Transcripts For CSPAN Senate Hearing On Corporate Liability

Shielded from the responsibility for adopting irresponsible practices that fostered the spread of this virus at their facilities. For the sake of this country that i know that we all love, i urge you to Work Together to do what is right for these workers, and again, thank you for your time. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Chairman thank you very much. Ms. Dixon. Afternoon,good chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein and members of the committee. I am rebecca dixon, executive director of the National Employment law project. Nonprofit Research Policy organization that has fought to strengthen protections and build a powerful workers in the u. S. , including the unemployed. My testimony is based on policy expertise and a direct connection to frontline workers and communities. Workers held is Public Health. Workers rights to a selfie and healthy workplace must come for profits must come before. Rofits we cannot reopen businesses if workers are not safe and do not have safety. To give employers that humanity wouldave longsought produce a race to the bottom for workplace standards and it would cause health and safety disasters with new hotspots across sectors and spread across communities. Lets discuss why that is true. When employers in the country failed to protect their workers they contribute to the spread of covid19 in their communities. Due to historic inequities, this impacte was an event. Occupations in the u. S. Can because fed as racially segregated. Done a poor job of providing equal rights, benefits, and protections for workers. [inaudible] workers returning in the next weeks or months to their jobs, they are more likely to be in frontline jobs along with indigenous people. These communities have disproportionate rates of illness and death related to the pandemic. Far too Many Employers were slow to follow basic c. D. C. Recommendations such as the use of protective equipment, handwashing and spacing six feet apart. Workers are getting sick and dying. Tragedies are preventable. The only obvious healthier beyond the obvious health care example, there are examples in the retail and services. The most egregious was in new orleans where sanitation workers were fired after asking for protection. They were replaced with workers who are paid less than two dollars an hour for dangerous work. The rule of law versus the honor system. Protect theled to safety of workers during the pandemic. We know they already facing deep various to accessing the court and holding employers accountable, such as forced arbitration. This is also true for health and safety. Unfortunately, they have failed in their mandate to protect workers. Poster has issued a voluntary employer standard and guidance which is not enforceable osha has, and has failed to enforce the cdcs voluntary guidance. Right of action to sue an employer if they are violating an act to mother only act. Urse their only recourse is administrative. Has received complaints, it has issued no citations for c. D. C. Guideline violations. Immunity for workers who are suffering from injuries and death on the job, exposure to environmental workplace chemicals, Workers Compensation is the only remedy. Workernciple of the compensation system is that it is a nofault principle where workers get their medical bills. Aid. 3, the path forward is not immunity. Withess should join forces workers and focus on creating enforceable standards for workers. To protect it is important that one of those testifying may claim they are primarily focused on preventing sick workers and consumers from suing them we need, to be clear that trade associations who lobby for employers, including the chamber of commerce, are pushing for legally immunity for a wide range of poor Worker Protections such as minimum wage, overtime and paid leave. Recognizing how fiercely workers are working to protect themselves, including strikes and walking out the job to protest unsafe conditions, now is the time for congress to join together and demand it just andvery from this pandemic others who are suffering such a diverse of covid19. If Congress Wants to help Small Businesses, it is the best we can do is demanding that o. S. H. A. Do its job. Congress should be passing the , and Worker Protection act mandating strong, clear enforceable standards so that employers may follow those. This will hold employers employerse and let know what they need to do to protect their workers. Chairman thank you. Mr. Tyner is joining us remotely from fort worth, i believe. Tyner the chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify from my home. Counselerved as general from Texas Christian University and have been a Higher Education lawyer for more than 20 years. I am testifying at the request of the American Council on education, the largest Education Umbrella association. Our testimony will focus on 2 points. First, our campuses are huge economic drivers. We want americans to get back to work. Our campuses must return to close to normal operations. Second, to reopen our campuses, we need certainty around the standard of care. The first point, more than the educatelleges about 12. 5 million o students and employees over 4 million americans. Use one example from texas, the university of texas is often the largest employer. It often generates 8. 2 billion of Business Activity and its students spend another billion dollars with local businesses. And supporting Higher Educations return is critical in a central component of opening america. Colleges and universities urge the rest of america in wanted to resume something close to normal operation as soon as we can so. Ly do but in reopening our campuses, we face unprecedented challenges. The first is financial. We have already experienced and unless unforeseen expenses and losses. Even if we fully reopen, experts predict National Enrollment to drop by 50 , costing Higher Education 23 billion. For a number of institutions, this crisis poses an existential threat and the potential for closure in the horizon. The second one is how to reopen our campuses safely. Our professor taught us that uncertainty about the standard of care would create a cliff problem, where we know there is a cliff, some line that would be catastrophic to step across, but we dont know exactly where the edge of the cliff is. We will avoid the ground near the cliff altogether. Uncertainty has a Chilling Effect. Reopening in enterprise right problem. Nts a classic we are facing something have never faced, but we know one thing for certain, if and when we reopen, the virus spread is foreseeable, perhaps inevitable. So what is our standard of care for preventing covid19 . There is no playbook or established best practices. This uncertainty is impacting our decision. Let me use a few recent University Decisions as an example. In the last few days, uc san diego and university of arizona announced massive testing as a part of their return to campus. Is that now the standard of care . Other campuses look at these extraordinary precautions and think, they cannot possibly measure up. Some have already announced they will not resume full campus operations in august. To be clear, there are no current state or local orders that require either mass testing or prohibit classroom learning in the fall, because we dont know what our circumstances will be then. But these institutions are staying far away from the cliff. To understand the challenges facing the campus, one has to also understand the enormous scope of university operations. We are much more complex than classrooms and students. Running a campus is like running a small city. Many universities operate utility companies, we managed telecommunications networks, forces. Olice universities are landlords providing housing to millions, we operate retail shops and Convenience Stores, coffee shops and laundry services, bookstores, Health Clinics and Counseling Centers and gyms. Universities also serve more than just our students, operating health care systems, outward facing clinics, day care centers. We are in the tourism and entertainment business with sporting events and concerts, theater productions and debates. Two of thed operates largest entertainment that hes in fort worth. We have to determine how to reopen many lines of business. We do not face a single problem but scores of them. Line, in what circumstances will institutions be held liable when people are exposed to the virus on campus . That question presents quite a cliff. If the senate wants universities to reopen to the fullest extent allowed by local authorities, if our country needs colleges and universities to walk that cliff, we need your help, we need you to clearly define the edges of the class. We need certainty that we can reopen as fully as orders allow without fear of liability for virus. Ead of the we do not seek complete the ability or suggest protections from gross negligence or bad actions or seek other broad protections from duties. Rather, we seek protection from liability based on some yet to standard, where institutions have made goodfaith efforts to comply with what state and Public Health mandates and orders, and they should not be exposed. Without the certainty, we cannot expect campuses to return as fully and local and state authorities permit. We cannot expect a robust reopening. Thank you for your time and attention. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Chairman graham thank you. Professor vladeck . Professor vladeck thank you for asking me to participate in todays very important hearing about liability rules and the reopening of our economy. My name is David Vladeck and i teach at georgetown law school, mostly in education related courses and i spent years as a litigator. Am anxiousericans, i to get the nation back on its feet. I implore the committee i applaud the committee for exploring ways to facilitate the process and i can only imagine the heavy burden that weighs on your shoulder. As my testimony makes clear, businesses like mr. Smartts that act reasonably to safeguard employees and the public are already protected from liability , but as all of the panelists have said, we urgently need sciencebased covid19 enforceable guidelines from our Public Health agencies. Those guidelines not on the safeguard the public, but at the same time, they provide the standards of liability mr. Tyner was just talking about. Compliance with those guidelines would eliminate any liability risk. Would beher hand, it counterproductive for congress to take the unprecedented act of this towing immunity on companies that act irresponsibly bestowing immunity on companies that act irresponsibly. Workers will reopen this economy, not governmentsponsored immunity. We know that large segments of the public are still justifiably fearful about reopening. Granting immunity would only feed those fears. Immunity sends the message that precautions to control the spread of the virus is not a priority. Even worse, the amenity signals to workers and consumers that they go back to work or they go to the Grocery Store at their peril, why . Because congress has given employers and businesses a free to shortchange safety. There are only two ways that government protects its citizens conduct,sponsible through regulation or liability rules. We have not yet gotten from our regulations or specific guidance on how to safely contain the virus. Know, we dont know, given what is going on today, whether we ever will. Congresss move to significantly weaken liability systems would leave the public with inadequate safeguards. Some have suggested that instead of public immunity this blanket immunity, congress should give immunity to only those who engage in gross negligence or irresponsible conduct. That should be redacted first because it trivializes serious risk. , labeledible conduct by the law as negligent conduct, kills and injures four more people than wrongful conduct that the law enables as gross misconduct or recklessness conduct. That line also makes no sense because it is an unworkable standard for several reasons. First, the line between unreasonable or negligent misconduct and gross misconduct is murky, hightextbased. In a tort claim would constitute any tort claim would constitute gross negligence depending on the wrongdoers might. These questions turn on questions of intent. They are factual questions for injury, not a judge to resolve, and conduct is labeled negligent or grossly negligent only at the end of the case, not at the outset. In other words, we dont know whether or not a conduct is grossly negligent until a jury said so. Third and most importantly, the difference is utterly meaningless if we care about containing the spread of the virus. Irresponsible acts spread the y ass just as easil recklessness. My written testimony makes a number of additional points. One is that legislation is simply that simply displaces state liability laws is not only unprecedented, it is likely unconstitutional. The other point i would make and that other witnesses have emphasized is that the best way to ease potential liability risk is for our expert Public Health agencies to step up and to issue sciencebased specific guidelines on how to address the pandemic and reopen our economy safely. I look forward to answering any questions you have. I want to thank the committee for holding this very important hearing. Thank you. Chairman graham thank you. Finally, ms. Hill. Ms. Hill chairman graham Ranking Member feinstein and , members of the committee, good afternoon, i am helen hill, the chief executive officer of explorer trust on in charleston, of explore charleston in trust in, South Carolina. Aday i hope to share with you Broad Perspective on tourism in the United States. I have grave concerns for our Tourism Industry and i am here today to ask for you help our industry has been devastated by this covid19 pandemic. 2019, 15. 8 million american jobs were supported by the travel industry. ,o far, over half of those jobs 8 million, have been lost. We are on track to lose half 1 trillion in spending by the end of this year. These numbers are truly overwhelming and represent a total Economic Impact nine times greater than we suffered after the 9 11 attacks. Recently, we have all missed traveling, we have missed weddings and anniversaries trips and birthday parties. Our childrens spring break, and this month we will miss college and high school graduation. Travel in our great country is a hallmark of our freedom. Take vacations to recharge, to enjoy time with our loved ones, and to learn and experience different cultures. Travel opens up our eyes to the wonderful beauty of our country and brings us into community with others. As our elected leaders, you all have a front row seat in what makes america special. Senator graham always gives me such great joy when you invite guests to come to charleston, and my team gets to show off great. Kes South Carolina senator feinstein, i know you must feel the same way about your beautiful hometown of san francisco, my second favorite city. And each of you on the committee have a favorite goto hotel or treasured restaurant that has in a reallye dish, important attraction, a great historic site, the things that make your state so special. We dont want to lose those businesses that give america our unique character. In the past several months, i have never been more proud of our travel industry. No matter the size of the business, the health and safety of all the employees and guests has been put first. Businesses closed or emptied in the interest of Public Health. Now, we are working to ensure that they can reopen. Reopen in a way that protects the health of their employees, to customers and the broader community. The u. S. Travel association, of which i am a board member, convened a task force of Industry Leaders and Health Experts to create a core set of health and safety guidelines, they aligned with the recommendations from the c. D. C. For the reopening of america. Withoutstand that guidance to promote health and safety to travelers, there can be no travel, no reopening of businesses, and no revival of our economy. Right now, the most important thing our travel businesses can provide to our communities is to reopen responsibly and put americans back to work. If these businesses take necessary steps to protect health of the employees and the customers, there must be protections put in place to allow them to reopen with confidence. To that end, we are seeking Liability Protection for businesses that are limited, that are temporary and put in place as soon as possible. These protections should be limited to those american businesses that are reopening with accordance with the Healthy Businesses that are reopening in accordance with the safety and Health Guidelines and in faith, to protect them from fairless lawsuits during the pandemic and through a parent of economic recovery. It is important that if these measures are put in force immediately. Without implementation , these businesses may delay dairy opening and further delay moving our economy forward. We cannot afford to delay americas recovery efforts. We simply ask for these measures to protect businesses in making a goodfaith effort to reopen responsibly. As the nation prepares to emerge from this Work Together<\/a> to do what is right for these workers, and again, thank you for your time. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Chairman thank you very much. Ms. Dixon. Afternoon,good chairman graham, Ranking Member<\/a> feinstein and members of the committee. I am rebecca dixon, executive director of the National Employment<\/a> law project. Nonprofit Research Policy<\/a> organization that has fought to strengthen protections and build a powerful workers in the u. S. , including the unemployed. My testimony is based on policy expertise and a direct connection to frontline workers and communities. Workers held is Public Health<\/a>. Workers rights to a selfie and healthy workplace must come for profits must come before. Rofits we cannot reopen businesses if workers are not safe and do not have safety. To give employers that humanity wouldave longsought produce a race to the bottom for workplace standards and it would cause health and safety disasters with new hotspots across sectors and spread across communities. Lets discuss why that is true. When employers in the country failed to protect their workers they contribute to the spread of covid19 in their communities. Due to historic inequities, this impacte was an event. Occupations in the u. S. Can because fed as racially segregated. Done a poor job of providing equal rights, benefits, and protections for workers. [inaudible] workers returning in the next weeks or months to their jobs, they are more likely to be in frontline jobs along with indigenous people. These communities have disproportionate rates of illness and death related to the pandemic. Far too Many Employers<\/a> were slow to follow basic c. D. C. Recommendations such as the use of protective equipment, handwashing and spacing six feet apart. Workers are getting sick and dying. Tragedies are preventable. The only obvious healthier beyond the obvious health care example, there are examples in the retail and services. The most egregious was in new orleans where sanitation workers were fired after asking for protection. They were replaced with workers who are paid less than two dollars an hour for dangerous work. The rule of law versus the honor system. Protect theled to safety of workers during the pandemic. We know they already facing deep various to accessing the court and holding employers accountable, such as forced arbitration. This is also true for health and safety. Unfortunately, they have failed in their mandate to protect workers. Poster has issued a voluntary employer standard and guidance which is not enforceable osha has, and has failed to enforce the cdcs voluntary guidance. Right of action to sue an employer if they are violating an act to mother only act. Urse their only recourse is administrative. Has received complaints, it has issued no citations for c. D. C. Guideline violations. Immunity for workers who are suffering from injuries and death on the job, exposure to environmental workplace chemicals, Workers Compensation<\/a> is the only remedy. Workernciple of the compensation system is that it is a nofault principle where workers get their medical bills. Aid. 3, the path forward is not immunity. Withess should join forces workers and focus on creating enforceable standards for workers. To protect it is important that one of those testifying may claim they are primarily focused on preventing sick workers and consumers from suing them we need, to be clear that trade associations who lobby for employers, including the chamber of commerce, are pushing for legally immunity for a wide range of poor Worker Protections<\/a> such as minimum wage, overtime and paid leave. Recognizing how fiercely workers are working to protect themselves, including strikes and walking out the job to protest unsafe conditions, now is the time for congress to join together and demand it just andvery from this pandemic others who are suffering such a diverse of covid19. If Congress Wants<\/a> to help Small Business<\/a>es, it is the best we can do is demanding that o. S. H. A. Do its job. Congress should be passing the , and Worker Protection<\/a> act mandating strong, clear enforceable standards so that employers may follow those. This will hold employers employerse and let know what they need to do to protect their workers. Chairman thank you. Mr. Tyner is joining us remotely from fort worth, i believe. Tyner the chairman graham, Ranking Member<\/a> feinstein and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify from my home. Counselerved as general from Texas Christian University<\/a> and have been a Higher Education<\/a> lawyer for more than 20 years. I am testifying at the request of the American Council<\/a> on education, the largest Education Umbrella<\/a> association. Our testimony will focus on 2 points. First, our campuses are huge economic drivers. We want americans to get back to work. Our campuses must return to close to normal operations. Second, to reopen our campuses, we need certainty around the standard of care. The first point, more than the educatelleges about 12. 5 million o students and employees over 4 million americans. Use one example from texas, the university of texas is often the largest employer. It often generates 8. 2 billion of Business Activity<\/a> and its students spend another billion dollars with local businesses. And supporting Higher Education<\/a>s return is critical in a central component of opening america. Colleges and universities urge the rest of america in wanted to resume something close to normal operation as soon as we can so. Ly do but in reopening our campuses, we face unprecedented challenges. The first is financial. We have already experienced and unless unforeseen expenses and losses. Even if we fully reopen, experts predict National Enrollment<\/a> to drop by 50 , costing Higher Education<\/a> 23 billion. For a number of institutions, this crisis poses an existential threat and the potential for closure in the horizon. The second one is how to reopen our campuses safely. Our professor taught us that uncertainty about the standard of care would create a cliff problem, where we know there is a cliff, some line that would be catastrophic to step across, but we dont know exactly where the edge of the cliff is. We will avoid the ground near the cliff altogether. Uncertainty has a Chilling Effect<\/a>. Reopening in enterprise right problem. Nts a classic we are facing something have never faced, but we know one thing for certain, if and when we reopen, the virus spread is foreseeable, perhaps inevitable. So what is our standard of care for preventing covid19 . There is no playbook or established best practices. This uncertainty is impacting our decision. Let me use a few recent University Decisions<\/a> as an example. In the last few days, uc san diego and university of arizona announced massive testing as a part of their return to campus. Is that now the standard of care . Other campuses look at these extraordinary precautions and think, they cannot possibly measure up. Some have already announced they will not resume full campus operations in august. To be clear, there are no current state or local orders that require either mass testing or prohibit classroom learning in the fall, because we dont know what our circumstances will be then. But these institutions are staying far away from the cliff. To understand the challenges facing the campus, one has to also understand the enormous scope of university operations. We are much more complex than classrooms and students. Running a campus is like running a small city. Many universities operate utility companies, we managed telecommunications networks, forces. Olice universities are landlords providing housing to millions, we operate retail shops and Convenience Stores<\/a>, coffee shops and laundry services, bookstores, Health Clinics<\/a> and Counseling Centers<\/a> and gyms. Universities also serve more than just our students, operating health care systems, outward facing clinics, day care centers. We are in the tourism and entertainment business with sporting events and concerts, theater productions and debates. Two of thed operates largest entertainment that hes in fort worth. We have to determine how to reopen many lines of business. We do not face a single problem but scores of them. Line, in what circumstances will institutions be held liable when people are exposed to the virus on campus . That question presents quite a cliff. If the senate wants universities to reopen to the fullest extent allowed by local authorities, if our country needs colleges and universities to walk that cliff, we need your help, we need you to clearly define the edges of the class. We need certainty that we can reopen as fully as orders allow without fear of liability for virus. Ead of the we do not seek complete the ability or suggest protections from gross negligence or bad actions or seek other broad protections from duties. Rather, we seek protection from liability based on some yet to standard, where institutions have made goodfaith efforts to comply with what state and Public Health<\/a> mandates and orders, and they should not be exposed. Without the certainty, we cannot expect campuses to return as fully and local and state authorities permit. We cannot expect a robust reopening. Thank you for your time and attention. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Chairman graham thank you. Professor vladeck . Professor vladeck thank you for asking me to participate in todays very important hearing about liability rules and the reopening of our economy. My name is David Vladeck<\/a> and i teach at georgetown law school, mostly in education related courses and i spent years as a litigator. Am anxiousericans, i to get the nation back on its feet. I implore the committee i applaud the committee for exploring ways to facilitate the process and i can only imagine the heavy burden that weighs on your shoulder. As my testimony makes clear, businesses like mr. Smartts that act reasonably to safeguard employees and the public are already protected from liability , but as all of the panelists have said, we urgently need sciencebased covid19 enforceable guidelines from our Public Health<\/a> agencies. Those guidelines not on the safeguard the public, but at the same time, they provide the standards of liability mr. Tyner was just talking about. Compliance with those guidelines would eliminate any liability risk. Would beher hand, it counterproductive for congress to take the unprecedented act of this towing immunity on companies that act irresponsibly bestowing immunity on companies that act irresponsibly. Workers will reopen this economy, not governmentsponsored immunity. We know that large segments of the public are still justifiably fearful about reopening. Granting immunity would only feed those fears. Immunity sends the message that precautions to control the spread of the virus is not a priority. Even worse, the amenity signals to workers and consumers that they go back to work or they go to the Grocery Store<\/a> at their peril, why . Because congress has given employers and businesses a free to shortchange safety. There are only two ways that government protects its citizens conduct,sponsible through regulation or liability rules. We have not yet gotten from our regulations or specific guidance on how to safely contain the virus. Know, we dont know, given what is going on today, whether we ever will. Congresss move to significantly weaken liability systems would leave the public with inadequate safeguards. Some have suggested that instead of public immunity this blanket immunity, congress should give immunity to only those who engage in gross negligence or irresponsible conduct. That should be redacted first because it trivializes serious risk. , labeledible conduct by the law as negligent conduct, kills and injures four more people than wrongful conduct that the law enables as gross misconduct or recklessness conduct. That line also makes no sense because it is an unworkable standard for several reasons. First, the line between unreasonable or negligent misconduct and gross misconduct is murky, hightextbased. In a tort claim would constitute any tort claim would constitute gross negligence depending on the wrongdoers might. These questions turn on questions of intent. They are factual questions for injury, not a judge to resolve, and conduct is labeled negligent or grossly negligent only at the end of the case, not at the outset. In other words, we dont know whether or not a conduct is grossly negligent until a jury said so. Third and most importantly, the difference is utterly meaningless if we care about containing the spread of the virus. Irresponsible acts spread the y ass just as easil recklessness. My written testimony makes a number of additional points. One is that legislation is simply that simply displaces state liability laws is not only unprecedented, it is likely unconstitutional. The other point i would make and that other witnesses have emphasized is that the best way to ease potential liability risk is for our expert Public Health<\/a> agencies to step up and to issue sciencebased specific guidelines on how to address the pandemic and reopen our economy safely. I look forward to answering any questions you have. I want to thank the committee for holding this very important hearing. Thank you. Chairman graham thank you. Finally, ms. Hill. Ms. Hill chairman graham Ranking Member<\/a> feinstein and , members of the committee, good afternoon, i am helen hill, the chief executive officer of explorer trust on in charleston, of explore charleston in trust in, South Carolina<\/a>. Aday i hope to share with you Broad Perspective<\/a> on tourism in the United States<\/a>. I have grave concerns for our Tourism Industry<\/a> and i am here today to ask for you help our industry has been devastated by this covid19 pandemic. 2019, 15. 8 million american jobs were supported by the travel industry. ,o far, over half of those jobs 8 million, have been lost. We are on track to lose half 1 trillion in spending by the end of this year. These numbers are truly overwhelming and represent a total Economic Impact<\/a> nine times greater than we suffered after the 9 11 attacks. Recently, we have all missed traveling, we have missed weddings and anniversaries trips and birthday parties. Our childrens spring break, and this month we will miss college and high school graduation. Travel in our great country is a hallmark of our freedom. Take vacations to recharge, to enjoy time with our loved ones, and to learn and experience different cultures. Travel opens up our eyes to the wonderful beauty of our country and brings us into community with others. As our elected leaders, you all have a front row seat in what makes america special. Senator graham always gives me such great joy when you invite guests to come to charleston, and my team gets to show off great. Kes South Carolina<\/a> senator feinstein, i know you must feel the same way about your beautiful hometown of san francisco, my second favorite city. And each of you on the committee have a favorite goto hotel or treasured restaurant that has in a reallye dish, important attraction, a great historic site, the things that make your state so special. We dont want to lose those businesses that give america our unique character. In the past several months, i have never been more proud of our travel industry. No matter the size of the business, the health and safety of all the employees and guests has been put first. Businesses closed or emptied in the interest of Public Health<\/a>. Now, we are working to ensure that they can reopen. Reopen in a way that protects the health of their employees, to customers and the broader community. The u. S. Travel association, of which i am a board member, convened a task force of Industry Leaders<\/a> and Health Experts<\/a> to create a core set of health and safety guidelines, they aligned with the recommendations from the c. D. C. For the reopening of america. Withoutstand that guidance to promote health and safety to travelers, there can be no travel, no reopening of businesses, and no revival of our economy. Right now, the most important thing our travel businesses can provide to our communities is to reopen responsibly and put americans back to work. If these businesses take necessary steps to protect health of the employees and the customers, there must be protections put in place to allow them to reopen with confidence. To that end, we are seeking Liability Protection<\/a> for businesses that are limited, that are temporary and put in place as soon as possible. These protections should be limited to those american businesses that are reopening with accordance with the Healthy Business<\/a>es that are reopening in accordance with the safety and Health Guidelines<\/a> and in faith, to protect them from fairless lawsuits during the pandemic and through a parent of economic recovery. It is important that if these measures are put in force immediately. Without implementation , these businesses may delay dairy opening and further delay moving our economy forward. We cannot afford to delay americas recovery efforts. We simply ask for these measures to protect businesses in making a goodfaith effort to reopen responsibly. As the nation prepares to emerge from this Public Health<\/a> crisis, i would like to thank each of you for your leadership. I am always thankful to be an american. During this crisis, i have been especially thankful. Our american spirit is strong. Thank you for convening this important hearing, and we look forward to working with you to establish protections that allow our travel industry businesses to reopen with confidence. To help power our economic recovery, and to bring back the joy of travel in the United States<\/a> of america. Chairman graham thank you all. Very well done. I will try to keep it to five minutes because we are in the neighborhood of 4 30. This question goes to everybody. I will start with mr. Smartt. Do you believe the country was better off if federal agencies like moshe issued guidelines issued. S. H. A. Tha guidelines that are industryspecific to stopping the virus . Can you hear me . Mr. Smartt i think it is a great question. From my experience and my teams own experience, one of the challenges has been the varying degrees of information. O the answer would be yes chairman graham mr. Perrone. Perrone i do think that it would be better if we had specific guidelines that were connected to the c. D. C. Guidelines, yes, that were enforceable. Chairman graham ms. Dixon. Well. Xon i agree as this will be the only way we can protect workers and have something to hold employers to hold accountable to, the was scarred following. Chairman graham mr. Tyner. Mr. Tyner my perspective, the challenge here is we dont have clear guidelines or rules so we dont know if the decisions we are making are the right ones. So the answer would be yes. Chairman graham professor vladeck . Professor vladeck i agree. I think clear guidelines from provideagencies would regulatory compliance. Thank you. Chairman graham ms. Hill. Sir. Ill yes, chairman graham so that is a regulatory side. What i will do is pass this up the food chain to the administration. The sooner we can come up with a regulatory o. S. H. A. Driven process to allow small and big businesses, essential workers, the country in general, the better off we will be. , we on the liability side need to give people notice of where the cliff is. A bunch of lawsuits have a ready been filed. I am not trying to replace tort systems but you cant have it both ways. You cant have the federal government give every state in the nation bunches of money to make up for revenue loss. You cant ask the federal government to supplement unemployment benefits, which i gladly did. You cant ask the federal government to create the p. P. P. , and then say that we have no business in the other arena, which is, how do you safely open up businesses, protect people from being driven out of business by unnecessary lawsuits . I guess the goal is to define limited Liability Protection<\/a>s and time and scope to deal with covid related reopening of the country and to do so without rewarding bad actors, that is the challenge. Vladeck, i take it you believe that cant be done . Professor vladeck i believe it can be done. I dont think it is wise to do it. The question is, what level of protection . If we want to reopen the economy, you have to give the public assurance. Chairman graham i will ask everybody else the same question. I have put you down as no, we shouldnt do that. Mr. Smartt, how necessary is this . Mr. Smartt i think it is necessary and that is why i am here, sir. Chairman graham you have done it about as good as anybody could hope to do it. I dont think anybody can do what you did, but hats off to you. Dust the are saying, even if i have done as much as i have done, i may lose in a lawsuit. Do you agree . Smart fish i do agree with that. Mr. Smartt i do agree with that. I am not looking for bad actors even though they were grossly negligent, but i am looking for some protection that will limit exposure during this pandemic. Mr. Say your perrone. In, sir thei perrrone. [laughter] a little bit differently. Bankruptcy is not a good option for the worker, is it . Mr. Smartt bankruptcy is not a good option. Chairman graham i want to make sure we dont go into bankruptcy in more than we have to. Some businesses will go bankrupt just because the brand will not be there. But i am trying because the demand will not be there. But i am trying to prevent businesses from going bankrupt because of lawsuits going too far. Do you believe it is possible to navigate . Mr. Smartt i believe if you give solid protections to workers through the regulatory process, it is possible if you do the same thing. You cant give protections to one if not the other, however. Chairman graham that makes sense to me. Senator feinstein . Sen. Feinstein thanks, mr. Chairman. Of them believe they will be sued by employees or customers who contract coronavirus even if they comply with Public Health<\/a> guidance allowed to continue, but how the coronavirus spreads, how could a given how it ll, spreads, nobody really knows, of a uld a customer particular business prove they were infected at a particular business . Cant. Answer is, they the virus is so transmittable, unless you have a situation like had in the meat packing plant and know where the virus comes from. Findingsrk, one of the were, there were people who were house bound for a long time virus, even e though they hadnt gone out. Part of the reason why there almost no tort cases covid19, they are likely to be very few because in order a case in or the you be able to state causation, someone who has been out and about, walking on the visiting the Grocery Store<\/a>, visiting another shop, contracts the virus, there is no going the world they are know, able to say, you its mr. Smiths fault. The data hasnt materialized and i doubt it will. Let me ask you this question precedence for broadly immunizing businesses from liability . No. Presumption. Ike provides somebill Public Benefit<\/a> in for limited liability. The fear of presumption is, im sorts of o bestow all protections on the public in for substituting a solution. This would not do that. Consequences the if f we pass this bill and it were to become law . He consequences of most kinds of torts, what constitutes a gross negligence rather than negligence probably would not be and all sorts of irresponsible conduct. Undocumented people know its bad but dont really care about, subject to litigation, and the cost of all actions, cost of injuries caused would be borne consumer, er or the not by the company. What youre saying is if this bill became law, there would be liability . It would be hard to prove line e there is no right between gross and regular negligence. Either it would mean nothing or everything. I missed that, either it ld be nothing or or everything. Would be in a canundrum. The courts would song that congress was trying to achieve some kind of serious liabilities protection. Pass theu saying dont bill because of the liability . Im saying dont pass this bill the best way to protect to public and businesses is do what chairman graham suggest ago to provide specific detail sectorrelated uidance about how to reopen this economy safely, and if mr. Tyner and mr. Smart and the businessmen in the world follow those guidelines then from re protected rabidity. I promise we wont pass this bill because there is not one yet. And ms. Hill, t im going to start off with a used, at chairman graham certainty in your i would decisionmaking like to hear more about the dismaking process, especially after opening doors, like the situation we have today. Can you explain in more detail how the mere threat of lawsuits a Business Owners<\/a> midst of aking in the pandemic . Sure, ill go first. Think with any uncertainty for looking any time youre at potential cost and or threat, weary and would hesitantly at investment and or any kind of future without certainty. You know, when we look at this, we were, i guess, thinking about more current time. Were not thinking about in the future. Thats why i said in my opening thinking about this as a very temporary and just to give us assurance, were still 35 in fuel volume and 10 the uncertainty of us future is still there for and as we kind of evaluate what there, we have e to take that into consideration. Ms. Hill . Yes, sir. One of the things that weve charlt charleston is fear. Particularly from our Small Business<\/a>es. As you all know in each of your states, its those Small Companies<\/a> that give the unique character that people come from world to enjoy as a destination. I think thats the reason why we talk about it in a very limited way, temporary, and s fast as you can put it into place, to give them the confidence that they could move and open their doors following all those safety and procedures. I would like to sum this up by asking a follow up question. Mr. Tyner could sglujump in as well. Say that this directly relates to our economic recovery pandemic . I would say so, yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Tyner, would you like to come into that . Yes, sir. Absolutely, i agree. In a typical negligent lawsuit such as slip causation orues of proving that one thing led to another can be straightforward, pandemic, however, there is more difficulty in exposure at someones to disease happened in one place of another. The question to you, would clarity from congress or the will it be difficult without clarity, will it be ifficult if not impossible for Business Owners<\/a> to prove that someones exposure didnt happen premises . Eir in other words, arent business wners and employers at a disadvantage without further law . Ity of yes, sir, i would say they are. Yes, sir. They are. Mr. Tyner . Yes, sir, absolutely. We need rules. Hats what were really asking for about return to work. My last ill have to be question to mr. Smart. If youre considered an ssential business, it seems like youve had no choice but to tay open and bravely serve the public throughout this unprecedented situation. Speak a bit more to the risks, whether financial or your business has een exposed to and being designated essential service during this time. Yes, sir. I mean, first of all, we think its a blessing that we were essential. We were able to keep our doors open. It was a daily, weekly conversation, since we do serve a lot of very Rural Communities<\/a> were maybe a Grocery Store<\/a> for the community and a little pharmacy. You know, were the one stop. O, you know, we had to have conversations as we started watched ough this and ourselves diminish as to how long would this go on and how we continue to operate given the crisis . Conversations. We did make the decision to keep them all open. Stores that few were 24 hours and take them from like a 16hour day. But we were fortunate enough to and continue open to be serve our communities. Thank you. Senator leahy . There trying aim on with you . Me . Irman, can you hear never looked better. [laughter] you can hear me. There you go. Said, you never looked better. That was theeling, case. My first year s in high school when i read that was written more than a hundred years ago. Now, a hundred years after that, descriptions ahead. 10,000 meat packing workers have infected by covid19. Workersrts of some line are reluctant to cover their ouths when coughing because they are afraid that missing ary action for attacks. All meat packing plants are bad actors. Think bad actors should be accountable. In missouri, a lawsuit was packing plant a and within weeks of bringing the suit they basically unsafeledged, yes, it was and were going to make some changes. Mr. Perron, why important s an instrument to compel bad actors to change their behavior . Thank you, senator. Absence of in the enforceable regulations, when the workers dont have an go through the egulatory process, that is the only way that they can, in fact, taking place s inside a facility. You immunize the bad actors, there is not that much for them to do the things they should do. I know we have a certain amount time. I was going to ask ms. Dixon, ome people have talked about this wave of covid19 litigation a justification for corporate immunity. Of the only about 6 are 19related lawsuits tort related, and thats what they are seeking immunity for. 6 . Moreover, the corporations immunitythey made this are often the ones that you subjected their employees to arbitration clauses almost know, those are always favor the employer. So ms. Dixon, can you tell us prevalent of mandatory causes, actually [inaudible] mpacts the likelihood of a socalled wave of litigation . Yes, senator. Of uld say that the wave litigation is actually mostly businesses suing other usinesses, and businesses trying to enforce insurance contracts related to the andemic, so thats one important thing to put out there. And when you have forced must go through a secret process with an arbiter, so youre barred from court and we know that employees are being coerced into signing these, if they dont they dont get the job. So would pretty much be correct . That correct. Thank you. Now i have very, very good democrats and republicans, but i hear from my friends all the time. They pride themselves on being rights, of States States<\/a> rights advocates. Were not hearing much about that today. 19 states have passed legislation over executive covid19 deal with related immunity issues, more than a dozen others have to osed various changes regulation. Nd to have a d you want one size fits all to shield bad actors from accountability . To let dnt bit wiser these friends who say, we should and just es rights on . That go on . We still what happened . Didnt nk my chairman like my question. No, no. Its the russians. [laughter] a good question. Being a graduate of georgetown, i do want to ask vladeck a question. Covid related immunity issues, wouldnt bit have the states decide rather than have a blanket overriding of states rights . Federal law . I completely agree, senator leahy. Its the ly since states that are on the front line of fighting covid19. Know whats going on in their own states. If there are liability needed, as that are you pointed out, some states ave already enacted those but this is not a situation where Congress Needs<\/a> to be the decider. The states have always, always developed their own liability rules. Sense now for congress to step in and to change that. In fact, the states are i mean, the companies are trying to follow their a tes law, now it becomes confusing them for them, correct . Yes, thats correct. Okay. You very much. Thats why i [inaudible] senator you very much, leahy. Senator tillis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Who thinks im wearing a mask, this is my panthers mask. Im in my office. Chairman, i appreciate you and i this hearing, wanted to first ask, and im right the name escapes me ow, the gentleman representing institutions of higher learning. Mr. Tyner. Im sorry about that. Trying to get to my notes. Im multitasking here. Spoke with my University System<\/a> president , and some chancellors last week. Already have about a half dozen lawsuits alleging, at couple of cases, that the student was irreparably had to ecause they complete their courses through allowed were not access to the classroom. Have you, with any of your any kind of an increase in those kinds of cases . Senator, thank you for the question. The last i checked, there were about 50 lawsuits like that. Many of them classactions, seeking some remedy against in that context. When the universities were following local orders, and so example where were federally looking for a standard about liability. Were asking to have a safe if we follow local liable. Wont be i first, professor vladeck, agree with chairman graham, there is not a bill were asking you to analyze. A potential issue, and were trying to strike a balance. I was speaker of the house in North Carolina<\/a>. We passed tort reform. Senator leahy, i believe this should be largely left to the states, but now, if we take evolution of the guidance that weve gotten, either from the covid task force, cdc, maybe from osha in and, in e, the states, my state of North Carolina<\/a>, a 550 ed counties and over municipalities. I think what ive tried to do is igure out how we can get someone who has taken reasonable steps from being a subject of several lawsuits. You made the comment of virtually no cases have been filed. Very my staff look it up quickly. It looks like since the first had almost h, weve 30 classaction lawsuits filed related to one or another matter of covid, and then i went on the and i just did a quick services, covid legal and i got nearly 300 hits even refining it. So ive tried to vehicle the balance. I understand what youre saying a lot o believe there is of complexity out there, and if we dont get this right its oing to have a Chilling Effect<\/a> on the very people that some of the witnesses have testified they are looking out for their a business goes bankrupt, those employees are on we have over 30 Million People<\/a> unemployed. Over a Million People<\/a> in North Carolina<\/a>. If we dont figure out some way o provide certainty to these businesses how would you, if you were advising a client, maybe processing facility, thats already 50 down because they cant figure out how to distancing, cial what would you advise a client if youre in one of these areas hightech ntial environments, open up business, or what would you advise them . Answer, i think, is the answer that many other is, esses have given, which we do need real guidance, the ceable guidance by federal government. Federal government ennobodies legislation, and the or mr. Smartt complies, every state recognizes defense, and in many states affirmative defense. If the state of North Carolina<\/a> with a say you comply state guideline you have an immunity from liability, thats that different than the commonlaw today. Ut thats not the federal government stepping in and aying to every state, heres the Liability Regime<\/a> you need. A very ry compliance is powerful defense based on the quality of the guidance. From, is there an expert agency, lots of cases in elsewhere, na and where tort cases fall apart like mr. E business, smartt says, look, weve done verything a reasonable person can do and it also coincides with the guidance that weve received. Think thats the ticket out of this liability crisis. Cases youre looking at are businesses challenging insurance agencies not honoring their coverage. There are a lot of cases that cases, nesstobusiness there are going to be ton of fraud cases. I was at the ftc during the last downturn. I really worried about covid ent marketing of devices and Dietary Supplements<\/a> that claimed to covid. You against ut i dont think a bill from congress will solve this problem. I dont think were looking omnibus. The last thing we would leave with you, 80 of all the jobs in North Carolina<\/a> are created by Small Business<\/a>es. Some of them have spent ended ds of dollars and up winning a case that should never have been brought against them. Here, re trying to do narrowly tailored to covid is we do we get that right so dont have hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know, for a Small Business<\/a>, its already to be confronted with even a five or 10,000 legal defend themselves could, be the difference between them opening their doors again and back. Ing their employees thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, witnesses, why are we here . Were hear because senator cconnell announced this was a red line issue. This issue of liability in the line covid19 is a red issue which he said was critical if he was going to support the individual bill. Covid 4. Went on to mcconnell say, in another separate came tow, that, when it the state and local governments, he thought bankruptcy was an option. Him that i dont option s a very wise for america, for the policemen, firefighters, paramedics and dramatic face cutbacks in those who are working and cutbacks in pay for those who are working. Morning, when he was on the floor of the United States<\/a> enate, he addressed this particular issue. Frivolous lawsuits in the age of covid19. Them as an ized epidemic of frivolous lawsuits, liability minefield, and then he went on to call them a tidal wave of lawsuits. I looked up the numbers as did and let me tell you about senator mcconnells tidal way of lawsuits. So far there have been 958 covidrelated cases filed this year. Those cases were personal lawsuits. Nine medical malpractice lawsuits. The others, 264, were over prisons, 171 were insurance battles as to what the means, but when you consider that weve had 1. 3 americans diagnosed with that only he fact nine lawsuits have been filed, whether they are frivolous or serious, does not suggest a tidal wave of lawsuits. We get back to the point made by the chairman. We address this in a responsible way. Nine medical malpractice lawsuits, 1. 3 million infections. The numbers that ought to stop are the numbers that mr. Perron gave us. Mr. Perron, i have a bias you, as you know. My very first Union Membership<\/a> one of unions working in packing house in illinois and when you tell me 162 of your members working in grocery tores, food processing, Meat Processing<\/a>, 162 of your members 25,000 have been infected, those are numbers which stop me cold. What it was like when i worked there in college, 12 months in that packing house. Hot, dirty, dangerous job on a good day and it hasnt over the years. These workers elbow to elbow, conveyer belt with meat or poultry coming at them as fast as humanly possible. Its just not a good place to deal with social distancing. Sure. For darn i would like to go to mr. Smartt for a minute and say i took the had this morning because we a little more time on our hands to read your testimony in full together. Came im impressed. Association of Convenience Stores<\/a> i worked with in the past picked a good witness the story of what you told about hat youre doing in your businesses at this point is impressive. You obviously give a damn about for you and o work the customer that come through your doors. Ust the list of things youve done but heres what you said at one point. On page 7, this was a challenge guidance provided by cdc and osha as well as state local government often conflicted with one another. Uncertainties y including the constantly fluctuating Public Health<\/a> todelines we began to adjust the pandemic. This is a point made by the chairman. Have reasonable standards that make sense in the age of covid19. You decide whether to put those hand sanitizers or shields and such, there is some guidance behind it. Its not just your effort and deal with it. Its your defense when somebody said you did nothing, mr. Smartt. You did. You complied with the guidelines, and thats where eve got to go with this, mr. Chairman. I dont think thats where your leaders started off thinking we be. D so let me ask this question if i might of the witnesses here. Smartt, if we can come up guidelines and standards that are sciencebased, would that help you in making the decisions to do in your business so that you can say to done what we ve were supposed to do . Senator, yes, thats great question. And i would say yes. Maybe my understanding of this is off a little. Hear the en i conversation about specific guidelines from osha or cdc, that body would be, i guess i look at past, what weve we followed, what we could be liable for, from not guidelines, and whats going on, and still, right today, there are still no guidelines. Were still operating businesses today so were still liable today and how long does those us to get guidelines . Thats why i guess for me, when ere asking for temporary, were thinking temporary through this very unique situation. I wish this hearing was has our government failed to produce sciencebased of work and safety in Healthy Business<\/a> environments in this age of covid19 . Thats the question. We can give you these guidelines and if you show a reasonable ffort to comply with them, my friend, i believe you have a defense to most lawsuits that might come your way. And, mr. Perron, the same thing is true for you. When it comes to testing these they go into the workplace, taking their temperature, perhaps giving them test, and then a Workplace Environment<\/a> thats certain standards as safer for your employees, isnt that what the goal is that for as well in absolutely, senator. Thats the goal were searching for. Uniformity. I would just close by saying, mr. Chairman, i dont believe we bill before us, despite all the conversation, which is a shame. We should. Caution, as the professor from my Old Law School<\/a> said, he wasnt my professor, at the place as he went to school, said this definition of gross negligence is tricky. Protect bad ing to actors. They get off on gross negligent. Actors, only they will be liable under a standard of gross negligence. Together on a bipartisan basis i think there is room for improvement. Too. Think so, just to follow up what i wanted to do, i wanted to find out today. We are where we need to be tomorrow, and how we handle opening up, now, states o right have general guidelines, i guess statetostate. There is general direction from the phase 123, in opening up business, but if youre a business person throughout right now, youre doing the best you and sort of no mans land. I think, mr. Perron, youre dead right. The best thing you can do for your work force is to tell the employers what they need to do protect the workers and hold them accountable if they dont. Somehow flip to this switch back on and find solutions to the dilemma that employers face. Really not being told what to do. To start telling people what to do. Senator lee . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you for being here. This is an important topic. Were going through a difficult time in our country. Something that weve never in quite the same way. Its important for people to toe confidence in being able work,ck to their places of back to school, and in order for those, who run our schools and that, they ses to do want to know exactly what the risks to them will be. Medically, economically, and otherwise. Not essential that we forget in this moment, the structural separation of powers thats found in our constitution. The vertical separation of powers is embodied in the principle we call federalism. Notion that most of our laws apply at the state and local level. Few laws that, by their very nature, need to be they are cause necessarily and constitutionally national in nature. Might like a we particular policy doesnt make it federal. Like a that we might particular policy a lot or deem still doesnt make it appropriate for federal determination. Set this aside, well be doing significant iolence to our constitutional structure. Its important to remember that because, what caused a shutdown, what caused people to place, required individuals to stay at home. It was not made at the national level. Decisions were made at the state and local level. Appropriately so. And so with those people making those decisions, every one of those decisions involves a tradeoff. A set of considerations of lving a complex Matrix Health<\/a> and safety, requiring eople to understand the fact, thats no tradeoff easy here. If we order everyone to stay at home indefinitely that has a not just in economic terms but the cost in human lives give and what we know about people untreated for certain medical conditions. My point is this. When these decisions are made, direct people to stay at home or to tell them its out, those have significant Public Policy<\/a> ramifications. Has always been a creature of the states. A creature of the federal government. S part of the calculus for moving forward, gary herbert, governor of any state of utah, igned a law providing businesses with extensive covidrelated m civil liability unless the tort in question was caused by the reckless igence, misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm. Choose totate leaders provide for their businesses, and choose to provide their own with in their own states similar protections, they may do so. But the fact that we may like or dislike that policy doesnt make it appropriate for federal legislation. Where, then in all of this, is the federal government play a role . And how can do it so without encroaching on federalism . One possibility is something that could be found in allowing for minimal diversity in federal courts. By establishing early covidrelated federal precedence, where we can provide a liability road map, helping businesses and states as they any potential reopening. Long championed the idea that the ability to remove a federalm state court to court based on diversity should be expanded. Allowing for removal in diversity jurisdiction even with diversity. That is, even where not every in a iff is residing different state than the defendant. Federal courts should have jurisdiction over federal an litigant from one state and an opposing litigant is from another state 2019 i introduced a bill to do just that. Court access act. Do you agree eck, that modifying the removal statue so federal courts can cases vil liability involving citizens of different states would help businesses etter navigate the legal risks of reopening and reoperating uring the covid19 Health Emergency<\/a> . Well, already diversity cases provided the resident of not a the state. So there have been other waivers complete diversity, articularly a statute that was passed years ago. I dont think there is a constitutional violation of getting to minimal diversity, diversity would be a problem if there is no federal diversity ut in jurisdiction cases, if we were the pplant or supplement substantive state law of the extent te to the necessary to provide a degree of protection for businesses, could we do that . V. Ther words, post erie tompkins there is no federal law. Thats correct. If we d we be capable chose to supplement the foreign state substantive law to the degree necessary to create a harbor for covid19 . I dont think so. Would be k that unconstitutional because both for federalism, graham, i dont cause would merce allow you to do it. And i think there is serious due problems for congress wiping away liability laws other form of substitute protection. I you look at my testimony, lay out what i think are the constitutional limits, largely the court in its more recent federalism cases, nfid versus i just see a basis for Commerce Clause<\/a> jurisdiction basically away state Court Standards<\/a> without substituting some sort Program Federal<\/a> instead. Okay. I see im out of time, and, i love to talk to you more about this sometime professor. Not sure what the right answer is. It seems to me that if we were o do this in a way that modifies diversity jurisdiction, im not sure we have to rely on that. Ommerce clause for i think weve got authority to deal with diversity jurisdiction separately. Mr. Chairman cornin is going to that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanking mr. Y erron and his food commercial workers. There are a lot of people rhode island e in pursuant to our governors order. It seems our cases have crested. We seem to be stabilizing and announce the to beginning of a reopening trategy, and through all of this, its been ufcw workers who have made it possible for our so forth to continue to flow. Some risk one so at to themselves. Particularly early on when they contagious this was. You r. Perron, a big thank to you, on behalf of all the in rhode island to whom we owe a lot. If youre a Small Business<\/a> and oure trying to figure out how to open safely, it seems to me you want to have somebody who talking t they are about tell you how to do it. And so you look around for guidelines. For a standard of care, of a checklist that you an go through, and sadly, thats what we dont see. For ently, the Center Disease<\/a> control guidance on reopening, but i have never seen it. And the reason i have never seen it is that it was rejected by at white house and somebody the cdc was told that it would light of day. I dont know why would you want to have standards of care, never day. He light of you go over to osha, which is Occupational Safety<\/a> and health gets done and there are regulations. Id mr. Smartt described regulations theague, and ive looked at website myself. Hey are extremely weak and vague and nonenforceable. States, o around to the in rhode island, we have ricosh, network of groups that work with osha around the country. They have been given no guidance all of this. There is a whole network from standards of care, hat can guide citizens to reopen safely and its never been deployed. And where its tried to deploy by lf its been shut down the white house. Vladeck, professor if there were a federal standard cdc had that osha or promulgated and a business had conducted itself in accordance care hose standards of would that be a Legal Defense<\/a> to claim . Ility yes. Every state recognizes egulatory compliance defense, yes, sir. Yeah. Need quote mr. Tyner, we rules, thats what were really asking for, and what i see here failure of theic federal government of this dministration, to propound detailed solid sciencebased rules and regulation that is can uide businesses on how to reopen safely. And so to cover up that failure, cover up that failure en lieu of doing that work, were now weve got to vote for blanket, a nity giant amnesty for people who could be very bad actors. We dont know because we havent seen the bill. Ut the point that i would like to make is that the businesses are asking for standards. A legal ards provide defense, and as mr. Perron, i think, would be the first person to recognize, the standards actually save lives. Thats what this is really about. You get people complying with good safety standards, lives will by saved. So i join senator durbin and chairman graham in what seems to be a very bipartisan push to get the darn standards done, and goofing off. This is time to do that work. We bump issue that insurance. If youre an employee, and you place ofavirus at your employment, thats a compensable is it not, professor vladeck . Should be but it would be under Workers Compensation<\/a>. Workers compensation. O if you made employers immune from employee claims, what you would really be doing is bailing ut and subsidizing Workers Compensation<\/a> insurers. If the statute did not carve might well do exactly that. Yeah. Many companies have liability they are sued,en injuredyou immunized or liability,munized the then youve got liability windfall. Getting a thats correct. Given that there arent adequate federal standards of care and places es, one of the that people turn is to their insurer. We have a wonderful workers insurer in rhode island called beacon mutual that sends to le out all the time workplaces to inspect and advise about how to maintain a safe so that there arent claims. Why would a Workers Compensation<\/a> insurer do that if blanket immunity . Why would they take the trouble had nose clients if they liability left . I suppose they probably wouldnt. Not be an certainly incentive to do that, would it . Would refore, not only this legislation, if it provided create immunity, windfalls for the insurance ndustry but it would also eliminate an alternative source for standards of care and for direction through small given the failure of administration to provide these. Whitehouse, we need to wrap up . Time. I over my i apologize, consider me wrapped. Thank you very much. Senator holly. You, mr. Chairman. Thanks to all the businesses being here and for those who are virtually. Professor vladeck, can i come back to you. Would like to ask if i could about the constitutional limits on the federal governments preempt or otherwise replace state tort law rules. For a second about the guyer case. It constitutional consistent that the government established a uniform standard of care when comes to covid19 treatments, precautions, et cetera, and then rovide an exclusive federal remedy . What do you think about that . Yes, at least in guyer, you had the National Traffic<\/a> through dot the ations, providing public with a high measure of safety determined by an expert federal agency. In fact, you had osha eable regulations by about how meat packing plants standard. Ork thats a so that doesnt raise a constitutional issue. Proposed here,be not, munity bill, thats you know, thats not preemption. A matter of the supremacy clause under, you article six. Its not a matter of the Commerce Clause<\/a> under article three. Two. Cle right. So your point, professor, if i for stand you, in order preemption to be preemption and constitutionally valid you have with lace one remedy another set of remedies. So pursuant to guyer, if youre a ng to, you can mandate uniform federal standard of care, you can mandate a remedy, federal remedy for that or some sort of mechanism for that, and thats one thing what youre saying is, what could be problematic is if you just get rid of all the state remedies and replace them nothing, am i understanding you correctly . Thats correct. Thank you. While ive gotou you, professor, let me ask you this, a question about the mechanisms, way that cases for harm might come to court. Likely opinion, is it that there will be cases that commonality and typical requirements for classactions . Do we see a lot of those, you think, or is what were more likely to see are hundreds of cases. E of individualized do you have any sense of that at this juncture . I dont think youre going to tens of ands or thousands of individual claims because the real problem is that, and senator durbin made this point much more eloquently can, youve got 1. 3 million americans who have to the been exposed virus. A too ofteny handful of tort cases. That . S because the plaintiffs who are injured need causation. He virus is so transmissible its very difficult in the absence of really rigorous Contact Tracing<\/a> to figure out the source of the virus was. Nd so, as a practical matter, the 1. 3 Million People<\/a> that have already had the virus, they are likely to be able to sue anyone for causing their illness. Push back on the idea that here are going to be tidal waves or tsunamis of these cases. This will be a lot of business cases, Insurance Coverage<\/a> cases. There will be a lot of fraud cases. I dont think there will be a ot of individual tort cases unless we get a very, very ffective Contact Tracing<\/a> regime. Let me ask you this. Timeline ow that the of these cases is one thats ften quite extended, by the time that a case comes to trial, if it actually gets tried, if its a classaction, by the time the class is notified, relief is distributed. Viewondering if you have a as to whether there are better egal mechanisms to compensate deserving folks in a reasonable fashion, and in a timely manner, creating the enormous cost in delays that come with mass litigation . Mass, i just mean, not necessarily hundreds of thousands of individual cases litigation on large scale thats going to take quite a a largee, could involve number of people . The people, i think, who have first t claims are the responders. And weve always tried to ofigate the harm to Families First<\/a> responders. The 9 11 fund. For First Responders<\/a> who dont have viable legal claims, we ought to do something for them. We ought to do something for their families, and if an passed, i think one essential component will be compensationrobust fund. If the decisions, that Congress Makes<\/a> is, that were going to away liability for the nations good, then the nation ought to substitute a remedy. Atory sort of like a Workers Compensation<\/a> system is what youre talking about there, that . Ssor, akin to or Something Like<\/a> the 9 11 fund, yes. Right. Very did. Expired. Time has chairman. , mr. Thank you, senator klobuchar. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. To first thank you, mr. Perron. I got to know a lot of your workers, your members, over the last year, and i remember us group of th a big people in michigan, and i just like imagine what this is for you personally, losing 1262 of your workers and what its families. Their i want to thank you for being here today. With guess i would start that. We know that this virus has hit people t line workers, of color, in numbers that are extraordinary. When compared to others in our society. Would be, t question you note that osha has failed to a new enforceable requirement to protect the i lth of our workers, and have joined 30 of my colleagues n introducing legislation led by senator Tammy Baldwin<\/a> of wisconsin to require the Labor Department<\/a> to do just that. Why is this so important . Helpful to is be workers . The guidelines arent enforceable, because iny are guidelines, early on this crisis, the cdc told people not to wear masks. That might have been a mistake, that if we had all wore masks early on, we might the process, and we might not have had to shut down country as rapidly and as drastically as we did. So if, in fact, there were pecific guidelines that were enforceable, that we could enforce allniformly across the way, i think it would go a long way in order to our problem. We heard earlier about a packing ouse, quite honestly, that had not done some of the things they should have done early, and there were large outbreaks there. Now, there is a specific reason for that because of the science packing house. Air a high volume conditioned unit that is humid and the virus stays airborne longer. Now, again, like the professor necessarily tell whether or not the person contracted the virus in that location. Its just a higher probability that it could have happened if packing entered the house. Thank you. And mr. Along those loons you that as t week administration officials, when got the release of the 17page guidance from the cdc on how businesses could reopen, part of this i guess just to get to the question here, how would guidance of federal actually help us, and a little bit of the same question i just mr. Perrone about the osha standards, how would that help s as we look to reopen businesses safely . Senator, for workers in particular, right now, they dont have any enforceable recourse. If their employer is not guidelines, because they are not enforceable. Because ey are injured of it, they have the workers system or they can file an osha complaint but they are pretty much lobbed out other than that. So that will make it risky for workers, who they are making a between wages and their health to choose to come back to workplace. Thank you. Vladeck, i was listening to the last discussion you had with senator holly and that was an interesting point the Workers Compensation<\/a> comparison. Regulatory l compliance is going to be a safe arbor, then that shifts the responsibility for societying these standards to the administration. This is what i was just getting with the two other panelists, pointed out, are not right now. So far osha has issued the andatory requirements and last week they just said the white house blocked the cdcs detailed guidelines. We do if we dont those . Well, then liability cases are all the more important. Only regulate the economy in two ways. Statutes and regulations that enforceable or by enforcing liability rule. Federal , in fact, the government remains off the Playing Field<\/a> in setting these standards, inevitably the courts will do it because have no kind of restraint. Bad actors will then do bad no gs and there will be recourse. Which is why we have the court system. Which is why we have the court system. You, yes. Thank you very much. Klobuchar. Ou, senator senator cruz . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for chairing this hearing. You to each of the witnesses for joining us. Thank you for your testimony. Smartt, as a fellow texan, elcome, were glad to have you here. Can you describe for this the risk, the threat liability, the threat of lawsuits, that Convenience Stores<\/a> face and how thats decisionmaking Going Forward<\/a> in this crisis . Thank you, senator. Sure. Think, you know, daily with the given changes, not only from you know, as we think back to the beginning of his, from federal to state to counties, i was telling somebody earlier, we talked about the stores, primarily because thats the largest part you know, ness, but, if you take our transportation company, who, a driver very well and did drive from county to county, where there were varying estrictions and guidelines, where masks were required in one another, just in the everchanging procedures that were happening was ifficult for us to keep up with. Communicate to our drivers. And, you know, i certainly answered the question of senator graham about the need for clear uidance, and i go back to what mr. Perrone said with the cdc, where you know, we started out where, from hway the cdc, where masks werent two red and lo and behold weeks into it they were required. Find masks when the cdc just told the whole country a mask. We couldnt get them. Just the liability we felt like under in those situations would be an example. So the challenge of running and keeping them open and keeping jobs available, when multiple different standards being promulgated from the federal government, from state governments, from local governments, sometimes those standards are onflicting, sometimes they are changing, as weve discussed, for example, the cdcs guidance masks, where one week its do not wear a mask. This is not a good idea. It is, wear masks, and we dont know what it will later. Ek perspective of a Business Owner<\/a>, what do these guidelines nging what effect does that have on if it the business, and the case you will only be sued if you violate those guidelines, or what is the real risk of assessing at youre in the real world . Well, i mean, the risk of the lawsuit is the cost of especially if there are numerous ones. In terms of the ongoing cost of and the to us omplexity of it, its just an everchanging event that weve been experiencing trying to keep up with the vast changes. There is cost in that. Again, not just to go back to of the ppp y we struggle to get, just the available of that and i would like to say every of our stores is uniform so if you think about requirements, whatever requirement, social 47 stores and ve 43 configurations, so to comply with potential standards isnt like, okay, there are standards and we can all comply with them tomorrow, i mean there, could be a tremendous cost that we would have to go through, not just cost, in the time to get there. When we thats why looked at this or i looked at looking for were just a temporary, i guess, thank you for your testimony and hard work fighting for your Union Members<\/a> and workers you are fighting for. That you agree with me congress has an obligation to work to keep people safe . ,o work to keep workers consumers safe . But Congress Also<\/a> has an obligation to try to encourage as many jobs as possible as a place for workers to go and get the paycheck and that we should be trying to do both of those to the extent possible consistent with sound science. As a fellow texan, as well. Excellent. Let me say the following, senator congress has an obligation to make sure that society is safe and that we do in fact produce a society that would be sustainable for somebodys life. If that means producing jobs, of course it is, but it certainly means that we have to provide a safe workplace for people when they go out and work. That mr. Smart here has done an eczema job in the things he has done in his stores an amazing job in the things he has done in his stores. He is not the person i am worried about. And i dont represent every food store in this country. In thisvery food store country gets an opportunity for me to Say Something<\/a> to them about what they should or should responsibly do. So i think it is your responsibility, not yours specifically, but congress, to produce jobs, and to produce safe jobs for people. We are in agreement, senator. Thank you. Texas is well represented today. [laughter] thank you, mr. Chairman. From one of americas largest states to one of its smallest, no less robust than our passion to navigate this pandemic together, americans watching this hearing and home might be a little confused. There is a lot of legal jargon about immunity, liability, preemption, but it is who should bear the risk and the cost of employees working in unsafe conditions or of customers or visitors visiting unsafe conditions during this pandemic. Some employers have taken critical safety precautions to protect their employees and the public. Mr. Smart, you have now been recognized and complemented on both sides of the aisle for being an employer who has taken appropriate steps to try and set and follow standards and protect your workforce. But demonstrably, there are others who have not. Some employers have encouraged employees to stay home sick employees to stay home. Demonstrably, others have not. That is part of why the president is sitting next to you , the members dying because of covid19. In delaware, there are 2000 members. A local 27 who work in Grocery Store<\/a>s and meatpacking plants. Now some Home Health Aides<\/a>. They are emblematic of the 1. 3 members who are simply asking which they places in can work. There seems to become a mr. Chairman, a broad and bipartisan agreement that our laws should responsible and a responsible employers the same. Actors. Rotect about i would say the burdens of this pandemic should not continue to be born by sick workers and their families. Bereaved families. Mr. Smart, professor, excuse me, president , do you believe the federal government has set clear, consistent, sciencebased enforceable standards for what is expected of employers to protect the safety of their workers during a pandemic . I do not believe so, no. Mr. President . Senator, i dont think they have done that for the employees or the customers. And in the absence of that, the alternative that is being offered by some in congress is a blanket immunity law. How would this new immunity law being urged by some, how would that prevent and a responsible employer who has endangered the lives of customers and employers from being held accountable and how would that provide incentives for better behavior for employers who may be need some encouragement or incentive to act in ways that are more expensive, more convenient, but my protect employers and customers might protect employers and customers . There are a few rules depending on the system for employers. Some employers care about their employees and will do what is necessary based on that guidance that has been released, but we do know there are actors were going to do as little as possible. Enforceable guidance from osha, it is hard to see how workers actually have recourse. Talked about the importance of the hospitality sector in South Carolina<\/a>. Hospitality is anonymously important in my stick, tourism enormously important in my state, tourism. Said we should not reward bad employers, just but employers. I think we have uniform agreement that in the absence of clear am a sciencebased clear, sciencebased enforceable standards, we should not afford that actors with a blanket immunity law. Delaware is one of the countr in leading producers chicken, we have several thousand folks in chicken processing plants. Extract the balance providing resources and support i have tried to balance providing resources and support for processors while ensuring the safe as possible working who arens for folks members and Community Members<\/a> both in the community and at work. What do you think is the most critical, urgent issue that is safetyo address workers and a pandemic where everyone agrees it is a grocery clerks, the food processors, the Home Health Aides<\/a> who are really on the front lines and bearing a lot of the brent of the risk here brunt of the risk here . Think this is a little outside of my link. I think it is testing and Contact Tracing<\/a> so we can determine whether or not these people going back into the plants forgive me, i know that people said taking temperatures, but by the time you take somebodys temperature, it is too late. They are already in the facility and passing the virus around. Unless they do 2 things they keep separate, they wear a mask, they do social distancing. , in a poultryed plant, when youre pushing 140 birds per minute, youre standing sidebyside, you are walking down hallways that when we didilt these plants, not have a pandemic in the hallways are close. People have to stand in line to punch in and do other things where there is close proximity that they cannot get away from each other. Buthere are ways to fix it, they need to be uniform standards and there needs to be testing to make sure that you do not actually end up with somebody inside the plant that happens to be a carrier that is asymptomatic at the time. Thank you, mr. President. I think all employers, all governors, all communities are looking for a faster, more liable access to a higher polity standard and the testing and tracing, and that is wrinkly what we ought to be dedicating ourselves to. We need to demand the as aistration and work nation to deliver the test and the Contact Tracing<\/a> resources needed to enforce it. I will just add that several of my colleagues have commented there is no wave of litigation here. There is no demonstrated wave of liability litigation, but there is a clear need for protection, for customers, employees, and our country. Askednking member had that i introduce into the record a letter and testimony from the Consumer Federation<\/a> of america and others. Without objection. Thank you to the panel and the president. I have had the pleasure of working with the president at little over the years at l ieu over the years. I would like to ask, do any one of our panelists think we do not need a sciencebased requirement that protects workers and consumers . Is or anybody on the panel who thinks we do not need this . Thank you. I know you touched about this on this. You also have to show negligence. As this particular virus that is so easily without being able to show negligence, do you have a play . You have to show causation. Frankly, no lawyer is going to take these kinds of cases on, because the causation problem in most cases is unsolvable. I would agree with you. And also, not only do you have to show causation, but you have to show there are no intervening acts that lead to your injury. In new york, there are a lot of people who got the virus even when they were housebound. So the question of that a devilishly difficult question here. Id think you will see a lot of those types of cases. I agree with you. Think you will see a lot of those types of cases. I agree with you. You did touch upon in your , the kind of harm that would happen if we provide this , it of blanket immunity would create a race to the bottom for businesses, some of them are bad actors and they may do the minimum. Wouldnt this have a disproportionate, negative affect on many of the workers who represent minority groups . Yes, that is correct. The want to expand on that just a little bit more . Yes, we know that historically, certain workers, their work has been undervalued. Those in Meat Processing<\/a> and retail have been historically undervalued and are also heavily black workers, latinx workers, and immigrant workers. The result only one state that does not there is only one state that does not have a Workers Compensation<\/a> law. That law says if you are injured in your employment, you give up the right to sue your employer even if the employer is or there is no health care provided to you. Today, we should bear the risk. What the think is in the best bear the risk, businesses, or workers and consumers . My view is, of course, this here the employers risk with whatever injury takes place. That is how liability systems worked for 200 years. In the case of the businesses, cant they lower their liability risk by following sciencebased and to to be sciencebased really protect workers and consumers. Can they lower their exposure to liability if they follow some type of requirement . Recognizesate regulatory compliance. [indiscernible] mr. Smart is relying on an that isbased standard enforceable by the government. There will not be a tsunami fromdal wave of lawsuits exposure to this virus. The thing i am saying is that there is an agreement that we should have science based requirements that truly protect workers and consumers. I hope that is the direction this committee is going in. Thank you. Thank you, senator. I am the only senator in the room, therefore, i have the gavel. The good news is i will be limited in time by the normal rules. Of my colleagues come back on the other side of the aisle, i will defer to them. Or after i go, senator booker. I want to thank all of you by being here. This panel has been excellent. First of all, let me say, towson is charleston is one of my favorite cities in the whole world. I have been there with my family. We have really enjoyed and learned from its history. I want to thank you for being here. Since my colleague from South Carolina<\/a> is not here, i cannot say that i am sort of trying to get on his good side. [laughter] but very seriously, i want to thank you for your steadfast and ridges and courageous representation of the men and women who do work for us and many right now are essential workers area thank you for being essential workers. Thank you for being here. I want to put into the record 2 letters. One signed by Mary Kay Henry<\/a> and another from 30 unions. Their leaders are standing up, reasonableational, protections for our working men and women around the country. I think the good news for all of us is that nobody on this panel wants the kind of blanket, swee ping shield that would in effect bar the courthouse to order people, victims, and others who have reasonable complaints, folks who are harmed at the workplace, who gets sick there, have legitimate complaints who have legitimate complaints should have access to the legal process, should have regressed and recourse should have regress and recourse. Victims of harm who can be prevented with sensible and reasonable precaution strikes all americans as a basic part of our constitutional fabric. Overreach andhe the overextended blanket immunity would violate constitutional guarantees. I want to thank you, mr. Smart, for being here and speaking on behalf of the Business Owner<\/a> who try to do the right thing and adopt those kinds of rational and sensible precautions. I want to say to you and to all of those businesspeople, you have nothing to fear if you take those kinds of sensible, rational precautions. Sympathetic for your several to which agencies like osha could give you in fact, they have the obligation to give that kind of certainty and clarity to you and to workers who may be victims of bad actors. They could help deter and discourage those bad actors in the workplace, the failure to adopt reasonable and sensible measures that protect against the spread of coronavirus in the workplace. Ask you, you say that you quotingnd i am from your testimony in favor of tailoring Liability Protection<\/a>s so they still allow true bad actors to be sued. If your criterion for granting immunity is whether someone is a bad after bad actor, who decides who is the bad actor . That is a great question. I am not an attorney, but i would say that what we are here today to discuss, and hopefully it would be you, the senate, congress, somebody would set some temporary guidelines that would establish that, again, i go back to a little bit earlier when i said of course, my concern is it something that its something that happened in the last six weeks. This lawsuit may not show for another four week. Im thinking in the immediate and very shortterm, im not thinking in the longterm. I understand you want to limit whatever protections in terms of time. Correct. And i certainly, strongly agree that if there is any move in this direction, very strictly imited in terms of time will answer the question in the only way i see it answerable, which is that decision of who is a bad actor has to be made by a judge or a jury. In other words, youre saying should bectors brought to court, but the only way to decide who was a bad actor is on the facts is a bad actor is on the facts of what he or she does. That judgment has to be made in a courtroom. And if you bar the courthouse doors to a victim, there is no way to hold those bad actors accountable. Plea for clarity and more certainty, nothing in life can be absolutely certain, s essentially to the government agencies, they can provide stricter standards, but also to that idea of, what is a reasonable standard of care . And youre answering that, in a sense, for us, by your actions. You are showing us and the world what is a reasonable standard of care. You are taking precaution. You are providing protective gear. You are setting standards for your workers. And i think that is really by example, your leadership in providing the standard of care. To say we are only going to hold actorstors bad accountable is to say that courts and judges should in fact continue to do their job. Does that sound sensible to you . Yes, sir. It does. I think i have used the word, too, unjust. I guess my fear is that there is an unjust lawsuit that comes up. I understand. And the cost surrounding that unjust lawsuit. A privilegedts lawsuit. I used to be an attorney in my state. I used to be a federal prosecutor, but i was also a lawyer and a private practice. It is wasteful for the lawyers, because it is costly for the lawyers because they cant really charge their clients if they lose. Even for the expenses. So let me just move on to another point that you make. You are a distributor. Wholesaler in a wholesale business, and you have a retail business. Delivering goods to to take any precautions with their workers doing the delivery, so they were fected, and they then went into your businesses, since they were not Wearing Masks<\/a> and they were infected because of the lack of proper precautions, and they in effect cause sickness to your employees and they cause your business to have to shut down, would you not want some recourse . Well, i think that is a very good question. It is a very tricky question. I would almost turn it to say that i had vendors delivering to my store im sorry, i cant hear you. I had a store where there is somebody who tested positive, and i had vendors delivering to my store, so we could have been the opposite situation there it could have been the opposite situation there. Testimony, ithe thought i did everything possible, but we still had somebody test positive that they could have said the same thing about me. The cdc did not require me to have a mask until about a week ago. I guess i am not looking to blame a potential vendor or supplier in this situation. I dont think there has been clarity, and i think given the situation, the very current situation, i would just as for some protection against some kind of unjust suit given the lack of clarity we face through all of this. Moving forward i think is a little different than current to me. Well, im not your lawyer. [laughter] but if i were, i would say you lost millions of dollars in business because you have this service tosuccessful a lot of people who are then going to be deprived of the fresh produce, the gasoline that you sell, all of these really important products because some i dont really believe in this coronavirus thing, i dont see any for s, i dont employee see any for washing hands, and i dont care where they go. Yould say as your lawyer, deserve a remedy. You deserve to seek some recourse, some damages from this guy who has been really a responsible when youre doing everything right. Does that sound like it makes sense to you . Yes. [laughter] it does. Realize itm not i is what we call in the law hypothetical. And i know the likelihood is not high, but the point that i am making to you is that people like yourself, who do what is reasonable and sensible, and i am taking it on your testimony, that it is accurate and true, also deserve some protection. The good guys deserve some protection against the bad actors, and the good guys may not be only the workers who are sickened andho are the families, but the businesspeople who are adversely affected and harmed when others failed to do the right thing. I do understand your point about the difficulty of setting what about actors. I would assume in that situation, if that person, that vendor was truly negligent, they would be a bad actor and they would not be immune from the situation. They would not have this blanket shield of immunity if they were negligent. If they were truly a bad actor. If they were truly a bad actor. If you determine it would be up to a court, probably, right . I would think so. Senator, sorry. Oh, im sorry. I didnt know you were back. Aboutd some nice things charleston. It is on the record. We appreciate that. We want you to come visit, too. We would go back in an instant. We would love it. Bring your family. Think we have a bit of a lag here i think we have a bit of a lag here. May, are you still there . While we are waiting for the college universitys point of , basedow important is it togood science, the best way protect your students and staff, i think that is important in that regard, but in terms of past behavior, because there really is a hodgepodge out of time wheneriod there is uncertainty about regulation, how important is it that we solve that problem by the fall . Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, for the question. It is a great question. One of the challenges of higher it does not if reopen completely, and we need to make it easier to do so. Were struggling with not just but we are and going to have a situation where students return to campus and we are trying to figure things out like the standard of care, the we test of students, are we allowed to, what is the Privacy Concern<\/a> . How densely should we allow housing . What is the density . If i may, if the state did that, that would probably be good enough for you, but somebody needs to do it, is what youre saying. Yes, theres a couple of problems with the state doing it right now in the current situation. One is the timing. We are making many decisions about how and whether to fully reopen and to in campus activities. , ifeed some protection that we follow state and local health rules and the rules that apply to us, we are not going to be liable no, ive got you. What is the standard . One of the ultimate questions, for football fans, is, without Something Like<\/a> this, will it be more difficult to play football . Yes, sir. We should have student athletes preparing to make certain they are adequately trained and in shape if they want to play football in the fall, but yet we are asking student athletes, in many ways, to come in close contact with each other, student trainers, coaches, and we dont know the standard of care. It is undefined. Other tort like situations where we are facing issues that we have faced for many years and the standards will develop. Its a pandemic we have not seen before. What is the standard of care for returning to a stadium that seats tens of thousands of people . Whats the standard of care how close can Football Players<\/a> be to one another . They cant play without coming into contact with each other. Can you see any Major University<\/a> beginning to practice football without some guidance you have just described . I think there will be a range of approaches. Some will, and some will not. You will have people responding to uncertainty in different ways. What will tcu do, in terms of your Athletic Program<\/a> . I dont think we have enough information to make all those decisions yet. If you dont start getting ready through practice, it would be hard to play in the fall, right . Thats correct. Hard to do so safely. Ok. All right. What, im going to give you about two or three more minutes, then im going to shut it down. Weve been here since 5 00 i mean, 2 30. Its been very enlightening. Thank you. Did i get it right, finally . Ok, good. Tell your members that we appreciate what they have done. Mr. Smart, i think youve become the Gold Standard<\/a> for what we are looking for. Thank you for explaining the fear that people have. Thank you so much. Professor, you did yourself proud. We all should get three hours of credit for basic tort law. I appreciate that very much. What does the committee do . Were going to try to absorb all of this and come up with a way forward for the country. It seems to me that one primary goal under this hearing is to forthe standards in place business, for universities, for schools, whether they come from the cdc, osha. They need to be out there so that people can understand whats expected of them. And if they do whats expected, then they dont have to worry about getting sued. The big cold in the puzzle hole in the puzzle is the standards. We have Workplace Safety<\/a> rules for how you do business in the meek plate in a meatpacking plant, but theres no rules about how to protect yourself against coronavirus in a uniform way. Same for a Convenience Store<\/a> or a tourist shop. [inaudible] ok. Harris . [inaudible] she is connected, but there is no video. Senator harris, are you out there . Hi, im here. Can you hear me . The floor is yours. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Essentially, this hearing is about risk and what congress should do during this pandemic to address risk, the risks that many are facing. I think though that we need to be honest about who bears the brunt of the risk at this moment. We have business and corporate interest. Whene other end, we have, we talk about the subject of todays hearing, workers. While businesses obviously should invest in reasonable safety measures, like masks and ppe to protect their workers, businesses should put social distancing procedures in place, even though that may slow down production. But the risk there is perhaps that there will be a slowing down of production or a loss of some profit. But on the other hand, when we are talking about workers, the risk is their health, their safety, even potentially death. While some have argued that businesses need immunity to protect them from lawsuits that their workers might bring for illness and injury suffered on the job, i believe that what we need to do is recognize that the workers also are deserving of protection. In many states, most states, if there is any threat of workers asking for compensation, usually , it is Workers Compensation<\/a>, which states produce and provide. I have a question for miss dixon. In 49 states, employers are required to carry Workers Compensation<\/a> insurance. Is that correct . Thatsrect correct. Workersy and large, cannot sue for negligence there . Thats correct. And arbitration agreements often prevent seeking justice in a courtroom . Thats correct. I think we need to speak the truth about who is bearing a disproportionate risk. Color, areorkers of doing essential jobs. Some would argue they are doing the jobs that others may decide our sacrificial are sacrificial, to make sure people are safe and protected during this pandemic. Timesek, the new york published a story about three hospital workers who handed out masks and gloves to doctors and nurses. We lost all three of them to covid19. What did they have in common, aside from the fact that their job was the cause of their death, they were all africanamerican, nonmedical workers, frontline workers. They were some of the lowest paid workers in the hospital. People of color obviously make up a disproportionate number of not just nonmedical workers, but frontline essential workers more broadly. Is that correct based on your experience . Can you tell us what your experience has been . Thats also correct. I think we have to look at the intent and the impact. We can argue about intent, but the impact of not having enforceable osha standards is that black and Brown Workers<\/a> are dying and that they are spreading covid19 to their families and communities. We should ask ourselves why havent we done something about this, because we know what the impact is. Experience, in your among the frontline workers, what percentage would you say have paid sick leave and or Health Insurance<\/a> that covers testing and treatment . A very small percentage. Mr. Parone, i think you are there . Hes here. Sen. Harris ok. Sir, ufcw represents meatpacking workers. How many have tested positive for covid19 or been exposed on the job, do you know . About 10,000. Sen. Harris and how many have died . 63. Food, that iail keep track of. And can you tell me what are the risks that your members are facing at meatpacking plants and those who are forced to go back to work . What kind of risks are they facing, while we are on the subject of risk . My best description would be, its almost like a stationary cruise ship. People are very close together. They eat lunch together. They walked down halls together. They stand sidebyside. Its very difficult to have social distancing in the present conditions. What has been done is that there has been an effort to create layered ppe, personal protective equipment, to make sure that stillre safer, but it is a challenge because of all the highvolume air conditioning in those plants. It produces a lot of air volume, which keeps the virus airborne longer. Rris thank you. I believe my time has expired. We will adjourn the hearing questions forten the appropriate period of time to be submitted. Thank you, all. You have done the country a great service. [gavel] [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] journalington primetime, a special edition with dr. Leana wen. The possibility for subsequent waves of the coronavirus as a state leaders look to reopen their economies. Also joining the program, new mexico congresswoman deb allen, to talk about the impact on her state. To the conversation. 8 00 p. M. Onight at eastern on cspan. And, after washington journal primetime, todays senate hearing. You will hear from dr. Anthony fauci, dr. Redfield, stephen the currents on National Virus<\/a> response and what the future holds. The entire hearing, tonight at 9 00 eastern on cspan. Our first guest of the morning joins us from austin, texas. He is from the foundation for research on equal opportunity. He serves as their president. Good morning to you. Tell folks a little bit about your organization. Who back said, backs","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia902907.us.archive.org\/18\/items\/CSPAN_20200512_185800_Senate_Hearing_on_Corporate_Liability_During_the_Pandemic\/CSPAN_20200512_185800_Senate_Hearing_on_Corporate_Liability_During_the_Pandemic.thumbs\/CSPAN_20200512_185800_Senate_Hearing_on_Corporate_Liability_During_the_Pandemic_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}