    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                     OF THE

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

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-1

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

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

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

                        COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

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

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

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

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman

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

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 11, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Mr. Scott. Thank you.
        Dr. Michaels.

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

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

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

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

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

                                     [all]