act,'' introduced by Chairman Scott,
    Representative Shalala, and myself. The bill directs OSHA to
    issue an Emergency Temporary Standard with 7 days to protect
    workers in hospitals, meat-packing plants, and retail stores,
    restaurants and offices and shipyards, and other workplaces
    where a person may face risk from exposure. The Heroes Act
    would also prohibit employers from retaliating against workers.
        As the States across the country begin to reopen, more
    workers will be at risk of infection unless OSHA starts doing
    its job. And if the reopening of workplaces drives up infection
    rates, States will be forced to reinstate stay-at-home orders
    which do further damage to our economy.
        The only logical conclusion I can draw is that OSHA's
    inadequate response to this pandemic has been informed more by
    politics rather than modern science. The necessity to protect
    workers should not be cramped by stale ideological notions
    about regulation, nor campaign slogans about repealing two
    regulations for every new one that is created.
        Today, we will explore and hopefully answer why there has
    been a lack of political will in the face of this public health
    disaster, and we will learn why no one seems to care enough to
    even track the number of workers who are getting sick and
    dying.
        And finally, I feel the need to respond to two items in Ms.
    Sweatt's written testimony. First, we note that because of a
    lawsuit, Ms. Sweatt will refuse to answer any questions about
    an Emergency Temporary Standard. And I want to note for the
    record that there is no legal basis for this refusal. It is
    purely a political statement.
        And secondly, I want to respond to Ms. Sweatt's testimony
    which implies that criticism of OSHA's failure to issue an
    emergency standard or enforce existing standards does a
    disservice to the hardworking men and women of OSHA. No one has
    more respect for the dedicated men and women -- or the
    dedicated staff of OSHA and the hard work that they do every
    day--than this Committee, as evidenced by our advocacy for the
    agency's budget and the opposition to the torrent of rollbacks
    to worker safety protection.
        The failure to completely address the life-threatening
    hazards that working Americans are facing from COVID-19 is not
    the fault of OSHA professional staff, but rather due to the
    unfortunate decisions of OSHA's political leadership.
        I would like to now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Byrne,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Byrne, you are recognized.
        [The statement of Chairwoman Adams follows:]

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

        Today's Subcommittee hearing will explore the performance of the
    federal government in protecting worker safety during the COVID-19
    pandemic. I want to thank OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Sweatt and
    NIOSH Director Howard for joining us today.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the worst worker safety
    crisis in OSHA's 50-year history. Nothing compares.
        In the past 4 months, more than 62,000 health care workers, who we
    have asked to risk their lives without protective equipment, have been
    diagnosed with COVID-19 and at least 291 have died. And this is an
    underestimate. According to CDC, these shocking numbers are a mere
    fraction of the true toll due to the absence of reporting by as many as
    27 states, New York City and the District of Columbia.
        As we know, infection outbreaks have not been limited to health
    care facilities.
        More than 17,000 meat processing workers have been infected and an
    estimated 66 have died. One Iowa Tyson plant saw 60% of its employees
    test positive. A Greely Colorado meatpacking plant closed after
    hundreds fell ill. Although the plant promised to test every worker
    before reopening, the plant identified so many positive cases that it
    stopped testing and reopened anyway.
        Prisons, long-term care facilities, grocery stores, transportation
    systems and warehouses have all experienced deadly outbreaks.
        Earlier this month, the CDC reported 2,778 infections and 15 deaths
    among staff employed in correctional and detention facilities. From
    late January to late April, fully 36% of all reported infections at
    correctional facilities were suffered by staff.
        At least 6 employees of one warehouse in New York have died from
    COVID-19. One-hundred and twenty nine New York City transit workers
    have died of the virus.
        As of last week, 1,424 Veterans Administration employees have been
    diagnosed with COVID-19 and 31 have died.
        Some 2,400 postal workers have tested positive and 60 have died
    from COVID-related illnesses. United Parcel Service is facing an
    outbreak of 36 cases at its facility in Tuscon.
        But as we will discuss today, we actually don't really know the
    toll to workers because this nation has no system for collecting data
    on COVID-19 infections in the workplace. And employers are not
    obligated to publicly report these infections. Some government agencies
    refuse to make this information public due to employer concerns about
    adverse publicity, leaving workers and the public unaware of what risks
    they are facing.
        We cannot lose sight of the fact that this is largely a tragedy
    inflicted on our nation's essential workers. People who don't have a
    choice on whether they have to go to work. Many of those on the
    frontlines are low income workers and disproportionately people of
    color who don't have the luxury of teleworking from home.
        COVID-19 is largely a workplace disease and a community tragedy. In
    Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota, coronavirus cases linked to meat
    workers represent 18, 20 and 29 percent of the states' total cases,
    respectively, according to the Environmental Working Group. My home
    state of North Carolina leads the nation with the number of meatpacking
    plants facing an outbreak--with the state Department of Health and
    Human Services reporting that at least 23 plants have outbreaks with
    more than 1,300 worker infections.
        Yet OSHA, the agency that this nation has tasked to protect
    workers, has been largely invisible. It has failed to develop the
    necessary tools it needs to combat this pandemic and it has failed to
    fully use the tools it has; instead focusing principally on issuing
    press releases and voluntary guidance.
        This hearing will focus on why that is and the price that this
    nation's workers are paying for OSHA's inaction.
        Deep into this pandemic, OSHA has still not developed any
    enforceable standards for employers to follow that can protect workers
    from the airborne transmission of the novel coronavirus.
        And OSHA's existing enforcement tools to combat this pandemic,
    which include standards covering respirators and personal protective
    equipment, are inadequate and unused.
        While guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention can be useful, it is not binding. Only OSHA can enforce safe
    working conditions.
        And although OSHA says it uses its enforcement authority to protect
    workers, OSHA's own data shows that the majority of its inspections are
    conducted only after workers have died. And OSHA has conducted
    complaint inspections for less than one percent of the complaints
    filed.
        And while the Secretary of Labor says it does not need an Emergency
    Temporary Standard, because OSHA already has the tools it needs to
    enforce its guidelines through the General Duty Clause, the
    embarrassing truth is that OSHA has not issued a single citation under
    the General Duty Clause to enforce that Guidance. Not one!
        This worker safety crisis was clearly foreseeable. And OSHA was
    warned. It was clear after the H1N1 Swine Flu pandemic in 2009 that an
    infectious disease standard was needed that requires employers to
    assess the infectious disease risks in their workplaces and mitigate
    the hazards. Such a standard was well along the way at the beginning of
    the Trump Administration, but in February 2017, that draft standard was
    mothballed and relegated to the ``long term'' regulatory agenda where
    it languishes today.
        In January, I joined Chairman Bobby Scott in calling on OSHA to put
    the infectious disease standard back on the active agenda. In that
    letter, we also urged OSHA to issue a compliance directive for the
    health care sector, and to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard if the
    situation deteriorated. At the time of our request, there were just 5
    confirmed COVID-19 infections in the United States.
        Hearing nothing back, on March 5th we wrote OSHA again describing
    how hundreds of health care workers had been exposed and stated the
    obvious: that OSHA urgently needed to issue an Emergency Temporary
    Standard
        (ETS). In mid- March, OSHA rejected an ETS on the grounds that
    ``the health care industry fully understands the gravity of the
    situation and is taking the appropriate steps to protect its workers.''
        In April, with more than 720,000 infections nationwide, OSHA
    finally issued enforcement guidance, but only covering the health care
    sector.
        In mid-May, as workers continue to face risk of infection, illness,
    and death, the agency is still refusing to issue an Emergency Temporary
    Standard to protect workers from exposure to the coronavirus.
        Here is what the OSHA Act states: OSHA ``shall provide . . . . for
    an Emergency Temporary Standard'' if it determines ``that employees are
    exposed to a grave danger . . . .'' from ``new hazards'', and ``that
    such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such
    danger.''
        Circumstances like this pandemic are the exact reason this
    authority exists, yet OSHA continues to sit on the sidelines.
        My question to the Secretary of Labor is how, after tens of
    thousands of workplace infections and hundreds of worker deaths, why is
    OSHA missing in action?
        OSHA's failure to take meaningful action has sent a clear message
    to workers across the country that they are on their own.
        On Friday, May 15, the House of Representatives passed the Heroes
    Act (H.R. 6800) which included the COVID 19 Every Worker Protection Act
    introduced by Chairman Scott, Representative Shalala and myself. That
    bill directs OSHA to issue an Emergency Temporary Standard with seven
    days to protect workers in hospitals, meatpacking plants, retail
    stores, restaurants, offices, shipyards, and any other workplace where
    a person may face risk from exposure to the novel coronavirus from the
    public or from other workers. The Heroes Act would also prohibit
    employers from retaliating against workers for sounding the alarm about
    unsafe conditions.
        As the states across the country begin to reopen, more workers will
    be at risk of infection unless OSHA starts doing its job. And if the
    reopening of workplaces drives up infections rates, states will be
    forced to reinstate stay-at-home orders, which will do further damage
    to our economy.
        We simply cannot safely and effectively reopen our economy until we
    secure the safety of our workers.
        The only logical conclusion I can draw is that OSHA's inadequate
    response to this pandemic has been informed more by stale politics
    rather than modern science. The necessity to protect workers should not
    be cramped by stale ideological notions about regulation, nor campaign
    slogans about repealing two regulations for every new one that is
    created. The house is on fire, and we cannot waste time arguing about
    how to rewrite our building codes.
        Today, we will explore and hopefully answer why there has been the
    lack of political will in the face of this public health disaster. And
    we will learn why no one seems to care enough to even track the number
    of workers who are getting sick and dying.
        Finally, before I end, I feel the need to respond to two items in
    Ms Sweatt's written testimony.
        First, we note that because of a lawsuit, Ms. Sweatt will refuse to
    answer any questions about an Emergency Temporary Standard. I want to
    note for the record that there is no legal basis for this refusal; it
    is purely a political statement.
        Second, I want to respond to Ms. Sweatt's testimony which implies
    that criticism of OSHA's failure to issue a emergency standard or
    enforce existing standards ``does a disservice . . . to the hardworking
    men and women of OSHA.''
        No one has more respect for the dedicated staff of OSHA and the
    hard work they do every day than this Committee, as evidenced by our
    advocacy for the agency's budget and opposition to the torrent of
    rollbacks to worker safety protections. The failure to competently
    address the life-threatening hazards that working Americans are facing
    from COVID-19 is not the fault of OSHA professional staff, but rather
    due to the unfortunate decisions of OSHA's political leadership.
        I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Byrne, for his opening
    statement.
                                     ______

        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for yielding.
        Let me state for the record that the Chairwoman is here
    physically present in this room. The Chairman of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Scott, is physically present in the room. The
    Ranking Republican Member on the Committee is physically
    present here in the room. I am physically present here in the
    room. In fact, there are 15 Members of this Committee
    physically present in the room, nine Republicans, six
    Democrats. It is a safe environment, a simple environment. As
    you can tell, we are socially distanced.
        Not much has changed since the Democrats decided at the
    11th hour to unilaterally call off last week's hearing. OSHA
    and NIOSH officials, my Republican colleagues and I were ready
    then to talk about the important work these agencies are doing
    to combat COVID-19, and we are here again to do so today. It is
    indeed unfortunate the Democrats decided to play politics on an
    issue that they assert is a top priority.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has been an extraordinary time for
    all Americans. Many of us are coming out of mandatory stay-at-
    home orders after 2 months or more. People are returning to
    work in a new environment with a disease that is still
    relatively new and about which we still have much to learn.
        We know the disease affects different people in different
    ways. Many people who test positive have no or mild symptoms,
    but a small percentage get very ill, and some of them,
    unfortunately, pass away. The two groups most likely to become
    very ill are those over 65, who make up 80 percent of all
    deaths in this country, and those with underlying health
    conditions as listed by the CDC.
        The disease also presents varied levels of risk for workers
    in different types of jobs. For example, an office worker who
    doesn't interact with the public faces much lower risk than a
    nurse in an ICU ward.
        I say all of this to make a point about the inherent
    difficulty in coming up with a reliable, single standard for
    workplace safety, whether it is for infectious disease in
    general or COVID-19 specifically.
        How did OSHA handle complex safety and health issues in the
    past? From SARS in the 2000s, during the Bush Administration,
    to MERS, H1N1 influenza, and Ebola during the Obama
    Administration, OSHA did not issue a new standard, but instead
    enforced existing standards and issued guidance, which, in
    turn, could be the basis for action against an employer under
    the general duty clause of the OSHA statute.
        Let me say that again. During the Obama Administration,
    under three separate diseases, OSHA did not issue a standard.
    They issued guidelines and relied upon those guidelines for
    enforcing the general duty clause.
        When the Acting Assistant Secretary for OSHA during H1N1,
    which the Chairwoman referred to, during that pandemic, a man
    named Jordan Barab, when he testified before this Committee in
    May of 2009, he said OSHA had created guidance, guidance,
    quote, to help employers determine the most appropriate work
    practices and precautions to limit the impact of the pandemic.
        He went on to say: ``Because safety risks are greater in
    certain workplaces, OSHA is focusing its direct efforts on
    educating employers and employees in the high-risk exposure
    categories.''
        At that time, he said OSHA issued an occupational risk
    pyramid to categorize workers' risk, which demonstrated that
    only a small portion of employees were at the highest exposure
    risk level. Mr. Barab specifically referenced standards already
    in place for personal protective equipment and respirators.
        He said that OSHA would use the general duty clause, quote,
    to ensure that employers follow the practices that public
    health experts agree are necessary to protect workers' health.
        Finally, he quoted President Obama's assessment for the
    situation as being, quote, one for cause for deep concern but
    not panic.
        What has OSHA done with COVID-19? Just like the Obama
    Administration, it has issued detailed guidelines, placed an
    enforcement emphasis on high-risk workplaces, used an
    occupational risk pyramid categorizing workers' risks, and
    reminded employers of OSHA's existing standards on PPE,
    respirators, sanitation and others, as well as their
    obligations under the OSHA Act's general duty clause to provide
    employers with a safe and healthy workplace.
        In addition, OSHA and the CDC have issued industry-specific
    guidance for healthcare, nursing home and long-term care,
    retail pharmacy, car service, package delivery, retail,
    construction, manufacturing, restaurant, and dental workplaces.
    And is still working on it.
        There are two problems with requiring a standard. First, we
    are still learning about this disease. And we just don't know
    enough information to meet the level necessary and appropriate
    to construct an adequate Emergency Temporary Standard and a
    permanent Federal regulation.
        That is why the various guidance documents already issued
    are so useful. They can be used -- they can be issued
    relatively quickly and modified as we learn more from the CDC
    and other public health officials and from the workplaces
    themselves. A standard, at this point, would be an unproductive
    burden for businesses already struggling to reopen, potentially
    exposing them to unnecessary liability risk during an already
    challenging time and would do little to advance workplace
    safety.
        Second, setting a standard just takes too long. On average,
    it takes OSHA 7 years to compile all the data necessary and
    meet all the regulatory requirements for issuing a standard.
        I know Democrats want an emergency technical -- temporary
    standard, or ETS, which according to their bill, must be done
    in 7 days. The last time OSHA issued an ETS was in 1983, and
    that one was overturned because OSHA could not meet the
    statutory threshold requirements for issuance. Indeed, OSHA has
    lost more ETS cases in Federal courts than it has won for the
    same reason.
        I know the Speaker included a provision requiring a
    standard in the bill passed by the House two weeks ago, a bill
    she created in her office, without any consultation with the
    White House or the Senate, and on which we never had a hearing
    or markup in this Committee, the Committee of jurisdiction. No
    regular order and no effort to obtain bipartisan consensus.
    That is no way to operate the House with a challenge of this
    magnitude, posed by the pandemic and our response to the
    pandemic. No wonder that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.
        I also know the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit last week to force
    OSHA to issue a standard. They filed a lawsuit. Expensive and
    time-consuming litigation against a Federal agency responsible
    for protecting our Nation's workers in the midst of a pandemic
    is unhelpful and very unlikely to succeed.
        And, Madam Chairwoman, I take exception to your remarks
    about the witness' ability to talk about that lawsuit and
    matters involved in that lawsuit. No lawyer is going to let
    their client talk about something like that with pending
    litigation. It is a matter of every lawyer that has a client in
    litigation like that is going to ask them to be careful about
    that. And to expect them not to follow their lawyer's advice is
    totally unfair to them.
        I must say that when I started preparing for this hearing
    with my staff two weeks ago, I was impressed, very impressed,
    with the diligence and speed with which OSHA has fashioned its
    response. Remember, we didn't know about this disease five
    months ago. Their experience with past pandemics surely helped,
    and I am glad they both followed and built upon this
    experience.
        I have talked with hundreds of businesses trying to decide
    whether and how to reopen, and that is probably true for every
    Member in this room. Those conversations always include a real
    concern for the health of their employees. They have consulted
    CDC. They have consulted local and State public health
    officials and their industry organizations, and yes, they are
    closely following this OSHA guidance, which they are truly
    grateful for. They want to provide their employees a safe
    workplace, and OSHA is helping them achieve that. Isn't that
    what the OSHA statute's purpose is? Helping employers and
    employees keep their workplaces safe and healthy?
        I am looking forward to the testimony today. And I thank
    the witnesses for appearing in the midst of what I know is a
    very busy time for them. Let's all work together to protect the
    most important part of the American economy, the working men
    and women who make this country so very prosperous, including
    the healthcare workers, like my sister-in-law, Cynthia Dukes,
    who is an ICU nurse. I want her to be safe and healthy as she
    goes about her extremely important work, even as we sit here,
    taking care of the sickest of us. She and her colleagues
    deserve nothing less, and they are best served by us when we
    work together for them, and not for special interests, and we
    stop the wasteful litigation and the partisan legislative
    games.
        America will get through this. We can protect our people
    who are most vulnerable to this disease and reopen the American
    economy safely as we start on another road to recovery and
    prosperity for all. President Obama was right, there is cause
    for great concern but not panic. And if OSHA's response was the
    best way to go for SARS, MERS, H1N1, and Ebola, why is it not
    best for COVID-19?
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        [The statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bradley Byrne, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
                            on Workforce Protections

        ``Let me state for the record that I, Ranking Member Foxx, and
    other Members are here in the Committee room in Washington, socially
    distanced. It is a relatively simple and safe environment here.
        In fact, not much has changed since the Democrats decided at the
    eleventh hour to unilaterally call off last week's hearing. OSHA and
    NIOSH officials, my Republican colleagues, and I were ready then to
    talk about the important work these agencies are doing to combat COVID-
    19 and we are here again today to do so. It's unfortunate the Democrats
    decided to play politics on an issue they assert is a top priority.
        The COVID-19 pandemic has been an extraordinary time for all
    Americans. Many of us are coming out of mandatory stay- at- home orders
    after two months. People are returning to work in a new environment
    with a disease that is still relatively new and about which we still
    have much to learn.
        We know the disease affects different people in different ways.
    Many people who test positive have no or mild symptoms, but a small
    percentage get very ill, and some of them, unfortunately, pass away.
    The two groups most likely to become very ill are those over 65, who
    make up 80% of all deaths, and those with underlying health conditions
    as listed by the CDC.
        The disease also presents varying levels of risk for workers in
    different types of jobs. For example, an office worker who doesn't
    interact with the public faces much lower risk than a nurse in an ICU
    ward.
        I say all of this to make a point about the inherent difficulty in
    coming up with a reliable single standard for workplace safety, whether
    it's for infectious diseases in general or COVID-19 specifically.
        How did OSHA handle complex safety and health issues in the recent
    past? From SARS in the 2000s during the Bush Administration to MERS,
    H1N1 influenza, and Ebola during the Obama Administration, OSHA didn't
    issue a new standard but, instead, enforced existing standards and
    issued guidance, which in turn could be the basis for action against an
    employer under the General Duty Clause of the OSHA statute.
        When the Acting Assistant Secretary for OSHA during the H1N1 flu
    pandemic, Jordan Barab, testified before this Committee in May of 2009,
    he said OSHA had created guidance 'to help employers determine the most
    appropriate work practices and precautions to limit the impact' of the
    pandemic. And 'because safety risks are greater in certain workplaces,
    OSHA is focusing its direct efforts on educating employers and
    employees in the higher-risk exposure categories.' OSHA issued an
    'Occupational Risk Pyramid' to categorize workers' risk which
    demonstrated that only a small portion of employees were at the highest
    exposure-risk level. Mr. Barab specifically referenced standards
    already in place for personal protective equipment and respirators. He
    said that OSHA would use the General Duty Clause to 'ensure that
    employers follow the practices that public health experts agree are
    necessary to protect workers' health.' Finally, he quoted President
    Obama's assessment of the situation as being one of 'Cause for deep
    concern, but not panic.'
        What has OSHA done with COVID-19? Just like the Obama
    Administration, it has issued detailed guidelines; placed an
    enforcement emphasis on higher risk workplaces; used an 'Occupational
    Risk Pyramid' categorizing workers' risk; and reminded employers of
    OSHA's existing standards on PPE, respirators, sanitation, and others,
    as well as their obligations under the OSH Act's General Duty Clause to
    provide employers with a safe and healthful workplace. In addition,
    OSHA and the CDC have issued industry-specific guidance for health
    care, nursing home and long-term care, retail pharmacy, car service,
    package delivery, retail, construction, manufacturing, restaurant, and
    dental workplaces.
        There are two problems with requiring a standard.
        First, we are still learning about this disease and we just don't
    know enough information to meet the level necessary and appropriate to
    construct an adequate Emergency Temporary Standard and a permanent
    federal regulation. That's why the various guidance documents already
    issued are so useful. They can be issued relatively quickly and
    modified as we learn more from the CDC and other public health
    officials, and from the workplaces themselves. A standard at this point
    would be an unproductive burden for businesses already struggling to
    reopen, potentially exposing them to unnecessary liability risks during
    an already challenging time, and would do little to advance workplace
    safety
        Second, setting a standard just takes too long. On average, it
    takes OSHA on average seven years to compile all the data necessary and
    meet all the regulatory requirements for issuing a standard. I know
    Democrats want an Emergency Temporary Standard, or ETS, which,
    according to their bill, must be done in seven days. The last time OSHA
    issued an ETS was in 1983 and that one was overturned because OSHA
    couldn't meet the statutory threshold requirements for issuance.
    Indeed, OSHA has lost more ETS cases in federal courts than its won for
    this same reason.
        I know the Speaker included a provision requiring a standard in the
    bill passed by the House two weeks ago, a bill she created in her
    office, without any consultation with the White House or the Senate and
    on which we never had a hearing or markup in this committee, the
    committee of jurisdiction. No regular order and no effort to obtain bi-
    partisan consensus. That's no way to operate the House with a challenge
    of this magnitude posed by the pandemic and our response to the
    pandemic. No wonder that bill is DOA in the Senate.
        I also know the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit last week to force OSHA to
    issue a standard. Expensive and time-consuming litigation against the
    federal agency responsible for protecting our nation's workers in the
    midst of a pandemic is unhelpful and very unlikely to succeed.
        I must say that when I started preparing for this hearing with my
    staff two weeks or so ago, I was impressed with the diligence and speed
    with which OSHA has fashioned its response. Their experience with past
    pandemics surely helped, and I'm glad they both followed and built upon
    this past experience.
        I've talked with hundreds of businesses trying to decide whether
    and how to reopen. Those conversations always include a real concern
    for the health of their employees. They've consulted CDC, local and
    state public health officials, and their industry organizations. And,
    yes, they are closely following this OSHA guidance, which they are
    truly grateful for. They want to provide their employees a safe
    workplace, and OSHA is helping them achieve that. Isn't that what the
    OSHA's statute's purpose is, helping employers and employees keep their
    workplaces safe and healthy?
        I'm looking forward to the testimony today and I thank the
    witnesses for appearing in the midst of what I know is a very busy time
    for them. Let's all work together to protect the most important part of
    the American economy, the working men and women who make this country
    so very prosperous, including the health care workers, like my sister-
    in-law, Cynthia Dukes, who is an ICU nurse. I want her to be safe and
    healthy as she goes about her extremely important work, even as we sit
    here, taking care of the sickest of us. She and her colleagues deserve
    nothing less. And they are best served by us when we work together, for
    them and not for special interests, and when we stop the wasteful
    litigation and the partisan legislative games.
        America will get through this. We can protect our people who are
    most vulnerable to this disease and reopen the American economy safely
    as we start on another road to recovery and prosperity for all.
    President Obama was right: there is cause for great concern but not
    panic. And if OSHA's response was the best way to go for SARS, MERS,
    H1N1, and Ebola, why is it not best for COVID-19?''
                                     ______

        Chairwoman Adams. I want to thank the Ranking Member, but I
    just want to just respond for a moment, Mr. Byrne. Obama
    started work on a permanent airborne disease standard, and
    Trump put it back on the back burner, and still after a hundred
    thousand deaths, it is still pending, so --
        Votes are going to be called in 5 minutes, but let me
    introduce the witnesses.
        Any other 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. on June 10,
    2020.
        Let me introduce the two witnesses before we will have to
    take a break.
        Our first witness will be Ms. Loren Sweatt. Ms. Sweatt is
    the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Occupational
    Safety and Health Administration. She joined OSHA on July 24,
    2017, coming from this Committee, where she was Senior Policy
    Adviser at the Committee on Education and Workforce for 15
    years. In that role, Ms. Sweatt handled workplace safety issues
    before the Committee, including OSHA and the Mine Safety and
    Health Administration.
        Our next witness will be Mr. John Howard -- or Dr. John
    Howard, excuse me. Dr. Howard is the Director of the National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He has held that
    position since 2009. Dr. Howard previously served as Director
    of the Institute from 2002 to 2008. Prior to coming to NIOSH,
    Dr. Howard was Chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and
    Health for the California Department of Industrial Relations,
    Labor, and Workforce Development.
        We are going to -- I am going to -- do we adjourn?
        Okay. We are going to proceed with the hearing and with the
    witness testimony.
        So we appreciate the witnesses for participating today, and
    we look forward to your testimony. But let me remind the
    witnesses that we have -- we have read your witness statements,
    and they will appear in full in the hearing record.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and Committee practice,
    each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to 5-
    minute summary of your written statement. And let me remind the
    witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section
    1001, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify any
    statement, representation, written document, or material fact
    presented to Congress, or otherwise conceal or cover up a
    material fact.
        Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
    the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will,
    in turn -- the Members can hear you. And as you begin to speak,
    the light in front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, the
    light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 minute
    remaining. When the light turns red, your 5 minutes have
    expired, and we ask that you please wrap it up.
        We will let both witnesses make their presentations before
    we move to Member questions. When answering a question, please
    remember to once again turn your microphone on.
        Ms. Sweatt, we are going to first recognize you.

         STATEMENT OF LOREN SWEATT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Ms. Sweatt. I am sorry. Thank you for the opportunity to
    highlight the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
    important work of protecting our Nation's workers.
        I am proud of the work this agency has done during the
    Trump Administration, but I am particularly proud of the work
    it is performing right now as it responds to a worldwide health
    crisis.
        The work of the agency continues uninterrupted even as we
    respond to this pandemic. Between February 1 and May 21, OSHA
    received over 5,000 non-COVID-19 complaints and conducted 5,009
    investigations based on these complaints and 969 inspections.
    During this time, OSHA has also received over 2,300 non-COVID-
    19 whistleblower complaints, which are being evaluated along
    with the COVID-19 whistleblower complaints.
        I am so proud of the dedication to OSHA's mission of our
    hardworking compliance safety and health officers and all of
    the agency's personnel. Our CSHOs are initiating thousands of
    investigations of complaints. Our compliance assistance staff
    are working with employers across the country to help ensure
    safe and healthful working conditions for the Nation's workers.
        Our training and education staff have moved quickly to
    provide training to CSHOs, and before, during, and after the
    pandemic, my goal is for OSHA's efforts to prevent workers from
    ever becoming ill or injured because they are doing their job.
        OSHA's efforts to address COVID-19 has been its top
    priority since February. OSHA quickly pivoted to focus
    intensely on giving employers and workers the guidance they
    need to work safely in this rapidly changing situation. Where
    appropriate, OSHA has also enforced safety and health
    standards. Throughout this crisis, the incredible men and women
    of OSHA have remained committed to carrying out their mission
    to keep America's workers safe and healthy.
        OSHA's initial response to the pandemic was to provide
    extensive guidance, often in conjunction with the CDC. Guidance
    has allowed the agency to be more nimble in response to the
    ever-changing understanding of the virus.
        OSHA continues to issue industry-specific alerts that
    provide targeted guidance on practices and procedures that will
    help workers' health and safety. To date, OSHA has issued
    general industry guidance, and it has also issued guidance
    documents to protect workers in numerous specific industries,
    including meat-packing and processing, healthcare, nursing
    homes, restaurants, dentistry, and manufacturing. OSHA has also
    distilled its extensive guidance into a wide variety of useable
    worker education segments available on OSHA's website.
        While extensive guidance is important to the rapidly
    changing dynamic of this pandemic as it continues, it is
    important to recognize OSHA's existing standards serve as the
    basis for its COVID-19 enforcement. Those standards include
    rules regarding respiratory protection, personal protective
    equipment, eye and face protection, sanitation, and hazard
    communication.
        In addition to those existing authorities, OSHA has also
    the ability to take appropriate action against employers under
    the OSH Act's general duty clause.
        OSHA was recently sued by the AFL-CIO for an Emergency
    Temporary Standard, and as we have discussed today, I cannot
    comment further surrounding the ETS or litigation.
        The flexibility and responsiveness allowed through guidance
    is apparent in the two revised enforcement policies issued last
    week by OSHA. As States are beginning to reopen their
    economies, OSHA is acting to ensure employers are protecting
    their employees.
        First, OSHA is increasing in-person inspections at all
    types of workplaces. Second, OSHA is clarifying its previous
    enforcement policy for recording cases of coronavirus. Under
    the new policy, OSHA will enforce recordkeeping requirements
    for employee coronavirus illnesses for all employers.
        But to repeat, OSHA will not use guidance as a substitute
    for enforcement. Rather, the agency has the tools and intent to
    pursue both avenues. Where there are safety issues, OSHA
    remains, as always, shoulder to shoulder with America's
    workers.
        OSHA is charged with protecting the rights of
    whistleblowers under 23 statutes. As the Secretary of Labor has
    made clear from the White House podium, multiple national
    interviews, and additional conversations with stakeholders,
    retaliation against workers is unacceptable.
        In this pandemic, OSHA inspectors are initiating thousands
    of investigations. This is resulting in employers receiving up-
    to-date information about how to better protect their workers.
    During this same time, OSHA inspectors continue to respond to
    non-COVID-19 worker fatalities and complaints.
        Through the tireless efforts of the entire agency, OSHA's
    continuous outreach and communication to workers and employers
    and its issuance of important guidance, OSHA is on the job
    protecting America's workers.
        I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The statement of Ms. Sweatt follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Ms. Sweatt.
        Dr. Howard, you have 5 minutes, sir.

      STATEMENT OF JOHN HOWARD, MD, MPH, JD, LLM, MBA, DIRECTOR,
        NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Dr. Howard. Good morning, Chairwoman Adams and Ranking
    Member Byrne, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx. My name
    is John Howard, and I am the Director of the National Institute
    for Occupational Safety and Health, which is part of the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased to
    provide the Subcommittee information about the COVID-19
    response activities undertaken by NIOSH over the past few
    months.
        To date, just over 1.6 million cases of COVID-19 have been
    reported to CDC. Many of these cases are in working-age adults.
    For example, as of today, May 28, there have been 62,690 cases
    of COVID-19 among healthcare workers, with 294 deaths. However,
    the total number of healthcare worker cases is likely to be an
    underestimate due to data collection challenges arising from
    the pandemic.
        Currently, CDC and NIOSH are actively working to address
    the issue of capturing occupational data as it relates to
    COVID-19 cases.
        A new case report form released on May 5 added questions
    about workplace exposures for healthcare workers and workers in
    other critical infrastructure industries. States have been
    asked to start using this new form by May 15.
        Activities by NIOSH as a part of CDC's response to COVID-19
    fall into three main categories. First, respiratory protective
    devices. Through NIOSH's National Personal Protective
    Technology Laboratory, NIOSH is responsible for establishing
    criteria, testing, and certifying respiratory protective
    devices, including filtering facepiece respirators. The most
    common type is the N95.
        During the global supply shortage caused by the pandemic,
    NIOSH and CDC have taken steps to increase the supply of
    available certified respirators by, one, supporting existing
    NIOSH respirator approval holders to increase their ongoing
    production; two, quickly evaluating new domestic respirator
    applications for approval; three, providing up-to-date
    guidance, especially with regard to respirators made by non-U.S
    manufacturers; and four, tripling respirator approval
    decisions.
        To expand the range of respirators available to healthcare
    workers, NIOSH works with FDA on its emergency-use
    authorizations which can significantly expand the inventory of
    respirators available for use in healthcare settings by, one,
    permitting the use of powered air purifying respirators, or
    PAPRs, elastomeric respirators, and other NIOSH-approved
    filtering facepiece respirators besides the N95, that had not
    been previously cleared by FDA for use in healthcare settings;
    second, permitting the use of stockpiled respirators that had
    exceeded their rated shelf life; three, permitting the use of
    certain respirators from foreign countries approved under the
    performance standards in those countries; and four, permitting
    the reuse of certain decontaminated filtering facepiece
    respirators.
        Second, field survey support for State health departments.
    NIOSH deployed staff to 34 States and 18 poultry, 11 beef, and
    5 poultry processing workplaces, representing 15 separate
    companies.
        The number of cases of COVID-19 in meat processing is
    significant. NIOSH has reviewed plant facilities, processes,
    operations. CDC's epidemiologists and partners from State and
    local health departments evaluated plant and community
    infection control plans through various methodologies. A
    typical site visit examines multiple features of the plant's
    operations.
        Third, guidance. NIOSH has, through the Emergency
    Operations Center at CDC, worked with our partner agencies,
    including OSHA, the Department of Agriculture, and the
    Department of Transportation, to produce numerous guidance
    documents and fact sheets for employers and workers in various
    industries and occupations. For example, CDC and OSHA have
    coauthored interim guidance for the meat and poultry packing
    industry and interim guidance for manufacturing workers and
    employers.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in
    today's hearing. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement of Dr. Howard follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Scott. I think, are we going to go vote and then come
    right back? Can we do that?
        Chairwoman Adams. They have called for votes, so we are
    going to go and vote in vote rotations until we get further
    information. I am on that first rotation, so, Mr. Scott, will
    you --
        [Discussion held off the record.]
        Mr. Scott. [Presiding.] We apologize. We were hoping to go
    vote all at the same time, but apparently that is -- we don't
    have permission to do that yet.
        First question will be the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Chairwoman Adams, for organizing this
    critical hearing on the need to protect workers from
    coronavirus.
        The role of the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration is to, quote, ensure safe and healthful working
    conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing
    standards, end quote. During this current pandemic, where
    nearly 1.5 million people have been infected with COVID-19 and
    nearly 100,000 people in this country have died, OSHA has
    completely abandoned its responsibilities and is not holding up
    to its mission.
        The general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and
    Health Act requires employers to provide employees with, quote,
    a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death
    or serious physical harm, end quote. And based on my review of
    the nearly 5,000 COVID-19-related complaints filed by workers,
    it is evident that many employers are not making good-faith
    efforts to protect their workers.
        Ms. Sweatt, is OSHA prepared to conduct mandatory onsite
    inspections in response to worker complaints that allege
    serious health violations, not just for those complaints that
    result in a fatality?
        Ms. Sweatt. Yes. OSHA is working proactively since the
    beginning of February to address the COVID-19 hazard. We have,
    as you said, over 5,000 complaints, and our inspectors are
    investigating all of them. Where they are getting information
    from employers that is not adequate, they are opening
    investigations. And so, yes, the agency has been doing its job
    since the beginning of this pandemic.
        Mr. Takano. Do you have enough inspectors to be able to do
    this in a timely manner?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think folks know that we have been actively
    trying to hire investigators since August of 2017. We are
    appreciative of Congress providing us more funding so that we
    can hire 50 this year. Until March of this year, we were in an
    unprecedented competition with the private sector to find and
    hire adequate workers. This is a highly skilled profession, and
    we have been trying to get folks to come in and serve the
    mission of the agency. It has been something that is a priority
    of mine since I started in July of 2017. But it was very
    challenging with record low unemployment numbers to get people
    to come in with the skills that we need. So, yes, we are
    pursuing more inspectors --
        Mr. Takano. Ms. Sweatt, how many, if I may, excuse me, how
    many workers do you need, and how many positions remain
    unfilled?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, we have 50 that are funded by Congress
    this year that we are trying to fill. Even in the midst of this
    pandemic, we are actively recruiting folks to come and work for
    us, and we are seeing results. So we will work as hard as we
    can and as diligently as possible to hire those folks and get
    them through our process and get more people to have more boots
    on the ground.
        Mr. Takano. Ms. Sweatt, as the lead agency, how will OSHA
    work to enforce national policies for each agency that you work
    with and make sure rules are applied and followed uniformly
    from facility to facility?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, I think the question is about our
    engagement with our Federal partners.
        Mr. Takano. Yes.
        Ms. Sweatt. And, you know, our folks are on about 10
    Federal task forces related to COVID specifically. We are
    engaged with NIOSH and the CDC to write these guidance
    documents that you have seen. The most important that we have
    issued lately is the meat-packing guidance. We issued
    construction on Monday.
        We are working on more as we identify industries that need
    to understand what we are requiring, and we will continue to do
    that to the best of our ability.
        Mr. Takano. Ms. Sweatt, just recently -- I am looking at
    the clock and I just --
        Staff. Yeah. It was never --
        Mr. Takano. Okay. All right.
        You know, rather than enforcing OSHA's role, the Trump
    Administration plan for opening up America again attempts to
    shift workplace safety preparedness to the States by
    highlighting the States' responsibility for the health and
    safety of workers in critical industries. Ms. Sweatt, was OSHA
    consulted in preparing this plan?
        Ms. Sweatt. All of those plans go through clearance, and I
    would say that they may be talking about the State and local
    health authorities, but, you know, OSHA is in approximately 26
    States, and then there is 22 States with State plans --
        Mr. Takano. But specifically on the Trump Administration's
    plan to open up America again, was OSHA consulted in preparing
    this plan?
        Ms. Sweatt. I do believe that OSHA participated in the
    clearance plan, yes.
        Mr. Takano. You don't know for sure?
        Ms. Sweatt. I do believe that we did, yes.
        Mr. Takano. Does this approach effectively sideline OSHA in
    its role for protecting workers?
        Ms. Sweatt. No, I do not believe it does.
        Mr. Takano. Even though it highlights the States'
    responsibilities? I mean, it does not deemphasize OSHA?
        Ms. Sweatt. I do not think so.
        Mr. Takano. Is this plan consistent with the OSHA Act?
        Ms. Sweatt. As I said, Federal OSHA exists in specific
    States, and then there are State plans, of which we provide
    grant money to. So where we are in jurisdiction, we will be in
    enforcement mode, and we will be doing our job. I do not
    believe that plan changes our obligations.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. (Off mike.)
        Ms. Sweatt. I can come work the clock.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman from Alabama.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, let me thank you again, both of you, for
    being here. I know you are very busy.
        Ms. Sweatt, you heard me recite the testimony of one of
    your predecessors during the Obama Administration, and so I
    want to ask you a simple question. How is OSHA's COVID-19
    response similar or different from the approach taken by the
    Obama Administration during the H1N1 pandemic?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have followed the H1N1 pandemic strategy
    almost to the T. It has been very important for us to get the
    message out. We started as early as January with the safety and
    health topics page. We provided general guidance for all
    industries so that they could plan to protect their workers.
        And as the pandemic has spread, we have provided industry
    guidance for very specific industries, and I think we are doing
    what we are supposed to do -- enforcement, compliance
    assistance, and training and education of everyone that will
    come to us and work with us on our guidance. And I don't think
    that we have diverted from what the plan was with H1N1.
        Mr. Byrne. Can you elaborate on how OSHA has historically
    responded to emerging workplace hazards and why the agency has
    used compliance initiatives, coupled with enforcement of
    existing standards, including the OSHA Act's general duty
    clause, as effective measures to respond quickly during a
    pandemic?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you. I would like to say that we respond
    to a lot of different issues and have since I started in July
    of 2017, natural disasters, hurricanes. Typically, in those
    situations we suspend enforcement. In this instance, we
    proactively determined that we would stay in enforcement mode
    and we would use all the enforcement tools available to us.
        One of those is the investigation for complaints. As we
    have noted, we have received over 5,000 complaints, and the
    approach that we have taken -- and this gets us into the
    employer almost immediately, puts them on notice that someone
    has said there is a problem and that we are following up. It is
    one of the fastest ways to achieve resolution in the situation
    to get the worker on -- or the employer on notice and the
    worker out of the hazard.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you.
        Dr. Howard, what resources has NIOSH developed to educate
    employers and workers on how best to keep workplaces safe, and
    do you anticipate that NIOSH will continue to update this
    information?
        Dr. Howard. Well, let me take the second question. The
    answer is definitely yes. Our guidance changes rapidly, and I
    always tell people, don't print out CDC guidance from your
    printer because it may be out of date the next time you go to
    the website. This is a rapidly evolving situation. So our
    guidance changes pretty much every week and sometimes every
    day.
        The first question, we do a lot of educational guidance
    with regard to both these congregate working situations which
    are at highest risk, such as a nursing home, a meat-packing
    plant, situations in which congregate commerce occurs, where
    you have a worker and a customer close together. So we are
    doing a lot to educate the worker and the employer on these
    situations.
        Mr. Byrne. Good.
        So, Ms. Sweatt, let me go back to you for a second. We are
    beginning to see a lot of businesses reopen, which I want to
    say I think is a very good thing. So how does OSHA plan to
    engage with employers and workers, as Dr. Howard said, to
    ensure successful workplace safety outcomes?
        Ms. Sweatt. We are going to continue providing guidance,
    and as folks look to reopen, we will be working -- or we are
    actually working on reopening guidance so that when employers
    are looking at what they are going to do to protect their
    workers, we can explain how that intersects with our existing
    standards and regulations and what they need to do in order to
    be in compliance as they go forward.
        But the existing guidance that we have, that we have worked
    with NIOSH and others, really does provide a very productive
    roadmap for what employers should be doing as they look to
    reopen their businesses.
        Mr. Byrne. And, Dr. Howard, I think you kind of alluded to
    this earlier, let me go back to you about this, but CDC and all
    the rest of us are learning about this disease, like,
    literally, something new every day. So as you issue new
    guidance, you are taking into account what CDC and other people
    are telling you? But as you said earlier, it is happening so
    rapidly, you don't even print it out. You just put it on -- you
    know you are going to have to change it the next day. How
    difficult does that make it for both of you to actually try to
    come up with a, quote, standard as opposed to guidance?
        Dr. Howard. I think it is very difficult. Guidance is, as
    you mentioned, an easier pathway, based on the best
    professional judgment and hopefully the best science that we
    have. And it can be easily done, although the review process is
    long and detailed, as it should be. But when we learn something
    new, that guidance can be changed almost instantaneously.
        In the case of the meat-packing guidance, which we and OSHA
    put together, one of the big issues now is establishment level
    testing. Well, that is not really something that we put in the
    current edition of the guidance, but we are beginning to think
    more seriously about how you do that, because as we know, many
    meat-packing processing plants are doing that kind of testing.
    So we are beginning to think about that. So in the next
    iteration of our guidance, we may have more information about
    testing.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs.
    McBath.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    convening this hearing this morning. And thank you to both of
    our witnesses. We appreciate you being here.
        Over the last 3 months, we have watched as the COVID-19
    coronavirus has made its devastating impact on this Nation.
    100,000 Americans have died from this disease. The magnitude of
    loss is simply staggering. For those that we have lost and the
    millions of Americans who have lost someone, we continue to
    mourn.
        In this time of crisis, we have seen time and time again
    that everyday heroes simply live among us and from every part
    of our communities. Frontline healthcare providers working
    around the clock to treat our families, first responders,
    grocery store workers, essential employees, and delivery
    workers have all answered the call to ensure that all Americans
    can have access to vital services and goods during this period.
        We have seen outbreaks in meat-packing plants, COVID wards
    filled with healthcare workers and essential employees, and yet
    there is no infectious disease standard for these workers. My
    colleagues and I are committed to strengthening protections for
    these workers, and I was very pleased to join Chairman Scott
    and other Committee Members as an original co-sponsor of the
    COVID-19 Every Worker Protection Act.
        This bill strengthens OSHA protections by creating an
    Emergency Temporary Standard for frontline workers, while
    considering the constraints that have been placed on employers
    during this crisis. However, this legislation is not necessary
    for OSHA to act.
        Ms. Sweatt, my question is for you. As you know, the
    following H1N1 pandemic, OSHA began work in earnest on
    infectious disease standards. Yet 3-1/2 years into this
    administration and 100,000 American deaths into this pandemic,
    please explain why the OSHA infectious disease standard is
    still languishing on the long-term regulatory agenda.
        Ms. Sweatt. What I can explain is that OSHA has prioritized
    the protection of healthcare workers. We did that very early
    on, if you look at the guidance and the information that we
    sent out. We are very concerned about access to respirators for
    these individuals, and we issued no less than five enforcement
    guidance documents to ensure that our frontline healthcare
    workers were given the best access to respirators that they
    could have. And I would note that it languished on the
    regulatory agenda of the previous administration for 8 years.
        Mrs. McBath. Now, if the permanent standard had been put
    into effect, would it have provided OSHA with additional tools
    to deal with the pandemic?
        Ms. Sweatt. OSHA is using its existing tools to address the
    concerns that are related to healthcare workers and all workers
    with this pandemic.
        Mrs. McBath. But does OSHA intend to resume work on this
    standard, on the standards that you are talking about?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think we are getting very close to this is in
    litigation, and I really cannot comment further.
        Mrs. McBath. All right. So then, basically, I see that you
    are still moving forward full steam ahead with OSHA'S tree care
    standard. Is that really a good way to be spending your time
    during this unprecedented crisis?
        Ms. Sweatt. Our folks were able to multitask, and we were
    able to complete that standard. Tree care work is very
    dangerous work, and it is an important standard for us to
    address. That has been languishing on the regulatory agenda for
    20 years.
        Mrs. McBath. Well, it is apparent that you would have more
    resources if you had not cut OSHA'S standards by 10 percent in
    2017. So given the crisis, would you consider a significant
    increase in OSHA's regulatory budget helpful to you?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that this Congress has increased our
    budget, and we will use those dollars wisely.
        Mrs. McBath. I will ask a question. When is your next plan
    of action for that standard? And when do you expect to have a
    proposed rule? Can you give us a date or a month or a time?
        Ms. Sweatt. I am sorry, for which standard?
        Mrs. McBath. For the proposed standards that you are
    already using.
        Ms. Sweatt. The regulatory agenda, it speaks for itself.
        Mrs. McBath. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
        Chairwoman Adams. [Presiding.] Thank you very much.
        I am going to yield now to the gentlelady from North
    Carolina, Ranking Member of Education and Labor.
        Dr. Foxx, you are recognized.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today.
        Ms. Sweatt, it is very nice to see you again. Dr. Howard,
    very nice to see you all again.
        Ms. Sweatt, on March 5, 2020, 6 days before the World
    Health Organization classified COVID-19 as a pandemic,
    Committee Democrats sent a letter to Secretary of Labor Scalia
    demanding that OSHA immediately issue an Emergency Temporary
    Standard for COVID-19. Since March 5, a great deal has changed
    in both the scientific understanding of COVID-19 and the
    application of appropriate and effective safety protocols in
    combating workplace exposure to the coronavirus.
        Can you explain further the rationale behind the detail
    workplace safety guidance OSHA has issued to date and whether
    this approach has been effective?
        Ms. Sweatt. I do believe that this approach has been
    effective. We started with our general industry guidance. We
    provided as much information as we had available. And we have
    since brought on more industry-specific guidance. We have
    manufacturing, construction, meat processing. It has been a way
    for us to, as we learn more about the virus and spread, for us
    to really dig into the specific places and put out better
    guidance for employers.
        And then we have also managed to take these guidance
    documents and break them into usable pieces for workers. And we
    have translated almost everything that we have into Spanish.
    And some of our materials is in about 12 other languages.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Sweatt, Committee Democrats and
    their union allies have been circulating an untruthful talking
    point, which has been echoed in various media outlets,
    including The Washington Post, that OSHA has been, quote,
    ``missing in action,'' end quote, when it comes to protecting
    workers from COVID-19.
        Do you believe the administration's critics and their media
    allies undermine workplace safety when they misleadingly claim
    that OSHA is neglecting its responsibilities, that employers
    are willfully ignoring safety in their workplaces and that
    workers have few, if any, protections under the law?
        Ms. Sweatt. Dr. Foxx, thank you very much for highlighting
    this. I felt so strongly about the accusations that I wrote a
    letter to The Washington Post refuting those assertions, and
    they printed it. I am happy to provide that for the record.
        Ms. Foxx. I think it would be useful if we put that into
    the record.
        I want to add to that one of our colleagues earlier said
    that the absence of the rules that the Democrats want means
    that there is nobody out there protecting the health and safety
    of workers.
        It is an abysmal misunderstanding of how the private
    workplace operates, and that is that every employer wants his
    or her workers kept safe. They are their most valuable assets.
    And we hear that accusation over and over and over on this
    Committee. And, again, it is very clear that they have no
    concept of what happens in the private working sector.
        Dr. Howard, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,
    NIOSH and the CDC have constantly updated their guidance as the
    outbreak has developed and as more is learned about the
    coronavirus. What process does NIOSH use to update or change
    its recommendations? And what factors does the agency take into
    account on considering updates to its guidance?
        Dr. Howard. Well, thank you very much for that question.
    You know, there is a lot of our guidance, both NIOSH guidance
    as well as CDC guidance, coming from our emergency operations
    center. In fact, if I printed it all out, there would be a
    stack very high here. And the primary drivers for guidance are
    stakeholder need, perceived issues related to the virus itself,
    and what we are seeing as the situation evolves. So it is a
    very responsive-type process to what is happening on the
    ground.
        So I would sum up by saying that it is probably the most
    responsive guidance machinery that I have ever seen at CDC.
        Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for what
    you are doing, what you and your colleagues are doing, because
    we know you are focused on the health and safety of American
    workers.
        And, Ms. Sweatt, I appreciate you emphasizing that in your
    first comment. I have another question for you. On April 8,
    OSHA issued a statement reminding employers that it is illegal
    to retaliate against workers because they report unsafe and
    unhealthful working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic.
    What protections do workers have under the OSHA Act against
    unlawful retaliation? And how is the agency responding to
    whistleblower complaints during the pandemic?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. This is very important
    work at the agency. And we have 23 whistleblower statutes that
    we are in charge of. What we see with the COVID-19 is mostly
    11(c), which is in the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
        What I would like to say is that the agency and its
    whistleblower investigators have already achieved reinstatement
    of workers, they have seen letters of reprimand removed. Just
    based on a phone call as we initiate the investigation -- and
    in fact we have reports of businesses understanding and
    changing their structure so that they are not retaliating and
    that they are encouraging the reporting of safety and health
    concerns.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, Dr. Foxx.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much, Dr. Foxx.
        I want to recognize now Ms. Jayapal.
        Ms. Jayapal, unmute.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I hope you
    can hear me okay, and I very much appreciate this hearing. I
    think this is a very important hearing, and I appreciate the
    witnesses.
        We are in an unprecedented time. We have lost over 100,000
    American lives. That is almost more than we lost during the
    Vietnam -- during World War I, and it is more than all of the
    worst combined since World War II. So I think what we are
    talking about is something extremely unprecedented that
    requires our complete attention and devotion.
        What happens when an agency fails the people it is supposed
    to protect? People suffer and people die. People like Tyson
    Fresh Meats beef-packaging worker, Guadalupe Olivera, who loved
    to travel to national parks with his wife; Amazon warehouse
    worker, Harry Sentoso, who died on his 27th wedding
    anniversary; 28-year-old mental health counselor, James
    Simpson, whose own experiences in foster care led him to work
    as a counselor for troubled teens; and transit worker and
    father of three, Scott Ryan, who coached his kids in baseball
    and wrestling. These workers lost their lives to COVID-19 after
    faithfully serving their communities during this pandemic. The
    loss of these workers' lives is an incredible tragedy and a
    preventable one.
        OSHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor and is
    charged with that important responsibility of protecting
    workers. And I am glad to have a representative of OSHA here
    today to better understand what you have been doing to protect
    workers during this pandemic.
        So, Ms. Sweatt, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of OSHA, how many workers in the United States have contracted
    COVID-19 in the workplace?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have -- we have reports of worker injury
    related to COVID-19. And what we do instead have -- and better
    statistics -- are the fact that we have 5,000 COVID complaints
    right now. And our agency is working expediously --
    expeditiously, excuse me, to close those complaints and figure
    out how to provide employers and workers the best information
    available to protect themselves.
        Ms. Jayapal. So, Ms. Sweatt, are you saying that OSHA,
    which is the agency charged with protecting workers, is not
    tracking COVID-19 infections in the workplace? I mean, the
    U.K., for example, has been carefully tracking COVID-19-related
    deaths by occupation. Are you not tracking this? Are you
    incapable of tracking COVID-19 infections in the workplace
    separate from the complaints?
        Ms. Sweatt. I would -- I could go into a description of
    recordkeeping and the employer's responsibility under
    recordkeeping, but I think Dr. Howard might be the best person
    to talk about the way that COVID-19 is tracked.
        Dr. Howard. Thank you, Loren.
        Yes, at CDC, as I mentioned in my testimony, we have been
    getting better at tracking occupation and industry for COVID-19
    cases. We have a new case report form that we are hoping that
    the States will start using, we asked them to start using it on
    the 15th of May, in which there are specific fields that can be
    filled out that delineate what the occupation and industry of
    that worker is.
        We have done more in the area of surveillance for
    healthcare worker occupation, and we are beginning to do that
    for meat, poultry, and chicken processing workers also.
        We have received funding from the Congress recently to
    modernize data collection at CDC for these types of things. And
    I am happy to go into more detail on that.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Howard. I guess, you know, what
    I would say is May 15 is pretty late for beginning to track
    deaths and occupational deaths and cases.
        Let me go back to Ms. Sweatt. Isn't it true that OSHA
    revised its previous enforcement policy for recording cases of
    coronavirus stating that under OSHA's recordkeeping
    requirements, coronavirus is a recordable illness and employers
    are responsible for recording cases of coronavirus? And, also,
    isn't it true that OSHA only revised this data collection
    policy on incidents of COVID-19 in the workplace on May 19,
    more than 2 months after President Trump declared a state of
    emergency?
        Ms. Sweatt. So our first recordkeeping guidance or
    enforcement document really wanted to have folks -- sorry for
    the feedback -- focus on healthcare workers and for other
    employers to look at hygiene practices. And so there was never
    a recission, if you will, of a requirement to put recordkeeping
    and COVID-related recordkeeping on their logs.
        As America looks to reopen, we issued a new guidance
    document that reemphasizes the employer's obligation to examine
    COVID-19 work-relatedness and put that on their OSHA logs.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Your time is up.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal.
        Let me now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        There has been a lot of discussion today from my colleagues
    across the aisle pointing to an Emergency Temporary Standard as
    being the only solution to guarantee workplace protections,
    which completely overlooks the significant burden that would be
    placed on small businesses that are already struggling, as most
    of the country can see.
        Small businesses in my district and across America have
    been shattered due to the extended closures because of COVID-
    19. I speak to small businesses literally every day who are
    hanging or trying to hang in there to make tough decisions just
    to keep their doors open. Imposing restrictive and duplicative
    regulations would simply create additional barriers.
        My question, Ms. Sweatt, if I could start with you, you
    mention in your testimony that important work OSHA -- the
    important work OSHA is doing in conjunction with the CDC to
    issue industry-specific guidance to ensure worker safety. Just
    yesterday when I was looking through the CDC website, I was
    very encouraged to find detailed guidance for various
    industries ranging from the retail to the airline industry.
        Can you expand on why it is important to issue guidance
    tailored to address the unique challenges of each industry as
    opposed to a one-size-fits-all regulation covering all
    industry?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I think it is very
    important that we are able to take our general industry
    guidance and then put it into the specific industries because
    they are different. Construction can be outside and inside.
    Manufacturing is mostly inside. So there is a variety of social
    distancing issues that folks face.
        And if I can comment briefly on the small business aspect
    of your question. We have an onsite consultation program that
    is available in all 50 States for small businesses to find a
    person who can help them implement safety and health. And there
    is a firewall between the OSHA enforcement side of the house.
    And we have seen dramatic improvement and results from small
    businesses utilizing our onsite consultation program.
        Mr. Walker. And using the right title, Dr. Howard, if I
    could ask you something. How often does the CDC and OSHA
    receive new data on COVID-19, given the constantly changing
    information? So hold that one question.
        Let me say the second part is, what is the likelihood that
    a regulation published as soon as tomorrow would be applicable
    or relevant even 4 to 6 weeks from now?
        Dr. Howard. Well, regarding the first question, you know,
    as I said, this is a highly evolving situation, and we get new
    data every day, not only from -- from the surveillance system
    that we have in place and the ones that we are developing, but
    also from a number of these industries that you are talking
    about. I can't speak to the issue of regulation because CDC
    does not do regulation.
        Mr. Walker. Yeah, I want to swing that part of it back over
    to Ms. Sweatt. Do you have anything to weigh in on the
    question?
        Ms. Sweatt. I just would agree with Dr. Howard that this is
    rapidly evolving, and our folks are tracking this. They are
    working 24/7 to provide the best information available.
        Mr. Walker. Under the OSHA Act, once an ETS has been
    issued, it must be replaced with a permanent standard. I
    believe the timeline is within 6 months, using the customary
    rulemaking process, which includes gathering stakeholder input
    through public comment as well as hearings.
        Ms. Sweatt, can you tell me what is the average amount of
    time it takes to gather the necessary data and evidence to
    publish a permanent standard?
        Ms. Sweatt. According to a GAO report, OSHA takes 8 to 15
    years to promulgate a new standard.
        Mr. Walker. So would you say that an abbreviated rulemaking
    process would require additional resources that could be used
    to enforce existing guidelines to protect workers in order to
    publish the rule within a 6-month timeframe?
        Ms. Sweatt. I do think that we are working around the clock
    to provide the information available, to make information
    available and work towards protecting workers. And the other
    piece of the rulemaking issue is we do find that it is very
    important to get the most robust comments during our rulemaking
    process.
        Mr. Walker. Well, I think it is clear for all of us that
    this is still a learning process. We want to be diligent. But I
    would hope that we can all agree that OSHA and the CDC
    resources are best spent on assisting American workers and
    businesses, maintaining safe workplaces, rather than complying
    with more bureaucratic demands.
        With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Walker.
        Let me yield to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to address some comments by my colleague
    across the aisle, Mr. Byrne. The problem with silencing
    witnesses on issues before this and other Committees is that we
    seem to be mired in lawsuits brought by both sides of the
    aisle, which could basically bring a halt to the very important
    work done by these Committees.
        Also, it is usually on advice of counsel that a witness is
    instructed not to speak on a matter in litigation. This process
    just allows an administration witness to pick and choose which
    question she is willing to answer.
        I would further like to comment on Mr. Byrne's remarks.
    H1N1 killed fewer than 13,000 people in a year. COVID has
    killed 100,000 in 4 months. To say that we should not have a
    standard on the basis of H1N1 is also a false comparator.
        With that, Dr. Howard, I have a question for you. A large
    survey by the American Nurses Association indicates that where
    facilities are reusing and decontaminating respirators, 54
    percent of nurses believe it is unsafe to use a decontaminated
    respirator N95 mask. A different survey by the National Nurses
    United found that a quarter, 25 percent of respondents had to
    reuse a so-called decontaminated respirator with confirmed
    COVID-19 patients.
        Is there solid evidence that decontaminated N95 respirator
    masks are safe for healthcare workers to use? And are
    decontaminated respirator masks as protective as new ones in
    preventing infection?
        Dr. Howard. Thank you for that fair question. I am aware of
    those surveys and I understand that being a healthcare worker
    myself. I think one of the issues that I would like to
    emphasize at the get-go is that decontamination of an N95
    respirator is not the first step in optimizing the use of
    respirators for healthcare workers. It is literally the last
    step. Every other type of respirator that we recommend in
    healthcare, a PAPR, an elastomeric, et cetera, be used before
    you decide to decontaminate your supply of N95s.
        The science about decontamination is relatively new, and I
    mean, very new. Manufacturers would take exception to the idea
    of decontaminating an N95. What we recommend in terms of a
    hospital that is planning to do this is to check with the
    manufacturer. There are over 500 models of the N95, and each of
    them are constructed a little differently, out of different
    material, and they have different configurations. And it is
    important that you identify with the manufacturer what do you
    think is going to happen to this particular model that we are
    using if we use vapors, hydrogen peroxide as a decontamination
    method?
        So, again, it is the last step in the hierarchy of
    controls. PPE is always the last step, and amongst PPE
    optimization procedures, it is literally the last step.
        So take it very carefully, check with the manufacturer, and
    check with the companies that are planning to decontaminate
    your respirator. Have they done testing? One, does the
    respirator survive the elastic bands, et cetera? And two, does
    it kill the virus?
        Ms. Wild. Thank you very much for that very complete
    answer. You have answered my other questions that I was going
    to ask you.
        Ms. Sweatt, in your March 19 letter to Chairman Scott and
    Representative Adams, you stated that an Emergency Temporary
    Standard is not needed to protect healthcare workers or other
    workers because the healthcare industry fully understands the
    gravity of the situation and is taking the appropriate steps to
    protect its workers. But we know that close to 62,000
    healthcare workers have been infected with COVID-19, and 291
    are dead as of last count.
        I suspect that some hospitals are safer than others --
    would you agree with me on that -- for workers?
        Ms. Sweatt. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on
    that.
        Ms. Wild. Okay. You need to turn on your mike. But you
    don't have an opinion one way or the other.
        I know that we have two excellent healthcare institutions
    in my Pennsylvania district that have taken worker safety very,
    very seriously. On the other hand, we have another hospital
    where employees have reached out to me with deep concerns about
    their lack of PPE, the need to reuse surgical masks, paper
    masks -- like the one I am wearing now -- over and over again.
    Wouldn't an OSHA standard ensure that all of our healthcare
    workers be kept safe while caring for the rest of us?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, I think if you are talking about
    respirators, respiratory protection is already required. And so
    it really becomes access to respirators.
        And I think Dr. Howard could talk to some of the things
    that they are doing related to respiratory protection. But what
    we did early on was address the need to slow the burn rate. One
    of the requirements in our respirator standard is an annual fit
    test. We ensure that the fit test could occur while still
    protecting workers and not destroying the respirator, which is
    what the annual fit test would require otherwise.
        And so we have been very concerned about that since day
    one. And we have issued five guidance documents related to
    respirators and their use in order to --
        Ms. Wild. Excuse me. I would note that this is not
    responsive to the question I asked. But with that, we are out
    of time. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wild.
        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, you are recognized.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the witnesses
    for being here today.
        Dr. Howard, you mentioned that at NIOSH, you have
    significantly increased work hours in order to more than triple
    the rate of respirator approval and denial decisions from 30 to
    over 100 decisions per month. That is a significant increase.
    And I appreciate the steps you are taking to expand your
    workload during this time.
        And, Ms. Sweatt, thank you for outlining how OSHA has been
    responding to this virus and how frequently you are issuing
    guidance. It is imperative during a time like this that OSHA is
    able to remain responsive to the new discoveries through the
    ability to revise guidance. It is clear that OSHA is working
    hard to ensure employees are protected and that their guidance
    is accessible through things like COVID-19 Tip of the Day and a
    top 10 list of the actions employers and workers can take to
    prevent COVID-19 infection.
        I would ask, Ms. Sweatt, back on April 16, OSHA issued an
    interim enforcement policy advising the agency's compliance,
    safety, and health officers to evaluate an employer's good-
    faith efforts to comply with safety and health standards during
    the coronavirus pandemic. Can you elaborate on this policy,
    including what kinds of factors OSHA will consider when
    evaluating an employer's efforts and how employers should
    document these efforts to comply?
        Ms. Sweatt. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. And
    that was really focused on a lot of the medical removal issues
    and medical requirements and our existing standards. And a lot
    of the people who are providing these services to workers were
    no longer able to do that because of shelter-in-place issues.
    And so spirometry, iodometry, those things were not going to be
    available to the employer.
        So as they look to reopen and they look to reschedule that,
    if and when an OSHA inspector comes on site, they need to
    explain what their plan is going forward to catch up on the
    requirements that they have to protect their workers under
    these standards.
        Mr. Cline. As OSHA continues to revise its guidance based
    on the newest information surrounding the coronavirus, how are
    you working to inform businesses about these changes? And
    moving forward, will OSHA consider industry-specific webinars
    and offer opportunities for industry to ask direct questions?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you very much for the question. We have
    had a very active engagement with the unions and with
    stakeholders. Our folks have done a variety of webinars. Our
    compliance assistance individuals talk about almost 4,000
    outreach activities that they have already done in the last 2
    or 3 months. So we are actively engaged on all fronts of what
    the agency does. And as we continue our work through the summer
    and into the fall, our folks will be available, and we will
    give the best information that we can.
        I think one of the most important things that we can see
    immediately is the dramatic increase to the number of people
    who have visited our website to look at our guidance documents.
    And so I think people are really, truly looking for answers.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Dr. Howard, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization
    permitting the use of certain respirators certified under other
    -- under other country's safety standards during the pandemic.
    How is NIOSH working with the FDA to ensure the efficacy of
    these respirators?
        Dr. Howard. Thank you for that question. NIOSH works very
    closely with the center at FDA that is responsible for
    approving respirators. And we look with FDA to the standards
    that particular manufacturer in that country are using. There
    are some international standards that the EU has, for instance,
    that many Chinese manufacturers use. So we work with FDA to
    figure out which of the -- KN95s, they are called, coming from
    China, for instance, meet the international standards. And then
    they are included on the FDA's EUA.
        Mr. Cline. And you mentioned this earlier, but you had the
    opportunity to expand on it a little bit, beyond the issuance
    of formal guidance, what additional resources has NIOSH created
    for employers and workers to educate themselves about how to
    prevent COVID-19 in the workplace?
        Dr. Howard. Well, one of the things that we do, we do field
    technical assistance visits with other centers at CDC. As I
    mentioned, we have done 34 sites for beef, pork, and chicken
    processing. And we have had excellent cooperation from the
    plant operators and from the companies involved, even though
    they are dealing with a very difficult situation.
        As you know, a meat-processing plant is a very labor-
    intensive workplace. And our recommendations are fundamental on
    the issue of keeping people apart. That is extremely difficult
    to do in a very labor-intensive operation like meat processing.
        So those field investigations have been educational for us
    and they have been educational also for the plant operator and
    the companies.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
        I want to now recognize the gentlelady from Michigan.
        Ms. Stevens, you are recognized.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I join my
    colleagues in mourning the staggering loss of 100,000 Americans
    to this wretched disease.
        Ms. Sweatt, it is known that you oversee an agency with a
    budget of $552 million, is that correct, and you oversee about
    2,300 employees?
        Ms. Sweatt. About 2,000, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Stevens. Okay, great. And are you currently working
    from home?
        Ms. Sweatt. No.
        Ms. Stevens. You are going in every day. And how many -- I
    guess, how many calls or meetings do you take a day? I have to
    imagine it is quite a few.
        Ms. Sweatt. Yes.
        Ms. Stevens. And are most of them just meetings that have
    been scheduled? Are they kind of reactive meetings? Are there
    specific calls or, you know, outreach that you are doing that
    is sort of unprompted?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think my schedule is a combination of
    activities related to -- we have a weekly meeting with all of
    our senior staff and regional administrators. I meet weekly
    with the directorate heads, as we are able to do that.
        Ms. Stevens. Have you spoken to any essential workers? Have
    you picked up the phone and called any or -- any employers that
    are deemed essential during your time?
        I know as a Member of Congress, that it was sort of
    unprompted, but the first call I made when this pandemic was
    declared was to our grocery stores, because I just thought,
    holy smokes, you are now all of a sudden an essential service,
    just almost overnight, how are you getting prepared. Have you
    made any calls like that?
        Ms. Sweatt. Yes. We have had calls with the unions. We have
    had calls with stakeholders. We have performed webinars. I have
    personally done these things myself, as has the staff. And, you
    know, we continue our --
        Ms. Stevens. You have an outreach office, right? You do,
    you have an external affairs outreach office?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, we have a communications office, but we
    also have a directorate of compliance and State programs. We
    have had every other week --
        Ms. Stevens. I would invite you anytime, ma'am, excuse me,
    I would just invite you anytime to call the incredible grocers
    in Michigan. We -- and nursing homes for that matter. I mean,
    these hardworking individuals, every single day, I know they
    would absolutely welcome a phone call from you at anytime.
        And, Dr. Howard, thank you so much for your expertise and
    your testimony today. I think last month, you might have seen I
    introduced legislation to create an inner agency task force
    that would bring together experts from across our government to
    establish the scientifically-based guidance and recommendations
    to our industries, right? And I heard you in one of the
    previous responses that you -- you see the CDC changing almost
    on a weekly basis.
        How is that being communicated? And how are you with NIOSH
    working on an inner agency basis to communicate these changing
    science-based facts that are coming out of our coronavirus?
        Dr. Howard. Well, our chief method of communication is
    obviously through the CDC website on coronavirus. The
    interaction with other Federal agencies are chiefly OSHA. The
    Department of Agriculture, which we have had a much closer
    relationship with lately in the Food Safety Inspection Service,
    FSIS, as well as the Department of Transportation on airline,
    the FAA, for instance.
        So wherever the particular workplace or industry is, we
    tend to reach out to that particular Federal agencies that are
    often regulators, that are responsible in that area, the
    stakeholders, the unions involved, and the employer
    associations that service that industry.
        Ms. Stevens. Great. Thank you, Dr. Howard.
        And, Ms. Sweatt, Michigan has been pretty hard hit, and
    particularly in our nursing homes, by this coronavirus
    pandemic. I have heard complaints, as you were citing, from
    businesses in my district that have found OSHA's guidance
    sometimes confusing and vague.
        So, for example, on page 10 -- and I read this report
    several times on the guidance on preparing workplaces for
    COVID-19. On page 10, you state that employers should provide a
    face mask, if feasible and available, and ask a person to wear
    it, if tolerated.
        Why did OSHA issue guidance like this? And why not just
    clearly state that masks can prevent the spread of COVID-19
    when they are worn by workers?
        Ms. Sweatt. I would point out that this was written in
    early March, and so the issue involving the thought process
    around face masks may have changed. But I do think that Dr.
    Howard can give you the more scientific issues around the use
    of face masks. Our concern here is often around respiratory
    protection and the use of respirators.
        Ms. Stevens. With that, I am out of time, but we thank our
    Committee Chair for holding today's hearing. And we will follow
    up on questions for the record.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Ms.
    Sweatt.
        I am going to recognize myself now for my questions. I did
    have to leave to go vote.
        Ms. Sweatt, do you think that COVID-19 presents a grave
    danger to workers?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that you are asking questions around
    the Emergency Temporary Standard, and I can't answer that.
        Chairwoman Adams. Well, I am not -- I am simply asking, is
    COVID-19, in your opinion, does it present a grave danger to
    workers? Yes or no?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that you are asking a question around
    the Emergency Temporary Standard.
        Chairwoman Adams. Oh, okay. You are not going to answer
    that. All right.
        Ms. Sweatt, at least 260 healthcare workers have already
    died of COVID-19. Tens of thousands have been infected. Is
    COVID-19 a grave danger to healthcare workers? Can you give me
    a yes or no?
        Ms. Sweatt. Madam Chair, what I will tell you is that OSHA
    has prioritized healthcare workers and identified the issue of
    respirators since the very beginning of this pandemic. As I
    have said before, we issued five guidance documents in an
    attempt to ensure that the burn rate on respirators did not
    impact these workers.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. But is it a grave danger, yes or
    no? You can't say yes or no --
        Ms. Sweatt. Madam Chair, I am not going to answer yes or no
    questions.
        Chairwoman Adams. All right. Let me move on. I don't want
    to use up my time like that.
        Dr. Howard, would you try to answer yes or no for me,
    please? Do you think that COVID-19 presents a grave danger to
    workers?
        Dr. Howard. Yes, I do.
        Chairwoman Adams. All right. Let me ask you, Dr. Howard.
    Let's focus for a moment on the meat-packing workers. Is COVID-
    19, in your opinion, a grave danger for meat-packing workers?
        Dr. Howard. Yes, I do.
        Chairwoman Adams. What about healthcare workers?
        Dr. Howard. Yes, I do.
        Chairwoman Adams. All right. Ms. Sweatt, can you answer me
    honestly, if you were a worker in a meat-processing plant or a
    nursing home, would you feel safer knowing that there was an
    enforceable OSHA standard and the agency stood ready to issue
    citations if safe working standards were being violated? Or
    would you feel safer knowing only that your employer just had
    to make a good-faith effort to comply with voluntary guidance?
        Ms. Sweatt. What I can tell you is that the agency has
    focused on the meat-processing industry. We have over 58
    complaints or inspections active currently. And we have had
    daily phone calls with FSIS and Dr. Howard's office to address
    the concerns around meat packing and --
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay, ma'am. I just want to know, if you
    were a worker, would you feel safer knowing that there was an
    enforceable standard, OSHA standard, and that the agency stood
    prepared to issue citations if safe working standards were
    being violated? Or would you feel safer knowing that the only
    thing your employer had to do was just to make a good-faith
    effort? Can you give me a yes or no?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that I am going to tell you that the
    agency is doing everything it can related to this specific
    industry to provide the best available information.
        Chairwoman Adams. Yes, ma'am. Let me move on.
        So, Ms. Sweatt, despite voluntary OSHA and CDC guidance and
    the Presidential executive orders, conditions in meat plants
    are getting worse. Now, you can say yes or no to that, but we
    have got all of the data, comes on TV. Every day we see that
    people are not only coming down with the disease but that they
    are dying in these plants.
        And over the past month, according to The Washington Post,
    the number of infections tied to three of the country's biggest
    meat processors -- Tyson Foods, Smithfield, and JBS -- have
    gone from just over 3,000 to more than 11,000. Worker deaths
    have tripled, surging from 17 to at least 63.
        Now, given those numbers, would you say that your current
    strategy to ensure the safety of meat-processing workers is
    working?
        Ms. Sweatt. I have to be very careful here because we do
    have open inspections and investigations in meat-packing
    facilities. So I think to answer your previous question at this
    time --
        Chairwoman Adams. No, I don't want you to answer the
    previous question. Okay. That one, you can't give me a yes or
    no?
        Ms. Sweatt. The answer is we stand ready if we find
    violations in our enforcement investigations --
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, ma'am. I have got 50 seconds.
        If the only way to accomplish social distancing in meat
    processing is to slow down the production lines, will OSHA be
    willing to order the plants to do so? Would you order the
    plants to do so?
        Ms. Sweatt. Line speed is not within the jurisdiction of
    the agency, but what they can do is in our guidance.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. That is fine. No, you wouldn't do
    it. Okay.
        And how many meat or poultry process plants has OSHA done a
    physical inspection? How many physical inspections have you
    done?
        Ms. Sweatt. Within the last week, I believe it is 10.
        Chairwoman Adams. How many of those have been closed with
    no citations?
        Ms. Sweatt. I believe most of those are still pending. We
    have 6 months to complete our inspection.
        Chairwoman Adams. Okay. Dr. Howard, let me ask you. You
    said that -- your testimony discussed the inspections of 34
    meat-packing facilities in 12 states. Given the difficulty of
    redesigning meat-packing facilities, would it be far more
    effective to keep the virus out of the plant by requiring
    regular testing of workers for COVID-19?
        Dr. Howard. Well, this is -- testing is a complex issue,
    and right now, CDC doesn't have the establishment-wide guidance
    to give an employer who is interested in doing testing.
        Now, we are thinking about that. We have a lot of
    information that we are putting together, and we may be coming
    out with more guidance on that issue. But right now, we don't
    have enough information to recommend establishment-wide. Now,
    those are asymptomatic workers --
        Chairwoman Adams. My time is up, sir. I apologize. My time
    is up. I am going to have to now yield. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie of Kentucky, you are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I thank the Chair for the
    recognition. I appreciate it. Thanks again for being here
    today.
        And my colleague from Michigan, Ms. Stevens, kind of talked
    about masks, and you said that was early in March. Things have
    changed. And I am on Energy and Commerce, Health, so we are --
    and O&I, so we are following this, the information.
        So businesses out there are trying to make -- they want
    their workers to be healthy and safe. They want to be. So as
    things change, how is OSHA being proactive in making sure
    businesses know these changes, and how does proactive business
    -- what is the best way -- if I am a businessperson in Bowling
    Green, Kentucky, trying to run a factory, what is the best way
    for me to know the best practices as these change every day,
    the updates?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, we can update our website very quickly,
    obviously. So as our documents go up, we put them out on the
    website. We push them out in as many social media platforms as
    we have available. And we have seen a dramatic increase in the
    traffic to our website, in addition to our newsletters. So we
    think employers and workers are seeking the best information
    possible.
        A lot of our website also links to our Federal partners,
    NIOSH and CDC. They also have an abundance of guidance based on
    what they are finding scientifically and medically. So we are
    working as quickly as possible to provide the best information
    to everyone.
        Mr. Guthrie. Okay, thank you.
        And then, Dr. Howard, I know the FDA -- because I have
    oversight on FDA, my other Committee assignment, and did the
    emergency use order for the certain respirators that are
    certified in other countries for use. So how is your
    organization, NIOSH, working with FDA to ensure these are safe
    -- their efficacy is there and they are eligible to be used?
        Dr. Howard. Well, thank you for that question. As I
    mentioned, you know, we work very closely with FDA on these
    emergency use authorizations that they publish. So our
    laboratory looks at the fit of the respirator and the
    filtration capability of the respirator. Those are the two main
    attributes of a respirator that we are -- think are very
    important.
        A lot of these international respirators are made
    internationally. And China, for instance, use ear loops. That
    doesn't give you the best fit, for instance. We have to look at
    both the filtration efficiency. And we have tested some of
    those respirators. They don't come to the 95 percent of
    filtration efficiency that an N95 is.
        So we work with FDA. We get -- States, for instance, are
    buying respirators from China. They send it to us for
    evaluation. We perform the evaluation and give them the
    results. We also share that with FDA. The FDA decides what
    models they are going to put on their EUA based on our testing.
        Mr. Guthrie. So you are saying the ear loops like this and
    the rest of us --
        Dr. Howard. The ear loops versus the ties behind the head.
    The two big issues for protecting the lungs from atmosphere is
    the fit. How tight the fit is so you don't get any leakage. And
    that is hard with the ear loops, okay. You get less fit. And
    the other is the material itself that filters the particles. So
    filtering and fit, those are the two big things that we test
    for.
        Mr. Guthrie. Dr. Bucshon, who is a surgeon in another
    Committee, we were talking, he says, yeah, people because they
    are wearing the mask a lot, they can cough without having to
    corrupt. And the problem is it can run out the sides, and it is
    probably -- it creates a moral hazard sometimes. You have to be
    careful with that.
        So let me ask another question. I know that sometimes you
    get conflicting information, businesses do and employers do.
    And not in this, specifically. I don't have any examples. But I
    know there are other areas that if you comply with one agency,
    you are violating another agency. I have seen that before.
        So, Ms. Sweatt and Dr. Howard, as more business are
    reopening -- and I have heard from employers in Kentucky on how
    critical to ensure the workplace safety guidance is consistent
    across the Federal Government and that agencies are not
    providing conflicting information -- can you both elaborate on
    how you work together and coordinate the public health agencies
    during the pandemic?
        Dr. Howard. Well, I will take it first. We work very
    closely with OSHA to make sure that does not happen. That is
    the worst outcome that we as one government can make is to have
    conflicting information.
        So any information that involves the workplace, we run by
    OSHA for their comments.
        Mr. Guthrie. Okay.
        Ms. Sweatt. I would say we have an excellent working
    relationship with our Federal partners, especially at NIOSH and
    CDC. I know our folks are on the phone with Dr. Howard's folks
    all the time. But I do believe that in the response to this
    pandemic, you have seen an all-of-government process here. And
    so anything that we put out has also been vetted to make sure
    that we are not in opposition with any of our other Federal
    partners.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And I appreciate the hard work you
    guys are doing. And I know we are all concerned, both sides,
    that people show up in a place where they can be safe and to
    work. And I know you are trying to put that out in an ever-
    changing environment. I know businesses are trying to figure
    out how to do it in an ever-changing environment. And we all
    need to work together and pull together to make this work. And
    thank you for your efforts. I appreciate it very much.
        I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Guthrie.
        Let me recognize the gentleman from Connecticut.
        Mr. Courtney, you are recognized.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
    hearing today.
        This Saturday in New London, Connecticut, there is going to
    be a memorial service for Elva Graveline, who was a certified
    nurse's aide who worked at a local hospital there, 52 years
    old, mother of two, grandmother of three, who succumbed to
    COVID a couple of weeks ago.
        And, again, there were stories in the human face of people
    who really are the good guys. She was a caregiver who treated
    her job as a CNA as a calling, not as a job, 23 years,
    described as kindhearted. And, again, it just reinforces that
    this is not a theoretical academic issue. This is really about
    human beings who are doing right by all of us in terms of
    keeping this country going forward.
        I just wanted to just touch base with both witnesses about
    the fact that this is not the first pandemic that OSHA has
    encountered. The AIDS/HIV pandemic in the late -- mid eighties,
    late eighties, and early nineties, OSHA acted, and it acted
    very swiftly to put into place real standards in terms of
    bloodborne pathogens.
        My wife is a nurse practitioner. She worked at Bellevue
    back in the eighties there, and she still remembers the day
    where, again, you drew blood and used needles with no gloves.
    And there was no such thing as disposable needles.
        OSHA created, with the standard, an enforceable standard,
    the regime that we now just sort of take for granted when we go
    into hospitals. Was OSHA wrong to institute a standard versus
    just operating with guidelines?
        Ms. Sweatt. I believe OSHA followed the direction of this
    Committee through a statutory requirement to establish that
    standard.
        Mr. Courtney. Correct. I mean, it was a prodding from
    Congress that they actually moved. And again, it wasn't a 5- to
    20-year process. I mean, it happened in much swifter terms.
        And, again, Dr. Howard, did OSHA do the right thing by
    implementing a standard to deal with AIDS/HIV?
        Dr. Howard. I think so. And I would like to point out that
    they followed California's lead in that area.
        Mr. Courtney. So, again, when we talk about having a
    standard put into place, this is not some wild, unprecedented
    sort of notion. I mean, the fact of the matter is it is just
    part of the reality every day when people walk into doctors'
    offices or hospitals.
        Again, Dr. Howard, your description of how to safely
    disinfect N95 masks that you testified to earlier was, again, I
    think a learning experience for all of us about the fact that
    you have got to really actually do more than just throw it in
    the washing machine. You know, there is real issues that you
    got to do it the right way.
        Why wouldn't that sort of, you know, standard be really
    something that would help guide a lot of employers?
        And I will tell you, because this is relevant in
    Connecticut, which again has been very hard hit. Again, we have
    had tremendous, you know, donations from, you know, private
    individuals, as well as FEMA, in terms of getting masks, N95
    masks. But some of them, as you point out, are different. They
    are not all the same.
        So if you are a hospital or a nursing home trying to, you
    know, organize this, I mean, you need -- it sounds to me based
    on your testimony -- you know, more than just lumping them all
    together and disinfecting them in exactly the same fashion. So
    why wouldn't that be a good thing to have, you know, that more
    precise advice that you described out there so that employers
    really would know that you have got to do more than just treat
    them all the same?
        Dr. Howard. Well, I certainly think that the more
    specification that you can provide an employer, the more
    helpful it is to that singular workplace. The problem is we
    can't do guidance that is highly specific to each
    establishment. So we have to do fairly general guidance and
    then look at the application, help employers -- both NIOSH,
    CDC, and OSHA, through their consultation service -- apply
    those guidelines to their specific workplace.
        Mr. Courtney. But, again, having a standard, which just
    says you have got to look at the manufacturer's specifications
    when you are going to reuse, you know, N95 masks, that is just,
    like you pointed out, necessary to make sure that these workers
    when they reuse them are actually going to be protected.
        And, again, I would just say, you know, one of my wife's
    good friends back home is a nurse at a local hospital who has
    been intubating COVID patients with reused N95 masks. I mean,
    they were basically reusing them over a period of 7 days. You
    could not get in a more high-risk situation than intubating a
    patient as a worker. And, you know, that just shows how life
    and death -- you know, having real standards out there so that
    people like Dawn are going to be safe in terms of doing, you
    know, just amazing work in terms of saving lives.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. [Presiding.] Thank you.
        Is the gentleman from Michigan prepared to ask questions?
        Mr. Levin. Yes.
        Mr. Scott. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Scott. Wait a minute. Excuse me, Andy. The other
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. I am sorry.
        Mr. Levin. Oh, okay, I am sorry.
        Hi, Tim.
        I yield to my esteemed colleague from Michigan, Mr.
    Walberg. Sorry.
        Mr. Walberg. Andy, it is good to see you. I hope you are
    well. I just wondered what that guy was spraying or looking at
    in your basement or whatever. So it has been interesting to
    watch.
        Mr. Levin. I will tell you later.
        Mr. Walberg. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. And I
    would concur that we ought to do this regularly, have live
    hearings where we are here in the room. It is the best way to
    get the work done. And I think by now we should be capable of
    handling this. Plus, we have a lot to consider.
        Loren, it is good to see you back.
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Walberg. It seems strange that you are not sitting
    behind me and telling me what to say and what to do when I
    chaired this Subcommittee for 6 years.
        Ms. Sweatt. I agree.
        Mr. Walberg. So you got me through well on that. And I am
    sure that you are giving it your best, best effort now where
    you are at. We appreciate that.
        Having been away for votes, I probably missed some
    questions I might have asked. But there were a few that I
    really wanted to ask you as well, and it goes back to guidance.
    And as we wrestle with that whole idea, I know during the time
    we worked together, on what rules need to be in place and what
    laws had to be in place, and how you could work in a system
    that mandated you be loose on your feet, as it were, to deal
    with situations that came up, whether it was in a mining
    situation or a manufacturing situation or now, of course, the
    hospital situations that are going on.
        Let me ask again why the agency believes it is better to
    issue guidance as opposed to a new regulation response to
    COVID-19 spread? And if you could also provide a real-world
    example of where your agency would have been delayed in this
    response if you had a hard-and-fast rule or law in place as
    opposed to guidance.
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. And I appreciate the
    kind words, and I share the sentiment.
        But I think what we have seen over the last 3 months is, as
    I said, we are at 5,000 complaints related to COVID. And the
    agencies take in almost the same number of complaints that are
    in our, unfortunately, normal safety and health concerns.
        So with the way this virus has changed and our
    understanding of it, our guidance documents have been able to
    address what we know today. We issued construction guidance
    just on Monday. We have more coming out maybe even as I speak.
    And, you know, we have gone from the idea of not wearing masks
    to now everyone, almost everyone in this room wearing masks.
    And that is a 2-month evolution of thought process.
        So we are able to look at what is happening and respond and
    put that information out as expeditiously as possible through
    our website. And yet our folks are still, as I have said, 24/7
    out there responding to COVID and, unfortunately, responding to
    other safety and health concerns. As people are returning to
    work, we are seeing a small increase in problems related to
    what I would call what we do on an everyday basis related to
    safety and health.
        So this is a good opportunity, I think, to remind folks
    that all of their obligations exist under the OSH Act and that
    employers need to really be focused on those as they restart
    their businesses.
        Mr. Walberg. In a Committee-Democrat forum held on May 14,
    former Assistant Secretary for OSHA, David Michaels, who I
    worked with extensively back then, told Members that if he was
    in charge of the agency during the COVID-19 pandemic, it would
    be doing inspections of high-profile workplaces and would be
    talking to the media to inform workers of their rights. Yet by
    all accounts, OSHA is doing just that.
        Can you elaborate on the department's efforts in this
    regard? And are there any other misleading statements made by
    our friends on the other side of the aisle that their union
    allies -- and their union allies that you would like to clear
    up?
        Ms. Sweatt. I would like to highlight one part of your
    question about whistleblowers. I think you could not get a
    better spokesperson for whistleblower protection than the
    Secretary of Labor at the White House. And he pointedly said,
    on April 9, that retaliation would not be tolerated. Our
    whistleblower investigators have tackled the almost 2,000 COVID
    complaints that we have received and the other 2,000 complaints
    that we have received from our other 23 or 22 statutes.
        So we have seen success with reinstatement of
    whistleblowers. We have seen, as I said, letters of reprimand
    removed. And we have seen actual policy changes by businesses
    to ensure that workers have the right to express concerns about
    their safety and health in the workplace.
        I am not really sure where people aren't seeing that
    message, but truly, the Secretary of Labor -- there is no
    higher authority, in my world, from the White House to
    determine and determinly say that this is not acceptable
    behavior.
        Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms.
    Bonamici.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair and the Ranking
    Member, and also to our witnesses today.
        We just, yesterday, in the United States passed 100,000
    deaths. And those aren't just numbers, they are real people.
    And our thoughts and prayers are with their families. But we
    have to keep in mind that the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration and the National Institute for Occupational
    Safety and Health have an obligation to prevent workers from
    hazardous conditions on the job, and they are falling short.
    Too many workers are facing risks at work.
        In the absence of leadership from the agencies, I was proud
    to join Chairman Scott in introducing the COVID-19 Every Worker
    Protection Act, and I was pleased that it was included in The
    Heroes Act. And my thoughts are with those essential workers
    who are showing up every day despite the risks -- the nurses,
    the doctors, the grocery store workers, the firefighters,
    postal employers, childcare workers, health workers. They are
    the heart and soul of our communities right now, and they are
    going to help us get through this.
        Dr. Howard, I want to ask you this, CDC recently changed
    its guidance allowing healthcare workers to use surgical masks
    rather than N95 respirators. After the CDC issued this
    guidance, and many hospitals denied healthcare workers access
    to N95s, news reports document cases of healthcare workers who
    objected to the CDC guidance and had their credentials
    challenged and were fired for insubordination, and some
    tragically died of COVID-19 because they lacked access to prep
    or PPE, personal protective equipment.
        So, Dr. Howard, was the change in the CDC guidance based on
    shortages in personal protective equipment or based on new
    scientific information?
        Dr. Howard. Thank you for that question. The answer is
    unequivocally it was based on a crisis strategy that we have a
    global shortage of the supply of N95 respirators. The science
    has not changed. It is only our current situation of supply.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
        Ms. Sweatt, you noted in your testimony that OSHA has the
    tools to protect workers from COVID-19 by enforcing the general
    duty clause and other existing OSHA standards. OSHA has
    received, as you noted, nearly 5,000 complaints and referrals
    related to COVID-19, and those range, it is my understanding,
    from outbreaks in the workplace to lack of access to PPE and
    insufficient physical distancing practices.
        The majority of these cases have been closed without
    action. So Ms. Sweatt, how many COVID-19-related citations has
    OSHA issued under the general duty clause?
        Ms. Sweatt. Sorry. At this point, we have issued one
    citation under an existing standard, and I would note that we
    still have 6 months to complete any investigation or
    enforcement action.
        So I think relying on looking at citations is maybe not the
    best parameters here. What we are really trying to do is remove
    the worker from the hazard or remove the hazard from the
    workplace. And so our priority has been that. We have been
    proactively working on all of those issues when we receive
    these complaints. Employers get information, in case they are
    not fully aware, and they are able to change their work
    practice. Where we do not find an employer who is protecting
    their workers, we will enforce --
        Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Sweatt, I am going to reclaim my time
    because I have some more questions. How many COVID-19-related
    citations has OSHA issued under any existing standard during
    COVID-19?
        Ms. Sweatt. As I said, we have had one within the last
    week, and, you know, there is still a very -- a substantial
    amount of time within our statute of limitations. These --
        Ms. Bonamici. I understand. But just one, and it is my
    understanding that was for a recordkeeping violation.
        Ms. Sweatt. It was --
        Ms. Bonamici. And I understand the general duty clause
    citation could take more time, which is why it would be more
    efficient and effective for OSHA to issue an Emergency
    Temporary Standard. But in your testimony, you emphasize that
    OSHA's existing standards for respirators, PPE, and
    sanitations, can these citations be issued faster?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have to build a legal case to defend our
    citations, and I do not believe that rushing to issue a
    citation is really the best effort. What our folks need to do
    and are doing is proactively inspect and investigate all
    complaints that we receive and build the appropriate legal case
    to defend those. To issue a citation that is not legally
    defensible would be irresponsible on our part.
        Ms. Bonamici. And I appreciate that, but in my home State
    of Oregon, Oregon OSHA has been more proactive. Their efforts
    have not been perfect, but I have been calling on them to do
    more to protect workers. Oregon OSHA recently issued a willful
    violation to a business in only 9 days. So what prevents
    Federal OSHA issuing citations in a similar time --
        Ms. Sweatt. Nothing prevents that, but what I don't think
    you see related to our complaints is, when we provide the
    employer information to protect their workers and their
    practices change. And that is one of the key elements is to
    remove the worker from the hazard or remove the hazard.
        So we think that there is positive action occurring when we
    have taken these complaints. And when we see an employer who is
    not moving to make appropriate changes, we can enforce.
        Ms. Bonamici. Well, I also want to note, Mr. Chairman, and
    colleagues, this committee received a letter from Dr. Rayfield,
    dated May 20, and with that letter, Dr. -- excuse me --
    Redfield attached the table with the CDC available data on
    healthcare worker infection rates.
        He also noted that it is likely an underestimate and not
    all cases are reported to the CDC. And I just want to note how
    challenging it is not only for you at OSHA and NIOSH to do your
    work but for us as policymakers to make good policy decisions
    without good data, so -- and I know my time is about to expire,
    or has expired. But I just want to note --
        Mr. Scott. It has expired.
        Ms. Bonamici. -- that we really need good data, and we
    don't have it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes. A couple questions. First of all, I
    think things are getting better. But part of the problem you
    are going to hear from employers is a lack of PPE. Okay? And in
    my district, we have some ability to make more masks, for
    example, which I think is one of the big things that employers
    are going to need. But I am wondering, are either of your
    agencies doing anything? It frustrates me, because I think we
    should have been weighing in harder, and the industry in my
    district is just doing yeoman's work in getting their new
    machines up and running quicker than they would under normal
    circumstances.
        But I am a little bit frustrated, say, with regard to FEMA,
    who I think maybe could have waited a little bit more or done a
    little bit more. Are you guys doing anything in your agencies
    to make sure that PPE is available for the businesses, or
    keeping track of how much we need, or working in coordination
    with FEMA or something like that?
        Ms. Sweatt. I will start very quickly, because I think Dr.
    Howard has a more robust responsibility in this area. One thing
    that OSHA has participated in over the last 3 months is the
    supply chain task force, and so our folks have been working
    with our Federal partners to determine how we can get more
    supply in.
        And, again, I testified previously, the most important
    thing that we did was our five guidance documents to try and
    assure that there was PPE respiratory protection available
    related to the burn rate within hospitals. And I will refer to
    Dr. Howard.
        Dr. Howard. Thank you very much. We work at NIOSH with our
    partners at CDC. CDC is part of the National Response
    Coordination Center, which is run by FEMA. Currently, the SNS,
    the national stockpile, is purchasing 800 million respirators.
    On the supply side, 3M is now up to 90 million respirators per
    month. Honeywell is up to 20 million respirators per month. So
    we are seeing a change now from where we were 3 months ago. So
    the supply is increasing.
        Now, I can't say the distribution of that supply in every
    corner of the United States is the same, but the supply
    pipeline is increasing.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. How many masks a month do you think we
    need?
        Dr. Howard. You know, that is a very difficult thing to
    figure out.
        Mr. Grothman. You can --
        Dr. Howard. One of the things that the NRCC is doing is
    looking at, as Loren said, that supply chain, what is the
    utilization. And we have a PPE burn rate calculator, which is
    now an app, that individual hospitals can use to figure out
    their own burn rate of that PPE.
        And we have a PPE monitoring system where we have about a
    hundred hospitals enrolled to date where we are developing that
    national system so we can figure out what is the inventory and
    what is the utilization rate.
        Mr. Grothman. Presumably you want some in places other than
    hospitals too. Aren't there other employers who you are going
    to want it for as well?
        Dr. Howard. Sure. What we are talking about though right
    now is the N95 respirator, which is, as we talked about, used
    for aerosolized procedures in hospitals.
        Mr. Grothman. And what is your target? How many a day do
    you think you need? Do you have -- you must have an idea.
        Dr. Howard. Well, we are talking in the billions in order
    to bring us --
        Mr. Grothman. Two million? Five million? What is your
    target?
        Dr. Howard. For the national supply?
        Mr. Grothman. Correct.
        Dr. Howard. Yeah, that number I don't know, but it is
    certainly in the billions.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Ms. Sweatt, thanks for being here
    again. I would like to ask you how OSHA helps employers
    determine worker risk of occupational exposure to COVID-19. I
    have a lot of manufacturing facilities in my district. Based on
    their specific operations, manufacturers may feel they fall
    into high-risk, medium-risk, low-risk. What is the biggest
    determining factor in the decision as to how close
    manufacturing workers are?
        What is the biggest factor determining how close
    manufacturing workers can be to each other throughout the day,
    and what are other factors that go into the classification of
    high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk?
        Ms. Sweatt. Sure. It is the sustained contact issue. So I
    think we have put out manufacturing guidance to help folks work
    through the issues. It is really incumbent upon the employer to
    do an analysis of their work practices and determine if there
    are changes that they can make. And you know, we have our
    hierarchy of controls within there.
        I know some folks find that to be maybe tedious, but I
    think that manufacturers have folks that are, you know, trained
    in this area, but it is really an important part of the agency
    as well, that we have compliance assistance specialists, and
    they are available.
        Mr. Grothman. I have one more quick question which just
    kind of popped into my head.
        Ms. Sweatt. Sure.
        Mr. Grothman. There was a feeling among some medical
    professionals that eventually regardless of what we do, this
    COVID is going to go through the population, that we should
    maybe protect the vulnerable, but it is inevitable that it will
    go through the population as a whole. The only question is how
    long that is going to take. Do you believe that or not? Five
    years from now, assuming we don't get a vaccine, is everybody
    going to be touched by it or not? What do you think?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that is outside of my jurisdiction at
    OSHA, and I would refer to Dr. Howard.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We --
        Dr. Howard. Do you want me to respond?
        Chairwoman Adams. Briefly.
        Dr. Howard. Yeah. There is no timeline. As Dr. Fauci has
    said at NIH, we are talking about 12 to 18 months, perhaps, at
    the outside for a vaccine. We hope for it being sooner. That
    would certainly be great. The issue about everybody in the
    population getting COVID-19, the issue is, do they all show up
    in the same emergency room at the same time? That is the issue,
    is protecting the healthcare system.
        Mr. Grothman. Do you believe it is inevitable over 5 years?
        Dr. Howard. I don't believe it is inevitable, but I do
    think that if everybody gets it all at once, you are going to
    end up crashing your healthcare system.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
        Let me recognize our distinguished Chair of Education and
    Labor Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. You
    are recognized.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, and thank our witnesses for being
    with us today. Ms. Sweatt, you have indicated that you are not
    responding to questions involving the Emergency Temporary
    Standard. I agree with the gentleman from Alabama that no good
    lawyer likes his client talking about issues under litigation,
    but as the Chair has indicated, you need a legal basis for that
    claim. Are you claiming a legal privilege, and if so, which
    specific privilege are you claiming?
        Ms. Sweatt. I have been advised by Department counsel not
    to answer questions on ETS.
        Mr. Scott. Can you provide for the record -- apparently you
    don't know which privilege they are using. If you could provide
    for the Committee exactly which legal privilege you are relying
    on, in order not to answer questions.
        Ms. Sweatt. [Nonverbal response.]
        Mr. Scott. And you have indicated in your testimony that
    OSHA considers retaliation against workers unacceptable. How
    many complaints of retaliation has OSHA received, and how many
    businesses have been sanctioned for retaliation?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have, as of May 26, 1,374 whistleblower
    complaints for COVID, and there is no statute of limitations on
    the investigations of those. So while investigations are
    ongoing, I can tell you in certain circumstances, we have seen
    resolution almost immediately when the whistleblower calls to
    initiate the investigation and --
        Mr. Scott. Well, by ``resolution,'' do you mean the worker
    got their job back?
        Ms. Sweatt. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Scott. Well, that is not a sanction. They shouldn't
    have been fired to begin with. How many businesses have been
    sanctioned?
        Ms. Sweatt. At this juncture, I don't believe we have
    issued any sanctions per se.
        Mr. Scott. So the --
        Ms. Sweatt. We have seen back pay -- reinstatement and
    backpay. And I think one of the more important issues is the
    change of approach by some of these businesses about how they
    address safety and health.
        Mr. Scott. So people have been fired in retaliation for
    making a complaint, and the businesses really show no -- there
    is no deterrence for that action?
        Ms. Sweatt. They reinstate, and they have to pay backpay.
        Mr. Scott. Okay. At which they owed the pay to begin with,
    and the person shouldn't have been fired to begin with, but
    there is no sanction.
        We know that there are many deaths in nursing homes, meat-
    packing plants, as well as healthcare facilities. The general
    duty clause is generally used after a death or serious injury,
    not for prevention. How many site visits have been conducted by
    OSHA, proactively for prevention, rather than in response to a
    death or some kind of complaint?
        Ms. Sweatt. I would say everything that we do is proactive,
    and we have issued nursing home guidance. And I would also
    point back to everything that we have done to try and protect
    the respirator supply for individuals in --
        Mr. Scott. But I asked you, how many have been proactive
    and not in response to a death or a complaint? In your response
    to questions in writing that you responded, you said all of
    OSHA's inspections are initiated through unprogrammed activity,
    those were either opened as a fatality inspection, catastrophe
    inspection, response to employer reports of hospitalized
    workers or initiated in response to complaints. None were
    proactive prevention.
        Ms. Sweatt. I would say that if you look at what we have
    done in previous natural disasters or other emergency
    situations where we have suspended enforcement, we proactively
    chose to not suspend enforcement in this area, and so, in fact,
    we have proactively pursued complaint inspections and
    investigations and done onsite --
        Mr. Scott. Proactively in response to complaints, that is
    not proactive. Is OSHA bound by the policy of eliminating two
    rules in order to establish a new rule?
        Ms. Sweatt. The Department as a whole is, yes.
        Mr. Scott. So you can't establish an Emergency Temporary
    Standard without repealing two other rules?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that is a question that you are trying
    to get on the Emergency Temporary Standard area. The two-for-
    one is larger than just the agency.
        Mr. Scott. Okay well --
        Ms. Sweatt. And so --
        Mr. Scott. I have a question for Dr. Howard. You formerly
    worked in California. Does California have an airborne
    transmissible disease standard, and what should Congress
    consider in drafting legislation to protect workers from
    airborne infectious diseases?
        Dr. Howard. Well, certainly California does have an aerosol
    transmissible disease standard. But I will leave the
    legislating to people who do that for a living.
        Mr. Scott. How long has it been in effect?
        Dr. Howard. I think it was 2013, somewhere around there. It
    was in development for a number of years before that.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
        The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, you are recognized.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Sweatt, we have
    heard untrue claims that the Trump Administration did not act
    soon enough to prevent coronavirus from entering our country.
    Can you give some detail about the actions taken by your agency
    prior to COVID-19 being declared a pandemic by the World Health
    Organization on March 11th to ensure that healthcare workers
    and other essential businesses were prepared to respond to
    unprecedented workplace safety challenges?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. OSHA
    had started as early as January of this year putting
    information on our website, through a safety and health topics
    page, to inform individuals about the pandemic, which at that
    point was an unknown novel coronavirus. We have pursued
    updating our safety and health topics page.
        We outlined what standards we thought employers should be
    aware of, that they should be in compliance with, and we have
    subsequently provided general industry guidance, along with
    almost 20 actual individual industry guidance documents to help
    employers respond to this pandemic.
        Mr. Comer. Dr. Howard, the poultry and beef cattle
    industries are major industries in my congressional district,
    and I have four major poultry processing facilities located in
    my district. Two of those have been significantly affected by
    minor COVID-19 outbreaks. You testified that NIOSH has been on
    the ground in dozens of meat-packing and meat-processing
    facilities across the country, conducting site visits, and
    providing recommendations to employers based on your
    observations. Can you explain some of the workplace safety
    challenges you have observed in these facilities and how
    businesses are implementing measures to address these
    challenges?
        Dr. Howard. Sure. As I said, you know this -- whether it is
    beef or pork or chicken, these are very labor-intensive
    activities. And people are extremely close together on a
    production line, and if the fundamental principle for
    protecting workers from COVID-19 is to separate people, it is
    really a feasibility challenge in these meat-processing plants.
        So we have come up with a number of different
    recommendations. In fact, they fill about 15 pages of our joint
    CDC/OSHA guidance, to try to help employers figure out how they
    can do that and still be able to produce the food the country
    needs. And that is a real challenge.
        Mr. Comer. I think we have learned as a public -- I am an
    agriculture guy, a former Commissioner of agriculture, so I
    knew this already, but a lot of Americans are figuring out that
    employees at food processing facilities are very essential
    workers. So I appreciate what you are doing there.
        There have been a few local hotspots in my congressional
    district, very few. I have 35 counties, I have probably had
    four counties that have had any, you know, measurable activity
    as far as being a hotspot in my congressional district. I am
    very thankful for that. And in Kentucky, businesses are slowly
    -- and I can't say this enough in Kentucky -- very slowly
    reopening.
        Every employer wants safety, that I know of. The CDC now
    recommends that everyone should wear a mask in public settings.
    This would apply to businesses and their employees as they
    return to the workplaces. Dr. Howard, are there any
    circumstances in which an employer should not have their
    employees wear a mask?
        Dr. Howard. Well, there are. There are some folks that have
    preexisting respiratory conditions. Things that are over their
    mouth make it difficult for them to breathe. They already have
    a difficult time breathing, so putting a mask on their nose and
    mouth can make it more difficult. So certainly those folks may
    not be able to wear a respirator, and they may complain to the
    employer. They just can't tolerate it. So some workers are
    going to be in that category.
        Mr. Comer. What about the recommendation that some States
    are implementing, I think based on CDC recommendations, with
    respect to youth sports, that young people wear masks, for
    example, playing baseball this summer? My son's on a tribal
    baseball team, and, you know, the temperature gets up in the
    hundred-degree weather and they are outside, they are spread
    out pretty good, but our governor came out and said that those
    kids need to wear masks.
        Is that something that should be of a concern for the
    children, 11, 12 years old or younger, wearing masks outside in
    hundred-degree weather?
        Dr. Howard. You know, CDC is just getting into the area of
    sports, both professional, amateur, and children's sports. So
    we don't have a lot of guidance on that area, but these are the
    kind of issues that we are all going to face as we approach the
    summer in terms of reopening.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, sir.
        Dr. Howard. So these are the things that we are thinking
    about.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
        All right. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize
    the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Levin, you are recognized,
    sir.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and thanks
    for holding this very important hearing. Earlier I think
    perhaps in the discussion with Mr. Courtney, Dr. Howard, you
    said that during the AIDS crisis, Congress required and OSHA
    implemented a mandatory standard to protect workers during the
    AIDS crisis. Is that correct?
        Dr. Howard. Yes. I think it was actually Ms. Sweatt that
    referred to the congressional mandate at that time.
        Mr. Levin. Okay. But so that happened then. And then some
    of my colleagues mentioned that, quite extensively, that the
    Trump Administration has acted similarly to the Obama
    Administration during the SARS outbreak, and so that this is an
    appropriate response.
        Ms. Sweatt, are you aware of how many Americans died during
    the SARS outbreak?
        Ms. Sweatt. I don't have those figures in front of me, no.
        Mr. Levin. Well, let me share them with you from the CDC
    website. In the United States of America, eight persons were
    laboratory confirmed as SARS cases, and there were no SARS-
    related deaths in the United States. Would you consider that to
    be a comparable situation to what we are going through now?
        Ms. Sweatt. I can tell you from the place that I sit at the
    occupational safety -- excuse me?
        Mr. Levin. I think that is a yes or no question. Ma'am, I
    am sorry I am not in the room with you, but that is a yes or no
    question.
        Ms. Sweatt. I have to tell you, from where I sit at the
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, we are at almost
    5,000 complaints on COVID, and we are responding as rapidly as
    we can.
        Mr. Levin. Okay. I am going to move on. I have got to move
    on with my questions. So NPR just reported this morning that we
    have had close to 300 United States healthcare workers alone
    killed by COVID-19. And obviously we have had a hundred
    thousand Americans who have passed away from COVID-19. Ms.
    Sweatt, given --
        Ms. Sweatt, more than three-quarters of OSHA's COVID-19-
    related inspections have been fatality investigations. To put
    it bluntly, OSHA is stepping in only once someone has died.
    Every day I get calls from workers who are terrified that they
    will become sick in their workplaces. Many worry not for their
    own lives but for the lives of sick or elderly family members
    that they reside with and support. What should I tell those
    frightened workers and those vulnerable workers about the fact
    that OSHA refuses to issue any mandatory standards in the
    greatest workplace healthcare crisis in our history?
        Ms. Sweatt. As I have said before, OSHA has existing
    standards to address a variety of aspects of this virus, and we
    are enforcing where we find failure to comply.
        Mr. Levin. Ma'am, you have issued one citation in the
    greatest crisis. You say you are acting proactively, but in
    fact, what you are doing is the definition of reactive. You are
    refusing to act proactively and issue a mandatory standard of
    any kind during the greatest healthcare crisis in the workplace
    in modern history.
        If your agency inspects workplaces only after a worker has
    died, you are not preventing worker infections. I would suggest
    that your agency could be acting strategically, looking
    proactively at industry sectors, determining the worst actors,
    identifying infection vectors, and protecting workers from
    being put in situations of unnecessary and cruel risk. But your
    agency is waiting for the worst possible outcomes before taking
    action. This is simply unconscionable.
        Let me ask a question of Dr. Howard. Sir, how long have you
    been in this field of occupational medicine yourself?
        Dr. Howard. Since 1981.
        Mr. Levin. And, sir, have you ever seen a comparable
    situation of the scope and scale of health risk in American
    workplaces during your long and distinguished career?
        Dr. Howard. The only comparison I can make is in the 1980s
    with the human immunodeficiency virus.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. You are out of time.
    Thank you.
        I want to recognize now the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Smucker.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Sweatt, thank you
    so much for rebalancing OSHA's mission to ensure compliance
    assistance is a priority. As a former construction business
    owner, I know how important that can be. Employers really do
    want to do the right thing. They care about their employees.
    They want to keep employees safe. And feeling like they can ask
    OSHA for assistance to ensure they are doing things correctly
    is absolutely critical.
        It appears to me my colleagues on the other side of the
    aisle are looking to pin OSHA as the scapegoat and place blame
    for the spread of a global pandemic on employers. And I will
    just, food for thought, that may seem like a pro-worker stance
    right now, but it won't be very pro-worker when their misguided
    targeting causes them to lose all their jobs due to business
    closures.
        So a question for you, my colleagues on the other side of
    the aisle seem to think the guidance you put out is optional
    and that employers can choose to follow them. They will argue
    that this is why we need to pass more onerous laws that will
    end up in a legal spider web that do not meet the needs of all
    industries.
        Do you think that rhetoric could ultimately be more
    dangerous for workers if employers are misled to believe that
    they don't legally need to follow your guidance?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, I definitely think it is problematic, but
    I think what we need to say here is employers do need to know
    and understand their obligations under the Occupational Safety
    and Health Act. They need to make a plan. They need to
    determine what they need to do to protect their workers, and
    the time to do that is now before a dramatic reopening.
        I know we have talked a lot today about essential workers,
    and, you know, we have looked at a lot of these essential
    worker categories and have tried to provide the best updated
    scientifically accurate guidance that we can, and you know, we
    will continue to do our work.
        And if I could respond briefly to the previous question
    that I received. You know, OSHA has responded to almost 5,000
    COVID complaints, and what we are trying to achieve every day
    is removing the worker from the hazard or removing the hazard
    from the workplace.
        Mr. Smucker. So can you tell me a little bit more about
    that process, the screening process, when you do get a
    complaint? How does it get evaluated? How long does it take?
    How is it determined that OSHA will open an investigation, and
    if so, what does the investigation entail?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you. The investigation entails the
    employer being put immediately on alert that we understand
    there could be a problem in their workplace. They have to
    respond to us. They have to tell us what they are doing to
    resolve the complaint. If we find the resolution that they have
    proffered inappropriate or not protective of the worker, we can
    convert to an inspection and, you know, work to our
    enforcement.
        But again, it is removing the worker from the hazard or
    removing the hazard from the workplace. These are really the
    goals that we need to be focused on to protect workers and not
    just issuing citations.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you. I am going to go to Dr. Howard. I
    would like to thank you for the work that your agency is doing
    to produce the guidance that all Americans are relying on to
    make safe decisions as they navigate the threat of COVID-19. We
    appreciate all the long hours that both you and your team at
    NIOSH, as well as the team folks at OSHA are putting in to
    ensure that guidance is there. It really is needed for
    employers to safely reopen.
        I know NIOSH has played a central role in finding ways to
    overcome the global shortage of PPE. And we have heard from
    hospitals in our district that it has been difficult to find
    sources. Just what information can you share to help them
    address PPE shortages and also employers as well? How do they
    find appropriate and safe PPE?
        Dr. Howard. Well, as I mentioned before, the supply of
    filtering facepiece respirators, like N95s, is increasing. I
    pointed out that domestic manufacturers, like 3M and Honeywell,
    have doubled, tripled their production capabilities. 3M is
    making 90 million N95s per month. Honeywell is making 20
    million N95s per month.
        Mr. Smucker. I want to get in one additional question. I
    know that CDC collects data on instances in which COVID
    exposure could have happened in the workplace. How can we truly
    determine if someone's exposure did indeed occur in the
    workplace?
        Dr. Howard. Well, thank you for that question. That is a
    very difficult question to answer, to tease out what is true
    occupational exposure from what is community exposure that is
    then carried into the workplace. Remember, this virus doesn't
    have wings or feet. It has to have a person carry it around.
        So distinguishing between occupational transmission and
    community transmission is a topic that is involving some very
    smart epidemiologists at CDC currently.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. You are out of time.
        Let me recognize now the gentle lady from Florida, Dr.
    Shalala. You are recognized.
        Ms. Shalala. Thank you very much. Ms. Sweatt, you told
    Representative Bath to look at the regulatory agenda for the
    status of the OSHA infectious disease standard. That standard
    is languishing on a long-term agenda -- after a hundred
    thousand deaths and thousands of worker deaths, how can you not
    be working on that particular standard?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you for the question, Dr. Shalala.
    Because at this juncture, we are working on responding to the
    COVID pandemic, and I am putting the regulatory agenda aside.
    The work of this agency has been focused on protecting workers
    and, again, removing them from the hazard. And that is, you
    know, our primary mission and goal right now is to execute that
    work.
        Ms. Shalala. I didn't understand that answer, but let me go
    on to Dr. Howard because I am interested in data. The CMS has
    issued regulations that require that all long-term care
    facilities and nursing homes that receive Medicare and Medicaid
    funding report the number of infections and deaths among
    residents and staff members, PPE supplies, staffing shortages,
    and testing -- CMS has said that these facility reports will be
    publicly available.
        Wouldn't it make sense to add the requirement for hospitals
    to report healthcare worker COVID-19 infections and deaths to
    the existing reporting requirements? I looked at the CDC new
    requirements for the States. CMS is going to collect better
    data, and I would think that after they set out the nursing
    home and long-term care facilities data that they wanted, that
    they ought to extend it to hospitals and other healthcare
    institutions. Could you react to that?
        Dr. Howard. Sure. And I think that is up to CMS, but on the
    CDC front, we are moving in data modernization to taking the
    beginning of the pipeline for disease surveillance data, which
    is the healthcare facility, and then the State health
    department and then to CDC, we are looking at electronic data
    modernization, and we thank the Congress for the additional
    funds that are available there.
        In the here and now, we have redone our case report form
    which includes specific sections about healthcare workers, as
    well as workplace exposures. So we are hoping that new form,
    which the States now are getting up to speed on, will improve
    our ability to know exactly where the occupational -- industry
    and occupations are in the American workforce.
        Ms. Shalala. Let me follow up on that. As you know, the CDC
    has had trouble getting States to use uniform standards for
    information so that you couldn't compare it nationally. Will
    this particular standard be the same for every State, or will
    they be able to vary it as they have in the past?
        Dr. Howard. Thank you for that question. Excellent
    question. We are trying to move to a uniform national
    surveillance disease reporting system. So that is the goal.
    With the cooperation of the States, we hope that -- and the
    States have challenges. Some States have some IT support
    challenges in getting there, but hopefully we are going to be
    much better off than we have been in terms of national disease
    surveillance.
        Ms. Shalala. It includes nursing homes, I assume?
        Dr. Howard. Yes. It includes any kind of institution that
    is reporting disease that, as you well know, having been
    Secretary of HHS, the CSTE and CDC have agreed to collaborate
    on reporting that particular condition to the Federal
    Government.
        Ms. Shalala. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
        I want to yield now to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr.
    Watkins. You are recognized.
        Oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Oh, just a minute, I am sorry. Mr.
    Meuser, you are recognized. I apologize, Mr. Watkins.
        Mr. Watkins. No apology necessary. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Meuser. Well, thank you, thank you both for being here
    very much, being present and answering our questions.
        So getting our economy open, getting people back to work is
    just about a top priority, right above all else, as well as
    getting our schools open, come September. So maybe I could ask
    a couple questions about that as well.
        But what is crucial, of course, is that businesses open
    with a high level of health and safety workplace standards. And
    I am a firm believer that our businesses need to open, but we
    need to in a very responsible manner. And I don't think that
    this is going to be over the short-term. Businesses need to
    prepare for a longer term, evolving, always improving health
    and safety work environment.
        So from OSHA's standpoint, I know, Ms. Sweatt, you have
    been putting out -- OSHA has been putting out guidance for a
    while now, I think as many as 26 or 27 different forms of
    workplace guidance. I assume that is going to continue to
    evolve and -- I haven't read them all, my apologies -- but are
    you offering the essentials behind social distancing -- and
    again as guidance -- PPEs, the masks, when it is appropriate to
    wear gloves? Is OSHA's guidance getting that specific?
        Ms. Sweatt. Our guidance is pretty comprehensive, yes. And
    I think as folks look to returning to work, employers should
    start to plan now about how they are going to protect their
    workers. They can do that by examining work practices, and our
    guidance speaks to a variety of different work practices.
        So, yes, for example, our meat-packing guidance discusses
    social distancing as well as carpooling. So I think that it is
    robust guidance to provide information to employers and
    workers.
        Mr. Meuser. Okay. Are businesses, are you finding, asking
    for any additional funding or some sort of support to set
    themselves up with plexiglass and everything else? Who knows,
    maybe even building another annex, so all workplace areas can
    be six feet apart? Are you getting any requests such as that?
        Ms. Sweatt. I am not getting funding requests, but our
    compliance assistance specialists, and our compliance
    assistance program has received almost 5,000 requests for
    information, so I think people are looking to the agency for
    answers.
        Mr. Meuser. Okay. And Dr. Howard, are you involved as well
    in putting out guidance for workplace? I read some of your
    background.
        Dr. Howard. Yes. That is an understatement. We have reams
    of guidance available in very specific situations.
        Mr. Meuser. Okay. Is CDC, is OSHA adopting it? Are you
    finding it to be practical and useful?
        Dr. Howard. A lot of the guidance that relates to
    workplaces specifically and workers are reviewed by OSHA folks
    before they are issued by CDC, so there is a collaborative
    effort.
        Mr. Meuser. Okay. Is OSHA finding high level of compliance?
    I spend a tremendous amount of time talking with businesses
    throughout my district and visiting them, even under today's
    circumstances, because they are working, and so we go out. Are
    you finding a high level of compliance, Ms. Sweatt?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think there is a mixture of results, but I do
    think that employers are attempting to achieve the best
    protection that they can. And again, where we fail to see that,
    our enforcement folks will be right there.
        Mr. Meuser. Okay. I would -- do you offer any models? Do
    you use any companies as examples? There are many throughout my
    district if you are interested in those that not only have made
    their workplace very comfortable and very safe, but the records
    show it. Many of them have had no COVID cases with over 500
    employees, and they have been following strict guidelines, that
    they get the feedback from their workers, which is smart, for
    how to achieve this. Are you gaining such information on a
    regular basis and offering models?
        Ms. Sweatt. We are very fortunate that people are providing
    some of their return-to-work practices, and so we can review
    that in the context of our standards, and you know, we are
    actively participating in webinars with a variety of
    stakeholders, and the union folks have been talking to us.
        So we are engaged, we are open, we are listening, and we
    will adapt our guidance documents to what we are learning.
        Mr. Meuser. Well, it is very important, obviously not a
    higher priority than finding a vaccine and correcting the virus
    itself. Lastly, are you providing any information for
    restaurants and -- for the actual opening? Are you planning
    ahead for what restaurants can do in order to open safely?
        Ms. Sweatt. There is CDC guidance available already, yeah.
        Dr. Howard. CDC has guidance on restaurants and bars.
        Mr. Meuser. Right. But it needs to evolve. That guidance
    doesn't necessarily include people sitting down and operating -
    -
        Dr. Howard. Yes. The current guidance has all of those
    issues, but I also mentioned that all of our guidance is
    evolving. And so additional information may be available.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
        Mr. Meuser. Thanks for the answers. I yield back. Thank
    you.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Let me yield now to
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro. You are recognized.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you all for
    your testimony today. On April 28, President Trump announced
    that he would issue an executive order that would use the
    Defense Production Act to force meat-packing plants to remain
    open, leaving tens of thousands of workers in unsafe
    conditions.
        The actual executive order did not do that, because it
    turns out there is no authority under the DPA to force plants
    to stay open. Instead, the order left meat-packing plants
    without any protection for workers, letting tens of thousands
    of workers get sick, and over 20 meat-packing plants to close
    down.
        Ms. Sweatt, after President Trump issued his executive
    order, you and Solicitor of Labor Kate O'Scannlain issued a
    statement stating that before issuing citations, quote, OSHA
    will take into account good-faith attempts to follow the joint
    CDC/OSHA meat-processing guidance.
        So my question, my first question to you is, what motivated
    the issuance of this statement? Who directed you and the
    Solicitor to issue it, and can you explain what you mean in the
    statement by ``good-faith attempts''?
        Ms. Sweatt. So to start with the good-faith effort, it is
    to look at the guidance that we have issued jointly with CDC,
    and we have seen employers in this area already instituting a
    lot of the guidance in the information here. So there has been
    some, you know, proactive measures taken. OSHA is working with
    Dr. Howard's office and FSIS. We are having daily phone calls
    to examine the issues surrounding what they are seeing on the
    ground and what we are seeing.
        We have active enforcement efforts, and we have been into
    these plants for inspections, and we will continue to do that.
        Mr. Castro. How many plants have you all inspected?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have, I think, almost 58 meat-packing
    compliance -- sorry -- enforcement activities right now. And I
    think we have been into about 10 within the last week.
        Mr. Castro. And there have been, in the last count I saw,
    about 11,000 folks infected because of meat-packing plants.
    Many folks have died. Many of the workers have died. So if an
    employer shows good faith, is it the case that there will be no
    OSHA citation? Is that right?
        Ms. Sweatt. Well, good faith and other standards are two
    different things. So I would hesitate to comment on a strawman
    if you will. Enforcement is going to be based on the specifics
    of what we find in a plant.
        Mr. Castro. Well, I don't think it is a strawman. I mean, I
    think people's lives are literally on the line. People are
    getting infected here. These standards are not mandatory
    standards. We can agree on that, right?
        Ms. Sweatt. We have existing standards for other
    activities, sanitation being one of the key, I think, in this
    area. I would like to say for a moment, you know, the people
    that work at OSHA are dedicated to protecting workers and
    preventing illness, injury, and fatalities. So --
        Mr. Castro. Well, let me -- I don't question that. Let me
    ask you, do you think these standards that have been discussed
    recently when the pandemic hit, do you think these standards
    should be mandatory?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that what we have provided in this
    guidance is a roadmap to helping protect these workers. It is
    one element of the response that the government has had. CDC
    and NIOSH have gone into these plants and done wall-to-wall
    epidemiological surveys, and we have access to that information
    as well.
        And so I think there is a variety of people across the
    government who are working to improve the safety and health in
    these --
        Mr. Castro. Well, but you have got 11,000 people that have
    gotten sick. You have got a lot of people that are dead now.
    The meat-packing plants, along with nursing homes and cruise
    ships, have been the places where this thing has spread very
    rapidly, and yet you don't believe that these standards should
    be mandatory?
        Ms. Sweatt. I think that people should comply with the law,
    and if we can continue to put the best practices in place, we
    will eventually and hopefully, you know, soon, as in tomorrow,
    eradicate this problem, but it is a challenge, and our folks
    continue to tackle it.
        Mr. Castro. And I also think that the good-faith standard
    is problematic here because can you tell me anywhere else in
    the OSHA enforcement program, aside from equipment shortages,
    where good faith gets an employer out of an OSHA citation?
        Ms. Sweatt. I can tell you that upon implementation of the
    silica standard, we implemented the good-faith policy for
    approximately 30 days as employers learned and tried to figure
    out how they were to comply with the new silica standard. So it
    is not novel, if you will, and we have seen dramatic compliance
    with silica now.
        Mr. Castro. Thanks for your testimony.
        The Trump Administration has been woefully inadequate in
    setting standards, mandatory standards, that will save people's
    lives, even as more and more people have become infected and
    the President has forced these plants to stay open. And that is
    an incredible failure of the Federal agencies and of the Trump
    Administration. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. We are going to
    recognize now the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Watkins. You are
    recognized, sir.
        Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr.
    Byrne. Thanks to the panelists for coming today. It is my
    belief and most people in eastern Kansas' belief that the
    President and associated agencies have taken decisive action
    amid this incredible pandemic.
        And in fact, it is during this time the response warrants
    not only just a whole-of-government approach but really a
    whole-of-America approach, and now is the time when we should
    be looking past partisan politics and come together in order to
    respond in an appropriate and proportionate manner. And I
    believe that largely we have done that, and I know, Dr. Howard,
    you have brought up how conditions and guidance is evolving,
    because we are a learning organization.
        And I also know that, Ms. Sweatt, you have pointed out that
    the guidance is just that, because the, you know, decision-
    making authority, in my opinion, ought to be pushed down to
    more local levels where it could be adopted to a community
    because they can see their health situation and what applies to
    them.
        You know, what might be true in New York City might not be
    true in Topeka, Kansas. And in fact, what might be true in
    Topeka, might not be true in a small town called Iola, Kansas.
    They might know how many hospitals they have, how many -- what
    PPE situation is and all. And so I applaud you for your
    efforts, and I know it is a very challenging time.
        Ms. Sweatt, getting back to the increased number of
    employers and employees who have reached out to you, has there
    been any particular industry that has reached out more than the
    other industries?
        Ms. Sweatt. No. I would say we have seen across the board
    from industries looking for information and guidance, and we
    have provided as many people from the agency as possible to
    talk to folks, either webinars or, you know, answering other
    questions. And, you know, again, by and large, we do think that
    employers are trying to do their best to respond to this. And
    the agency will be there to help give them the best information
    that we can.
        Mr. Watkins. Thank you. And Dr. Howard, as the economy
    regains its strength, you know, most of us agree that the
    biggest fear and threat here is a deflationary spiral going
    past these economic lines that we can't return back from.
        And so obviously we want to return back to work. We all
    think many of us believe that to be the best stimulus. We can't
    simply just print money in hopes that saves us. And so that
    makes the CDC and its guidance so incredibly, incredibly
    important. Does the CDC have specific guidance for companies
    that the workers aren't simply allowed to practice social
    distancing perhaps by nature of how closely they are required
    to stand?
        Dr. Howard. Well, I think the paradigmatic type of business
    that we are familiar with, having done now a number of field
    investigations in these workplaces, is meat processing, where
    it is extremely labor-intensive. People are shoulder to
    shoulder oftentimes on these production lines. There is nothing
    closer than that type of workplace.
        We have also seen in nursing homes, in hospitals, you have
    to be close to the patient. You can't do your work 10 feet away
    from the patient. So there are a number of workplaces in which
    congregate working situations are significant.
        Mr. Watkins. And in eastern Kansas we have actually, in my
    district, we have had a hog slaughtering business that has had
    a number of cases. What should I, as a policy maker, what
    should I know as I approach those business leaders?
        Dr. Howard. What I would do is take a copy of the CDC/OSHA
    guidance on meat and poultry processing for workers and
    employers, all 10 pages. Those are our recommendations for
    solving the problem.
        Mr. Watkins. Excellent. And this question is generally for
    both of you. Would you say that we are generally trending up or
    trending down in our capacity to deal with this pandemic?
        Dr. Howard. Well, if you look at the case numbers, other
    than some notable hotspots, the general numbers in new cases,
    day over day, as well as new fatalities day over day, are going
    down. As the CDC Director has pointed out, there may be a
    second wave in the fall, coupled with our normal seasonal
    influenza, so we can't rest until we take care of the whole
    problem.
        Mr. Watkins. Thank you. That does it for my time. Thank you
    for coming. I appreciate your professionalism and hard work.
        Madam Chair, I yield.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. I want to recognize
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
    thank both our testifiers for being here today. We do know that
    the job that you do is very important and appreciate the work
    you do, and I know the employers that you help appreciate
    keeping their employees safe.
        Because as an employer myself prior to being elected to
    office, I understand that the most important asset that we have
    is the people that go to work every day in our businesses, and
    we want to make sure they are safe.
        Ms. Sweatt on May 19, OSHA updated an interim enforcement
    response plan to increase the use of on-site inspections for
    all types of workplaces, not just healthcare facilities and
    emergency responders as OSHA had previously prioritized. Can
    you explain OSHA's rationale for initially focusing on
    healthcare and emergency responder cases for onsite inspection,
    and why the agency is now expanding the use of onsite
    inspections in other workplaces?
        Ms. Sweatt. Thank you. As the pandemic began, our frontline
    healthcare providers were clearly in the, you know, the most
    challenging position to address the pandemic.
        So we put all of our -- not all -- but we put a majority of
    our resources into helping with those kinds of complaints,
    working with our guidance documents to ensure respirators were
    available to them.
        As the pandemic has changed and as the country looks to
    return to work, we thought our posture should change as well,
    and so we have gone from places where employers were not
    actually open, which would have also changed our resources, to
    looking at where people are going to be opening and encouraging
    folks to, you know, plan. And our people will be out.
        We have protocol for how our inspectors will work onsite,
    and our folks are to do job hazard analysis before they go do
    inspections so that they can protect themselves as well.
        Mr. Keller. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Dr.
    Howard, I think we touched on this a little bit, but I will
    just sort of say this. As the economy regains its strength,
    businesses will continue to take steps to return to full
    operating capacity. This could be difficult, however, because
    there are areas and tasks in workplaces where social distancing
    is simply not feasible. Does the CDC currently have guidance
    that provides safe alternatives where social distancing is not
    possible, and if not, would the agency consider providing such
    guidance to employers and employees?
        Dr. Howard. Yes. We have -- a lot of our guidance does
    create a default physical distancing, but then when physical
    distancing is not feasible, we recommend other things, such as
    the wearing of cloth facial coverings.
        Mr. Keller. The other question I guess I would have, as we
    see and as we move forward, and as employers start to open up
    their businesses and start to, you know, get to more operating
    capacities and increase that, the guidance that they need, as
    it is updated, how readily available, or how are we
    communicating that to our employers so that they have the most
    up-to-date information?
        Should we find a better way to protect our employees or a
    more efficient way of going about it? Is that something that is
    pushed out by OSHA and CDC, or do the employers have to go
    someplace to look for that?
        Ms. Sweatt. Our information is available on our website,
    and we have seen a dramatic increase in the use of our website
    and our guidance documents. We link to a lot of CDC guidance,
    but we are also using all of the social media platforms
    available. So we are trying to reach as many folks as possible.
    We have a newsletter that has gone from approximately 230,000
    to 280,000 subscribers over the last month and a half, so I
    think people are looking to the agency for information. And we
    are updating it as quickly as possible when we learn of changes
    or other things that we need to be doing.
        Dr. Howard. I would just add, one of the other channels
    that we are using are webinars that are specifically sponsored
    by employer associations in particular areas.
        I have done several, the Iron Workers International, for
    instance, three for the National Safety Council. So webinars
    are a good way to get information out and then for the
    attendees to ask questions of government officials.
        Mr. Keller. Yeah. I would say, as we experience things in
    different parts of the country, there might be a best practice
    or somebody that is -- two similar manufacturers or processors
    or what have you, but somebody may have figured out a best
    practice.
        Are we able to share that readily across industry? Is that
    something that we push out a notice to anybody? Can they sign
    up for, like, an alert if something changes, or how does that
    work?
        Dr. Howard. Sure. And I think one of the issues is our
    guidance, CDC guidance, evolves based on what we learn from
    employers and workers in the particular workplace, how they are
    making their workplace safer. So we include all of that
    learning into our next version of guidance on the particular
    industry or occupation.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much. Time is up.
        Mr. Keller. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you.
        Let me recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr.
    Johnson. You are recognized, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My line of questioning
    will be for Dr. Howard. Dr. Howard, last month, the President
    announced that CDC, OSHA, others, should do everything they can
    to keep meat-packing facilities open given the critically
    important role they play in the food-supply chain.
        I was just hoping you could walk us through a bit what the
    technical advice, guidance, and work your agency has done in
    continuation of that mission?
        Dr. Howard. Well, as I mentioned, we have a 10-page
    guidance that we have done with OSHA, and it is really jam-
    packed with a lot of very specific information for processing
    in beef, pork, and chicken. One of the challenges as I have
    mentioned --
        Mr. Johnson. If you could highlight maybe the top two or
    three best practices and findings.
        I just know, particularly in South Dakota, this is an area
    of high interest because of the Smithfield plant, and I think
    folks watching at home on the internet, they may be interested
    to know the best recommendations.
        Dr. Howard. So we start out with the basic recommendation
    of physical distance between employees. But as you well know,
    coming from South Dakota and the Smithfield plant and other
    plants like that, it is very difficult. It is a very labor-
    intensive process. So what can you do in lieu of that physical
    distancing? You can try to separate people. Maybe you can put a
    partition between them so that they are not shoulder to
    shoulder. Or you can protect their breathing zone by the use of
    a cloth face mask with a face shield, et cetera.
        One of the things that we have noticed in these plants, and
    I will mention this because to me it is a very important best
    practice, these plants are very, very noisy. And one of the
    things we have seen, even if you keep individuals separated as
    much as you can and you keep a cloth face mask and a shield,
    they sometimes have to speak to each other or a supervisor and
    off comes the shield, down comes the mask, and they are
    shouting at each other, you know, mouth to ear.
        That kind of interaction is a possible transmissive event.
    So if we can prevent that from happening, that is a best
    practice that we think would really help. It is not one that a
    lot of people know about because people are more knowledgeable
    about separating the line in terms of employees.
        The other thing is ventilation in the workplace to make
    sure that you are moving a lot of air. In a workplace like
    these plants, you know, the temperature is kept very low, which
    actually helps the virus. So it is a challenge. The
    temperatures are low because of food safety issues.
        So each time you look at one of these best practices, you
    have to put it into the context of the production facility
    itself. It is a very challenging thing for us to make
    recommendations and to get them to be feasible, technically,
    within that workplace, a very challenging thing.
        Mr. Johnson. I mean every relocation, obviously, is
    different. I mean, we talk a bit about the role of the screens
    as people go into the workplace. The last time I was at
    Smithfield, I examined the -- what appeared to be rather
    rigorous process they have for people to get into the plant
    with temperature checks and screening questions. Has that
    proven to be effective? Is that a key best practice?
        Dr. Howard. Sure. When you look at the hierarchy of
    controls, the first step is hazard elimination. Well, the
    hazard is actually the virus. It just happens to be carried
    along by people who may not know they are infected. They may be
    asymptomatic. Or they may have a little fever, but a lot of
    people don't really notice they have a fever.
        So those checks prior to entry: Do you have any symptoms?
    Symptom questioning. Are you around somebody? Have you been in
    contact with anybody who has Covid-19? The issue about doing a
    temperature check. And then some companies are starting actual
    testing. But testing for the virus is only a snapshot in time.
    It is not -- it is not the -- it doesn't answer the whole thing
    as you go through time. It gives sometimes workers a false
    sense of security.
        So together with those entry checks, then you go into the
    workplace and you look at engineering controls, administrative
    controls, and PPE, if necessary.
        Mr. Johnson. So obviously, humankind is very good at
    fighting the last battle. And it does seem that there is high
    awareness, and packing plants are on high alert. But that is
    obviously not the only critical portion of the food supply
    chain. What is the next place? What is the next weakness within
    the food supply chain that we should be attuned to?
        Dr. Howard. Well, when you look at the food when it gets to
    the grocery store and the interaction in that setting, not
    between workers, between workers and their customer -- and
    oftentimes you see now the same kind of physical distancing,
    engineering controls happening with Plexiglas between the clerk
    and the customer.
        So we are seeing the same fundamental principal, i.e.,
    physical distancing being used in a lot of creative ways
    depending on the specific workplace that you are in.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Howard.
        And thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you very much.
        I want to remind my colleagues -- let me thank the
    witnesses very much -- 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
    close of business on June 10, preferably Microsoft Word format.
        The materials 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 record.
    Documents are limited to 50 pages. Documents longer than 50
    pages will be incorporated into the record via an internet link
    that you must provide to the Clerk within the required time
    frame. But recognize that years from now, that link may no
    longer work.
        Pursuant to House Resolution 965 and the accompanying
    regulations, items for the record should be submitted
    electronically by emailing submissions to
    edandlabor.hearings@mail.house.gov. 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, the record will
    remain open for 14 days for Committee practice for additional
    submissions after the hearing.
        Again, I want to thank the witnesses for your participation
    today. What we have heard is very troubling. Members of the
    Subcommittee may have some additional questions for you, and we
    ask the witnesses to please respond to the questions in
    writing.
        The hearing record will be open -- held open for 14 days in
    order to receive, receive those responses.
        I want to 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 now want to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member
    for his closing statements.
        Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get started, I
    ask unanimous consent to place in the record letters from the
    American Hospital Association, The Coalition for Workplace
    Safety with 58 additional organizations, and the National
    Association of Manufacturers providing their views on today's
    hearing topic.
        Chairwoman Adams. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Byrne. Thank you.
        I want to thank the witnesses. That was outstanding. You
    provided this Committee and the public with an enormous amount
    of very important information, and we are grateful to you for
    it.
        Sometimes you were asked questions and said it is a yes or
    no, unfortunately, this topic does not lend itself to a lot of
    just simple yes or no answers.
        A lot of Members said that this is very important. And they
    are right. This is extremely important. And that is why 20 of
    us -- I am updating my count from my opening -- 20 of us
    decided to be here in person, 13 Republicans and 7 Democrats.
    We felt strongly enough about it to be here in person. But so
    did millions of Americans today show up for work and do their
    jobs in person, because that is what we are supposed to do.
        When I started preparing for this hearing, I have looked at
    it from a point of view from my prior life as a lawyer
    representing employers that have to comply with OSHA law. And
    so I said, okay, if one of my clients called me, what kind of
    advice would I give them? So I went online to see what you guys
    had put out. And it took me a long time because you have put
    out a lot of stuff.
        The benefit of that to both the employers and employees is
    this. This is a confusing time. And just getting good quality
    information is about 99 percent of what we need to do. And good
    quality information hasn't been exactly easy to come by in this
    environment.
        So the guidance you have put out has been extraordinarily
    important to employers trying to comply with the law, but more
    importantly do what they want to do which is to protect their
    employees. And you have given that to them. And you are working
    with them to help them to understand it.
        The experts have sort of been all over the place about this
    disease. Early on, oh, it is not a big problem. Oh, no, now it
    is a big problem. Early on, don't wear a face mask. Now you are
    supposed to wear a face mask. We got some experts saying today
    we shouldn't have shut down. The other experts saying we had to
    shut down.
        So it has been difficult for all of us to try to figure
    out, all right, what should we do? And what you all have tried
    to do and have done, I believe, is work through this in good
    faith to try to distill this down, understand it for the rest
    of us so that we can implement it. And I know it is a changing
    situation. So you are going to have to change your guidance as
    we go along. And I appreciate that about what you are doing.
        We made some mistakes in Washington. Some of the stuff we
    have done has gone too far, and we have hurt our economy. But
    we based it on the advice we had at the time from public health
    experts who were dealing with limited information on their
    part. Some of the projections we got were wildly off the mark.
    And we are just having to deal with it as best we can.
        I don't see how it helps anything for us to turn to you
    guys, who have this very important obligation in this very
    difficult time, to keep the workplace safe, for us to say stop
    and go through all of the legal mumbo jumbo of doing the
    standard.
        There is a difference between keeping people safe and
    issuing a standard. Issuing a standard in and of itself doesn't
    keep anybody safe. We have a standard right now, it is called
    general duty clause. Every employer in America has an
    obligation under the OSHA general duty clause to keep their
    workplaces safe. There is no question about that.
        The questions on this environment, what is that duty? The
    guidance helps describe the duty. And if enforcement is
    necessary, you use the guidance to determine this employer did
    not comply with the general duty clause.
        When I saw the AFL-CIO filed the lawsuit, I was really
    disappointed. If there ever was a time for us not to be filing
    frivolous lawsuits, this would be it. Particularly, a lawsuit
    against the very departments of the government that we rely
    upon to keep the workplace safe. We don't need you to be taking
    time off from that job of keeping the workplace safe, to go
    sitting down with a bunch of lawyers, and trying to decide what
    we got to do to respond to this lawsuit. That is inhibiting
    workplace safety, not helping it.
        And here in Congress, we passed a bill out of the House a
    couple of weeks ago -- it is not going anywhere, it is not even
    going to be taken up in the Senate because of the way it was
    done and because it has got stuff in it that is just not
    acceptable -- but it attempted to deal with this issue, and not
    once do we have a hearing on it in this Committee, the
    Committee of jurisdiction, not once did we bring that bill in
    this Committee to have a markup, the Committee of jurisdiction
    on that topic, not once. If this is so important, why didn't we
    do it before we passed the bill?
        Look, we have worked together in this Congress on this
    disease. We passed almost $3 trillion in spending bills in a
    very short period of time with huge bipartisan majorities. That
    is the only way to act in this situation is with a bipartisan
    commitment to the American people. We need to work together.
    Like our constituents are having to do.
        We shouldn't be having partisan hearings. We should show up
    for work like our constituents do. We should take this
    seriously, like our constituents do. And we should understand
    at the end of the day, it is all of our job to work for a safe
    workplace.
        What I said before, the most important part of the American
    economy, the working men and women of the United States of
    America. Thank you for what you do every day. We are grateful
    to you. We are grateful for your presence.
        And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Chairwoman Adams. Thank you, Mr. Byrne.
        I now recognize myself for the purpose of making my closing
    statement. I want to again thank Deputy Assistant Secretary
    Sweatt and Director Howard both for joining us for this
    important discussion. I want to thank all of my colleagues who
    have been here today, those who are physically here, and those
    who are virtually here.
        I do want to emphasize that the ETS and The Heroes Act is
    not a rigid or inflexible one-size-fits-all standard that fails
    to accommodate changing scientific knowledge.
        The text of The Heroes Act calls for an ETS to require an
    infection control plan based on the hazards in that specific
    workplace. It requires assessment of risks in that workplace
    and a plan tailored to the particular workplace. The
    development of the plan should involve employees. This is not a
    required rigid standard.
        Second, California OSHA has an airborne transmissible
    standard. It applies to Covid and healthcare and has not been a
    one-size-fits-all.
        Let me just say that what we heard today is that in the
    middle of this global health emergency that is causing more
    deaths in less time than any other workplace crisis that OSHA
    has faced in its 50-year existence, OSHA stubbornly refuses to
    use its authority to protect this Nation's workers.
        The failure to act is a stunning act of abdication by the
    senior leaders in the Department of Labor. When workers are
    demanding strong standards and enforcement of those standards.
    Instead, we get voluntary guidance that employers can choose to
    comply with if it is convenient. And the best OSHA can offer is
    threats to use a largely toothless general duty clause.
        When OSHA inspections do occur, they happen too often after
    the bodies are in the morgue, rather than when the prevention
    can make a difference. When employers need clear standards so
    that they know when they have met their obligation to make
    their workplaces safe, instead they get vague, generic
    suggestions. This is not how the architects of the Occupational
    Safety and Health Act envisioned OSHA's response during a
    workplace crisis.
        The Act tells us that OSHA shall issue an Emergency
    Temporary Standard if it determines that workers are exposed to
    a grave danger or from new hazards, and that a standard is
    necessary to protect workers from that hazard.
        Not only do the large numbers of sick and dying tell us
    that there is a grave danger, but it is clear that the limited
    actions taken by OSHA are not sufficient. Not only is OSHA
    refusing to act on the emergency authority, but the agency
    won't even resume work on a large awaited permanent standard
    that would address the hazard that this Nation is facing.
        So as the economy reopens, the key to preventing an even
    more devastating second wave will be protecting workers and the
    millions of workplaces that present exposure hazards. Yet, we
    have no mandatory standard, no cop on the beat to enforce safe
    working conditions that will be the key to preventing that
    second wave.
        And it is deeply disappointing that OSHA, the only Federal
    agency with the authority to enforce safe working conditions,
    is missing in action. And I am not only disappointed, but I am
    saddened for the workers of this country who continue to lack
    adequate protections on the job, and when they go home, they
    will infect their families. And I am upset about the future of
    this country that OSHA's inaction foreshadows.
        And I can only hope that you and Secretary Scalia will wake
    up before it is too late and choose to fulfill OSHA's mission
    to assure safe working conditions for every man and for every
    woman in this country.
        If there is no further business or without objection, the
    Committee stands adjourned.
        Thank you.
        [Additional submissions by Chairwoman Adams follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submission by Mr. Byrne follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Questions submitted for the record and their responses
    follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]