[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO WORKER LEFT BEHIND:
SUPPORTING ESSENTIAL WORKERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 10, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-97
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-842 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland James Comer, Kentucky
Harley Rouda, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Peter Kenny, Chief Counsel
Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 10, 2020.................................... 1
Witnesses
Ms. Eneida Becote, wife of Edward Becote, essential worker who
died from coronavirus
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Mr. John Costa, International President, Amalgamated Transit
Union
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Mr. Anthony "Marc" Perrone, International President, United Food
& Commercial Workers International Union
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Ms. Bonnie Castillo, Executive Director, National Nurses United,
California Nurses Association, and National Nurses Organizing
Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Mr. Clint Odom, Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy
Executive Director, National Urban League, Washington Bureau
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Mr. Avik S. A. Roy, President, Foundation for Research on Equal
Opportunity
Oral Statement............................................... 13
* Opening statements, and prepared statements for the witnesses
are available at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below may be found at: docs.house.gov.
* Letter from Medical Associations re: Supporting Essential
Worker Act; submitted by Rep. Jackie Speier.
* Testimony by Derrick Johnson, President and CEO, NAACP;
submitted by Rep. Jimmy Gomez.
* Testimony by American Federation of Government Employees;
submitted by Rep. Jimmy Gomez.
* Letter from FDA re: Batelle; submitted by Rep. Katie Porter.
* WSJ, "Unemployment Bonus Keeps Workers on the Sidelines", Op-
Ed article; submitted by Rep. James Comer.
* FEMA Slides on White House Covid-19 Supply Chain Task Force;
submitted by Rep. Bob Gibbs.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Avik S. A. Roy; submitted by
Rep. Chip Roy.
NO WORKER LEFT BEHIND:
SUPPORTING ESSENTIAL WORKERS
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:13 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney [chairwoman of the committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Khanna, Mfume, Wasserman
Schultz, Sarbanes, Welch, Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, Plaskett,
Gomez, Pressley, Tlaib, Porter, Jordan, Gosar, Massie, Hice,
Grothman, Comer, Gibbs, Higgins, Roy, Miller, Green, and
Keller.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for being here today.
Before we turn to today's important topic, I want to address
the murder of George Floyd and other unpunished cases of police
brutality that have disgusted our Nation and propelled us, so
many of us, into the streets to stand with our neighbors and
communities of color that are routinely and systematically
abused by our current criminal justice system.
The committee and the House as a whole are committed to
swiftly enacting profound reforms to punish police misconduct,
holding police departments accountable to civilian oversight
and eliminating the financing of police militarization. We all
have more to say in the coming days, but as my friend, Virginia
delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy, said last week, my protest is my
statement, and so it is for me, even as we prepare our
legislative solutions.
With that said, the topic of today's hearing is essential
workers. Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in the
United States, we are all acutely aware of the threats posed to
our health and safety, but we do not all face the risks of the
crisis equally. Grocery store workers, food processing
employees, public transportation operators, nurses and doctors,
hospital support staff, nursing home employees, first
responders, janitors, and mail carriers, delivery workers--in
New York alone, at least 123 workers at the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority have died this year from coronavirus.
The people doing these jobs have taken on the extraordinary
burden of maintaining essential services in dangerous and
uncertain circumstances. They are essential to keeping this
Nation running. That is why we recognize them as essential
workers. They are our heroes and heroines.
Our hearing today focuses on the responsibility that our
Federal Government has to protect and support them now and into
the future. Like the heroes of 9/11, the essential workers of
today have been called upon to serve their country at a time of
critical need, a need that places them and their families at
heightened risk of injury or death.
I believe we have an obligation to ensure that if they or
their families become ill, there are financial resources
provided for them. That is why, following the successful model
of the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund, I introduced
H.R. 6909, the Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act, on a
bipartisan basis, with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and
Congressman Peter King. Several members of this committee have
signed on in support as well.
I hope that the proposal will earn the same level of
bipartisan support as the September 11 Victims Compensation
Fund that Congress voted to make permanent last year with
overwhelming support.
While the jobs deemed essential during the pandemic are
indispensable to the functioning of our communities, there are
few other characteristics that essential workers share. They
are more likely to be paid lower wages. They are less likely to
have employment benefits, like paid sick leave or the option of
teleworking, which means they are being forced into unsafe
working conditions.
Still, our country asks them to go to work every day. They
will need financial help when they or their families get sick.
They will also need financial help if they have to stop working
to care for a sick family member. They should not have to bear
the burden of these costs alone, especially when many are
already at risk of economic instability.
This burden does not fall on all communities equally. Black
and Latino workers make up a majority of the work force
considered essential. Communities of color have been
disproportionately harmed by the coronavirus pandemic.
Due to systemic problems in our country, these workers have
long been paid less in wages on average than their White
counterparts. They deserve our support. A mere thank you is not
enough. We need to do more to support the heroes of this
pandemic. It is the Federal Government's responsibility now,
just as it was after 9/11, to provide help to essential workers
who are stepping up to help all of the rest of us during this
crisis.
Now, before I turn it over to the ranking member for his
opening statement, I want to let everyone know that I will be
asking the vice chairman of the committee, Mr. Gomez, to chair
the rest of this hearing for me. As you may know, after a few
days of not feeling well, I decided to get tested for COVID-19
out of an abundance of caution, and in consulting other medical
professionals and my doctor, I am self-quarantining at home
until I learn the results of the test. Therefore, I do not have
the committee's parliamentarian with me.
I want to thank all of you who have reached out to me and
my office with well wishes. I'm deeply grateful for everyone's
support, and I want to thank Vice Chairman Gomez for chairing
this important hearing on essential workers.
With that, I'll turn it over to the ranking member for his
opening statement, and then turn the reins over to Vice
Chairman Gomez. Thank you.
Ranking Member Hice, you are now recognized for your
opening statement.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and let me also
add to you personally our best wishes for you and for your
health, and we are hopeful and prayerful that you'll be
completely back in the saddle in every way in the very near
future, and we appreciate you sharing that.
First of all, I also want to say thank you to those who
serve on the front lines. Obviously, we think of doctors,
nurses, medical staff, and first responders, but they are also
the truck drivers, the factory workers, and a host of other
people who work tirelessly to sustain us as a country, and they
did so during this pandemic.
I also want to extend the most sincere and deepest
condolences to those across our country who have lost loved
ones during this time. I think it is important for all of us to
remember that during times of crisis, our first responders
become more than just the police and fire and EMTs. It, in
times of emergencies, also include people whose shoulders we
cry on. It includes counselors, various people who offer
support. So, today, we want to say thank you to all of them.
But the movement right now to defund the police
departments, this movement from the left, to me, right now is
particularly disturbing. I think it is not only absentminded,
but, frankly, it demonstrates a major disconnect with people
across this country in need of safety.
These men and women, the police officers, law enforcement,
have been on the front lines 24/7 for us for the last three
months or so, and according to the Fraternal Order of Police,
over 100 of them have lost their lives to coronavirus alone
during the last few months.
Obviously, the tragic death of George Floyd and many others
before him prove, without any question, that there are issues
in this country that must be addressed. But disbanding or
abolishing law enforcement is not now, nor will it ever be the
solution. That would be like saying we are going to abolish
education because we have a few bad teachers. It's something we
would not do.
Yes, we do have some bad apples and some bad actors within
law enforcement, but we also have some good ones, and its utter
foolishness for us to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Like, I'm sure, everyone in this hearing today, my heart
broke from the appalling video of Mr. Floyd's death, those last
few moments of his life. I don't know that I'll ever quite get
over that. And I was reminded in the aftermath of it all
personally, of one of my great American heroes that I love. He
made a statement that anyone who claims to love America cannot
sweep our national sins under the rug. He made a statement
similar to that. It is not a quote, but that is the essence of
his statement. And I fully, fully agree with him. We must fight
the wrongs of racism in this country, but undermining and/or
eliminating America's law enforcement is not the answer.
The vast majority of law enforcement officers throughout
this country are great, upstanding servants in their
communities. In fact, in the wake of Mr. Floyd's death,
hundreds of police officers have been injured across this
country and several have lost their lives. Yet we have cities
like Los Angeles, New York, Minneapolis, who are literally
seriously considering defunding police departments at this
time, and even to the extent of totally disbanding police
departments.
So, I just call on our colleagues across the aisle for all
of us to fight racism. I believe that we can, and we must fight
racism and, at the same time, support our law enforcement. We
can do both. We should do both. I believe this is a time that
we need to come together as a country and restore the bonds of
faith in God and our love for one another. This type of
rhetoric of disbanding and going after law enforcement
agencies, I believe, does more harm and drives a wedge, driving
us farther apart.
So, no question we are at a historic point in our Nation,
and as it relates to the coronavirus itself, since the
beginning of this virus, the benchmark for reopening has been
and was, we were clearly told, ensuring that we must flatten
the curve so that our hospital systems would not be
overwhelmed.
As a result, the economy came to a screeching halt. We
united as a Nation. We stayed home, we flattened the curve, and
we succeeded. Now at this point, the U.S. has secured adequate
capacities in our hospitals, and hospitalizations for COVID-19-
related illnesses continues to decline all across the country.
The Trump administration is on track to procure some
200,000 ventilators by the end of the year, and we also have
over 200,000 ventilators available in the Strategic National
Stockpile. So, while the previous administration left us
unprepared, the Trump administration is making us stronger than
ever, and states are beginning to reopen the economy in order
to help communities that have been horribly impacted.
In some instances, businesses we all know and individual
lives ruined because of the shutdowns. The loss of economic
output in the U.S. alone is estimated to be five percent of the
country's gross domestic product. That's $1.1 trillion for
every month that we are shut down.
The unemployment rate hit a record 14.7 percent in April
with over 40 million people filing for unemployment. However,
last month, as states began to reopen, last month, the economy
added 2.5 million jobs, and some states are totally open for
business. I think the rest of the country has to follow suit.
In addition to the financial impact, health experts agree
in telling us that prolonged shutdowns like we have seen
results in a wide range of health issues, including things like
suicide and mental health, domestic violence, substance abuse,
reluctance to go to the doctors for needed healthcare issues.
So, there're fiscal issues. There are physical issues. There
are mental health issues. And we must come to the point now of
reopening our economy, reopening our businesses.
Yet, to be honest, here we are. While so much of the
country is returning to work, here we are, many of us here in
Washington, having this hearing while Speaker Pelosi and our
House Democrats continue to stay at home, holding virtual
hearings. We have got to get back to doing the real live work
that the American people sent us here to do, and I just urge my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come back to
Washington and do what we have been elected to do.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez.
[Presiding.] Thank you so much, Mr. Hice. Now we will
introduce our witnesses.
First, we have Eneida Becote, wife of Edward Becote, an
essential worker who died from coronavirus. Next, we have John
Costa, who is the international president of the Amalgamated
Transit Union. Next, we have Anthony ``Marc'' Perrone, who's
the international president of the United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union.
We also have with us Bonnie Castillo, who is the executive
director of National Nurses United, California Nurses
Association, and the National Nurses Organizing Committee. We
also have Clint Odom, who is the senior vice president for
policy and advocacy and the executive director of the
Washington Bureau of the National Urban League.
Last but not least, we have Avik Roy, who is the president
of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record. With that, Ms. Becote, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ENEIDA BECOTE, WIFE OF EDWARD BECOTE, ESSENTIAL
WORKER WHO DIED FROM CORONAVIRUS
Ms. Becote. Hi. Hello, everyone. My name is Eneida Becote.
I work at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York in the
pediatric administration department. I live in Queens with my
two sons, Joshua and Brandon.
I'm here today to tell you about my family and how we lost
our guiding light, Edward Becote, to COVID on April 9. I'm also
here to speak on behalf of all the families left behind, so
that our elected representatives know how important it is that
you pass the Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act to help the
families of essential workers who make the ultimate sacrifice
for our country as America has been engulfed in this pandemic.
First, let me tell you about my husband, Ed. Ed was one of
the strongest, kindest, dedicated, and most loving person I
have ever known. We met in the Brooklyn Hospital Center, where
he was employed until the day he passed away. He was an
incredible father and a loving husband and a best friend to
anybody that crossed his path.
He was just as dedicated to the patients who he served as a
patient transporter for over 20 years. Ed wasn't the kind of
guy who saw his job as just getting a paycheck or--because he
loved his job and he--at the hospital, and he just--he felt
responsible for all his patients and made sure to give every
one of them the same level of care and attention that any one
of us would want for our family members.
He loved to tell jokes and had the biggest smile that would
light up the room. He used that gift to make his patients feel
comfortable as he was taking them to surgery or for tests,
knowing the kind of stress and anxiety that they may be feeling
at the moment.
He was a loyal coworker and was surely devoted to the
healthcare workers of Brooklyn Hospital, serving them as an
1199 union delegate. He believed that everyone deserved to be
treated fairly and with dignity. He believed that treating
caregivers with respect was a vital part of providing good
patient care in any healthcare setting.
I used to tell him all the time he missed his calling; he
should have been a lawyer. He truly loved being an advocate and
brought a passion to the work that was an inspiration and
example for others.
We lost Ed on April 9, after he had been hospitalized with
COVID for nearly three weeks. Over a matter of days, my
strongest, energetic husband went from having a fever to being
on a ventilator in the intensive care unit. I will never forget
that day I got the call that he passed away. Me and my sons,
our children, world has changed forever. Ed was a big presence
in our lives. He was our guiding light and our protector.
He's a devoted Pittsburgh Steeler fan, football coach, and
a best friend. He was our rock. I pray that I can make it
through the day without him, because every morning that passes
by, it seems unreal that he's not here.
Ed was also my partner. Together, we were raising a family
and building our life. We worked hard to build our dreams and
give our children the things we never had. Now, not only have I
lost my best friend, but I've lost the man who worked alongside
me for over 20 years, from building our American Dream.
I urge you to pass this bill, not just for us, the Becote
family, but for the tens of thousands of other families like
us, who not only lost their loved ones to this cruel virus, but
lost a loved one who gave so much to protect us all.
In addition to supporting the families left behind, we can
honor heroes, like my husband, by doing everything we can to
stop the spread of coronavirus. We need to ensure that testing
is widely available and much earlier. My husband didn't get
tested until his symptoms were severe enough to put him into
ICU and onto a ventilator.
We also need to ensure that every healthcare worker gets
the hazard pay they so rightly deserve and has access to the
personal protective equipment that can help save their lives.
Over these last few months, so many of the essential
workers who played crucial roles in our healthcare system have
gone unacknowledged. Food service workers, clerks,
housekeepers, patient transporters like my husband. The best
way we as a Nation can show our gratitude is to make sure they
remain safe and healthy and able to return home to their
families that they work so hard to support.
Our family members make the ultimate sacrifice. Help us
honor their memory by protecting the families they left behind,
so we may go to help others build their own American Dream.
Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much, Ms. Becote. We extend our
deepest sympathies for your loss. Thank you.
Now we have Mr. Costa. You are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. COSTA, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT,
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION
Mr. Costa. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Jordan, thank
you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6909, the Pandemic
Heroes Compensation Act of 2020. The ATU strongly supports the
critical legislation. Transit workers need a new program for
those who are injured or impacted by the coronavirus, modeled
after the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.
The ATU is the largest transit union, with over 200,000
members, and it's been 12 weeks now that this pandemic has been
out there and, unlike others, our members have not had the
opportunity to stay home or work from home. We're the workers
out there that are moving the economy, keeping the cities
going, and, unfortunately, we are the workers that have been
affected the most with the infections, which are, right now,
over a thousand. At 12 weeks later, we still have over 1,000
confirmed corona cases, and, unfortunately, 53 of our members
have passed. Our concerns are it's only going to get worse as
it reopens, because it's obvious we're being overexposed.
The sacrifices my members are making out there every day to
keep front lines moving, like we've done before in 9/11, in
Sandy, in Katrina, we've been out there, we know what our jobs
are. We know these jobs are hard. We sit there. Our members are
assaulted, are spit at, are murdered. And now we're dealing
with an invisible challenge out here, an enemy we can't see
every day, and, unfortunately, it's going to get worse, I
believe, before it gets better.
The lack of PPE. We've been dealing with many problems
trying to get the PPE. We've just done a survey, as of now 12
weeks later, and in the midst of reopening, 50 percent of our
agencies do not have the proper PPE.
The mishandling of this from the get-go with our government
and our CDC telling us we did--CDC telling us we did not need
masks, there were certain things we didn't need and later on
changed, we, as the ATU, believe we can't count on our
government, and we need to make the demands. So, we have made
demands of back-door boarding. Overcrowding needs to stop. The
recommendations, unfortunately, with the CDC has been ignored,
and they've made changes, and, unfortunately, those changes, I
believe, are going to put our members in harm's way.
So, I--I urge the committee to look at this. It's funny;
you call us heroes--you're calling our members heroes, but when
we get to the table, we're zeroes. It's just--it's crazy here.
We're in negotiations right now in some areas, and we see this
happening.
So, I hope you remember our members out there, I hope you
remember our fallen, and I hope you help us keep our members
safe moving forward as we open cities that need to be opened
and need us out there to bring our cities back.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much, Mr. Costa.
Now I'd like to recognize Mr. Perrone. You are recognized
for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY ``MARC'' PERRONE, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT,
UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Mr. Perrone. Thank you. And I'd like to thank Chairwoman
Maloney, as well as you, Vice Chair Gomez, and the ranking
member in front of the committee today, Congressman Hice. I'd
also like to thank all the other members of the committee for
the opportunity to testify on the experiences that workers in
grocery, meat packing, food processing, and healthcare have had
to endure during this pandemic.
You know, my name is Marc Perrone. I'm the president of the
UFCW International Union. The UFCW is America's largest retail
and food union, representing 1.3 million hardworking men and
women in the grocery stores, meat packing, food processing,
healthcare, chemical plants, nonfood retail, and senior care
facilities.
We have members that are Republican, Democrats, and
Independents from every state in this Nation as well as every
congressional district. All across this country, our
healthcare, food processing, retail food workers are risking
their health and safety to ensure that the American people are
taken care of, our Nation's food supply is safe, grocery store
shelves are full and stocked, and pharmacies are distributing
medication.
These essential workers, as many of you have called them,
deserve not only our gratitude, but they deserve adequate
protections and provisions for their health and safety and
financial security.
I'd like to highlight the words of one of our grocery
clerks out of Ralph's in southern California in San Diego. She
said: Every day, you fear that you might catch the virus at
work. You fear that you might take that virus home to your
family, and we are working longer hours under very stressful
conditions. Our lives are on the line.
Let me stress to you how real this issue actually is. Our
internal estimates have confirmed that 225 of our members have
tragically died, and over 29,000 have been sick or exposed to
COVID-19 since the beginning. Seventy of our packing house
members and workers in the U.S. have died, with over 20,000
that have tested positive to COVID-19.
These profound risks that our members face is one of the
reasons that we, the UFCW, supports the legislation to
compensate the families of essential workers who die or are
hospitalized as a result of COVID-19.
While financial compensation cannot bring back what's lost,
it is the least that we must do in order to support the
families who have worked so hard to keep us fed and to take
care of us. More importantly, it's about recognizing that we
will never protect America's food supply unless and until we
protect America's food workers.
What's making things worse is that some of these essential
workers must now endure the insult of having their hero pay--
and some of us have called it hazard pay--taken away even as
this pandemic continues. Listen to the words of a food worker
in Lawrenceburg, Indiana: We put our lives on the line every
single day, and I worry about taking the virus back home to my
grandchildren and my husband. When Kroger took away the hero
pay from us, it was like a slap in the face. The fact of the
matter is our customers don't wear masks, and it's putting us
in jeopardy every single day. So, as long as the spread of the
virus hasn't stopped, neither should the protections of the
hero pay that our families so desperately need.
In other words, this brave food worker exposed this: While
some responsible employers like Cargill and Safeway have done
what's right, there are others like Amazon and Walmart. Even
some of our union employers like Kroger, have decided to put
profits, quite honestly, over people. And while we can all hope
that companies do what's right, the brutal reality is that many
will not do that until you and our other elected leaders do
more.
Now, I know that legislative issues at times can be framed
in a very partisan way, but this is not about being a
Republican or a Democrat. This is about protecting essential
workers in retail food, food processing, healthcare, as well as
protecting our food supply, and that's why that I'd ask you to
consider the following: Ensuring that all working people who
are sick, who are affected by quarantine orders, or who are
responsible to take care of children, who are, in fact, away at
home because schools have been closed, should have job
protections and paid sick leave for a minimum of 14 days.
I'd also ask that we compel OSHA to issue enforceable rules
specific to COVID-19--standards, if you will--and, to date,
that has not happened. Our members, especially in healthcare
and food processing, are feeling the consequences from that.
Enforceable rules that slow line speeds mandate social
distancing and prioritize workers and provide PPE free of
charge.
Last, we must include strong antiretaliation protections to
ensure that all workers are protected from being unfairly
threatened or fired. For the sake of this country that I know
that we all love, I urge the committee and Congress to work
together to do what's right for these brave workers.
I thank you again for your time, and I would welcome any
questions you may have. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
Now we have Ms. Castillo. You are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BONNIE CASTILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
NURSES UNITED, CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION, AND NATIONAL
NURSES ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Ms. Castillo. Thank you. Good morning. And thank you,
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Hice, and members of the
committee, for inviting me to testify today.
National Nurses United is the largest union of registered
nurses in the U.S. Our nurses are on the front lines of the
COVID-19 response, risking their lives to care for patients
throughout this horrific pandemic.
Across the country, nurses have been denied the protections
they need to prevent exposure to COVID-19. As a result, tens of
thousands of healthcare workers have been infected. As of June
5, NNU knows of at least 914 healthcare workers who have died
and of which more than 134 have been registered nurses. These
deaths could have been prevented if employers had protected
their workers.
The moment that outbreak began, hospitals across the
country started locking up their PPE, claiming that there would
be future shortages. Nurses have had to fight hospital
management to unlock and allow access to PPE supplies.
To protect against exposure to aerosol transmissible
diseases, we must be given a respirator--at minimum, an N95--
but instead, nurses have been forced to use surgical masks,
cloth masks, or even their own bandanas and scarves. These do
not provide protection against COVID-19, but the CDC has
sanctioned their use through weakened guidance.
Hospitals have run out of gloves, coveralls, and gowns. In
New York City, nurses were forced to wear garbage bags as
makeshift PPE.
Even when nurses are given N95s, they are forced to reuse
them, sometimes for days on end. N95s are manufactured for
single use only. Nurses are at risk of exposure every time they
reuse one. Hospitals have begun to use decontamination
processes for these masks, even though there is no scientific
evidence that these methods are safe and effective.
Many hospitals require nurses to continue to work after
exposure. Some have required asymptomatic nurses to work after
testing positive, putting patients and colleagues at risk. Many
hospitals fail to communicate suspected or confirmed COVID
cases, leaving countless workers unaware of potential exposure.
There are three main reasons why nurses have not been
protected at work. First, there is no OSHA standard that
enforces workplace protections in hospitals during a pandemic.
Second, Federal and state efforts to distribute PPE from
stockpiles have been ineffective, and frontline workers have
not seen the equipment supposedly delivered. We do not have a
national medical supply chain that is coordinated, transparent,
or efficient.
Third, there is simply not enough stock of respirators and
other necessary PPE in the country, and the Trump
administration has refused to increase PPE production in the
volumes required.
These failures have created a deeply traumatic situation
within hospitals across the country, and our nurses are dealing
with that trauma every single day. Nurses live with the fear
that they will become infected and pass it onto their families,
friends, or patients.
Many nurses are isolating away from their families. Some
are sleeping in their garages or cars. At times when families
need comfort--at a time when families need to comfort each
other, nurses are deprived of this support.
Nurses knew that the pandemic was on its way, way back in
January. Why weren't the hospitals prepared? Why wasn't the
administration or Congress prepared?
Now, as plans on reopening--now, as plans on reopening in
the country are underway, our nurses face increased risk. We
could see and are seeing a second wave of infections. It is
critical that Congress immediately pass legislation that will
protect nurses and other frontline workers.
NNU applauds Chairwoman Maloney for introducing H.R. 6909,
which would provide compensation for workers who contact--
contract COVID-19 or for our families if we die from the
disease.
I have personally led online heartbreaking vigils for
registered nurses who have died, and I know that their families
need our support. But we also need Congress to take action
immediately to prevent those infections and deaths from
happening in the first place.
NNU applauds the House for passing the HEROES Act. The bill
includes a mandate that OSHA issue an emergency temporary
standard for COVID-19, as well as provisions that would ensure
the Defense Production Act is fully invoked to immediately
increase the domestic production of respirators and other PPE.
It is essential that these provisions are included in any
compromise, negotiations--any compromise that is negotiated
with the Senate.
Our country has failed to protect nurses during this
pandemic. Without protections, more nurses will continue to
die. On behalf of nurses across the country, I urge the members
of this committee to ensure that we get the protections we need
immediately.
Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Ms. Castillo.
Now we have Mr. Odom. You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CLINT ODOM, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY AND
ADVOCACY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL URBAN
LEAGUE
Mr. Odom. Thank you. And, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking
Member Jordan, thank you for allowing me to testify today on
behalf of the National Urban League, one of the Nation's oldest
civil rights organizations and direct services organizations.
My long-formed testimony has already been entered into the
record, so I'd like to just say a few remarks.
I'd like to pay tribute today to the Africans and their
descendants whose labor, without compensation, built the U.S.
Capitol, made possible the Statue of Freedom that sits atop the
Capitol dome, and made possible the rise of the United States
as an economic superpower.
I'd also like to lift up Ms. Breonna Taylor, an essential
worker, an EMT from Louisville, Kentucky, whose life was cut
short, not by COVID, but by police officers serving a no-knock
warrant in March.
African Americans are and have always been among the
Nation's essential workers. African Americans and people of
color are overrepresented in the essential work force. Their
labor feeds, cleans, and cares for us. Their labor delivers
life-sustaining packages, stocks our grocery stores, transports
goods and people necessary to bring this economy back from a
self-induced coma.
Their labor both keeps us alive and gives us dignity at
life's end. Their labor allows millions of nonessential workers
to be productive while remaining safe at home, with only one in
five African Americans and one in six Latinx people able to
work from home.
Essential workers occupy frontline jobs and greatly
increase their exposure to the virus, yet we don't pay
essential workers anywhere near their worth. We don't provide
them with work protection and benefits necessary to survive the
pandemic. Without a cure or a vaccine, essential workers often
must choose between living and making a living.
To date, 23,251 Black lives have been lost to COVID-19. By
one estimate, 38 percent of African American workers are
employed in essential industries. In places like New York City,
however, 75 percent of essential workers are people of color,
including 82 percent of cleaning services employees.
Black women in particular bear the brunt of the essential
worker dilemma. Black women are overrepresented in low-wage
jobs, such as nursing assistants, personal care, or home health
aides. When compounded with government-mandated school closures
and restrictions on movement and a lack of affordable access to
childcare, the stress of running a household for Black women is
exacerbated. In addition, half of the Black households in this
country with children are headed by single women. Of these
households, 38 percent live below the poverty line.
When exposed to the coronavirus, Blacks are hospitalized at
2.5 times the rate of Whites, and, nationally, African American
deaths from COVID-19 are nearly two times greater than would be
expected based on their share of the population. Blacks and
Latinos are more likely to have preexisting health conditions,
such as asthma, heart disease, and diabetes, that makes death
from viral infection more likely.
With respect to pay, essential workers are paid less than
nonessential workers. Essential workers in the food and
agriculture industry, in particular, have the lowest median
hourly wage at $13.12.
African Americans and other workers of color work for
employers many times that do not offer health insurance, as
we've heard today. Uninsured COVID-19 medical expenses can
decimate a family's finances. Testing alone out of network can
cost as much as $1,300, while the cost of hospitalization and
treatment for more severe cases of COVID-19 can cost almost
$75,000 without insurance.
Although workers of color are overrepresented among
essential workers, they suffer from the second blow of higher
unemployment rate caused by the pandemic. The CBO explained as
follows: Low-wage workers and low-income families have borne
the brunt of the economic crisis, in part because the
industries hardest hit by the pandemic and social distancing
measures disproportionately employ low-wage workers.
Furthermore, workers who are young, female, have less
education, and are from certain racial or ethnic groups have
seen disproportionately large job loss, end of quote.
So, you've heard from other witnesses today about the need
for PPE, a good living wage, the need to pass--for Congress to
pass the HEROES Act, and for this body to pass the important
Heroes Compensation Act, which the National Urban League is
very pleased to endorse. These are all excellent ideas. The
Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act only works, however, if
essential workers contract COVID-19 while employed.
The economic data suggests that Black unemployment,
hovering near 17 percent, will become more acute over time.
Last week's May employment numbers do not suggest that the
economy is moving out of the woods. Fiscal policy will be the
main driver of economic growth in the early stages of recovery.
We're still in a deep hole with 13.3 percent unemployment.
Congress must take these concerns seriously and inject more
fiscal stimulus--excuse me--stimulus into the economy.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Now I'd like to recognize Mr. Roy. You're recognized for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF AVIK S.A. ROY, PRESIDENT, THE FOUNDATION FOR
RESEARCH ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Roy. Chairwoman Maloney, Vice Chair Gomez, Mr. Hice,
and members of the committee, thanks for inviting me to speak
with you today.
Chairwoman Maloney, I was a constituent of yours in the
2000's when I lived in Turtle Bay, and so I'm sorry we won't
get to spend more time together today, and I wish you all the
best with your health.
The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, or FREOPP
for short, is a nonpartisan think tank that focuses exclusively
on ideas that can improve the lives of Americans on the bottom
half of the economic ladder. On behalf of everyone in my
organization, I want to thank all those who risk their health
and safety for us every day.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to hear from the other
witnesses here today. I want to focus my opening remarks on two
aspects of today's topic.
The first is decisions by state governments that have
endangered vulnerable seniors along with the first responders
who care for them. The second is how to ensure that the tens of
millions of Americans who have been thrown out of work are no
longer left behind.
Of the 100,000-plus Americans who have died of COVID-19,
the CDC counts 379 deaths among healthcare personnel and
several hundred more in each of the occupational categories
that we've discussed today. Each one of these deaths is tragic.
An underappreciated part of the story is how many of these
deaths occurred because of people who are sent to the hospital
from nursing homes.
Point-six percent of the U.S. population lives in nursing
homes or assisted living facilities, and yet 42 percent of all
deaths from COVID-19 have occurred among residents of these
facilities, 42 percent.
Some states recognized the threat early on. In Florida,
hospitals pressured state officials to let them discharge
COVID-infected patients into nursing homes, but Florida
resisted. We drew a line--a hard line early on, said Mary
Mayhew, who runs Florida's health agency. I'm not going to send
anyone back to a nursing home, she told hospital CEOs, who has
the slightest risk of being positive. What we said constantly
is let's not have two cases become 20, or five become 50. If
you don't manage this individual as you return back, you'll
have far more being transferred back to the hospital.
Contrast Florida's approach with New York's, where from
March 25 through May 10, Governor Andrew Cuomo forced nursing
homes to accept COVID-infected patients, despite strenuous
objections from nursing home operators and caregivers. They
don't have a right to object, Cuomo said on April 20. That is
the rule and the regulation and they have to comply with that,
he said.
New Jersey and Michigan are among the other states with
major outbreaks that force nursing homes to accept infected
patients from hospitals. California and Massachusetts initially
imposed similar mandates but reversed themselves after
complaints from nursing home advocates.
The other big policy mistake that we've made at multiple
levels of government is the imposition of one-size-fits-all
economic lockdowns. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans
have died in the recent months not due to the virus, but the
economic disruption that followed. Not everyone is at risk or
equal risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. As we've
discussed, residents of long-term care facilities are, by far,
at the greatest risk, as are first responders.
Overall, individuals over 65 account for 81 percent of U.S.
COVID fatalities. Those under 35, by contrast, only account for
0.8 percent of deaths. A more targeted policy aimed at
protecting the most vulnerable could have saved millions of
jobs and thousands of lives, and still can.
At FREOPP.org, we've put forward a detailed plan coauthored
by both Republican and Democratic health policy experts that
shows how we can safely reopen the workplaces and schools and
bring Americans back to work.
Given the conversation that we've been having these days
about racial disparities, it's essential to note also that the
workers we have most left behind under economic lockdowns have
been minority workers.
In late 2019, Black unemployment reached its lowest rate in
history, 5.4 percent. Today, that rate is 16.8 percent.
Hispanic unemployment reached a record low of 3.9 percent in
late 2019. Now it's 17.6 percent.
In my written testimony, I detail how disparities between
White and non-White unemployment rates have also reached their
lowest levels in history prior to the pandemic. The economic
lockdowns have brought those disparities back to levels last
seen in the last Great Recession.
Put another way, racial and ethnic disparities in
employment are worse when the economy is worse, and especially
during the government-mandated shutdowns and the economy we are
experiencing today.
These disparities are, in part, due to the fact that Blacks
and Hispanics are more likely than Whites to be hourly wage
earners, but Black-owned businesses have also been hit far
harder than White-owned businesses. A recent paper published by
the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Black-
owned businesses have experienced losses of 41 percent between
February and April, versus 32 percent for Hispanic-owned
businesses, and only 17 percent, relatively speaking, for
White-owned companies.
There is much more to say on these topics, but let me stop
there, and I look forward to our discussion today. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
Now we're going on to the question and answer segment of
our hearing. Ms. Maloney is not feeling well, so I will now
recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
This coronavirus crisis has really reframed what we
consider essential workers. In the past, we only really
considered essential workers, in people's minds, nurses,
doctors, frontline emergency firefighters, police officers.
That's what we envisioned before. But during this crisis, we
really did get a better sense that, in order to keep people
fed, keep people hungry--I mean, fed, healthy, make sure that
they're safe, all of a sudden, the idea of essential workers
has changed, right, at least in the public's mind. The transit
worker, the grocery store worker, the people in the fields, the
people that make sure that your kids are taken care of and that
you can go to work.
All of a sudden, the idea of essential workers has shifted,
and that's what I think is something that we need to dig into
more, that an essential worker is not just the people with the
highest degrees, right? It's the people who are making sure
that life can continue, even if you're locked down because of
health reasons, because of a pandemic. That's why I really do
appreciate everybody who's on the panel, everybody who's out on
the front lines. It's been an amazing thing to watch.
So, I just want to say, first, thank you so much to all the
essential workers, from the people in the fields to the people
in the emergency rooms. You are making our life easier and
better, and that's why I'm--since I've been--during this
pandemic, I've had townhalls through virtual reality, just like
we're doing right now. I had Facebook live townhalls with
nurses from the United Nurse Association of California. It's a
nurse's union that I worked for when I was--before I ever got
elected--with SEIU United Service Workers West, to discuss
their needs, what were the problems, what were they seeing?
A lot of it came down to basically PPEs, you know, that
they weren't getting the right equipment that allowed them to
do their job in a safe way so they wouldn't be worried that
they're going to take back the virus to their loved ones at
home and get them sick. I want to just say that they continue
to impress all of us with their work.
Just for the record, I want to ask a few questions so that
we can--I know the panelists have answered this question, but I
want to do it in just in order.
Mr. Costa, are you aware of any essential transit workers
who have passed away from COVID, yes or no?
Mr. Costa. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Perrone, are you aware of any essential food
and commercial workers who have passed away from COVID, yes or
no?
Mr. Perrone. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Castillo, are you aware of any essential
nurses who have passed away from COVID?
Ms. Castillo. Yes.
Mr. Gomez. Yes. All your workers have been putting their
lives on the line, and that's what I want people to recognize,
is that people have lost their lives. Even if you do not know
someone who has lost their life to COVID, there are essential
workers who have. So--and that is impacting not only their
families, but their coworkers, and it's leaving a hole in the
fabric of their communities.
Mr. Odom, how would you describe the economic burden on
low-income workers and essential workers of color during this
coronavirus pandemic?
Mr. Odom. I would describe it as a multilayered disaster.
Many families of color have one person who's supporting the
household. We have, among communities of color, some of the
lowest rates of multi-workers in the same household. So, when
one household member goes down with COVID or is even under
quarantine or just waiting for testing to come back, that
person is not making money and that person can't support their
family.
That's a double body blow in addition to the high rates of
unemployment that we also see in this community. So, we are
both forced to work and are also the first victims of layoffs
when layoffs come, as they invariably have.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Odom.
Mr. Perrone, do food and commercial workers have death
benefits?
Mr. Perrone. No, we do not.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Castillo, do nurses have death benefits if
they get--they die from coronavirus?
Ms. Castillo. No.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Costa, do the transit workers have death
benefits if they die from coronavirus?
Mr. Costa. Some do and some don't.
Mr. Gomez. So, that's why--the reasons why we need
Chairwoman Maloney's Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act. It would
create a fund to cover economic losses of essential workers
who've become sick or passed away from coronavirus. These are
just like somebody who puts their life on the line when they go
into a fire or go into--into a military conflict and they lose
their life; there are some death benefits for those
individuals.
So, I'm in support, and I signed up as a cosponsor of the
Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act, and I hope that we can pass
that as soon as possible.
With that, I yield back. And now I'd like to recognize Mr.
Hice for your questions. You may unmute yourself.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate that.
Mr. Roy, let me go to you. One of the parts of this whole
discussion that, at least in my opinion, we're not talking
enough about is the Communist Party of China. There's no
question they intentionally concealed the severity of COVID-19,
and while doing so, they stockpiled a lot of medical supplies,
PPEs, and a host of things that would have, could have been
extremely useful globally.
It's alarming to me; I'm looking at some stats that we came
up with. They actually--during this time, they imported a lot
of PPEs and different supplies. Surgical masks in China went up
278 percent; surgical gowns, up 72 percent; surgical gloves, up
32 percent, and all of these while they were hiding from the
world what was taking place and just how severe this could have
gone.
We even helped. I mean, we sent them some supplies too,
and, obviously, a lot of these supplies could have been used to
help many people who are on the front lines, and yet we did not
know just how severe this thing was.
So, I guess my first question to you, Mr. Roy, would be, do
you believe that we should act? Should we take some sort of
action to ensure that China is held accountable for what they
did?
Mr. Roy. Well, Mr. Hice, I mean, I agree with your
assessment of China's culpability, but I don't--I don't know
what the tools are. I certainly haven't spent enough time
thinking about what the tools are that we have, the leverage we
have to request compensation or other means, which I know
plenty of people in Congress and the White House have been
thinking about that topic, and I'm glad--I'm glad you are. I
just don't--I don't have any specific recommendations for you
off the top other than to the degree that if there is a way to
do it, let's do it.
Mr. Hice. OK. What--what about on the--on the issue of how
China now is--is involved in some espionage, actually, even to
go after some of our treatments, trying to find our vaccine
research. As we are--are being told, at least they're--they're
targeting U.S. universities, pharmaceutical companies, other
healthcare firms in an effort to try to get really secret,
sensitive information that we have, research that we have done
related to the virus. Are you--are you aware of that, of what--
of what they're doing? And I guess beyond that, how harmful is
that in our capacity to find vaccines?
Mr. Roy. Well, I have great confidence in the R&D
infrastructure of the United States, both in terms of the
university academic sector, as well as private pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies to develop effective treatments and
vaccines eventually. One thing we've written a lot of about at
FREOPP.org, our think tank, is that we cannot count on a
vaccine being developed in the near term. We can certainly hope
for the best, but the fastest vaccine for a novel virus
developed in recent history was the Ebola virus vaccine, which
took five years to develop. So, this idea that we're going to
have a vaccine for SARS COVID 2 in 12 to 18 months? Look, let's
all hope that that can happen. But we're--if we're going to bet
our entire economy on that, I think that would be
catastrophically mistaken.
We've got to figure out ways to reopen the economy and
encourage R&D innovation at the same time, even if a vaccine
doesn't immediately come forward, and then we have to protect
our intellectual property if China tries to steal them.
Mr. Hice. Yes. I mean, that protection of our intellectual
property is really where I'm going to. There are some companies
that believe that we will be able to, in fact, get a vaccine
hopefully early this next year. And it's pretty remarkable how
rapidly our R&D in this country has moved forward to research,
and to come up with some treatments that are--are looking to be
extremely helpful with this. But the protection of our
intellectual property there is a--is a major issue for me, and
I'm just deeply concerned with what the--the espionage campaign
that the Chinese are bringing forth to steal that, and how that
espionage campaign affects our ability to do--to effectively do
research.
Mr. Roy. Well, what--the way the patent law works is, the
patent clock begins from the time that you file your patent
with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. So, if a
biotechnology company or an academic university has developed
some approach to developing a vaccine that they think is
worthwhile, and they file the patent applications accordingly,
by the time the Chinese get to it, the patents will already be
on--on the timeline, on the clock, so to speak, in the U.S.,
and that will be important.
So, what's--what's important to say is that for any--any
people in the biotech community who are--who are watching this
hearing, if you've got IP, make sure you're asserting it.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Hice.
Now I'd like to--Ms. Norton is now recognized for your
questions for five minutes. You may unmute yourself.
Ms. Norton. I hope you can see--I hope you can see and hear
me. It's not unmuted. I've done it.
Mr. Gomez. You're--you're good. Oh. You're--you're muted
again.
Ms. Norton. Sorry. All right. I--I want to begin by
thanking our chair for this very important hearing and to wish
her the very best as she is quarantined, and I certainly want
to express my condolences to Ms. Becote. In a real sense, this
hearing is dedicated to her and her loss.
I do want to say because it was remarked that we should be
meeting in here, in the Nation's Capital. I do want everyone to
know that there is a reason that I think the chair has chosen
not to meet in the Nation's Capital. If there are hot spots
still, this is the hottest spot, the very last to open, and
it's only squeaked open a very little bit. With the mass
demonstrations that have occurred here because of the death of
George Floyd, I'm not sure when the Nation's Capital will be
open, so I'll depend on the best judgment of the chair.
My question is for Mr. Costa. This region is the most
public transportation-dependent region in the country. Now, I
know I speak for other members who are increasingly dependent
on public transportation. We have electric buses coming on, and
with climate change, more and more regions of the country are
turning to mass transit from one kind or another, not to
mention climate change itself, which has made--has made
climate--which has become central to a bill, and maybe one of
the few bills that will pass this session. I am subcommittee
chair of a--of the committee that has just written a new
transportation and infrastructure bill which is likely to go to
the floor this year.
So, my question is for Mr. Costa about public
transportation, with the dependence of the country increasingly
on public transportation. Not every region is set up to have
trains of the kind we have in the Nation's Capital, and so
buses, increasingly electric buses, are becoming more
important. So, I would like to know what you're experiencing as
the difference between the effects of the virus on--on bus and
train drivers at the moment, Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. The--the bus drivers are more exposed, of
course. It's a smaller vehicle, and the air flow on it, the
filtered system needs to be redone. We need to look at that,
especially on the reopening because the air flow comes from the
back, so we need to put a better filtered system in there.
As far as trains, we are concerned there, too, with the air
flow. Like in New York, they have made some changes there with
the filtered systems and UV systems they're putting in because,
let's face it, even though they're in a compartment, when you
open up that compartment and shut it with a lot of passengers
on and the overcrowding, there's still a concern.
So, more and more of our exposure that we found, of course,
is on a bus, but even the maintenance area early on with the
cleaning of the buses. We had a lot of--we had some of our
maintenance members pass away also, contracting the virus just
by cleaning the buses, because of--because the--the poor
leadership on the PPE that wasn't given or educated to our
members.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Costa, it looks like you're saying whatever
decisions are made to reopen on a gradual--in a gradual way,
that we ought to look first to transportation to see if the
necessary steps have been taken there. I would like to say to
the chair of the committee that I believe it would be useful
to--to speak more specifically to our transportation operators,
about which I have not heard a great deal as we talk about
reopening. Because reopening, it seems to me, cannot occur
unless our workers are able to get to work. And the testimony
I've heard today from Mr. Costa does indicate that more needs
to be done. Is that--is that the case, Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. Yes. I--I am very concerned that I don't have to
make any more phone calls going forward after 53 of my members
have passed, coworkers and friends of mine, most recently one
from north New Jersey, New Jersey Transit over the weekend. So,
there is a big concern, and I just hope the industry and how
they get to this is right.
The air flow is a big problem. We're going to have--you
know, the CARES Act helped. We kept the service--we kept the
service on the road which helped us with overcrowding. And now
that we've opened up, we need to be cautious because we are--we
did experience, I believe, the most that have--that have passed
away so far is in the transportation area.
So yes, very, very--I'm very concerned with the reopening,
and I hope everybody moves slowly and gets input from the
transportation unions and operators at the table, not just make
the determination as they--as many of the management people are
sitting home, unlike us, on the road moving, moving the
country.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Norton, your time has expired.
Mr. Gosar is now recognized--you're now recognized for
questions. You're recognized for five minutes. You may unmute
yourself.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me?
[Inaudible] distance matters. Words matter. Something that
doesn't seem to matter to the chairwoman is who is deemed
essential. In your bill, Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act, you
designate essential workers as those who can be tapped into the
COVID-19 compensation fund. Who are these essential workers,
you ask? Your bill designates essential workers as any
individual employed, or a contractor working for a person,
business, non-profit entity, or Federal, state, tribal, or
territorial or local government that is determined during a
response to the COVID-19 pandemic to be essential, based on
state, local, tribal, or territorial orders, or declarations or
their equivalent or Federal guidelines--guidance published by
the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, who
performed this work outside their place of residence.
I'm not going to sit through every individual scenario that
we could make an argument for someone who is deemed essential
because, honestly, there would never be enough time. My point
is, is that who are we able and to decide who is and who isn't
essential? A job is essential by its very nature. Is it fair to
say that someone who works a desk job isn't essential? Who
could ask their children if they think food is essential, food
that their parent's desk job provides? We should not be in the
business of micromanaging the economy and determining who is
more important. I believe those who work to provide a good life
for their family and to help sustain the economy are essential,
not some random list of non-profit employees that a government
bureaucrat determined.
Now, just like the ranking member, why aren't we talking
about China? Where is the legislation to hold them accountable?
We are discussing legislation that will cost trillions more in
taxpayer dollars by sending money to an unprecedented amount of
people. Why not allow--why aren't we allowed to even question
what is being force-fed down our throats? This is the same as
the 9/11 compensation fund. Even though I support helping folks
that were affected by that tragic event, not supporting every
aspect of it was met with harsh criticism and dismissal.
Let's talk about the real problems in this bill, like
forcing already struggling businesses to offer hazard pay. Are
you trying to destroy small businesses? Honestly. Because you
don't even seem to show the slightest bit of empathy for those
who take chances to start a business. No real cap on how much
special master can spend on. I've been fighting for years to
get compensation to folks in parts of Arizona who were affected
by nuclear regulation--radiation from nuclear missile testing,
but I guess since it wasn't pumped by the news all day every
day for three months, they don't deserve it.
Well, on March 19,2020, more than 600 physicians signed a
letter to President Trump stating that, quote, ``millions of
casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain
sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness,
suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it
will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair,
drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse,''
end of quote.
What are some of the long-term impacts the economic
shutdown will have on our country? I'd like to ask that--Mr.
Avik Roy that very question. What are some long-term impacts
the economic shutdown will have on our country?
Mr. Roy. Well, if we have a long-term shutdown, we know
from a lot of past experience and evidence that there's a
significant effect not just on the economy, but on mortality,
illness, public health, deaths of despair, the number of people
who--who either because they lose their job, lose high quality
health insurance, or because they have lower access to care, or
because of other things that are going on in their lives or
their children. So, there's a--this is not merely a dichotomy
between safety and public health on the one hand, and economics
and money on the other. If tens of millions of people are
unemployed for a sustainable period, there are public health
costs for that too, and that is widely understood in the public
health arena.
Mr. Gosar. And--and going along those same lines, would not
our veterans have the same type of outlook and the same type of
problems?
Mr. Roy. Certainly, especially those who--well, I mean,
for--for all the same reasons, yes. Short answer, yes.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. And--and my last question to you is we
found that the states and the public health aspects were behind
the cue ball. There's a lot of misinformation, some things that
common sense would actually front much more forward. Do you
think it's time to make sure that we hold these many republics,
these states, and their executives, accountable for some of the
actions?
Mr. Roy. Dr. Gosar, yes. So, in my book, my written
testimony, statement, my oral statement, I highlighted the
issue of nursing homes, and how nursing homes created a lot of
the risk for first responders that we've been discussing today.
Another thing that I should mention. We've mentioned a lot
about public transit, particularly New York City. New York City
Mayor Bill De Blasio waited until May 6, May 6, to disinfect
the subways for the first time. And there's evidence, there's
research out of MIT that suggests that--that the New York
subways were a major vector of transmission. We know that the
tri-state area around New York City is the single largest
outbreak in the country and, indeed, the world.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
Mr. Gosar. I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gosar, your time is up.
Mr. Lynch, you're now recognized for five minutes. You may
unmute yourself.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Chairman Gomez. I appreciate you
and--and Chairwoman Maloney and the ranking member, Mr. Hice,
for holding this hearing.
First of all, I'd like to express my condolences to Ms.
Becote on the loss of your husband, Ed. I want to thank you for
your willingness to--to appear at this virtual hearing and to--
to bring it home in a--in a personal and--and profound way
about what the loss of your husband means to you and your
family.
I know that I have a--a lot of folks in my district that
have had a similar experience losing a loved one, and I just
want you to know that I'm--I'm with Chairman Gomez and Chairman
Maloney as an original co-sponsor of her bill to provide some
relief to families in your situation. But I do appreciate your
courage in coming forward and taking your tragic situation and
trying--trying to help others from--from suffering the same
fate. So, we really do appreciate that.
I want to talk a little bit about essential workers and--
and the hero pay that they have received. Some--some have
fashioned it as a hero bonus, you know. I've had an awful time
here in--in the Boston area with my nursing homes. I've had,
you know, 20, 30, 40 residents of nursing homes pass away,
and--and the--the situation is so precarious that many
employees, because they are traditionally low paid, many of
them are--are men and women of color. They're--they're low-
benefit jobs. They weighed that balance and said I'm--I'm not
going to put myself at risk, you know, my family at risk by
going to work every single day.
For many of them, that hazard pay, that hero pay that was
provided for by--provided for by their employer was the
difference for them that--that, you know, some people--we lost
about 17 employees at one big nursing home, and it just put
more and more pressure on the others who were able to stay.
That--that hazard pay wasn't recklessly handed out by faceless
bureaucrats. That was actually the--the management of--of those
businesses that said we need people to respond and to be on the
job, even under these very difficult situations.
So, you know, in--in our state, and I know in many others,
the Governors identified that we need to secure the supply
chain for food. We need to secure the supply chain for--for
healthcare, you know. I--I spent a whole lot of time that I
shouldn't have been spending trying to get N-95 masks from
China, and--and other countries, you know, to--to bring to my
nurses and--and my healthcare workers at--at my coronavirus
hospitals and my--you know, a bunch of my hospitals in this
area. Not only that, but first responders, my police, fire,
grocery workers. So, you know, this was really an all-hands-on-
deck situation, and I think the idea that Mrs. Maloney has,
she's the--the lead sponsor on her, you know, Heroes Pay
initiative is very well-focused on people who are required and
deemed essential by the President of the United States, and by
the Governors of our--our states as well. We--we know the
systems that had to be secured, and like Ed Becote, those
people knew full well the consequences to our society, and to
the most vulnerable within our--within our society, if they
didn't show up for work. They--their response was heroic, and I
see it every day, whether it's the nurses or my postal workers,
or UPS or FedEx, you know.
The postal worker provides about 90 percent of the
medicines and--and pharmaceuticals that are taken by our
veterans. 90 percent of the--the drugs that go to our veterans
are handled by letter carriers and postal clerks and--and mail
handlers, and--and that's--so that's a critical, essential
service. It's not hard to determine who's essential here, those
people that are on the job every single day.
So I--I applaud Mrs. Maloney's initiative. I think we can
work it out. I think we need to remember, and it's not hard to
remember, you know, Ed Becote and--and his commitment. He
sounds like a wonderful, wonderful man, and his--his service
was heroic in Brooklyn. You know, I know there were a lot of--a
lot of his brothers and sisters in the SEIU, 1199, that do that
job every single day, and--and I think it's important for us to
remember that, you know.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Lynch, your time has expired.
Mr. Lynch. I'm sorry. OK. I yield back. Thanks for your
courtesy and your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Of course. Of course.
Now, Mr. Higgins, you're recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
panelists for appearing virtually with us today.
I'd like to say at the outset that this 21st century
technology that we're--that we're using today, or we're
attempting to use, I think it's good that it's tested. However,
I--I must say respectfully that I protest to the--to the venue.
I believe that this type of technology should be used for
congressional business only when the U.S. is under very serious
attack. I've said before that America has been impacted by a
virus. We have not been invaded by an army, so I respectfully
urge my colleagues across the aisle to encourage Madam Speaker
Pelosi and the majority leadership to end proxy voting, and
remote committee hearings. The Senate is operating in person.
The White House is operating in person. And yet, the People's
House, the House of Representatives, remains incredibly
restricted as we've seen by our efforts today, forced to use
technologies that I believe is best reserved for, perhaps
never, but certainly for much more extreme national
emergencies.
Ms. Castillo, if I may talk to you for a bit, ma'am. I have
a--a very high admiration for nurses and doctors, frontline
medical professionals, and you gave a moving testimony
regarding PPE and the lack of access to proper PPE. I thank you
for clarifying the difference, ma'am, between effectiveness of
an N-95 respirator used for an hour, versus a surgical mask
used all day or longer.
I'd like to have my staff reach out to you at a later date
so perhaps you could work with us on some projects that we have
regarding PPE in the future.
So, I ask you, ma'am, regarding PPE, have you in your--in
your career, Ms. Castillo, have you ever seen such a massive
demand for PPE at one time for medical professionals across the
world?
Ms. Castillo. Well, this is the first pandemic, and it's a
global pandemic, so the--no, I have not seen it this
extraordinary need.
Mr. Higgins. No.
Ms. Castillo. The numbers are massive. That being said, we
anticipated that we would have--that this pandemic would have--
I mean, we had plenty of warning, and so, in January----
Mr. Higgins. Let me ask you about that, if you don't mind,
in the interest of time, and I greatly respect your testimony,
as I do your profession. And let me say that--that nurses and
frontline medical professionals should have access to all the
PPE they need: gowns, respirators, face shields, gloves,
everything they need to get their job done. Your--your
testimony has--has clarified what I believe to be true as well
and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We concur
that as a Nation, we will come out of this--this initial phase
of this pandemic, with a stronger infrastructure and a greater
distribution of PPE. And I do think it's notable that--that
China as a nation and their--their government leadership
purposefully delayed the release of important data and--and
hoarded--began gathering and hoarding PPE from across the world
at a time when they were restricting our true knowledge of what
was going on.
So, I would like to be able to work directly with you,
ma'am, my staff, if--if you'd be willing, as we address the
future needs for PPE. Thank you again for being here, and all
the panelists.
Dr. Roy, if--if I could ask you for a moment, sir. I'm
particularly concerned, if you would address the challenge to
seniors in America because of the economic impact. There's
nothing healthy about repossession or unemployment,
foreclosures, eviction. Stress and depression are known
killers, and loneliness is to be counted amongst that factor.
Our elders across the country depend upon family interaction on
a regular basis. Please, in my remaining few seconds, respond
if you would, Dr. Roy, about how you feel about what we can do
to protect our seniors from this and how they've been impacted.
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you, sir, and I would say that, you
know, as I have alluded to in my opening remarks and my written
testimony, we needed to, and still need to focus our attention,
our energies on reducing the spread of COVID-19 among seniors,
particularly vulnerable seniors in congregate facilities like
nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
If we do that, if we're testing everybody in those
facilities, everyone who works in those facilities, making sure
the staff in those facilities aren't going from one place to
another place to another place and seeding those other nursing
homes. We have to rescind these mandates at the state level
that force nursing homes to accept COVID-infected patients.
There's a lot we can do on that particular policy area, and
if we do that, we can restrict and--and suppress the spread of
COVID-19 in the elderly population, because otherwise, they're
going--their economic activity and their social lives, their
emotional lives, their family lives are going to be suppressed
for a much longer period of time than everybody else's.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, thank
you for your indulgence. I yield.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Connolly, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Gomez. And if Carolyn is still
on the--on this hearing, we wish you all the best, Carolyn, and
hopefully, the results come back not positive.
I would like to begin on a personal note. I heard Mr. Hice
and Mr. Higgins criticize the decision to hold this hearing
pursuant to the rule change in the House virtually. And like
them, this is not ideal. I would prefer to be back at the
Capitol and doing business as usual with my full complement of
staff in the office. But let me say to my friends on the other
side of the aisle, please stop making this a political talking
point.
This is about life and death. This is about people at risk.
I lost a good friend of 40 years to COVID-19 two weeks ago. Two
of my staff were diagnosed with it. I've got friends throughout
Northern Virginia who have had to go to the hospital or stay at
home and quarantine because they've been exposed.
The chairman of this committee is in quarantine because
she's been exposed and is awaiting the results of a test and is
not feeling well. Please. Can we at once come together and
admit that we're doing the prudent thing to prevent people from
getting sick, to prevent Members of Congress from becoming
vectors of this illness, of this virus? That's the motivation.
And to subscribe baser motivations to me does a disservice to
all of us, and I wish we would cease and desist on that line of
argument and that political talking point.
Mr. Perrone? Mr. Perrone?
Mr. Perrone. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Oh. Thank you. Thank you for being here, and
let me ask you a question. It may be a little bit leading, but
you--it really struck me what you said about the fact that
you--you know, frontline workers in grocery stores are--feel
threatened when customers come in refusing to wear a mask,
because those customers put them at risk and other customers at
risk. And all of a sudden, it becomes a more menacing
environment.
I know it's a political question, but one of the reasons it
seems to me that that is going on in large numbers is because
the President of the United States has himself decided that he
will not wear a mask. And he's done it in a way that comes
across as almost defiant, and seems to send a signal to a large
group of his followers that wearing a mask is a political
statement, and not wearing a mask is also a political
statement, and the health consequences kind of get forgotten,
or diminished as a priority. Do you believe, Mr. Perrone, that
the President of the United States not wearing a mask
deliberately contributes to the situation your members find
themselves in with respect to non-compliant customers?
Mr. Perrone. Congressman, let me say the following: I think
that it would be more helpful that in situations where he was
in the public arena, like when he went to the--the Ford plant,
that he would wear a mask just like everybody else would. I
think that would be more helpful. I--I am hesitant to----
Mr. Connolly. If I can interrupt you, Mr. Perrone. I think
it's a little more than it would be helpful. It's actually a
requirement in the Ford plant. For example, when he recently
went to Maine to a swab-producing facility, because he didn't
wear a mask, they had to destroy the swabs he was reviewing
because of potential contamination. So, that's more than it
would be helpful. That's actually a violation of floor rules,
and in the case of the Maine factory, actually requiring the
destruction of the PPE he was there to look at.
Mr. Perrone. Well, Congressman, here is what I meant by
being helpful. It would be helpful as it relates to the--the
population so they don't necessarily think that it is political
because it's not. This is science-based, this is not
politically based, and--and it doesn't have anything to do with
politics. Look, in my--my members, quite honestly, are tired of
the blame game, whether or not it's the blame game about having
a hearing like this, or whether or not it's a blame game about
who's responsible for the problem.
Look, we have a virus in this country that--that is
affecting people in a very negative way. There's no question
about it. It's affecting them economically; it's affecting them
as it relates to their health; it's--it's certainly affecting
certain people as it relates to the number of deaths that we've
seen, over 100,000, you know. And where I'm coming from at this
point in time, to represent my members, is we need Congress and
all our leaders in this country to act together to fix the
problem that we basically have, or at least----
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Connolly, your time has expired. Now----
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you for your--your questions.
Mr. Massie, you are now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate you holding
this hearing.
I believe that Congress should show up and do our jobs. If
the nurses are showing up for work, and the grocery store
workers and the truckers are driving and the farmers are
working, I believe we should be there working. Of course, I
appreciate that we're doing this hearing online and remotely.
It's much better than not having any hearings at all, but we
know we could do a better job if we were in person. I do think
it would be reasonable to tell our staff that they could stay
at home, but we should--we should, I believe, be leading the
charge here.
I am concerned about the workers at--at the meat processing
facilities, and whether they are getting the appropriate PPE,
and whether the policies have changed there, and then also,
what the effect is on productivity. So, I would like to ask Mr.
Perrone just to speak generally maybe for about a minute. Do
you believe that we're getting the right equipment, the PPE, to
the workers at the meat processing facilities? I've heard from
the USDA early on. They told me everything was fine, and I
wasn't buying it then. I believe that these issues are going to
be long term. Slowing down the lines or--or increasing the
spacing may be a reasonable concession to preventing spread in
these factories.
Can you also tell us, what do you think it is, Mr. Perrone,
about the factory conditions that make them one of the most
likely places for somebody to have COVID, or to get COVID
outside of a nursing home?
Mr. Perrone. I think that one of the reasons is much like
President Costa mentioned earlier as it relates to the volume
of air in the facility because they are in a, you know,
processing plant, and there has to be a high volume air
conditioning system in that facility in order to make sure it
stays cool enough in there to process the meat. In addition to
that, it's the humidity in the air at the same time that
doesn't allow the virus or the particles, because they're
aerosol to evaporate very quickly and ultimately eliminate the
problem.
Now, you asked me about whether or not there's enough PPE
in--in the facilities. Look. Because the conditions are so
difficult, and we had to do layered PPE that we had
conversations with--with our--you know, our management teams,
layered PPE, meaning shields around the workers, face shields
and masks, because if they just went in there with an NP-95
mask that--that Bonnie Castillo talked about, the problem is
the--the humidity inside the facility would ultimately attach
itself to the mask, and it would be like those workers were
being waterboarded.
So, is there equipment that would be better in order to
better protect them? Yes, you could--you could go to an A-100
respirator that might have the respirator pack on the back much
like you see in some of these biological labs that we've seen.
That may be better. Then you could actually bring people closer
together if you were concerned about the productivity, because
you do have to have spacing if you don't have that higher level
of PPE.
So, here is what's going on now. Do I think productivity
has been cut down? Yes, I do. I think we're probably anywhere
from 75 to 80 percent of our full productivity. Our kill floors
are operating around the same level as they were, before, but
not the processing locations because of the close proximity
that you have to be and next to the person next to you. I don't
know if that's what you were looking for.
Mr. Massie. Yes, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Perrone. That is--that is what's going on in those
plants.
Mr. Massie. That's an interesting perspective on the masks,
that the--even the N-95 isn't--may not be sufficient in those
conditions. I hadn't considered that before. I am a proponent
of any time that we wear a mask, as long--as soon as we get the
manufacturing pipeline solved, people should be wearing N-95
masks instead of homemade masks, because I think it's
doubtful--the science is doubtful on whether a homemade mask is
really going to prevent the wearer from getting the virus, and
it may not even be very effective in preventing those exposed
to the wearer from getting the virus. So, I'm a proponent of
science-based and--and using the masks that are appropriate.
Let me just ask Mr. Roy a question very quickly. Mr. Roy,
I'm looking at your testimony here, and it really strikes me
that a few states have had a really high incidence of COVID
within nursing homes per 10,000 long-term care residents. Can
you explain why that might be, Mr. Roy?
Mr. Roy. Yes. Well--hi, Mr. Massie. It's--there are a
number of factors, and we're actually actively researching
this. In some previous testimony I gave to the House
Coronavirus Select Committee last week, I went into some of our
analyses, our preliminary analyses. We tried to find
correlations between nursing home fatality rates and other
indicators, such as a high percentage of Medicaid patients in
nursing homes, or a high percentage of African Americans.
At the state level, at least, we didn't find those
correlations. We may find more data once--now that the CDC is
collecting data by facility, we can do a more granular
assessment, so I expect to have some analyses next week on that
topic.
But broadly speaking, what you see is that there's a--the
two factors that stand out intuitively. One is where the
pandemic has been worse, but that's also related to the way a
lot of those northeastern states, in particular, forced nursing
homes and assisted living facilities to accept COVID-infected
patients being discharged from hospitals. So, those appear to
be the biggest drivers, but that analysis is still ongoing.
Mr. Massie. OK. My time has expired.
Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gomez. Of course, Mr. Massie.
Now we have Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are recognized for
five minutes for questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Thank you so much. Let's make
sure my head is in the shot here.
Over the last several months, I've heard from essential
workers who have struggled to get the PPE that they're--that
they need to do their jobs safely. I've heard from nurses who
are using homemade masks as they continue to treat patients,
delivery workers without cleaning supplies to sanitize their
vehicles, security workers who are on the job despite shortages
of gloves and protective eyewear.
For me, those stories illustrate both the bravery and
selflessness of the American work force, and also, the Trump
administration's failure of leadership in a time of crisis.
The Trump administration's lack of a coherent Federal
response to this pandemic, including failure to fully invoke
the Defense Production Act to produce PPE put a countless
number of people at risk and cost public lives. I chair the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Subcommittee, and I focused on whether the VA has an adequate
supply of PPE, and is directing their facilities to distribute
sufficient amounts of PPE to keep their work force and veterans
safe.
Congress provided the VA almost $20 billion in the CARES
Act, and with that money, we expect the VA to provide PPE for
every person working in and entering veterans' health
administration facilities. But just yesterday, the top health
official at the VA admitted that they may not have enough
supplies to withstand a second wave of the virus.
So, my first question is of Ms. Castillo: You lead an
organization that represents 155,000 nurses, including nurses
that work at VA facilities. How would you describe their access
to PPE for your members that are working at VA? Also, would you
say the experience of your work--your members, who are working
at the VA facilities, is similar to your membership more
generally?
Ms. Castillo. Well, so in the VA system, their PPE has been
woefully inadequate. When we talk about PPE, I'm talking about
head-to-toe PPE. So, in addition to the respirators, you need
the head coverings, the shields, the coveralls, the booties.
All of that has been insufficient. And yes, it does mirror the
private and public sector, the other hospital systems as well.
We're seeing that throughout, including in the P--in the VA,
where we've actually had to utilize donations to get supplies
to our nurses, and we have done that because we literally have
had to fight for every--you know, tooth and nail for every bit
of PPE for our nurses.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. I've heard that throughout, and
I just recently--Dr. Stone actually announced, he went through
the numbers, and my own staff has gotten the numbers. And if we
have a second wave, if you're already struggling to--to keep up
with--with the PPE you need, and then we have a second wave,
there's going to be a very significant problem with keeping our
workers safe.
So, the Defense Production Act, what do you think about the
President's refusal to fully implement the Defense Production
Act?
Ms. Castillo. It's cost lives. We actually need to fully
invoke the production--the Production Act, and we can. I mean,
one thing that I want to say is we're dealing with a virus that
is novel, and we're learning more and more about it each day.
The PPE is not novel. We know what protects us, what will
protect frontline workers, and what will protect patients, and
we know how to make it. And so we--we need to have domestic
production and we need enough production.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely. It's grossly
irresponsible not to have done that already. Thank you so much.
Ms. Becote, when--when we think about the shortages of
vital supplies for healthcare workers, sometimes we tend to
only think of doctors and nurses. But, you know, there are so
many hospital employees that are not doctors or nurses. They're
patient transporters, custodians, medical technicians, and they
keep the hospital functioning. They--you know, and I'm talking
about people like your husband, Edward. I'm so sorry for your
loss. Can you describe his access to PPE when he went to work?
And do you think that inadequate access to PPE played a role in
his infection?
Ms. Becote. I'm sorry. Sorry. I couldn't make out what you
said.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You couldn't hear any of what I
said?
Ms. Becote. Just part of it. I'm sorry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. My--my question is because your
husband, Edward, was not a doctor or a nurse like they usually
think of--Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind adding a little
bit, a few seconds to my time so I can re-ask my question. I'd
appreciate it.
Mr. Gomez. Please ask your question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much.
So, what I referred to was that doctors and nurses are
usually who are thought of as frontline healthcare workers, but
people like your husband, you know, who provide support to
those--those frontline healthcare workers also are a critical
component of the overall delivery of care. Can you describe
your husband's access to PPE when he went to work, and do you
think that inadequate access to PPE might have played a role in
his infection?
Ms. Becote. Yes. I think when it first started, he wasn't
equipped. I think they were giving it to the doctors and the
nurses first. As the virus started to progress, then I think
people were taking it more seriously. They gave it--they
finally gave it to him, but I think by that time, he was
already exposed. But I do think if he had the PPE, he would
have stood a chance of not contracting it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Thank you, and again, I'm
so sorry for your--for your loss, and thank you for, you know,
his commitment to caring for people.
Mr. Chairman, this is just unconscionable that we have left
so many people without protection that they need, and so many
lives have been lost as a result. I appreciate your indulgence.
My time's expired. I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Grothman, you're recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Gomez. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. Good.
OK. First of all, for Mr. Costa, I'd like to thank you for
the anecdote. I was not aware that the subways in New York were
not being cleaned. I just apologize for the failure of the
government out there. Between that and the nursing home thing,
it's just--it's just stunning that people got stuck with such
lemons out there, so I apologize for that.
Second, I'd like to talk to Ms. Castillo. One of the
problems I have in the state of Wisconsin--I love nurses. I
love to talk to nurses. I think sometimes you find out a lot
more from nurses than doctors as far as what's going on in
our--our healthcare system.
One of the problems we have here is there was a fantastic
overestimate of the number of people who were going to wind up
hospitalized, and as a result, two things happened:
First of all, a lot of non-essential medical things, which
I would consider essential, things like putting in a new stem,
repairing a valve were not done, so perhaps people are dying,
and there's some evidence the reason for the uptick in death
rate in this country is things not being done that should be
done--that should be done.
And second, we've had to lay off healthcare workers instead
of nurses. I know that's going on in Wisconsin. Is that
something that's going on nationwide? And what can we do to get
these--if it's true, what can we do to get these hospital
administrators to bring back the nurses to work and open up
these hospitals?
Ms. Castillo. Well, I know as a nurse, we always want to--
it's better to be prepared and to prevent. So we--we know what
we should have been doing in anticipation of this pandemic, and
those that did, certainly, you know, we applaud that. That
being said, we do see some hospitals take advantage of this
particular moment. instead of focusing on ensuring that they
have adequate protections for workers, they're looking at
things like furloughs, making nurses--cutting down their hours
and/or closing essential services like labor and delivery. In
Santa Clara County, there's a hospital that literally closed
down labor and delivery, and so, there was a layoff of nurses.
You know, there're certainly mothers who are still needing
to deliver, and now they have nowhere to go. They have to go
many, many miles.
So, you know, we're--we are fighting back on this as well,
because----
Mr. Grothman. People aren't getting mammograms, they're not
getting colonoscopies, they're not getting screenings other
screenings for cancer because the hospitals way overestimated
the number of people who are going to be there. Now, I can
understand the hospital doing that in March. But, you know, as
time went on, it's become very apparent that the so-called
experts in Washington, you know, overestimated things, and I
just wondered if you are doing what you can to weigh in.
Ms. Castillo. Yes. In--in our mind, if we would have had
adequate amounts of PPE, so in other words, that hospitals were
required to have sufficient supplies as stock, for example,
for, like, a year, then, you know, we wouldn't have had--we
would have been able to treat all of our patients. So, in other
words, you know----
Mr. Grothman. I'll tell you. And you can tell me if this is
true nationwide. I think in Wisconsin, the problem is not a
lack of PPE, the problem is they were shutting down whole wings
in anticipation of this deluge of patients that never showed up
and laid off people.
Ms. Castillo. My understanding is the shortage of PPE is
nationwide, and that's from hearing from nurses where we
surveyed nurses across the Nation and have responses from
nurses in 50 states.
Mr. Grothman. OK.
Ms. Castillo. They were being actually asked to use masks.
Mr. Grothman. Dr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. One of the things that concerns me here is
Congress has already spent far, far, far too much money on
this, and we are driving the next generation very deeply into
debt. In other words, it's kind of an odd thing. Usually you
want the next generation to be wealthier than your generation.
We're kind of going the opposite way. We're running up the
credit card and making sure the next generation is broke.
I certainly have a lot of people in my district who are
financially harmed because of the COVID, and they wish they had
their jobs. They don't have their jobs. They wish their
businesses were keeping above water. Instead, they're maybe
going through bankruptcy and wipe out their life savings. I
wonder if you could comment on the degree to which we already
are throwing money at so many different people. On the other
hand, the people that are eventually going to have to pay it
back, they may be going under bankruptcy because of the
situation.
Mr. Roy. This is an incredibly big problem that we write
about a lot in our FREOPP.org paper on reopening the economy.
It's a double whammy, right. The economic destruction from--
from a long lockdown, the fiscal spending--it's a triple
whammy. The fiscal spending that Congress is putting forward in
order to compensate for the economic lockdown; and then the
fact that the average small business has less than a month of
cash on hand. For urban business, for minority-owned
businesses, it's more like two weeks of cash on hand.
So, lots of those businesses have already shut down
permanently, and every week that goes by, more and more of
those smaller businesses are going under permanently, which
means that as we wait, recover the economy, maybe some of those
jobs will come back, but we'll have a much more consolidated
economy with a few very large corporations running our economy
rather than a more diverse and distributed economy that we all
care about. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Your time has expired. Mr. Grothman, thank you
for your questions.
Mr. Sarbanes, you are now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the opportunity, and I thank the committee for
pulling together this very, very important hearing on our
frontline workers. As we've come to understand, there's this
whole unseen work force out there that doesn't normally get the
attention it deserves, but it needs circumstances. Of course,
they are in focus, and I think one of the big challenges for us
as policymakers in this hearing and will help us in this
challenge is to start thinking about, how do we continue to see
this work force on the other side of the pandemic? We are
learning lessons now that we need to carry with us.
Now, when we get back to whatever the new normal is, is
that going to be a new normal that has the kinds of wages and
benefits and workplace protections for this work force that so
many Americans have uncovered and come to know over the last
two or three months? Are we going to continue to see that work
force on the other side? And I hope that hearings like this
help us sort of fortify our commitment to that, so I want to
thank you for the hearing.
I also wanted to especially thank Ms. Becote for her
testimony. We certainly send our condolences to you, and we
thank you for your courage in--in sharing your story. It's very
compelling, and I think it will make a tremendous difference as
we consider these issues going forward.
I did want to specifically address some questions to Mr.
Costa. I want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of
transit workers across the country, the ATU, it's a very
effective organization, and for speaking up for those concerns.
I'm proud that your international headquarters is located in
Maryland's Third District, which I represent.
The--the frontline workers that you represent are a little
bit different from other frontline workers in the sense that
they are the folks that transport a lot of those other workers.
So, in a sense, you intersect with this conversation two ways,
and I want to thank you for--for what your members do every
single day.
We know that there's been a lot of layoffs as a result of
the pandemic, and we know that, for example, in Washington, DC,
the ridership is down 95 percent on the Metro. They're losing
$50 million per month during the pandemic.
Across the country, we know bus drivers and the rail
workers are being laid off. Could you speak to that a little
bit, what the--the economic impact is on your work force? We
talked about a lot of the safety issues, but if you can talk
about just these layoffs and cutbacks, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Costa. Yes. Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we are--
we are--our headquarters in your district, but thank you.
As far as--the CARES Act helped a lot, keeping--keeping the
buses running, and I believe, as I said before, keeping the
overcrowding from happening. Our membership is down about 10
percent we've lost to furloughs or layoffs at this time, due to
the pandemic. And, matter of fact, this area has not--as states
are opening up, we are seeing overcrowding starting to happen
where people are getting on the bus which I--I voiced my
concerns about that. But about 10 percent have--have left.
The private sector is hurting us more. It seems like they
didn't take advantage or--or they're--or actually, they're
taking advantage the wrong way. They're not doing the right
thing with the CARES Act money, and they're trying to basically
utilize that money to put in their pocket or offset the cost
for profits instead of doing like many of the public sectors
did where they brought the--they listened to us, and we
educated them on what that bill meant by keeping the buses and
the workers at work to keep the economy going and keep--and
keep it stronger.
Mr. Sarbanes. I'm sure that--I'm sure that you are very
apprehensive about what's coming as we get closer to July 1,
which is the day by which most states and most municipalities
have to balance their budget across the country.
As you know, the HEROES Act is trying to bring significant
assistance to state and local governments in terms of their
budgets. Clearly that will have an impact, a ripple effect on
your workers, so I assume that you are strongly in support of
the HEROES Act and bringing that assistance to bear.
Mr. Costa. The budget crisis for the authorities is there.
They're going to need help. And, once again, I hope our
Representatives and our Congress and Senate does the right
thing for the American jobs that are here and focuses on
operating assistance to keep the agencies afloat until we get
out of this crisis and bring the cities back.
So, yes, in the HEROES Act, as I said before, very few of
our members have good insurance policies, and this would help
offset the 53 members that I have, not to mention the TWU in
New York, which is over a hundred members that have passed to
the COVID virus, would help their families and keep--remember
our fallen heroes that kept the lines going, and keeping our
nurses and doctors in there to help, you know, our country and
our families stay alive.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Sarbanes----
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gomez [continuing]. Your time has expired. Thank you,
Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Comer, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you having this hearing on supporting essential
workers. I think there's clearly bipartisan support to support
the essential workers that have been mentioned thus far, the
healthcare frontline workers. Obviously, the people that are
involved in processing food, we've seen outbreaks at different
processing plants that have significantly disrupted the food
chain, and we can't have that, so we all support that.
But one group of essential workers that's been in the news
a lot in the last few days that really haven't been mentioned
during this hearing are law enforcement personnel. We're very
blessed in America to have some of the best and brightest who
work in law enforcement, and it troubles me deeply to see on
the news movements in some of the cities and even references by
some of our colleagues in Congress to defund the police.
Of all the things that I've heard in my 3-1/2 years in
Congress that I disagree with, that I think isn't very good
policy, I think that the movement to defund the police is
probably the dumbest thing that I've ever heard of. And it's--
it bothers me deeply because we have to have law enforcement.
Especially in times where, you know, there's a lot of anxiety,
there's a lot of disagreement, we need to maintain law and
order, and our law enforcement personnel put their lives on the
line every day.
So, I want to go on the record, and I hope that every one
of my colleagues in Congress will go on the record to say that
we strongly support our men and women in law enforcement, and I
certainly, certainly never want to defund the police. So, I
wanted to get that out there.
Next, Mr. Chairman, I've been blessed the last two days in
my congressional district. I've visited factories that are
making PPE. These are businesses--one was an existing business
that expanded their supply--their product line. Another is a
new business that was formed that went into an abandoned
garment factory, and they're making PPE, and I think that's
great.
I think that what we saw happen with China, where they
obviously misled the world about the coronavirus, and then they
hoarded their PPE to use for themselves at the expense of
American hospitals, American nursing home facilities, and
American healthcare workers.
So, we--I believe there's bipartisan support in Congress to
ensure that that PPE is manufactured in the United States. So,
we've got companies in Kentucky and all across the South and
the United States that are willing and able and currently
producing and manufacturing PPE--caps, gowns, masks, gloves,
things like that--but they're still competing against Chinese
companies. There are still different government agencies that
are awarding contracts to companies that are manufacturing this
PPE in China.
I would like to extend an invitation to my colleagues
across the aisle, my Democrat colleagues, to come together, and
I would love to work with the majority party to see that we can
do everything in our ability to see that this PPE is
manufactured in the United States of America, and we don't have
to ever depend on China, especially considering all the
wrongdoing that they have displayed because of the COVID
outbreak. I don't ever want to depend on China for that
essential PPE again, and I think that that's something that
needs to be discussed in this hearing talking about essential
workers.
My question that I want to ask is to Dr. Roy, and it
pertains to the--you know, there were proposals in the last
bill we voted on, that I voted against, but it passed the
House, would extend the unemployment an additional $600 a week
passed its current expiration date of July 31. The
Congressional Budget Office recently examined this proposal and
found that roughly five of six recipients would receive
benefits that exceeded the weekly amount that they were earning
from employment prior to the COVID-19.
My question to you is, how did the additional unemployment
benefit shift the incentive from going back to work to staying
at home?
Mr. Roy. Well, Mr. Comer, as you know, we've heard from
many, many, many businesses that have said they basically can't
hire workers, they can't reopen their restaurant or their
retail store or their auto mechanic shop because their workers
are getting paid much more to stay home than to work. And you
can't blame the workers for making that choice----
Mr. Comer. Right.
Mr. Roy [continuing]. Because the disparities are so great.
So, that's--that program was clearly designed very poorly, and
it is my fervent hope that we listen to those proprietors and
employers as we try to get the economy going again.
Mr. Comer. And I agree with that.
Mr. Chairman, I have an op-ed that was posted by The Wall
Street Journal that I would like to submit to the record
explaining exactly what Dr. Roy just said and the negative
impact that it's having on the states that are truly trying to
reopen and a lot of the businesses, especially in the
restaurant industry, that are struggling to stay in existence.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Comer. I'm going to object to it
right now, because we do have a process of--I reserve the right
to object, but I do not intend to object, in order to minimize
the disruptions and to be fair to everybody.
We requested that any exhibits be circulated in advance via
the Oversight clerk's email in the hearing notice. If you have
not sent the item yet, we ask that you do so now. We want to
ensure that we have seen the copies of all materials before
they go into the hearing record.
So, I'm going to hold off on agreeing until after we ensure
that we've received and seen the documents. I thank the member
for the request. The member may be assured that his request
will be dispensed with before the end of the hearing. So, if
you can email it, we'll take a look at it.
Mr. Comer. All right.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, sir. And now your time is expired.
Ms. Lawrence, you are recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mrs. Lawrence. Hello. Thank you so much for having this
hearing.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, communities of color
have been disproportionately impacted by large numbers of
hospitalizations and deaths. I represent a majority minority
district comprised of 18 cities, including Detroit, Southfield,
Pontiac, as one--also as one of the hotspots not only in
Michigan, but in the country. The African American community,
minority community, has been devastated by COVID-19.
Communities of color, as Mr. Odom stated, make up a large
percentage of workers who are employed in essential industries.
These essential workers are on the front line at hospitals,
grocery stores, food processing facilities, and transportation
services.
My question I would like to direct to Mr. Odom. Are there
any solutions you would recommend that the Federal Government
take and put in place to limit the disparate impact that the
coronavirus has had on minority essential workers?
Mr. Odom. Thank you for the question. They're really quite
simple. When there's a fire, we go to the fire. When there's an
emergency, we go to the emergency. In the COVID space, we need
to know--we need to make sure that we are prioritizing things
like testing. We can't put our head in the sand or just have
randomized testing. We've got to go to where we know the
infection is, so that we can identify those folks, quarantine
them, hospitalize them, get things going. That's one thing on
the health front.
We've also got to be able to implement the very rigorous
tracing regime as well, both by human means and technological
means. So, we've got to be able to sort of find out where the
disease is. This is all in the bucket of finding out where the
disease is.
Our economies have been devastated by the--what I call the
self-induced coma that the pandemic has put us in. We've got to
be able to support our businesses. Our businesses are the
lifeblood, and they're the biggest employers in our
communities. We had a very uneven rollout--that's a charitable
description--of the Paycheck Protection Program. We've had an
opportunity now to go back and try to fix that to make sure
that minority depository institutions and CFIs are
participating, and it looks like, in the second round, the
average size of the loan is going down, and we think that means
that maybe those funds are flowing to where they need to be.
So, on the health front, let's go to where the disease is.
On the business front, let's support these businesses. We've
had something--rejection rates of something like only 1 out of
10, 2 out of 10 people of color who applied for PPE even got
the loan. So, we've got to do better in that regard.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Odom, I thank you for that.
I want to take this moment as we're struggling in America
right now with our race relations and the history of
discrimination in our country that so many things have been
exposed during this COVID epidemic that we have lived through.
First of all, healthcare disparities. Second, the small
business disparity for small and minority businesses, the lack
of access to capital that we actually legislated for, the
unintended consequence was that it would not go to these
minority and small businesses.
And then, last, I wanted to talk about the PPEs. The
essential workers, it is unbelievable that they were made to go
to work. I mean, it was required. You're essential, so you show
up every day, and then the audacity of some of these
corporations not to provide PPEs, to the fact that the Federal
Government had to give funding to ensure that our workers were
getting the money.
And to everyone who lost their life during this pandemic, I
just wanted to take this moment and say that--my humble
condolences to everyone. In the Black community, we were
devastated with so much grief, and people are wondering why
there's such an outpouring. It has been layer upon layer upon
layer.
My last question, since I have the time, I want to ask
about the PPE requirement. Do you estimate that the PPE
requirement will be intact for the remainder of 2020? And, if
so, what recommendations do you have for Congress to help
companies and their members with this expense?
I want you to know that I have introduced the PPE Tax
Credit Act, and what it is, it will give up to $25,000 tax
credit for small businesses and nonprofits to provide the
personal protective equipment. So, I'm looking for anyone that
can give me a comment on how--do you have any recommendations
for Congress on how we meet this PPE requirement as we reopen?
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Lawrence, your time has expired, but they
can answer the question.
Mr. Odom. I think it's been said before that the Defense
Production Act is a real key here. It has not been used very
aggressively. It's only been used very sparingly. We've got to
be able to get our production capability up to meet the need,
and we can't really do it just based on the grace of these
companies. We've got to pay them to do the work, but we've got
to use that tool in the toolkit, just like we did for food
processing employees, right? We need our food and we need our
protection. Both are equally wise areas to use the Defense
Production Act.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lawrence.
Mr. Perrone would like to also answer that question, Ms.
Lawrence.
Mr. Perrone. Yes. I agree with Mr. Odom as well. We
definitely need to add PPE to the Defense Production Act. It
became very apparent to us that what was happening is that PPE
was going to the highest bidder. I do believe that we needed to
provide PPE to our healthcare workers and our first responders
first; however, because of that, it was being very difficult to
be obtained.
I know that I've got one large major corporation that is
discussing eliminating masks and providing masks for its
workers, where they've got over 400,000 workers. If it's
happening at a major corporation that--a Fortune 500 company, I
guarantee you it's happening in smaller companies that we just
got through talking about.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
Any other panelists want to make a--answer the question
before I move on to the next.
Mr. Costa. Yes, I'd like to say something.
Mr. Gomez. Great.
Mr. Costa. This is John Costa. And, yes, I think it was
shameful that our government dropped the ball and did not--this
President did not enact the Defense Production Act for all in
this country that went on the front lines, for the nurses and
the doctors, and I believe we could have saved many, many more
lives. When this happened, we--communities, we did our own--we
took care of our own, and what should have happened here, we
should have taken care of our own. We need to go forward and
take care of our own and make sure we produce it here and put
people to work here to protect ourselves.
Shameful, this President, this administration let so many
people die on the fact of not having the protection that was
needed and then later on said we needed it.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Costa.
Any other panelists? No?
Thank you so much for--Ms. Lawrence, for your questions.
Now we have Mr. Gibbs. You are recognized for five minutes
for questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank the essential workers for all
their efforts and the challenges they went through, and
hopefully this gets over and get back to normal.
I also want to give my condolences to Ms. Becote for her
loss, and I want you to know
[inaudible] let those things happen again.
I want to just mention quickly, Project Air Bridge, the
administration that did the air bridge to get the PPE over here
from Asia and elsewhere around the world, and also the Paycheck
Protection Program. I think it's--you know, it's pretty much
unanimous and the question--we just passed the Flexibility Act
for that that saved a lot of jobs and a lot of businesses, and
that's been a very good program.
I think, Mr. Chairman, at some point, we need to have a
hearing about the role of China and their hoarding of PPEs and
their--and also now there are reports
[inaudible] of hackers with the Communist Party of China
that target our universities and pharmaceutical companies and
probably--difficult in the development of a vaccine.
During this hearing, I've had the honor--I saw there's
three communities over this summer that
[inaudible] for vaccines, so that's a move forward there.
I do want to talk about, Ms. Castillo, in her written
testimony, she talks about reusing single-use PPE as a
dangerous practice and, you know, increased exposures to nurses
and so on. But then she also goes on to say that
decontamination of disposable respirators has not been shown to
be as safe or effective and can degrade the respirator, they
suspect.
As some of you may know, a company here in Ohio, the
Battelle, they were asked during the Obama Administration in
2014 to work on, when there was the shortage of masks for
Ebola, and they did two years of research, and it was peer
reviewed by independent scientists and technology confirmed and
published it was safe and effective for N95 masks to be
decontaminated.
Battelle, just a little background, it's the world's
largest independent nonprofit research and development
organization that has been tackling hard challenges for over 90
years using science and technology. Well respected. They
engaged in this, and it's been tested numerously by independent
areas, CDC, Massachusetts General Hospital. Duke tests show 50
decontamination cycles without degradation of the masks, and so
on.
So, I just wanted to say that I don't agree with Ms.
Castillo's statement that decontamination of disposable
respirators has not been proven to be safe. Also, FEMA has
done--awarded the contracts and believed it was safe.
And, Mr. Chairman, I do have--I want to submit for the
record--it's been circulated--from FEMA on behalf of Battelle.
I circulated a document showing--illustrating the
decontamination method using the proven vaporized hydrogen
peroxide process to kill bacteria of SARS-CoV-2 on masks, and I
just want to make that clear[SA1].
So, I don't know, Ms. Castillo, if you wanted to respond.
I'll give you a chance to respond.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gibbs, thank you for following the rules.
Without objection, so ordered, submitting your documents for
the record.
Mr. Gibbs. Go ahead, Ms. Castillo.
Ms. Castillo. Yes. So, there has not been scientific
evidence enough to ensure that decontamination process are safe
or effective. In fact, when we've received the masks back after
this decontamination process, including Battelle, often the
straps are loosened. The mask itself is deformed. So, the
integrity of the material has been disrupted. Nurses are also
complaining of headaches and smelling sort of a chemical smell.
So, our concern is that, one, this is an unethical practice
to use our healthcare work force and nurses and healthcare
workers as sort of guinea pigs to experiment, essentially, with
these masks. We--you know, as I have said before, what we need
to do is fully invoke the Defense Production Act to manufacture
the adequate amounts of PPE that we all need, certainly the
frontline workers and all workers. And we need this for all--
for all of us--for the protection of all of us.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think there's no doubt a new mask is
obviously better, but I think when we had the shortages and the
crisis going on here in the last couple of months, that this
was an alternative. Obviously, maybe there are some issues, but
we have to question the research that was done that said that.
So, I'm out of time, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gibbs, thank you so much.
Ms. Speier, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me also extend to our chairwoman my deepest good wishes
for hopefully a negative test result and a very speedy
recovery.
And to Ms. Becote, I too was a widow, so I know exactly
what you're going through, and you have my deepest sympathy and
a huge hug. I hope that we can provide you some relief.
Like our chairwoman, I have introduced legislation to
compensate those who have passed from this virus and those who
have been sickened by it as essential workers. H.R. 6955 is the
Essential Worker Pandemic Compensation Act. It is a companion
to the chair's bill in that it provides kind of immediate
benefits that are tax free, that are not going to require those
who are impacted to seek or obtain legal representation.
It is patterned after the police--the Public Safety
Officers' Benefit and Education Assistance Act, and it provides
those who have succumbed to the virus as essential workers a
lump sum of $365,000 and the educational benefits to their
spouse and children of a four-year education, and for those who
have become sickened by it, an amount that is equal to half
that.
So, it's a--I consulted with Ken Feinberg, who has been the
expert on the 9/11 compensation program. His focus is to keep
it simple and make sure that those who have lower incomes are
not treated differently. This particular bill treats everyone
the same. So, I want to thank both Mr. Costa and Mr. Perrone
for endorsing the legislation.
And I'd like to say to Mr. Perrone, your comment by your
essential worker who said that the recalling of the heroes pay
was a slap in the face, this is an effort to give them a kiss
on the cheek. So, I hope that we are committed both as
Republicans and Democrats to forge forward a plan that is going
to treat people equally, that it will be tax free, that we will
not encumber them by requiring them to have legal
representation as well.
To Ms. Castillo, I am deeply concerned about our ability
moving forward to have the proper PPE in place. I've been told
that FEMA plans to ramp up its supply of both gowns and N95s
only to the extent that we continue to reuse those two PPEs,
and I can't imagine that that is going to be appropriate over
the long term, and we have no manufacturing whatsoever of
rubber gloves.
So, for a country that could put planes and ships into
manufacturing in short order during World War II by using the
Defense Production Act, and we're still trying to find a means
by which we're going to manufacture gloves, which we don't do,
or swabs, which, until very recently, we haven't done, to me,
makes no sense. And I'm concerned that we don't have an idea of
how much PPE we will need for essential workers in the next
wave.
So, Ms. Castillo, my question to you is, has your
organization tried to come up with a figure to reflect what it
would be for nurses?
Ms. Castillo. Well, what we know--and we couldn't agree
with you more. We know that reused will result in more
infections and nurses and frontline workers falling ill and
then out of the work force. So, you know, we know that even
what is being produced right now, to the extent that it is,
that we haven't felt it on the front lines. Even the HHS, their
estimate is 52 billion. It is--you know, and we don't see that.
We haven't seen that kind of production happening anywhere.
But we--what we do know is that with--you know, really what
we need is for Congress to act to fully invoke the Defense
Production Act to produce adequate amounts of PPE.
So, you know, we are--as I said before, we, you know, are
insisting that we have what we need, the N95s, in our
hospitals, in the facilities, and are literally just fighting
tooth and nail, and, in some cases, bringing them from home.
They're not exactly the grade of a mask that we would prefer,
but we're actually having to rely on donations.
And in this country, we know that we can do better and we
have to do better. This is about the future, and we have to be
learning from this experience, but we're not out of this
pandemic. This pandemic is ongoing, and with reopening, we know
that we--we expect to see further surges, and we--and so this
is--there's no better time than now to actually start
production of PPE, respirators, along with all the other PPE--
the other--as I mentioned before, the head-to-toe coverings are
so essential as well.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Speier, your time has expired.
Ms. Speier. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
Now, Mr. Roy, you are recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Roy of Texas. Well, I appreciate that. And by Mr. Roy,
I assume you mean the gentleman from Texas on the committee as
opposed to our witness, Mr. Roy, my fellow Austinite, who I'm
delighted to have here as a witness. I've been confused
multiple times today already. I've been stopped. Wait. I'm on
now. But glad to join you all. Appreciate it.
My friend, Avik or Mr. Roy, I appreciate you joining here.
I actually have a few questions for you. I appreciate all the
work you've been doing. FREOPP's been doing an exceptional job,
I think, in getting a lot of the important data and information
that needs to be known by the American people about what's
going on.
Just correct me if I'm wrong in my general terms--you used
specific numbers--that, if I'm correct, that if you discount
for New Jersey and New York, who've obviously been very badly
impacted by the virus, that over 50 percent of the people who
have been--who have unfortunately passed away are folks that
have been in assisted living facilities or nursing homes. Is
that a fair or roughly accurate statement, Mr. Roy?
Mr. Roy. It's more than roughly accurate. It's based on the
reporting of the data that we have. It's very accurate. About
more than half the deaths outside of New York State have
occurred in nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
I share your confusion, by the way, when your name is
called in Congress.
Mr. Roy of Texas. Amen. Well, you know, is it also true--
so, roughly, 42 percent, right, even when you account for New
Jersey and New York, and I think 80 percent of the deaths have
occurred in folks who are 65 or older. Is that correct?
Mr. Roy. That's correct, and all those details are in our
written testimony.
Mr. Roy of Texas. And the point--the reason I'm pointing
that out, right--I think I also saw a report that you all did
that--and I don't want anybody to accuse me of drawing an
analogy between the flu and the virus, but there is an
important data point in comparing children, basically people
age zero to 18 that, for the most part, if I saw your all's
data correctly from memory, that the dangerousness of the flu,
it was about three or four times more dangerous for kids age 0
to 18. Is that--am I roughly remembering that correctly?
Mr. Roy. The order of magnitude is greater. So, the article
you're referring to, which is on our website, FREOPP.org, is
called ``Estimating the Risk of Death From COVID-19 Versus
Influenza By Age,'' and that report compares the relative risk
of dying from influenza or COVID based on your age, assuming
that 150,000 people eventually die of COVID-19 this year. What
it shows is that if you're aged 5 to 14, you're seven times
more likely to die of influenza than COVID-19. If you're aged 1
to 4, you're 20 times more likely to die of flu than COVID-19.
Or reverse, you're one-twentieth as likely to die of COVID-19.
So, the risk is very, very low of severe illness and death for
children.
Mr. Roy of Texas. So, I raise that because it's very
important as we study this to figure out what we do as a
society, right? I happen to be of the belief that it is
tragically bad that we as a society have clamped down on our
economy and society so much that we are denying people their
livelihood and ability to go to work, and the ability to not
have the second order impacts of cancer screenings and suicide
rates going up, and the impact that you're having with respect
to opioid addiction, or whatever it is you're having because of
your inability to go get healthcare and mental healthcare
because we've reacted so much--and that for people 65 and
under, obviously for our children, when we close down schools,
where the data would suggest that that makes no sense
rationally to close down our schools. My concern is that we
look at this the right way to zero in on the actual problem,
which is when people are sick in tight quarters, meat-packing
plants, et cetera, or if you're in a nursing home or assisted
living facility, that's where the vast majority of the true
dangers occur from hospitalizations and in terms of people who
have unfortunately passed away.
And it's really critically important that we get it right,
because, if I remember correctly, I saw a data point just
yesterday that 41 percent of Black-owned businesses have closed
over the last three months as a result of the virus and
reaction to virus, and that's horrible. And we've got to do a
good job of getting our businesses back up and running.
This is why I was proud to get our--the PPP Flexibility Act
with my good friend, Dean Phillips, from Minnesota, a
bipartisan bill, because we need these businesses to be able to
get back up and running, but understanding the data is critical
to that.
Mr. Roy, could you comment on those points, particularly
from the FREOPP standpoint?
Mr. Roy. Yes. So, we discussed the Black-owned businesses
data in our--and the minority owned business data in our
testimony. The one thing--I'll put it this way, Mr. Roy, very
simply, which is, when it comes to COVID, if you're focused on
everything and everyone, you're focused on nothing and no one.
Mr. Roy of Texas. Yes.
Mr. Roy. And that is why our first responders have been put
in danger, because instead of focusing on the at-risk
populations, like people living in long-term care facilities,
we were focused on harassing people when they got together with
their relatives or they attended the funeral of their parents.
I mean, this level of micromanagement where you couldn't go
to the Home Depot, the gardening department, but you could go
to the Home Depot, I don't know, lawn mower department, I mean,
that's where we've lost our--we took our eyes off the ball, and
that's what has endangered our first responders.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Roy, your time----
Mr. Roy of Texas. Mr. Chairman, do I have one more question
or no?
Mr. Gomez. No. Your time has expired, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy of Texas. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, sir.
Now, Ms. Plaskett, you are recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. Plaskett. Good afternoon. Thank you to all the
testifiers. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. You look good in that
seat. Thank you for all the work that you all do. I wanted to
ask some questions regarding communities dependent on essential
workers to function.
Throughout this pandemic, many of us--I'm sure all of us
here have had the privilege of isolating at home, safe and in
the comfort of our families. Social distancing and staying at
home have allowed us to bend the curve of the infection,
relieve hospitals of potential overflow, and give our
healthcare workers a greater chance of success when fighting
this virus and treating patients.
We've been able to do this because individuals work in
grocery stores and they continue to stock. Our grocery stores
continue to be stocked with food. Our transit systems continue
to function. Our healthcare workers take care of us when we
fall ill. For all of these folks, staying at home simply is not
an option.
Mr. Perrone, can you briefly describe the role that your
workers have had in maintaining food supplies?
Mr. Perrone. Yes, Congresswoman. They have, of course, been
there stocking the shelves, dealing with customers coming in
and out. There has been, in fact, some disruption to the food--
in the food supply, not because we are short in food, but
because our system is set up on an efficiency basis, first in,
first out, and because everybody was at home, it changed how
the system functioned.
So, whether or not we're talking about some of the packing
houses or whether or not we're talking about the retail food
stores, those workers did, in fact, keep the food supply
coming. And, quite honestly, I think it led to more stability
in our society because of it, because if we had seen massive
shortages, I do think that people would have responded very
differently to what took place, just my opinion.
Ms. Plaskett. That's absolutely--I mean, I agree with you
about--I can't even imagine the fear and the concern that would
happen in this country if people believed that they weren't
able to get food. So, thank you for that.
Mr. Costa, can you explain--your organization represents
our Nation's transit workers. How would a sudden halt in all
public transportation impact the ability to fight the virus on
the front lines?
Mr. Costa. A halt of the--can you repeat that, please?
Ms. Plaskett. If we--if you didn't have your workers to go
out on the front lines as they do, in public transportation,
can you tell us some of the ways that you believe that would
have impacted our ability to fight the virus in this country?
Mr. Costa. Well, you know, many of our riders don't make a
lot of money, and many of them are the janitors that clean the
hospitals. Many of them need to go to grocery stores. Many of
them need to go to dialysis and to hospitals for treatment as
far as the--you know, the paratransit and mobility service we
have. So, if we were to completely shut down, people would die.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to your
workers for everything that they do.
Ms. Castillo, would you agree that the Nation's death toll
would be far higher without nurses performing the lion's share
of patient care?
Ms. Castillo. Yes. Absolutely. That's correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And the nurses must also work closely with
patient transporters, like Mrs. Becote's late husband Edward.
How essential are people like Edward in helping hospitals
function properly and efficiently?
Ms. Castillo. Absolutely essential. We work as a team. In
the hospital, in the clinics, there is a team, and that team
consists of nurses, doctors, obviously assistants, you know,
supplies. We--you know, pharmaceutical techs. We have a whole
team that comes to the hospital every single day. And as you
mentioned, they don't have a choice. They're not given the
choice to shelter at home and take care of their families.
Their schedules have remained the same, and including the
utilization of public transportation every single day, for
some, have to utilize that public transportation to get to
work.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
Mr. Perrone, I actually also sit on the Agriculture
Committee.
Mr. Gomez. Congresswoman, your time has expired.
Ms. Plaskett. Oh, has it?
Mr. Gomez. Yes. Time flies when you're having fun. Sorry.
Ms. Plaskett. Sorry. Thank you.
And thank you to all of the testifiers, and thanks for the
work that you're doing.
Mr. Gomez. Thanks, Ms. Plaskett.
Ms. Miller, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Vice Chairman Gomez.
And, Chairman Maloney, I hope you are healthy. We want you
to be healthy.
And thank you for Ranking Member Hice.
And I want to thank all of you witnesses for being here
today.
I especially want to express my deepest sympathy to Ms.
Becote. The loss that you are experiencing is heartbreaking,
and my prayers are for you and your family during this trying
time. You're very brave to be here today.
Our frontline workers have been the heroes of this public
health emergency, and for that, our country is eternally
grateful. Our doctors and nurses have provided care for our
sickest patients and sought cares for the coronavirus.
Those in our grocery stores and delivery services have
ensured that everyone can get their food and goods in a safe
manner. We have also seen those in manufacturing work around
the clock to make sure that medical equipment and the PPEs are
there to provide not only for America, but for other people
around the world.
During this pandemic, we have seen American workers and
businesses rise to the occasion and to create new and
innovative solutions. One company in my district, Braskem, had
more than 40 employees agree to live at the plant for a month
to make materials for respiratory masks. They worked around the
clock, and they deserve our deepest respect.
Now that we have effectively flattened the curve, we must
look forward to safely reopening our economy and returning to
normalcy. In West Virginia, we've already started. I want us to
continue on the great economic success that we have seen prior
to this pandemic and put America back to work.
Ms. Castillo, I appreciate all the hard work that our
nurses have taken on during this pandemic. You are the heart
and soul of our medical society. I understand that the nurses
would rather have made--would rather have new N95 masks instead
of just the decontaminated masks. I think everybody can agree
that the best mask is a new mask.
However, we continue to have a shortage of the new N95
masks as we work to ramp up our own production. As you are
aware, that after the Ebola outbreak in 2014, the FDA partnered
with a trusted nonprofit organization to conduct research for
just such a circumstance, a national pandemic, where there was
a shortage of N95 masks.
The research that was conducted over multiple years was
peer reviewed and published. It was this foresight by the FDA
that allowed for the proven safe decontamination of these N95
masks until the domestic supply chain can catch up with the
demand for these masks in these unprecedented times. The
research was published in 2016. Decontamination has made it so
that healthcare workers don't have to wear scarves or bandanas
or other homemade items instead of wearing the clean N95 masks.
Would you agree that until we have an adequate supply of
new PPE, that these decontamination units do provide the best
interim solution to protect our healthcare workers?
Ms. Castillo. No. No. We are experiencing many problems
with these masks, including, as I said before, where the
integrity of the mask and the tight--it doesn't even conform or
you don't get that tight seal. And we know without that tight
seal, that you don't have protection. Then we are also
experiencing the headaches.
So, we don't believe that it is safe or effective. And we
have looked at some of those studies that they've done and have
seen that in some of these studies, they've just done it on
like a flat piece of--rather than a sort of three-dimensional
piece mask, for instance, specifically on the masks.
Also, with the Stanford study, this study tested the dry
heat and hot water vapor on E. coli and not on COVID-19. And,
also, there was a Duke study recently, and that was to evaluate
the--did not evaluate the layers within the N95 filter. So, you
know, we have found that it's insufficient. And we know----
Mrs. Miller. OK. So, that--and what that means----
Ms. Castillo [continuing]. Production. And so if we
actually did invoked fully the Defense Production Act, then
we'd be----
Mrs. Miller. I need to take my time back, and I hope you
can give those reports so that we can correct the problem.
Ms. Castillo. Yes.
Mrs. Miller. Dr. Roy----
Ms. Castillo. I can provide those studies.
Mrs. Miller [continuing]. Around the Nation, we have seen
many states opening up and getting the economies back online
and putting people back to work. What are some of the successes
that you have seen with the reopening? Are we seeing local
economies recover without a sharp spike in cases?
Mr. Roy. Yes, Ms. Miller, that's correct. We have not seen
a sharp spike in cases. And I would point in particular to
Florida, which never really fully locked down; instead, locked
down in south Florida, targeted nursing homes, like we've
talked and talked about. I think of all the states--and we can
praise and criticize various states--Florida has done the best
job of targeting the high-risk populations, but having a light
touch with the normal parts of the economy.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Miller, your time is----
Mrs. Miller. Don't forget West Virginia. Thank you very
much.
I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Ms. Miller.
Now, Ms. Pressley, you are recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know, while the term ``essential worker'' is a new term
for some, it is important to remember that the workers we are
talking about today have always been essential, although we
have usually treated them as if they are disposable.
But I also just want to just say that they are essential
not only for the important utility role that they play in
society, this is not only about their labor; this is about
their very lives, and they matter. They have always been the
backbone for their families, for our communities, and our
economy, but for too long, these same workers have not had the
basic rights and protections that they deserve.
The COVID-19 pandemic has unveiled many of these deeply
entrenched inequities, and we're witnessing firsthand the
deadly consequences in real time. Long before COVID ever hit,
many families did not have savings to cover a $400 emergency
expense, and this pandemic has pushed those already struggling,
already on the margins, even further. Many of these economic
inequities have been exacerbated by staggering wages; unequal
access to critical benefits, like paid family leave and sick
days; necessary protections key to preserving public health and
the economic stability of families.
Before this unprecedented global public health crisis, only
19 percent of workers had access to paid family leave and sick
day protections. Many of the workers lacking these protections
were among the same workers pleading for PPE and other
equipment to protect themselves and their families from the
virus.
Many of the hardest hit communities in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, in the Seventh, which I represent, vibrant and
diverse communities like Chelsea, where 60 percent of residents
are Latinx and almost half are immigrants. Even as positive
cases have declined, Chelsea continues to be the biggest
hotspot in Massachusetts.
So, as the Commonwealth and other states are beginning the
process of reopening, we must center our essential workers who
so often reside in these hardest hit communities. These workers
and communities continue to bear the brunt of this pandemic and
will be disproportionately impacted if we see a potential
second wave.
Ms. Becote, you know, sympathy is not enough. Thanks for
your husband's contributions and the role that he played in
your family are not enough. The only thing that is the just
thing in this moment is for us to pass this legislation. Your
family's story is a story of thousands of families feeling the
loss of a precious loved one robbed by this virus. It is why we
have to change course in our policymaking and finally center
our most vulnerable as we begin to lay the groundwork for
recovery.
So, thank you so much for taking time away from your family
in the midst of your own grief to be here today, to advocate,
to save lives, and for ensuring that all our essential workers
have the support, PPE, hazard pay, emergency pay, family leave
and sick days, so that they can remain safe and healthy.
Mr. Odom, this crisis again has unveiled many of the deeply
entrenched inequities. The United States is one of the most
industrialized nations without a national paid family leave and
sick day policy. How has this contributed to the economic
challenges facing essential workers who are disproportionately
people of color and women? Only one in five Black women can
afford to work from home. Only one in five Latinas can afford
to work from home. So, how is this playing out?
Mr. Odom. Well, it's creating a crisis, Congresswoman.
First of all, let me thank you for your leadership on insisting
that the CDC prioritize and identify the demographic of people
who have been tested. This is a huge equity issue. We will not
get our arms around this problem until we know where the
disease is.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Odom. It's not a matter just to say anybody who wants a
test can get it. We need to go into the communities where we
know it exists. We need to identify it and we need to root it
out.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Odom. With regard to family leave, this is a problem
that I identified in my opening remarks, especially women of
color, who are really on the front lines of this disease. Not
only are they having to go into work, in many instances, but
they're also having to deal with the fact that their children
may be at home during school-mandated closures.
Ms. Pressley. Right.
Mr. Odom. Right? They are disproportionately leading their
households. So, the income that they make or don't make is the
entire economic livelihood of that family.
So, leave is an indispensable part of this equation, and we
need to do more. I called for, in my opening testimony, for
more fiscal stimulus. Leave is definitely in that category of
fiscal stimulus. And on the point----
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
Mr. Odom. And on the point that you made about the human
cost and the human toll of this, which has not been discussed
at nearly the length it needs to, there was a peer-reviewed
study that was published in Nature earlier this week. It talked
about the effects of the stay-at-home orders.
Nearly 5 million people, confirmed cases, avoided
coronavirus because of these stay-at-home measures. Some 60
million Americans averted the coronavirus because of these
measures. You can take aim and criticize the decision to open
early, to not come back soon enough, but what cannot be denied
is that there are millions of Americans today who do not have
the coronavirus because frontline workers went out there to
work to give those of us who are nonessential workers the
ability to stay at home and work and be safe.
Ms. Pressley. That's right. That's right. Thank you, Mr.
Odom.
Mr. Perrone, your union----
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Pressley, your time has expired.
Ms. Pressley. Oh, is that my time? OK.
Mr. Gomez. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez. Time flies by in these things. Great job. Thank
you so much.
Mr. Green, you are now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Vice Chairman Gomez, Ranking Member
Hice.
I want to thank all the workers on the front lines,
particularly our healthcare workers. As an ER physician, my
heart is with you and your family. I know this is a very trying
time, but at least for the medical personnel, I know the
challenge, and while it's what we signed up for, that doesn't
lessen the challenge.
Ms. Becote, I want to thank you for being here today and
extend my deepest sympathies for your loss.
And, of course, we are wishing our Madam Chair a return to
great health as soon as possible.
I'd like to thank our nurse witness who today confirmed the
recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which
said surgical masks provide limited and no additional
protection in the nonhealthcare setting. And in consideration
of this and the fact that the Senate's been working for weeks
with not a single infection, we can go back to work here in
person. We know that our work will be better. The product we
provide the country will be better.
I want to begin by saying it is disingenuous to say that
you're for workers and then not reopen the economy or drag your
feet in reopening. I wish my colleagues across the aisle would
see as essential the workers of this country, whose taxes will
pay for the $4-to $8 trillion this is going to cost us. We need
to be working.
The headline in The Wall Street Journal yesterday was, and
I quote, Coronavirus Obliterated Best African American Job
Market on Record, end quote. Reopening the economy is the
single best thing we can do to improve outcomes for all
Americans, including and especially minorities.
We just had a Coronavirus Select Subcommittee hearing last
week on COVID-19 racial disparities. As a physician, I
mentioned many reasons why Black Americans have been especially
hit hard. But Black unemployment has risen particularly because
of the government-imposed shutdown, and those jobs will be
harder and harder to regain the longer the shutdown lasts.
Many states have successfully begun to reopen. In my home
state of Tennessee, many restaurants, retail stores, gyms have
all been opened, under social distancing guidelines, for weeks
now. In fact, today, I flew through Charlotte, North Carolina's
airport. The place was packed, shoulder to shoulder in places,
and all was well. Americans are ready to go.
Last week, I visited Gutter Bound Distillery, a family run
small business in Hurricane Mills, Tennessee, that just
recently resumed normal operations, but they didn't exactly sit
the pandemic out. They altered normal operations to make hand
sanitizer, free of charge, for their neighbors and first
responders.
To defeat this virus, we have to let them reopen and lead
the way toward recovery across the Nation. There are many
things this committee can do right now to help reverse the
damage caused by the shutdown, and here are three suggestions.
First, we should permanently repeal the roughly 400
regulations that have been suspended during the crisis. I
cosponsored Congressman Roy's Coronavirus Regulatory Repeal Act
that would do just that. If these regulations weren't needed
during the crisis, then why do we need them at all? We must
give our Nation's businesses the freedom and flexibility they
need to bounce back.
Second, we should examine the Federal Government's many
outdated and bureaucratic healthcare laws and rules. As all of
my colleagues here know, our rural hospitals are struggling,
and this pandemic has only exacerbated their challenge.
Last week, I visited a hospital in Waverly to discuss these
challenges. If we don't cut the red tape and let these
hospitals serve their communities, we will see dire long-term
consequences. Certificates of need should not impose revenue
stream limitations on critical access hospitals.
And, finally, we must confront Beijing and hold them
accountable for the spread of the virus in the first place. The
Chinese Communist Party hid the severity of the coronavirus,
crushed whistleblowers, denied offers of U.S. aid, allowed the
coronavirus to spread, and covertly hoarded PPE. The leadership
of China is taking China from a friend of America to an
adversary of America, and we need to hold the CCP accountable.
For starters, the House should vote on my bill, House
Resolution 6903, the Bring American Companies Home Act. This
bill incentivizes American companies to move back and covers
100 percent of their moving costs.
In medicine, we have a rule: First, do no harm. Keeping the
economy closed continues to harm millions of Americans. It's
time to not just reopen the economy, but to take proactive
steps to reverse the damage. This is where our Oversight
Committee can lead, and I ask Madam Chair and all the members,
let's lead on that. Let's get Americans back to work, open up
our businesses, and save jobs and lives.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much.
First, I just want to acknowledge that Ms. Becote had to
leave. I just want to thank her for her testimony. If members
have a question, they can submit it for the record for Ms.
Becote.
Ms. Tlaib, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much. And thank you so much to the
panelists for being here.
I want to always center on people in my district and those
directly impacted. So, I want to share this photo of Jason
Hargrove, a Detroit bus driver. He posted a video on his
Facebook, where he expressed his frustrations about the unsafe
conditions on the bus, including passengers coughing. He posted
that video of himself wearing the mask, as you saw, on his bus
with the captions: I can't stay home. I'm on the road for you.
Just 11 days after posting his video, this 50-year-old
father of six died of complications of COVID-19. Mr. Hargrove's
story highlights the dangers that our trained employees are
facing and other frontline workers, as you all have been
hearing.
So, I want to ask you, Mr. Costa, when I hear Mr.
Hargrove's story, the first thing I want to do is start
protecting people right away and try to adjust that, but when
you hear some of my colleagues and some of the rhetoric coming
out about opening up the economy, what do you hear? First, what
is the first thing you're thinking about when people ignore Mr.
Hargrove's story and so many transit workers on the ground,
when you hear people we have to open up the economy? Can you
answer that question?
Mr. Costa. Yes. I think of Hargrove, he's a hero. He
brought the transportation workers on the front in this
pandemic to light about how our government failed us and did
not protect us. And that's my fear: how many more Hargroves are
we going to be faced with if we open up without them being
prepared?
I mean, I'm listening to somebody tell me one thing, but
I'm understanding that, you know, as these states are opening
up and nobody is using PPE--I don't know. I watch the news too
and I read the news, and it seems like there's more people
getting sick. And it is, right now--I'm from Jersey, and I'm in
Maryland right now. It's 90 degrees. All week, it's been--you
know, it's not like February anymore.
But, you know, we need to move slowly, and we have to be
very cautious, because our operators, as I said earlier, over a
thousand are still infected, that we know of. Many are
quarantined. If they're on the buses, they're spreading it to
our front line or our grocery store workers that are on these
buses, our frontline doctors and nurses that are on these
buses. Are we doing the right thing?
Ms. Tlaib. That's right. Thank you, Mr. Costa. I really
appreciate it. I--you know, there's so much--actually, more
uncertainty now, I feel, around COVID than ever before.
Mr. Perrone, I want to turn to you. You know, according to
your organization, at least 68 grocery workers have died from
coronavirus, and over 10,000 have been infected as of May 20 of
2020. You know, I know Kroger's here in Michigan fought--they
fought so hard just for basic masks, and they were able to get
that and $2 hazard pay. Are you familiar, Mr. Perrone, that
many of your workers on the ground here in Michigan were
actually threatened after, you know, some changes and regarding
reopening the economy, that Kroger's was actually attempting to
repeal the $2 but also retroactively do it, asking the
essential workers, the grocery workers, for that money back?
Are you aware of that?
Mr. Perrone. I'm very much aware of it, and quite frankly,
we went postal about it, and Kroger reversed their position.
Just so that you understand, presently right now, I reported
earlier today that we had 225 members who had passed. As of
yesterday, it's now 227. We'll get numbers again tomorrow.
In retail food, we've had 80 that have passed away, just in
retail food, and we've had, you know, over 5--5,800 that have
been exposed, 3,700 that have had positive diagnoses.
So, let me say the following as it relates to, you know,
PPE. In fact, somebody mentioned it a little bit earlier about
cloth masks versus NP-95 masks or N-95 masks. It is critical
if--if you're going to be protected that you have the mask, the
N-95 mask. You may protect somebody else if you have a cloth
mask on, but you're not going to be protected if you don't have
an N--an N-95. So, we think that we need to recognize, and it
is my understanding that some of the major corporations in this
country----
Ms. Tlaib. OK.
Mr. Perrone [continuing]. They're going to do away with
masks----
Ms. Tlaib. That's right.
Mr. Perrone [continuing]. That are at that level. So, I am
very concerned.
Ms. Tlaib. No. Thank you. And just for the record, yes,
Kroger has repealed it. They called it Heroes Pay, and for some
reason, a month later, our--our neighbors that work in the
grocery stores all of a sudden weren't heroes anymore. So I--I
know you fought hard and you repealed it, but I want it on the
congressional Record that Kroger's Company attempted to
retroactively remove the Heroes Pay to folks that actually put
their lives under risk to get groceries on people's table.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Tlaib, thank you so much for your questions.
Ms. Keller--Mr. Keller, you have five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Keller, we can't--we're having technical difficulties.
We can't see you or hear you. I can see you now, but can't hear
you. You must be in the SCIF. Let's do this, Mr. Keller. Ms.
Porter. We're going to go to Ms. Porter, and then we'll come
back to you, Mr. Keller.
So, Ms. Porter. Ms. Porter, you are now recognized for five
minutes for questions. You may now unmute yourself. Thank you.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much.
Ms. Castillo, I want to thank you for your work to keep our
patients safe and healthy in California in particular, and
please let your members know how much I appreciate the risk
that you all are taking every day to care for our families.
The gentleman from Ohio where Battelle is based, Mr. Gibbs,
discussed Battelle in his questioning, and I wanted to followup
on that. Starting with your statement, Ms. Castillo, you
mentioned that NNU, National Nurses United, has been collecting
information on workplace protections testing and COVID-19
infections among nurses. What kinds of PPE do nurses need to do
their jobs every day?
Ms. Castillo. PPE--as I had mentioned before, PPE starts
with head to toe coverings, and so, it's important to
understand that we don't want one square inch or piece of
clothing exposed. So, that in addition to the respirators which
the N-95 is minimum, there are higher levels of protection,
respirators, the N-100's. The PAPRs, in particular, are very
effective. But also we need the--the head coverings, the
shields, the coveralls, the gloves.
Ms. Porter. Ms. Castillo, are you having to reuse that PPE?
Ms. Castillo. We are having--yes. In some--in some cases,
we are.
Ms. Porter. What kind of risk does it create when we reuse
PPE?
Ms. Castillo. So, we are especially being asked to reuse
the N-95s, and anyone that has tried to put an N-95 on will
recognize that it has--you have to be very careful in terms of
what is called ``donning,'' or putting it on or ``doffing,''
taking it off, so that you don't touch the outside or that the
outside doesn't touch any other surface. So, in doing--in
reuse, anytime you are putting it on or taking it off in
between uses, you have a risk of exposure, and that exposure
can be transmitted to subsequent patients.
Ms. Porter. So, I wanted to ask you. NNU, as I understand
it, has done some studies on how often these N-95s are being
decontaminated, so-called decontamination. How often is that
happening?
Ms. Castillo. Well, we have--we do know that there are
employers that are using this method. Some have abandoned it,
because they found that it is not effective and that it is
actually resulting in deformed and--and deficient masks, but
those that--it's clear that some are continuing to do that.
What we found in our studies is that we--we did a survey of
nurses across the Nation and found that close to 30 percent, 28
percent of those respondents were--were asked to reuse a
decontaminated mask.
Ms. Porter. So, I've heard these concerns before----
Ms. Castillo. Yes.
Ms. Porter [continuing]. And thank you for raising them. On
May 26, I wrote to the FDA Commissioner, to Stephen Hahn. I
sent this letter.
Mr. Chairman, I move to put this letter into the record.
It's been sent to the committee pursuant to the rules
previously.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Porter, thank you for following the rules.
Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Porter. So, in that letter to the FDA Commissioner, I
was alarmed about what we were hearing from nurses about the
Battelle system. And as of April 12, there were 426 California
hospitals using Battelle's so-called decontamination system,
including 32 hospitals in Orange County.
Millions of taxpayer dollars and the lives of an untold
number of our healthcare workers are at risk if this
decontamination doesn't perform as expected. So Ms. Castillo,
what motivation might the administration have for allowing this
Battelle system to decontaminate masks, and more masks than it
can safely handle?
Ms. Castillo. Right. It was a huge award that was awarded
to Battelle, a $415 million no-bid contract. And the--you know,
what we have seen is decisions are being made based on
inadequate planning and supplies. And instead of planning to
ensure that we are able to get the supplies, the PPE, they're
utilizing this method which is unproven and won't protect. And
this is not uncommon for us to see the fact that they subscribe
to these----
Ms. Porter. Ms. Castillo, I just want to ask you one last
question----
Ms. Castillo. Sure.
Ms. Porter [continuing]. Before my time expires.
Ms. Castillo. Sure.
Ms. Porter. What is the best solution here to get you and
your fellow nurses new N-95 masks and to stop reuse?
Ms. Castillo. We need to invoke the Defense Production Act,
and we need to start immediately producing, domestically, PPE,
adequate amounts of respirators and gloves and gowns, all of
the PPE that we need now and for the future.
Mr. Gomez. Ms. Porter, your time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Keller, you're now recognized for five minutes for
questions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll try take two on
this one. Again, I want to--I want to thank everybody for
attending today's meeting. I would first like to start by
expressing the gratitude to our frontline healthcare workers,
hospital staff, EMS, firefighters, police, and other first
responders, our grocers, truck drivers, custodians, factory
workers, farmers, ranchers and many others who have been
showing up to work and keeping our essential activities going.
Their efforts during this unprecedented emergency have been
nothing short of heroic.
Thanks to these workers and businesses, as well as the
leadership of President Trump, our supply chain has endured
this pandemic, we flattened the curve, and every American who
needed a ventilator has gotten one. At the same time, I'm
disappointed that the Speaker has not asked the House to return
to Washington to conduct its business. If American workers are
showing up to work, their elected Members of Congress should do
the same.
Moving forward, it is clear that the best form of economic
stimulus is a job. The Paycheck Protection Program appears to
be functioning as intended, and helping our businesses and
workers weather this pandemic. In order to build on the
promising May jobs report that was just unveiled, we need to
reopen economies and get more people back to work.
Well, Governor Tom Wolf has unilaterally kept many
Pennsylvania businesses closed, forcing some to go out of
business permanently. We have proven in parts of Pennsylvania,
that the parts that are open, that this can be done swiftly and
safely by trusting our communities to follow proper hygienic
and social distancing guidelines.
Having said all that, I do have a question for Dr. Roy. Dr.
Roy, again, and all the panelists, thank you for participating.
Dr. Roy, with your expertise, you know, looking at the Bureau
of Labor Statistics' recent May jobs report, it found that the
U.S. nonfarm payroll employment increased by 2.5 million jobs
last month, many of which include jobs in manufacturing,
leisure, and hospitality. I think almost half of them, or
somewhere around half were in hospitality and food service. If
we continual to safely reopen our economy, can we expect to see
more promising job numbers going forward?
Mr. Roy. I hope so, and I hope and expect so, yes, sir.
Mr. Keller. I would also think that, you know, as we've
been talking about what groups of individuals have been hit
hardest by this, the fact that the hospitality injury, or
industry has seen most of this, that we would see more people
getting back to work, maybe, than--than need the jobs, you
know, and have been unable to work for so long.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Keller, in my written testimony, and I talked
about this in my opening statement as well, the data is quite
strong on this point, that minority workers who are
disproportionately hourly wage workers, the disparity between
white and nonwhite employment has been widened substantially
because of the lockdowns, and if we want to narrow those
disparities, we should reopen the economy. Safely, of course.
Mr. Keller. And--and getting--getting business to reopen is
only part of the challenge. There are countless students whose
education will be interrupted by this pandemic, many of whom
reside in rural areas like northeastern and north central
Pennsylvania, and may not have easy access to online learning.
What are some strategies we can use to keep these students
engaged and moving forward, improving their skill sets and
joining the work force?
Mr. Roy. Mr. Keller, I'm so glad you brought that up. That
is something I wanted to address in my testimony, but it was
already getting too long. It's an extremely important point,
not just for the children whose education--and
disproportionately minority children, by the way, whose
education has been suspended or retarded because of the
lockdowns, but also their parents. If you're a single mom and
you're a pharmacist, and you want to go to work, you might not
be able to because going to work means leaving your child
unattended at home, and so, it's incredibly economically
important. There are a lot of children who depend on the school
lunch program at low income schools for nutrition.
There are all sorts of aspects to what public schools, in
particular, are doing to help low income communities go forward
and--and meet the--the closure of schools is not justified by
what we know about COVID-19. The disease does not affect
children. It can affect elderly janitor staff, people who work
at schools. Maybe you could test them, maybe give them paid
leave, but children can go to school safely. And if we monitor
the efforts of population that are teaching and caring for
those children in schools, we can do that. We're seeing that in
Europe. We're seeing that in Texas and Florida. Schools that
are reopening are doing okay.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. I see
no other speakers.
Before we adjourn, I'd like to recognize myself to submit
for the record two additional statements from groups who
represent countless essential workers across our Nation. Both
of these documents have been distributed to members and staff
in advance of today's hearing. Without objection, I would like
to enter into the record the following documents: A written
statement by Derrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP,
regarding today's hearing, and expressing support for
Chairwoman Maloney's Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act. Without
objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gomez. In addition, a statement for the record by the
American Federation of Government Employees regarding today's
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gomez. I would also like to thank our witnesses for
testifying today: Ms. Becote, Ms. Castillo, Mr. Perrone, Mr.
Costa, Mr. Odom, and Mr. Roy. Thank you for testifying today. I
know that this is an issue that we all care about across the
country. Essential workers are not Democrats or Republicans or
independents, they're Americans, first and foremost, and I
believe that there can be a common will to find solutions to
these problems. Although our solutions might not be the same on
both sides of the aisle, I know that there is a common
commitment.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their response. I'd ask our witnesses to please
respond as promptly as you are able.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]