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


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

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                         WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                 OF THE

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

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-1

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                   

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

                               __________
                               

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

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

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

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

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

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

               ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Chairwoman


MARK TAKANO, California              FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania,
DONALD NORCROSS,New Jersey             Ranking Member
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota                MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan           BURGESS OWENS, Utah
MONDAIRE JONES, New York             BOB GOOD, Virginia
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky            MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  MICHELLE STEEL, California
                                     VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (ex 
                                         officio)
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

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

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

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

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




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



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

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

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 11, 2021

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

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

    I want to welcome everyone to the first hearing of the Workforce 
Protections Subcommittee in the 117th Congress. Today, we will discuss 
the imperative to protect workers' health and safety.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has posed one of the most significant threats 
to workers' health and safety in a century.
    Across the country, tens of thousands of workers have been infected 
by COVID-19 on the job and many thousands have died. Meatpacking 
workers, health care workers, transportation workers, correctional 
workers, and other frontline workers are all struggling with the severe 
physical and emotional trauma of the pandemic. While some of us have 
the luxury of working from home, these workers-who are 
disproportionally low-income and people of color-are risking their 
lives to keep our communities afloat.
    One of our witnesses today, Pascaline Muhindura, is a nurse at a 
hospital in Kansas City. Her coworker, Celia Yap-Banago, died of COVID-
19 due to unsafe working conditions. Ms. Yap-Banago's family is 
watching today's hearing. I want to express our condolences for your 
loss and appreciation for the critical work for which Ms. Yap-Banago 
gave her life.
    These tragic losses are even more heartbreaking considering that, 
until recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or 
OSHA, was missing in action.
    Under the Trump Administration, the Federal agency charged with 
protecting workers refused to issue new enforceable safety standards, 
leaving workers vulnerable to workplace infections. The agency made it 
harder to keep track of workplace illnesses and injuries.
    The political appointees at OSHA failed to leverage the agency's 
resources to adequately inspect worksites, and allowed multi-billion-
dollar corporations to get off with meager penalties while ignoring 
worker deaths that were likely linked to COVID-19.
    And, during a hearing last year, OSHA's Acting Assistant Secretary 
even refused to acknowledge that COVID-19 poses a ``grave danger'' for 
workers.
    Now, OSHA's inspectors and staff have worked hard to keep 
workplaces safe given the resources they have. But the Trump 
Administration's political leadership abandoned OSHA's mission and left 
workers with little to no help from their government.
    As a recent report from OSHA's Inspector General found, worker 
complaints have skyrocketed during the pandemic, but OSHA inspections 
have fallen dramatically over the past year. The report also called on 
OSHA to consider issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard.
    A recent Wall St. Journal investigation revealed a litany of major 
workplace COVID outbreaks, OSHA complaints, and insufficient responses 
from Federal OSHA or State OSHA plans. The main argument for inaction: 
Federal OSHA had no COVID-related standards. The Journal identified 
more than 1,000 worker deaths from COVID-19 that were likely linked to 
workplace transmission of the virus but had never been investigated by 
OSHA. Employers had failed to report many of these fatalities to OSHA.
    Today, our expert witnesses will help us assess how the Biden 
Administration can recover from these failures and keep workers safe 
and healthy moving forward.
    First, OSHA must swiftly issue a strong Emergency Temporary 
Standard, or ETS, to protect workers against COVID-19 infections. For 
more than a year, Chairman Scott and I urged the previous 
Administration to issue an ETS, but OSHA refused. Thankfully, the Biden 
Administration has moved quickly to restore OSHA's purpose by directing 
OSHA to consider issuing an ETS. I am hopeful we will see this ETS 
soon, but we must do far more to fully protect workers.
    As our witnesses will share, we must better protect workers from 
the airborne transmission of COVID-19. We now know the virus spreads 
not just through large droplets that quickly dissipate, but through 
microscopic particles that can travel long distances and for long 
periods. This has major implications for protecting workers who are 
frequently in close contact with others. Yet, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention has not updated its workplace guidance to 
reflect this clear scientific evidence, which is also needed to shape a 
strong OSHA standard.
    We also need a plan to get vaccines to all the essential workers 
who have risked their lives to keep our economy going. Americans across 
the country are thankfully starting to get vaccinated. But we still 
have no national strategy to ensure that-in addition to emergency 
responders and health care workers-grocery store clerks, meat 
processing workers, teachers, transportation workers, corrections 
officers and others are not left behind.
    We must also take clear steps to keep track of workplace 
infections. Shockingly, the Federal Government has no system for 
monitoring the number of workers who have gotten sick or where they are 
employed. The previous administration even effectively gutted 
requirements for employers to report COVID-19-related worker 
hospitalizations. We cannot hope to learn from the lessons of this 
pandemic without the data to understand how to protect workers in the 
future.
    Any discussion about protecting health care workers must also 
address the disproportionally high rates of violence that health care 
and social services workers face on the job. Today, we will discuss 
legislation introduced by Representative Courtney that requires OSHA to 
quickly issue a workplace violence prevention standard to protect 
health care and social service workers.
    Finally, in order for OSHA to identify and address the most 
dangerous workplaces, it must be able to collect accurate injurity and 
illness data. Today, our witnesses will also discuss legislation, 
introduced by Representative Takano, that would allow OSHA to 
effectively enforce its injury and illness recordkeeping requirements.
    National emergencies, such as this pandemic, are the exact reason 
why OSHA was first established. Yet, for far too long, OSHA's 
leadership was asleep at the wheel, costing the lives of workers. Now, 
we have the opportunity to restore OSHA's mission and protect workers' 
health and safety at a time when they need it most. Today's hearing is 
an important first step toward that goal.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Keller, for his opening 
Statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Keller. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm disappointed that 
today's hearing is being held in a completely virtual format. 
As I can show you in today's Washington Post, the people 
working in the House chamber show up every day and do their 
jobs, and I think we should be here in our committee's hearing 
room.
    I'm currently in committee hearing room and it can 
comfortably accommodate the 16 Members of this subcommittee. 
This hearing should be in person, and we can participate and do 
this work safely. After all, the subject to today's hearing is 
science-based strategies to protect workers, and Members of the 
subcommittee should have the opportunity to set a positive 
example by conducting this hearing in person while adhering to 
the most current workplace safety guidelines.
    Over the last year the pandemic has created unprecedented 
challenges for all Americans, especially workers and job 
creators. The top priority for employers throughout this crisis 
has been, and will continue to be preventing the spread of 
COVID-19 in the workplace to ensure the health and safety of 
workers and customers.
    Thankfully, a year to the date after the World Health 
Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, America now is 
equipped with much greater and thorough scientific knowledge of 
the virus and innovative employers have developed effective 
procedures and policies to keep workplaces as safe as possible.
    Over the past year business centers have worked around the 
clock to operate safely under the evolving State and local 
mandates. CDC and OSHA guidelines, and industry-recognized best 
practices to protect their workers. The vast majority of 
businesses, regardless of size and location have invested 
significant resources to implement comprehensive and effective 
safety precautions specific to their workplaces.
    And now thanks to the successful efforts of Operation Warp 
Speed, essential workers have been prioritized for vaccination, 
and President Biden has Stated that the U.S. should have enough 
vaccine doses for every eligible adult in the United States by 
the end of May.
    We are not out of the woods yet, but America is on the path 
to recovery, both in terms of health of our citizens and our 
economy. Under the Trump administration the Federal Government 
collaborated with businesses across the country, updating them 
as new information arose on the newest guidelines and 
procedures to keep workers and customers safe.
    This dialog allowed businesses the flexibility to create 
health and safety plans that fit their specific workplace, 
creating an efficient path forward for businesses. My Democrat 
colleagues have said almost from day one of this pandemic that 
it is necessary for OSHA to issue an emergency temporary 
standard, or ETS. A rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation 
specific to COVID-19 that would apply to every workplace 
throughout the country.
    Not one ETS has been issued since 1983 because of legal 
challenges and lack of due process for affected stakeholders. 
In 2021 an ETS would do far more harm than good to workers, 
employers and the American economy by denying businesses the 
opportunity to respond quickly to new scientific findings and 
industry-specific needs.
    Not all workplaces are the same, yet democrats are eager to 
impose rigid and inflexible mandates on businesses. This 
inflexible lagging method to keep workers safe will only hinder 
our economy recovery, and make it more difficult for employers 
to ensure safety in their respective workplaces.
    If OSHA had enacted an ETS a year ago as committee 
democrats demanded it, it would be woefully inadequate in 
protecting workers today. Issuing an ETS is not a science-based 
approach, and is instead yet another example of overbearing 
government policy that will do nothing but constrict employers 
from safely running their businesses.
    Four States across the country have adopted State-wide 
emergency temporary COVID-19 regulations. In California we're 
already seeing its negative effects. Since issued in November, 
the regulations have conflicted at various points with CDC 
guidance for workplaces, causing massive confusion for 
employees and their employers.
    Additionally, the California emergency rule places many new 
significant burdens on employers and job creators related to 
workplace testing, paid leave, and required reporting to public 
health authorities. This is no way to help an already suffering 
economy. More mandates from Washington, including an OSHA ETS 
would not only add burdens and regulations on employers that 
stifle creatively and ultimately hold them back.
    Instead, the Federal Government should be focusing on 
ensuring adequate vaccine supply and distribution to vaccinate 
all workers and providing timely public health guidance to our 
employers as this Nation works toward economic prosperity. I'd 
like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today and I 
look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you and I yield 
back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Keller follows:]

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

    Thank you, Madam Chair. I am disappointed that today's hearing is 
being held in a completely virtual format. The Committee's hearing room 
that I am currently sitting in can comfortably accommodate the 16 
Members of the subcommittee.
    This hearing should be in a hybrid format, so Members who want to 
participate in person can do so safely.
    After all, the subject of today's hearing is ``Science-Based 
Strategies to Protect Workers'' and Members of this subcommittee should 
have the opportunity to set a positive example by conducting this 
hearing in person while adhering to the most current workplace safety 
guidelines.
    Over the last year, the pandemic has created unprecedented 
challenges for all Americans, especially workers and job creators. The 
top priority for employers throughout this crisis has been, and will 
continue to be, preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace to 
ensure the health and safety of workers and customers.
    Thankfully, a year to the date after the World Health Organization 
declared COVID-19 a pandemic, America is now equipped with much greater 
and thorough scientific knowledge of the virus, and innovative 
employers have developed effective procedures and policies to keep 
workplaces as safe as possible.
    Over the past year, business owners have worked around the clock to 
operate safely under evolving State and local mandates, CDC and OSHA 
guidelines, and industry-recognized best practices to protect their 
workers. The vast majority of businesses, regardless of size and 
location, have invested significant resources to implement 
comprehensive and effective safety precautions specific to their 
workplaces.
    And now, thanks to the successful efforts of Operation Warp Speed, 
essential workers have been prioritized for vaccination, and President 
Biden has Stated that the U.S. should have enough vaccine doses for 
every eligible adult in the United States by the end of May.
    We are not out of the woods yet, but America is on the path to 
recovery, both in terms of the health of our citizens and our economy.
    Under the Trump administration, the Federal Government collaborated 
with businesses across the country, updating them as new information 
arose on the newest guidelines and procedures to keep workers and 
customers safe. This dialog allowed businesses the flexibility to 
create health and safety plans that fit their specific workplace, 
creating an efficient path forward for businesses.
    But my Democrat colleagues have said almost from day one of the 
pandemic that it is necessary for OSHA to issue an Emergency Temporary 
Standard, or ETS-a rigid, one-size-fits-all regulation specific to 
COVID-19 that would apply to every workplace throughout the country.
    Not one ETS has been issued since 1983 because of legal challenges 
and a lack of due process for affected stakeholders. In 2021, an ETS 
will do far more harm than good for workers, employers, and the 
American economy by denying businesses the opportunity to respond 
quickly to new scientific findings and industry-specific needs. Not all 
workplaces are the same, yet Democrats are eager to impose rigid and 
inflexible mandates on businesses. This inflexible, lagging method to 
keep workers 'safe' will only hinder our economic recovery and make it 
more difficult for employers to ensure safety in their respective 
workplaces.
    If OSHA enacted an ETS a year ago, as Committee Democrats demanded, 
it would be woefully inadequate in protecting workers today. Issuing an 
ETS is not a science-based approach and is instead yet another example 
of overbearing government policy that will do nothing but constrict 
employers from safely running their businesses.
    Four States across the country have adopted State-wide emergency 
temporary COVID-19 regulations. In California, we're already seeing its 
negative effects. Since issued in November, the regulations have 
conflicted at various points with CDC guidance for workplaces, causing 
massive confusion for employers. Additionally, the California emergency 
rule places many new and significant burdens on employers related to 
workplace testing, paid leave, and required reporting to public health 
authorities. This is no way to help an already suffering economy.
    More mandates from Washington, including an OSHA ETS, will only add 
burdensome regulations on employers that stifle creativity and, 
ultimately, hold them back.
    Instead, the Federal Government should be focused on ensuring 
adequate vaccine supply and distribution to vaccinate essential workers 
and providing timely public health guidance to our employers as this 
Nation works toward economic prosperity. I'd like to thank all our 
witnesses for joining us today and I look forward to hearing your 
testimony.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Adams. Thank you to the Ranking Member. Without 
objection all of the Members who wish to insert written 
Statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word by 5 p.m. 
March 25, 2021.
    I'd now like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness 
will be Dr. Linsey Marr. Dr. Marr is the Charles P. Lunsford 
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia 
Tech. She's one of a small number of researchers in the world 
who study viruses in the air. She holds a BS in engineering 
science from Harvard and a Ph.D. in civil and environmental 
engineering from US Berkeley, and she completed her post-
doctoral training at MIT.
    Our next witness will be Miss Pascaline Muhindura. Miss 
Muhindura is a registered nurse in Kansas City, Missouri. She 
works in a critical care unit. And since March 2020 she's been 
caring for COVID patients. She's a member of the National 
Nurses United and serves as a nurse representative and a member 
of the Professional Practice Committee for her union.
    Following Ms. Muhindura will be Mr. Manesh Rath. Mr. Rath 
is a partner with Keller and Heckman in Washington, DC. He 
represents employers in a wide range of matters related to 
occupational safety and health, law, litigation, wage and hour 
and class action litigation and association law.
    Our final witness will be Dr. David Michaels. Dr. Michaels 
is an epidemiologist and Professor of Environmental and 
Occupational Health at George Washington University. He served 
as Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration from 2009 to 2017, and he was a member of 
the Biden Harris transition COVID-19 Advisory Board.
    To our witnesses we appreciate you for participating today. 
We look forward to your testimony, and let me remind you that 
we've read your written Statements, and they will appear in 
full in the hearing record, pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and 
the committee practice, each of you is asked to limit your oral 
presentation to a five-minute summary of your written 
Statement.
    I also want to remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 
18 of U.S. Code Section 1001 it is illegally to knowingly and 
willfully falsify any Statement, representation, writing, 
documents, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise 
concealed, or cover up a material fact. So before you begin 
your testimony please remember to unmute your microphone. 
During your testimony staff will be keeping track of time, and 
a timer will sound when time is up.
    Please be attentive to the time. Wrap up when your time is 
over and re-mute your microphone. If you experience technical 
difficulties during your testimony or later, in the hearing you 
should stay connected on the platform and make sure you are 
muted. Use your phone to immediately call the committee's IT 
director whose number was provided in advance.
    So we will let the witnesses make their presentations 
before we move to Member questions. When answering a question 
please remember to unmute your microphone. I want to recognize 
first Dr. Linsey Marr.
    Dr. Marr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mr. Scott. Thank you.
    Dr. Michaels.

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

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

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

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

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

                                 [all]