No Worker Left Behind: Supporting Essential Workers, House hearing transcript (June 10, 2020), GovInfo CHRG-116hhrg40842, PDF
Summary
This is the Government Publishing Office PDF of “No Worker Left Behind: Supporting Essential Workers,” a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on June 10, 2020 (Serial No. 116–97), with Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney presiding. The witnesses included Eneida Becote, wife of Edward Becote, an essential worker who died from coronavirus, and leaders of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, National Nurses United, the National Urban League and the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. The index of documents lists material submitted by members, including an FDA letter regarding Batelle and FEMA slides on the White House Covid-19 Supply Chain Task Force.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
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
(
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 Member
Columbia PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JODY B. HICE, Georgia
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, Illinois JAMES COMER, Kentucky
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
HARLEY ROUDA, California BOB GIBBS, Ohio
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont CHIP ROY, Texas
JACKIE SPEIER, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
MARK DESAULNIER, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
RO KHANNA, California
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
(II)
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 & Com-
mercial 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 avail-
able 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; sub-
mitted by Rep. Bob Gibbs.
* Questions for the Record: to Mr. Avik S. A. Roy; submitted by Rep.
Chip Roy.
(III)
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 swift-
ly enacting profound reforms to punish police misconduct, holding
police departments accountable to civilian oversight and elimi-
nating the financing of police militarization. We all have more to
say in the coming days, but as my friend, Virginia delegate Jen-
nifer 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 op-
erators, 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 Metro-
politan Transportation Authority have died this year from
coronavirus.
The people doing these jobs have taken on the extraordinary bur-
den 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.
(1)
2
Our hearing today focuses on the responsibility that our Federal
Government has to protect and support them now and into the fu-
ture. 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 in-
jury 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 indis-
pensable 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 eco-
nomic instability.
This burden does not fall on all communities equally. Black and
Latino workers make up a majority of the work force considered es-
sential. 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 counter-
parts. 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 feel-
ing 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 impor-
tant hearing on essential workers.
3
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 po-
lice 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 dis-
turbing. I think it is not only absentminded, but, frankly, it dem-
onstrates 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 be-
fore 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 fool-
ishness 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 mo-
ments 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 any-
one 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 coun-
try, but undermining and/or eliminating America’s law enforcement
is not the answer.
4
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 depart-
ments at this time, and even to the extent of totally disbanding po-
lice 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 suc-
ceeded. Now at this point, the U.S. has secured adequate capacities
in our hospitals, and hospitalizations for COVID–19-related ill-
nesses 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 admin-
istration 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 tell-
ing us that prolonged shutdowns like we have seen results in a
wide range of health issues, including things like suicide and men-
tal 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
5
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 essen-
tial 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 inter-
national president of the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union.
We also have with us Bonnie Castillo, who is the executive direc-
tor 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 affirma-
tive. 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 Pan-
demic Heroes Compensation Act to help the families of essential
workers who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country as Amer-
ica 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 em-
ployed 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.
6
He was just as dedicated to the patients who he served as a pa-
tient 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 com-
fortable 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 oth-
ers.
We lost Ed on April 9, after he had been hospitalized with
COVID for nearly three weeks. Over a matter of days, my strong-
est, energetic husband went from having a fever to being on a ven-
tilator 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 ven-
tilator.
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, pa-
tient transporters like my husband. The best way we as a Nation
7
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 min-
utes.
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 Pan-
demic Heroes Compensation Act of 2020. The ATU strongly sup-
ports 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 mem-
bers, and it’s been 12 weeks now that this pandemic has been out
there and, unlike others, our members have not had the oppor-
tunity 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 as-
saulted, 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 bet-
ter.
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 govern-
ment, and we need to make the demands. So, we have made de-
mands of back-door boarding. Overcrowding needs to stop. The rec-
ommendations, 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
8
the table, we’re zeroes. It’s just—it’s crazy here. We’re in negotia-
tions right now in some areas, and we see this happening.
So, I hope you remember our members out there, I hope you re-
member 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 mem-
ber in front of the committee today, Congressman Hice. I’d also like
to thank all the other members of the committee for the oppor-
tunity 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 facili-
ties.
We have members that are Republican, Democrats, and Inde-
pendents from every state in this Nation as well as every congres-
sional district. All across this country, our healthcare, food proc-
essing, 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, de-
serve 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.
9
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 impor-
tantly, 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 work-
ers 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 hus-
band. 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 protec-
tions 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 hon-
estly, 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 quar-
antine 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 spe-
cific 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 en-
sure 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 ques-
tions 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 ASSOCIA-
TION, AND NATIONAL NURSES ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Ms. CASTILLO. Thank you. Good morning. And thank you, Chair-
woman Maloney, Ranking Member Hice, and members of the com-
mittee, for inviting me to testify today.
10
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 re-
sponse, risking their lives to care for patients throughout this hor-
rific pandemic.
Across the country, nurses have been denied the protections they
need to prevent exposure to COVID–19. As a result, tens of thou-
sands 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 work-
ers.
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 protec-
tion 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 meth-
ods are safe and effective.
Many hospitals require nurses to continue to work after expo-
sure. Some have required asymptomatic nurses to work after test-
ing positive, putting patients and colleagues at risk. Many hos-
pitals 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 pro-
tected 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 stock-
piles have been ineffective, and frontline workers have not seen the
equipment supposedly delivered. We do not have a national med-
ical 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 com-
fort—at a time when families need to comfort each other, nurses
are deprived of this support.
11
Nurses knew that the pandemic was on its way, way back in
January. Why weren’t the hospitals prepared? Why wasn’t the ad-
ministration 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 Con-
gress 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—con-
tract 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 sup-
port. But we also need Congress to take action immediately to pre-
vent 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 essen-
tial that these provisions are included in any compromise, negotia-
tions—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, WASH-
INGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
Mr. ODOM. Thank you. And, Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking
Member Jordan, thank you for allowing me to testify today on be-
half 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 descend-
ants 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 eco-
nomic 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 over-
represented 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.
12
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 Ameri-
cans 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 per-
cent 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 re-
strictions 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 chil-
dren 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 ex-
pected based on their share of the population. Blacks and Latinos
are more likely to have preexisting health conditions, such as asth-
ma, heart disease, and diabetes, that makes death from viral infec-
tion more likely.
With respect to pay, essential workers are paid less than non-
essential workers. Essential workers in the food and agriculture in-
dustry, 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 fam-
ily’s finances. Testing alone out of network can cost as much as
$1,300, while the cost of hospitalization and treatment for more se-
vere cases of COVID–19 can cost almost $75,000 without insur-
ance.
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 em-
ploy low-wage workers. Furthermore, workers who are young, fe-
male, 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
13
Compensation Act, which the National Urban League is very
pleased to endorse. These are all excellent ideas. The Pandemic He-
roes 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 mov-
ing out of the woods. Fiscal policy will be the main driver of eco-
nomic 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 min-
utes.
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 be-
hind.
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 dis-
cussed today. Each one of these deaths is tragic. An underappre-
ciated part of the story is how many of these deaths occurred be-
cause 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 pa-
tients into nursing homes, but Florida resisted. We drew a line—
a hard line early on, said Mary Mayhew, who runs Florida’s health
14
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 se-
vere 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 minor-
ity workers.
In late 2019, Black unemployment reached its lowest rate in his-
tory, 5.4 percent. Today, that rate is 16.8 percent. Hispanic unem-
ployment 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 gov-
ernment-mandated shutdowns and the economy we are experi-
encing 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
15
Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Black-owned busi-
nesses 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 es-
sential 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 work-
er, 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 de-
grees, right? It’s the people who are making sure that life can con-
tinue, even if you’re locked down because of health reasons, be-
cause 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 essen-
tial 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?
16
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 peo-
ple 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 cowork-
ers, 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 unem-
ployment 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 bene-
fits?
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 bene-
fits if they die from coronavirus?
Mr. COSTA. Some do and some don’t.
Mr. GOMEZ. So, that’s why—the reasons why we need Chair-
woman 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 Pan-
demic 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 discus-
sion that, at least in my opinion, we’re not talking enough about
is the Communist Party of China. There’s no question they inten-
tionally 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.
17
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 per-
cent; 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 compensa-
tion 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 rec-
ommendations 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 sec-
tor, 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 mis-
taken.
We’ve got to figure out ways to reopen the economy and encour-
age R&D innovation at the same time, even if a vaccine doesn’t im-
mediately come forward, and then we have to protect our intellec-
tual property if China tries to steal them.
Mr. HICE. Yes. I mean, that protection of our intellectual prop-
erty 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
18
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 pat-
ent 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 devel-
oping 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 condo-
lences 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 cen-
tral to a bill, and maybe one of the few bills that will pass this ses-
sion. 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 transpor-
tation. 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
19
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 bet-
ter 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 deci-
sions 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 com-
mittee that I believe it would be useful to—to speak more specifi-
cally 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 indi-
cate 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 transpor-
tation unions and operators at the table, not just make the deter-
mination 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 ques-
tions. 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 essen-
20
tial. In your bill, Pandemic Heroes Compensation Act, you des-
ignate 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 be-
cause, 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 pro-
vides? 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 em-
ployees 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 dol-
lars 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 compensa-
tion 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 let-
ter 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, un-
employment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, pov-
erty, 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 ef-
21
fect 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 mil-
lions 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 willing-
ness 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 fami-
lies 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 appre-
ciate that.
22
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 situa-
tion is so precarious that many employees, because they are tradi-
tionally 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 pro-
vided for by—provided for by their employer was the difference for
them that—that, you know, some people—we lost about 17 employ-
ees at one big nursing home, and it just put more and more pres-
sure on the others who were able to stay. That—that hazard pay
wasn’t recklessly handed out by faceless bureaucrats. That was ac-
tually 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 re-
quired 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 vul-
nerable 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 per-
cent 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 deter-
mine 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 broth-
ers 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.
23
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 ques-
tions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our panel-
ists 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 Peo-
ple’s House, the House of Representatives, remains incredibly re-
stricted as we’ve seen by our efforts today, forced to use tech-
nologies that I believe is best reserved for, perhaps never, but cer-
tainly 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 pro-
fessionals, and you gave a moving testimony regarding PPE and
the lack of access to proper PPE. I thank you for clarifying the dif-
ference, 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 per-
haps you could work with us on some projects that we have regard-
ing 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 an-
ticipated 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 be-
lieve 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 leader-
ship purposefully delayed the release of important data and—and
hoarded—began gathering and hoarding PPE from across the world
24
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 re-
possession or unemployment, foreclosures, eviction. Stress and de-
pression 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 sec-
onds, 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 testi-
mony, we needed to, and still need to focus our attention, our ener-
gies on reducing the spread of COVID–19 among seniors, particu-
larly vulnerable seniors in congregate facilities like nursing homes
and assisted living facilities.
If we do that, if we’re testing everybody in those facilities, every-
one 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 ac-
cept 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 pe-
riod 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 ques-
tions. 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 hope-
fully, 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.
25
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 pre-
vent Members of Congress from becoming vectors of this illness, of
this virus? That’s the motivation. And to subscribe baser motiva-
tions 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 Presi-
dent 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 defi-
ant, 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 ac-
tually a violation of floor rules, and in the case of the Maine fac-
tory, 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 peo-
ple in a very negative way. There’s no question about it. It’s affect-
ing them economically; it’s affecting them as it relates to their
health; it’s—it’s certainly affecting certain people as it relates to
26
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 mem-
bers, 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 ques-
tions. 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 fa-
cilities, 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 conces-
sion 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 Presi-
dent 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 facil-
ity 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, mean-
ing 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.
27
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 bet-
ter. 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 condi-
tions. 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 manufac-
turing pipeline solved, people should be wearing N–95 masks in-
stead 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 pre-
vious testimony I gave to the House Coronavirus Select Committee
last week, I went into some of our analyses, our preliminary anal-
yses. 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 Ameri-
cans.
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 north-
eastern states, in particular, forced nursing homes and assisted liv-
ing 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.
28
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 home-
made masks as they continue to treat patients, delivery workers
without cleaning supplies to sanitize their vehicles, security work-
ers 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 Pro-
duction 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 fa-
cilities. But just yesterday, the top health official at the VA admit-
ted 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 experi-
ence of your work—your members, who are working at the VA fa-
cilities, 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?
29
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 work-
ers, 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 trans-
porters, 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 appre-
ciate 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 ac-
cess 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 tak-
ing 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 ques-
tions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. GROTHMAN. OK. Can you hear me now?
Mr. GOMEZ. Yes.
30
Mr. GROTHMAN. Good.
OK. First of all, for Mr. Costa, I’d like to thank you for the anec-
dote. 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 over-
estimate of the number of people who were going to wind up hos-
pitalized, 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. in-
stead 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 de-
liver, 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, be-
cause——
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 ade-
quate amounts of PPE, so in other words, that hospitals were re-
quired 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——
31
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 anticipa-
tion of this deluge of patients that never showed up and laid off
people.
Ms. CASTILLO. My understanding is the shortage of PPE is na-
tionwide, 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 Con-
gress 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 genera-
tion 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 keep-
ing 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 dif-
ferent 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 fis-
cal spending that Congress is putting forward in order to com-
pensate for the economic lockdown; and then the fact that the aver-
age 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 busi-
nesses 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 ques-
tions. You may now unmute yourself.
Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appre-
ciate the opportunity, and I thank the committee for pulling to-
gether 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
32
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 Ameri-
cans 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 inter-
national headquarters is located in Maryland’s Third District,
which I represent.
The—the frontline workers that you represent are a little bit dif-
ferent 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 pan-
demic, and we know that, for example, in Washington, DC, the rid-
ership 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 over-
crowding from happening. Our membership is down about 10 per-
cent we’ve lost to furloughs or layoffs at this time, due to the pan-
demic. 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 advan-
tage 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
33
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 appre-
hensive about what’s coming as we get closer to July 1, which is
the day by which most states and most municipalities have to bal-
ance their budget across the country.
As you know, the HEROES Act is trying to bring significant as-
sistance 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 he-
roes 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 ap-
preciate 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 front-
line 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 move-
ments in some of the cities and even references by some of our col-
leagues 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 per-
sonnel put their lives on the line every day.
34
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 obvi-
ously misled the world about the coronavirus, and then they
hoarded their PPE to use for themselves at the expense of Amer-
ican hospitals, American nursing home facilities, and American
healthcare workers.
So, we—I believe there’s bipartisan support in Congress to en-
sure 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 man-
ufacturing 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 com-
panies 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, es-
pecially 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 some-
thing that needs to be discussed in this hearing talking about es-
sential 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 un-
employment an additional $600 a week passed its current expira-
tion date of July 31. The Congressional Budget Office recently ex-
amined 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 ben-
efit 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
35
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 dis-
pensed 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 hear-
ing.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, communities of color have
been disproportionately impacted by large numbers of hospitaliza-
tions 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 dev-
astated by COVID–19.
Communities of color, as Mr. Odom stated, make up a large per-
centage 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 sim-
ple. When there’s a fire, we go to the fire. When there’s an emer-
gency, 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,
36
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 some-
thing—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 dis-
parities. Second, the small business disparity for small and minor-
ity businesses, the lack of access to capital that we actually legis-
lated 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 out-
pouring. 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 recommenda-
tions do you have for Congress to help companies and their mem-
bers 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 equip-
ment. 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 Produc-
tion 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
37
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. Law-
rence.
Mr. PERRONE. Yes. I agree with Mr. Odom as well. We definitely
need to add PPE to the Defense Production Act. It became very ap-
parent 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, be-
cause of that, it was being very difficult to be obtained.
I know that I’ve got one large major corporation that is dis-
cussing 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 talk-
ing 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.
38
I want to just mention quickly, Project Air Bridge, the adminis-
tration 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 prob-
ably—difficult in the development of a vaccine.
During this hearing, I’ve had the honor—I saw there’s three com-
munities 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 res-
pirators has not been shown to be as safe or effective and can de-
grade 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 sci-
entists and technology confirmed and published it was safe and ef-
fective for N95 masks to be decontaminated.
Battelle, just a little background, it’s the world’s largest inde-
pendent 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 test-
ed numerously by independent areas, CDC, Massachusetts General
Hospital. Duke tests show 50 decontamination cycles without deg-
radation 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 con-
tracts 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 bac-
teria 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. With-
out 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 effec-
tive. In fact, when we’ve received the masks back after this decon-
tamination process, including Battelle, often the straps are loos-
39
ened. 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 obvi-
ously 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 alter-
native. 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 com-
pensate 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’ Ben-
efit 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 ex-
pert on the 9/11 compensation program. His focus is to keep it sim-
ple 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 essen-
tial 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
40
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 imag-
ine 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 manufac-
turing 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 produc-
tion 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 Produc-
tion Act to produce adequate amounts of PPE.
So, you know, we are—as I said before, we, you know, are insist-
ing 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 pan-
demic 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 as-
sume you mean the gentleman from Texas on the committee as op-
posed to our witness, Mr. Roy, my fellow Austinite, who I’m de-
lighted 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 actu-
ally 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
41
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 spe-
cific numbers—that, if I’m correct, that if you discount for New Jer-
sey 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 as-
sisted 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 re-
porting 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 com-
paring children, basically people age zero to 18 that, for the most
part, if I saw your all’s data correctly from memory, that the dan-
gerousness of the flu, it was about three or four times more dan-
gerous 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 ‘‘Esti-
mating the Risk of Death From COVID–19 Versus Influenza By
Age,’’ and that report compares the relative risk of dying from in-
fluenza 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 influ-
enza 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-twen-
tieth 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 hap-
pen 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
42
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 every-
one, 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 ques-
tions. 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 suc-
cess 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
43
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 sys-
tem 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 hos-
pitals. 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 pa-
tient transporters, like Mrs. Becote’s late husband Edward. How
essential are people like Edward in helping hospitals function prop-
erly 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
44
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 pray-
ers 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 doc-
tors 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 pro-
vide not only for America, but for other people around the world.
During this pandemic, we have seen American workers and busi-
nesses rise to the occasion and to create new and innovative solu-
tions. One company in my district, Braskem, had more than 40 em-
ployees agree to live at the plant for a month to make materials
for respiratory masks. They worked around the clock, and they de-
serve our deepest respect.
Now that we have effectively flattened the curve, we must look
forward to safely reopening our economy and returning to nor-
malcy. In West Virginia, we’ve already started. I want us to con-
tinue 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 de-
contaminated 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 trust-
ed nonprofit organization to conduct research for just such a cir-
cumstance, a national pandemic, where there was a shortage of
N95 masks.
45
The research that was conducted over multiple years was peer
reviewed and published. It was this foresight by the FDA that al-
lowed 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 pub-
lished in 2016. Decontamination has made it so that healthcare
workers don’t have to wear scarves or bandanas or other home-
made 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 var-
ious 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 ques-
tions. You may now unmute yourself.
Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
46
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 mat-
ter. They have always been the backbone for their families, for our
communities, and our economy, but for too long, these same work-
ers have not had the basic rights and protections that they deserve.
The COVID–19 pandemic has unveiled many of these deeply en-
trenched inequities, and we’re witnessing firsthand the deadly con-
sequences 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 mar-
gins, even further. Many of these economic inequities have been ex-
acerbated 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 per-
cent of workers had access to paid family leave and sick day protec-
tions. 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 di-
verse 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 Mas-
sachusetts.
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 mo-
ment 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 pol-
icymaking 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 sup-
port, 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 en-
trenched inequities. The United States is one of the most industri-
alized 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
47
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 hav-
ing 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 en-
tire 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 ef-
fects of the stay-at-home orders.
Nearly 5 million people, confirmed cases, avoided coronavirus be-
cause 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 non-
essential 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
48
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 re-
cent 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 infec-
tion, 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 bet-
ter.
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 es-
sential 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 gov-
ernment-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. Amer-
icans 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 Con-
gressman 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 busi-
nesses the freedom and flexibility they need to bounce back.
Second, we should examine the Federal Government’s many out-
dated and bureaucratic healthcare laws and rules. As all of my col-
49
leagues 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 chal-
lenges. If we don’t cut the red tape and let these hospitals serve
their communities, we will see dire long-term consequences. Certifi-
cates of need should not impose revenue stream limitations on crit-
ical access hospitals.
And, finally, we must confront Beijing and hold them accountable
for the spread of the virus in the first place. The Chinese Com-
munist Party hid the severity of the coronavirus, crushed whistle-
blowers, denied offers of U.S. aid, allowed the coronavirus to
spread, and covertly hoarded PPE. The leadership of China is tak-
ing 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 per-
cent 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 re-
verse 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 di-
rectly 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 front-
line 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 col-
leagues 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?
50
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 un-
derstanding that, you know, as these states are opening up and no-
body 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 Feb-
ruary 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 appre-
ciate 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 threat-
ened 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 gro-
cery 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 ex-
posed, 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.
51
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. Kel-
ler.
So, Ms. Porter. Ms. Porter, you are now recognized for five min-
utes 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 pa-
tients 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 decon-
taminated, so-called decontamination. How often is that hap-
pening?
52
Ms. CASTILLO. Well, we have—we do know that there are em-
ployers that are using this method. Some have abandoned it, be-
cause they found that it is not effective and that it is actually re-
sulting 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. With-
out 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 hos-
pitals 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 decontami-
nate 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 ques-
tion——
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 grati-
tude to our frontline healthcare workers, hospital staff, EMS, fire-
fighters, police, and other first responders, our grocers, truck driv-
ers, custodians, factory workers, farmers, ranchers and many oth-
53
ers 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 leader-
ship of President Trump, our supply chain has endured this pan-
demic, 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 stim-
ulus is a job. The Paycheck Protection Program appears to be func-
tioning 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 Pennsyl-
vania businesses closed, forcing some to go out of business perma-
nently. 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 Sta-
tistics’ recent May jobs report, it found that the U.S. nonfarm pay-
roll 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 hospi-
tality and food service. If we continual to safely reopen our econ-
omy, can we expect to see more promising job numbers going for-
ward?
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 employ-
ment 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 edu-
cation 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?
54
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 chil-
dren, 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 im-
portant. 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 par-
ticular, 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 count-
less 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 Amer-
ican Federation of Government Employees regarding today’s hear-
ing. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. GOMEZ. I would also like to thank our witnesses for testi-
fying 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 solu-
tions 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 wit-
nesses 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.]
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-116hhrg40842.pdf
- Size
- 265,957 bytes
- SHA-256
- ff0621c855b6057c0741a0110393e55a53f5499fc05ef08d5816e08908fab0fa
- Our copy
- CHRG-116hhrg40842.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov