[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE:
PROTECTING THE U.S. STONE SLAB
INDUSTRY FROM LAWFARE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND
THE INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-601 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INTERNET
DARRELL ISSA, California, Chair
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia, Ranking Member
BEN CLINE, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LAUREL LEE, Florida DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts,
Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
Internet from the State of California.......................... 1
The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia....... 3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 4
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 4
WITNESSES
Rebecca Shult, Executive President and General Counsel, Cambria
Company, LLC, Le Sueur, Minnesota
Oral Testimony................................................. 7
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
James A. Hieb, Chief Executive Officer, Natural Stone Institute
(NSI)
Oral Testimony................................................. 21
Prepared Testimony............................................. 23
Gary Talwar, Vice President, Natural Stone Resources (NSI)
Oral Testimony................................................. 26
Prepared Testimony............................................. 28
David Michaels, Professor, The George Washington University, The
School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Oral Testimony................................................. 31
Prepared Testimony............................................. 33
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
Internet are listed below...................................... 77
Materials submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the
State of Georgia, for the record
A letter to Member of Congress, from Dr. Jane Fazio, Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of Pulmonary and Critical Care
Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, and Dr.
Sheiphali Gandhi, MHP, Assistant Professor, Occupational/
Environmental Medicine and Pulmonary and Critical Care
Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, Jan. 14, 2026
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the
American Public Health Association (APHA), Jan. 13, 2026
A letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
Intelligence, and the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank''
Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts,
Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
Internet from the State of Georgia, from the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO), Jan. 13, 2026
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, and the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, from the
Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics
(AOEC), Jan. 10, 2026
A letter to Joseph Alioto, Chair of the Occupational Safety
and Health Standards Board, from the Western Occupational
& Environmental Medical Association (WOEMA), Dec. 12,
2025
A verdict Reyes-Gonzalez v. Cambria Company LLC, from the
Superior Court of California, Aug. 7, 2024, submitted by the
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,
for the record
A letter the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the American
Tort Reform Association (ATRA), Sept. 18, 2025
A letter to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the
National Kitchen & Bath Association (NKBA), Nov. 21, 2025
A Bill H.R. 5437, 119th Congress, 1st Session, Sept. 17, 2025
A press release entitled, ``EOH Professor David Michaels
Briefs Congress on New Silica Dust Rule,'' Feb. 10, 2017,
Milken Institute School of Public Health
A letter to Tom McClintock, a Member of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of California, from the Natural
Stone Institute, Oct. 10, 2025
A letter to Rick W. Allen, a Member of the Energy & Commerce
Committee from the State of Georgia, and Mike Collins, a
Member of Committee on Natural Resources from the State
of Georgia, from Chris Kubas, Executive Vice President,
Elberton Granite Association, and Ross Oglesby, Board of
Trustees President, Elberton Granite Association, Jan.
14, 2026
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson,
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the
State of Georgia, for the record
A document entitled, ``Pioneer in the development of advanced
technologies and materials,'' Breton
A document entitled, ``Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board,'' August 21, 2025, Occupational Safety
and Health Standards Board
An article entitled, ``The Banning of Engineered Stone in
Australia: An Evidence-Based and Precautionary Policy,''
Jan. 30, 2025, Sage
A Case Report entitled, ``Interstitial pulmonary disease and
aluminum trihydrate exposure: A single case report
detailed workplace analysis,'' Dec. 21, 2023, Wiley
A document enitled, ``Engineered Stone (ES) Silicosis
Surveillance Dashboard,'' Dec. 11, 2025, Occupational
Health Branch
An article entitled, ``Silicosis Among Immigrant Engineered
Stone (Quartz) Countertop Fabrication Workers in
California,'' Jul. 24, 2023., JAMA Internal Medicine
An article entitled, ``Silicosis Surveillance in California,
2019-2024: Tracking an Epidemic,'' Oct. 08, 2025,
American Journal of Publish Health (AJPH)
An article entitled, ``Deadly Countertops: An Urgent Need to
Eliminate Silicosis among Engineered Stone Workers,''
Viewpoint: Turning the Air Blue
An article entitled, ``Prevalence and risk factors for
silicosis among a large cohort of stone benchtop industry
workers,'' Jun. 16, 2023, BMJ
An article entitled, ``Engineered Stone and Silicosis: An
Acceptable Risk?'' Jan. 31, 2025, Archivos de
Bronconeumologia
An article entitled, ``Work Practices and Respirable
Crystalline Silica Exposures in Stone Countertop
Fabrication Shops,'' Aug. 21, 2025, American Journal of
Industrial Medicine
An article entitled, ``Artificial stone dust affects
oxidative stress and epithelial barrier in CALU 3
cells,'' Oct. 6, 2025, Experimental Lung Research
An article entitled, ``The Combined Role of Silanols and
Oxidative Stress in Determining Engineered Stone Dust
Toxicity,'' Oct. 30, 2025, ACS Organic & Inorganic
A report entitled, ``Stone Fabrication Silicosis Epidemic
Expert Witness Report,'' Jan. 14, 2026, The Alpha
Consulting Group
A petition entitled, ``Petition to Revise 8 CCRSec. 5204
(Occupational Exposures to Respirable Crystalline Silica)
Literature Index,'' Dec. 13, 2025
A letter to Joseph Alioto, Chair, Occupational Safety and
Health Standards Board, from Rosalie Banasiak, President,
Western Occupational & Environmental Medical Association,
Dec. 12, 2025
A article entitled, ``Pulmonary Fibrosis Associated with
Aluminum Trihydrate (Corian) Dust,'' May 29, 2014, The
New England Journal of Medicine
A article entitled, ``Short Communication: Engineered Stone
Fabrication Work Releases Volatile Organic Compounds
Classified as Lung Irritants,'' Oct. 14, 2022, Annals of
Work Exposures and Health
A article entitled, ``Review: From Engineered Stone Slab to
Silicosis: A Synthesis of Exposure Science and Medical
Evidence,'' May 27, 2024, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health
A report entitled, ``Physico-chemical features and
membranolytic activity of dust from low or no crystalline
silica engineered stone with implications for
toxicological assessment,'' Jul. 15, 2025, Scientific
Reports
A report entitled, ``Engineered stone is now banned. How safe
are new-generation low and no-silica stone materials?''
2025, Adelaide Exposure Science and Health
An article entitled, ``Release of Crystalline Silica
Nanoparticles during Engineered Stone Fabrication,''
2024, AVS Omega
A report entitled, ``Review of the engineered stone
prohibition,'' Jul. 2025, Safe Work Australia
An article entitled, ``Elevated exposures to respirable
crystalline silica among engineered stone fabrication
workers in California,'' Jul. 2025, Wiley
An article entitled, ``Opening the policy window: How
Australia banned engineered stone,'' Nov. 20, 2025, CSIRO
Public Health Research & Practice
An article entitled, ``Doctors call for ban on cutting
artificial stone after reporting first UK cases of
silicosis,'' Aug. 7, 2024, The BMJ
A document entitled, ``OSHA'S Proposed Silica Rule A Serious
Concern for construction Industry According to MIA,''
Aug. 29, 2013, Marble Institute
A document entitled, ``Countertop Fabrication Operations in
California,'' Jan. 13, 2026, California Dept. of Public
Health (CDPH)
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE:
PROTECTING THE U.S. STONE SLAB INDUSTRY FROM LAWFARE
----------
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and
Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Jordan, Fitzgerald, Gooden,
Fry, Johnson, Raskin, Neguse, Ross, and Kamlager-Dove.
Also present: Representatives McClintock and Correa.
Mr. Issa. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone here today for a hearing on
litigation affecting the stone slab industry. Many times, today
we will probably be showing this product that is, even through
Dr. Michael's analysis, completely safe in its current form.
I'll be touching it, I'll be holding it and I will have no
fear. I recognize myself for an--I'm sorry.
Without objection, Mr. McClintock and Mr. Correa will be
able to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of
questioning witnesses. Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for the opening statement. Our
hearing this morning examines the troubling rise of abusive
litigation against U.S. stone slab industry. The stone slab
industry contributes around $30 billion to the U.S. economy and
employs about 100,000 workers.
Stone slabs are used for many uses, but the most prominent
in all our homes would be as an effective low cost, hard
surface in kitchens, bathrooms, and other countertops integral
to both residential and commercial use. Unfortunately, a series
of events, including the growth of illegal immigrants, working
in unregulated and unlawful fabrication facilities, has created
many people who have been injured by ingesting, in an
unprotected way, the dust during wrongful cutting. These bad
actors cut corners in their fabrication shops when it comes to
workplace health and safety in violation of Federal and their
State laws. The result has been a race to the bottom that has
resulted in vulnerable workers at these fabrication shops,
contracting silicosis--I told myself I'd be able to say that--
silicon-related disease by ingesting it into their lungs.
This results from the released and inhalation of silica
dust, a naturally occurring element in many industry and
consumer products throughout fabrication. When it's processed
by grinding or cutting, it becomes exactly what you do not want
to inhale.
OSHA and many State-regulated authorities, including those
in California, have long-standing standards guidance to avoid
worker exposure of this hazard. As a matter of fact, during one
of our witness' times as the head of OSHA, Dr. Michaels was
there at the time which there was a significant reduction in
what would be considered a safe level, and that standard is
still the one we use today.
Reputable fabricating firms follow best practices, this
includes, at a minimum, a process of water to make sure the
dust doesn't accumulate and then the extraction of any
materials and the cleaning of the water. Moreover, many of the
fabricators use state-of-the-art completely enclosed CNC
machines, meaning no one is there during the process and it
could be completely free of any dust getting into the factory.
These best practices, though, does not and I repeat, does
not exempt the litigators from going forward and suing those
people, even though they can demonstrate that they were well
below Dr. Michaels' acceptable level, basically being at the
naturally occurring level and with no elevation.
The option of being unsafe doesn't come without a cost,
companies who implement this have, by definition, higher CapEx
for the machines, higher cost of processing. These best
practices are what people do for their employees. The bad
actors, by contrast, are disproportionately, and particularly
in my home State, using undocumented workers who, in fact, have
no ability to report that they are in fact being abused until
or unless they become sick and then it becomes public
knowledge.
These opportunistic plaintiffs, though, are not seeking to
shut down the bad actors. As a matter of fact, the bad actors
often are not even sued, or if they are, they simply roll up
and go away. What they are doing is going after companies who
may not even have seen the slab, touched the slab, or in any
way, processed the slab. Literally companies that bring
products in bulk, often by ship or rail, and then put it onto a
truck and disperse it to people who do fabricate it or who do
sell it to fabricators are the target. Why? Because they have
money.
This is not a new practice, but it is a practice that is in
fact causing bankruptcy and a reduction in those who are
operating legally.
If you eliminate the people that are operating legally and
using best practices, there's no question at all you, by
definition, are empowering those who will do it clandestinely.
In my own district, some 70 or about 100 miles South of
Congressman Correa's district, is the Mexican border. It is
fairly easy to process over the Mexican border and bring the
product back duty-free, which means if the legitimate players
who were playing by the rules and investing vast amounts of
money simply export these bad practices South of the border
where the protection that exists in the U.S. by law does not,
they will simply be having many people in another country
injured. This and other areas are the reason that we're trying
to both go after the bad actors. Today, in this hearing, we
will hear from those who are being impacted in their small- or
medium-sized businesses by being a target, even though they are
either using best practices, or, in fact, have not even touched
material.
I'm going to play a short video to set the stage for what
we've been talking about for everybody and then I'll recognize
the Ranking Member.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Issa. Everyone, this is an example of a machine where
both waters are being used, the water is being reclaimed but
most importantly no person is there, it's completely sealed.
It's a double-safety capability.
Would you please play the second one? It's shorter.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Issa. Those are masks that are not in fact protecting
the person, there is no wet activity. This is one of those
shops of which there are many, many of them. Dr. Michaels, I'm
sure, is aware of it.
With that, I recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee for his opening statement.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Workers across the country are getting sick and dying of an
entirely preventable disease, this disease is called silicosis,
and it happens when silica dust and other toxic materials are
inhaled into the lungs over and over again. Toxic particles are
trapped deep inside workers' lungs, leaving them struggling to
breathe. Silicosis has no cure and it's a death sentence.
Many of us from Georgia hear silicosis and we think of the
men and women who worked in the mines their whole life. This
silicosis epidemic is caused by working with a material called
artificial stone, in other words fake stone. It makes workers
sick faster and younger. Doctors are seeing patients in their
twenties and thirties, men with families and young children, so
sick that they require double lung transplants. Sick that they
can no longer work and no longer provide for their families.
Sick that they slowly and painfully suffocate to death.
Fake stone produces dangerous toxins when it's cut. There's
no way to use a fake stone slab without cutting into it.
Artificial stone, or fake stone, has a higher concentration of
silica and the particles it produces are smaller, which can
evade safety standards on the books for handling products like
silica.
Why are we having this hearing today? Surely, we must be
here to talk about how Congress can protect workers from
artificial stone silicosis. No? Maybe we're here to talk about
how the workplace safety standards currently in place aren't
doing enough to keep fake stone workers healthy. Not that
either.
Perhaps we're here to discuss how we can make it easier for
stone fabrication workers to unionize so that they can
negotiate better health and safety protections for themselves.
Nope. If not to address the problem of workers being poisoned
on the job, why did my colleagues across the aisle call this
hearing? Apparently, it's to give a handout to a millionaire
friend of none other than Donald Trump.
The bill behind today's hearing would give blanket immunity
to fake stone manufacturers and suppliers, preventing injured
workers from seeking justice in court. It would dismiss the
hundreds of cases pending against these manufacturers. Congress
would make a multimillionaire CEO, make that millionaire CEO's
problems go away just like that. While the workers who cut,
grind, polish, and install this dangerous product struggle to
make ends meet. Struggle to stay alive, actually.
For those of you who are saying someone else is to blame,
that employers are the real victims--real villains, our courts
determine liability all the time, people petition the court,
have their grievances heard and a judge and jury consider the
evidence, and a judgment is rendered. Manufacturers are asking
for a different scenario. They want to unlevel the playing
field even more, one where the deep pockets go to Congress,
Congress makes a snap judgment, and the big businesses never
have to go to court again. That's not how the justice system is
supposed to work, ladies and gentlemen. I condemn the blatant
misuse of this Committee to shield corporations at the expense
of the American worker.
I am not here to give artificial or fake stone
manufacturers a bail-out. I'm here today for Mitchell Boulware,
a Georgia resident who's owned and worked at a stone
fabrication shop for over two decades. Mitch and his son,
Jacob, who started working in the shop as a teenager have both
been diagnosed with silicosis. Because of shortness of breath
and constant fatigue, Mitch is no longer able to work. Workers
like Mitch and Jacob have every right to go to court and ask
for justice from those who caused them harm. It is
unconscionable to propose that we take that right away from
them.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling this hearing, not because
I support this bill, but because this hearing has provided the
opportunity to tell the stories of workers like Mitch and
Jacob, workers who deserve our attention and our respect and
they are dying. They deserve the opportunity, like everybody
else working in this country, to bring their case to court.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the
Chair of the Full Committee for his opening statement.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It doesn't look fake to
me; it looks pretty real. This idea that this some fake stone,
this is a real industry where we got real problems going on.
Everyone wants to protect workers, but you don't want to drive
a $30 billion industry out of our country which is where this
thing is headed. I appreciate the Chair having this hearing. I
appreciate the witnesses who are going to testify, and I look
forward to their testimony.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the
Ranking Member of the Full Committee for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Chair Issa. Thank you to
our witnesses for joining us today.
The House Judiciary Committee of course is not a jury;
we're not a courtroom. When we do our work right, we're
facilitating the proper execution of the law, and the
production of the rights of the people in courts across the
land. That's our proper role. I feel like we're somehow invited
to be jurors today. In any event, I'm happy to learn about a
very serious workplace-related injury that's taking place in
the country, acute silicosis is a disease that renders your
lungs useless. You struggle to breathe as fluid fills your
lungs up, cutting off your oxygen supply. There's no cure for
it. If you don't get a $1 million-dollar double-lung
transplant, effectively you'd drown on dry land. Even the lucky
people who get an organ transplant can extend their lives only
by a few years. Silicosis is a killer. It's contracted when
workers who fabricate artificial stone inhale nanoparticles
that sat on the lungs. They are so small and so plentiful in
artificial stone that they can escape any respirator, innovate
any protection designed for avoiding harms from silica in
natural stone, like wet saws.
Medical experts who treat silicosis patients agree that the
only safe way to cut artificial stone is to wear a full hazard
suit or to have machine-only fabrication, neither of which is
apparently yet technically or economically feasible.
I confess I knew nothing about any of this before this
hearing was scheduled. As I research this horrid disease, I was
pleasantly surprised to learn that our colleagues were suddenly
focused on a severe health crisis afflicting working class
craftsmen across America. I simply assumed they were moved by
the same headlines and articles I was reading, like one saying
Southern California man with silicosis wins lawsuit against
makers of artificial stone slabs, or jury finds stone companies
at fault in lawsuit by countertop cutter sick with silicosis.
California workers who cut countertops are dying of an
incurable disease.
Alas, I'd fallen victim to magical thinking, our colleagues
were getting involved in this rather esoteric matter, not to
help the workers, but to help the industry they work in and
specifically the Trump mega donor is who is the only major
domestic manufacturer of this artificial stone and is working
like Houdini to escape liability for any and all the injuries
caused by the business that it he's involved in.
We are here for one reason and one reason only, because the
jury system and because American tort law is actually working
for the people who work in this field right now. The workers
who get extremely sick and courts are finding that artificial
stone manufacturers are at least partially at fault for it.
What do my colleagues across the aisle propose to do, do
they want to ban artificial stone? That's what they did in
Australia as an inherently dangerous substance. No. Do they
think we should prosecute the artificial stone CEOs for
deliberate or negligent failure to warn workers as Spain did in
2023? No. Do they want to let our American court system do what
it does best and here claims on a case-by-case basis under the
general principles of American tort law and product liability?
No. They want, as I understand it here and I would love to be
corrected; they want to immunize the big primarily foreign-
owned manufacturers from being held accountable for the results
of this process in our court system.
I'll close with this though, Mr. Chair. There was a brief
fleeting moment where our colleagues across the aisle struck
the pose of being the party of the working man. I remember it
well. Donald Trump promised in 2016, 5-10 years from now we
will be a different party, you can have a workers' party. On
the campaign trail in 2024, now-Vice President J.D. Vance told
a crowd we need a leader who is not in the pocket of big
business but answers to the working man, union, and nonunion
alike. Even just two months ago, long after this fantasy had
passed for most people, Vance said in an interview with
Breitbart news we have got a lot of working class voters who
frankly don't care what was Republican words 25 years ago, they
are pushing the party in a different direction.
Well, my friends, if anybody wants to hang on to the fading
embers of the idea that the GOP is the party of the working
class, this hearing should put an end to that fantasy.
Immunizing employer corporations who repeatedly, knowingly
subject workers to the kinds of hazards involved in this
process, and then want to escape all liability, is not an
agenda that would be embraced by the party of the working
class.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I thank the Ranking Member. I will note that the
foreign manufacturers are outside the reach of the very courts
that we would like to have enforced; only a domestic
manufacturer finds himself in that litigation.
With that, I would like to introduce our witnesses.
Without objection, all opening statements will be included
in the record. We begin with Ms. Rebecca Shult. Ms. Shult is
the Chief Legal Officer at the company whose video we saw,
Cambria, a family owned manufacturer of quartz products based
in Minnesota. The products are used in homes, schools,
restaurants, and hospitals businesses across the country.
Mr. Jim Hieb is the Chief Executive Officer of the Natural
Stone Institute in association of manufacturers, dealers, and
other stone industries. He also serves as Executive Director of
the Natural Stone Foundation--it should be institute also--a
nonprofit organization that focuses on education advocacy and
standard development. I will note at this point that we will be
talking about manufactured stone a great deal, but the
standard, even according to Dr. Michaels, is a single standard,
whether it's natural stone or manufactured in a composite.
Mr. Gary Talwar is the Vice President of the Natural Stone
Resources, it's a family owned stone distributor based on
California. The company sells their products to wholesalers and
distributors and is not a fabricator.
Dr. David Michaels. Dr. Michaels is a Professor at George
Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public
Health. He previously served as the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for OSHA during the Obama Administration. As I previously
said, ``was instrumental in the standard that we will be
talking about today.''
Before I begin their opening statements, I would ask that
all witnesses rise to take the oath.
Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or
affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are
about to give will be true and correct to the best of your
knowledge, information and belief, so help you God.
Thank you. Please note that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
In addition to other materials, you may want to submit,
your written statements are already in the record in their
entirety, so I ask that you stay within the five-minute
guideline. The lights give you a good indication of green,
yellow, and red. Even in California we know what that means. If
you get close to the end, please summarize so we can close and
move on.
We will begin with Ms. Shult. We always have to tell at
least one person to push that button, you got to be that
person.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA SHULT
Ms. Shult. That's because I'm first. Good morning, Chair
Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Rebecca Shult. I'm the Chief Legal Officer of
Cambria. Cambria was started in 2001 by the Davis family who
leveraged their experience in cheese making to open the first
domestic quartz slab factory in a small rural community of Le
Sueur, Minnesota. This here is our product.
Our industry and the many thousands of workers it employs,
including the 1,800 workers at Cambria, faces a serious threat.
Despite complying with all applicable laws, including OSHA
regulations, we are under attack from hundreds of lawsuits. The
lawsuits are being filed by workers who have very tragically
developed very serious occupational diseases, including
silicosis as the result of working at dangerous workplaces.
This is unacceptable. Their employers must be held accountable.
Cambria has no control over these third-party businesses
and their dangerous conditions. We don't own them and we don't
operate them. Rather this than hold the bad actors accountable,
the lawsuits are being filed against dozens of innocent stone
slab manufacturers. The wrong parties are being sued. The
lawsuits are overwhelming good companies thought our industry.
That is why we support H.R. 5437. A nationwide ban is also not
the answer to dangerous slab shops clustered in California.
Union representatives at last month's Cal/OSHA's standards
board meeting, which I attended, opposed a proposed ban in
California, because they explained that fabrication can be done
safely, the issue is the noncompliant workplaces. California
jobs are on the line too.
According to the data that Dr. Michael cited, 98 percent of
the 481 cases reported by the California Department of Public
Health are in Latino males. Please keep in mind there are only
a handful of silicosis case in the other 49 States. It is
absolutely horrific that members of this vulnerable workforce
in California are being exploited and exposed to indisputably
dangerous conditions. It's outrageous that these American
sweatshops are not being shut down.
What those of us in the industry know is that slab shops
cut many types of stone, both quarried and engineered or what
we call quartz. When there stones are cut safely, workers are
not overexposed to silica dust. When the stones are cut
unsafely without water, the workers are overexposed to silica
dust, often many times above OSHA's permissible exposure
limits, over an extended period of time.
The problem is the process, not the product. We know quartz
can be cut safely. At Cambria we own and operate three fab
shops that serve several Midwest markets. The 1,000 Cambria fab
shop employees have spent more than 10 million hours
fabricating over 650,000 quartz slabs without a single reported
case of occupational disease. Again, we only cut our own
product. It's exclusively quartz. This demonstrates that quartz
can be fabricated safely. As you saw in the video played
earlier this morning, there are no HAZMAT suits or robots at
our factory, our workers are protected. We invite all the
Members of the Subcommittee, and Dr. Michaels as well, to come
to Minnesota and visit us and see how we fabricate our slabs
safely and that our employees are protected. The enormous
resources required to defend against these lawsuits, coupled
with the potential risk of nuclear verdicts, place an enormous
burden on us.
The legal fees for just one trial can be millions of
dollars and we are currently defending against 400 of them.
Litigation overreach against the manufacturers and suppliers of
stone will not fix the problem of the illegal shops in
California. This legislation should be without controversy. It
restores a foundational principle of American law, that
liability should follow fault.
I look forward to answering any questions that you might
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Shult follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Hieb.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. HIEB
Mr. Hieb. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today and share the perspectives of the
natural stone industry on this important issue. Many thanks to
Congressman McClintock for introducing this bill which brings
fairness to the sellers of stone slabs.
My name is Jim Hieb, and I serve as the CEO of the Natural
Stone Institute (NSI) based in Oberlin, Ohio. The NSI is the
leading trade association representing the natural stone
industry. Our membership includes many of the industry segments
most directly impacted by this important silica issue, notably
stone fabricators, stone distributors, quarriers and tooling
any equipment manufacturers. The average number of employees
for our members ranges between 20-30.
First and foremost, we care deeply about the safety and
well-being of workers, the men and women who quarry, fabricate,
transport, and install natural stone are the backbone of our
industry. Their health and safety are paramount, which is why
the NSA operates a robust comprehensive silica and workforce
training program, which is provided free of charge to companies
across the Nation, regardless of whether they are a member of
our association.
As a result, thousands of employees across the United
States have been trained on silica awareness and best practices
for reducing exposure.
We have also been extremely active in California, operating
facility tours, collaborating with Cal/OSHA and public health
officials and so much more. However, despite our efforts and
the efforts of so many, some employers continue to disregard
the importance of safety for their workers. While we must
continue to focus on workplace safety, we cannot ignore the
plight of those companies which sell stone slabs, which, in my
industry, are quarriers, stone distributors, and others. Today,
their businesses are increasingly facing lawsuits for selling
building materials.
Selling stone slabs does not cause silicosis. It is the
disregard for safety compliance when cutting and fabricating
stone slabs that creates the risk. It is wrong to shift
responsibility from noncompliant, third-party employers.
The vast majority of companies impacted by these lawsuits
are in fact small- to medium-size employers who asked me to be
here today to help tell their story. The story of a distributor
in California facing 45 lawsuits, rising litigation costs,
their insurance premiums have doubled, now they are considering
closing their business after 26 years and 142 jobs impacted. Or
another who employs just 14 employees, but are facing 40
lawsuits. They told me, why am I being penalized by another
company who is not keeping their employees safe?
A distributor in Texas with 50 employees shared, ``We feel
like we have a target on our back. We aren't running a
noncompliant company. This feels like a money grab.'' Another
in New Jersey said, ``We don't have any lawsuits filed against
us fortunately, but we've already been notified by our
insurance company that they will be dropping coverage because
of the silica issue.'' Another distributor shared, ``We have 46
lawsuits filed against us, the financial burden is just so
difficult, we're getting ready to let go 66 percent of our
staff.''
Now, a tooling company with 30 employees shared, ``we're
going to go bankrupt if something doesn't change.'' I would
note that while this bill does not address tooling companies,
nor does it recognize fabrication companies of all sizes, small
and large, who are doing the right thing, carrying workers
compensation, collaborating with OSHA, and investing to keep
their employees safe, I would love to find a way to recognize
them as well.
Finally, a quarrier in Utah, quarrying natural stone said,
``We are facing 20 lawsuits filed in California, and we don't
even sell products into California.'' The list goes on, all
with the same outcome. Companies are being targeted in lawsuits
for injuries incurred in someone else's facility, this doesn't
seem right.
In closing, government and industry collaboration must
continue, bad actors need to be shut down, more enforcement is
needed, trade associations will continue to offer training and
other resources and let the party that is causing the injury be
liable for that injury. I urge passage because it brings
fairness to our legal system. Chair, I would love the
opportunity to work with your staff to bring forth some of the
amendments that I mentioned, and happy and thankful to be part
of this conversation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hieb follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. We always welcome expertise in our ability to
legislate. I know Mr. McClintock would be saying that if he had
the gavel right now. Mr. Talwar.
STATEMENT OF GARY TALWAR
Mr. Talwar. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Gary Talwar and I'm the
Vice President of Natural Stone Resources, a family owned stone
distribution company in Anaheim, California, facing 65 silica
lawsuits, higher insurance premiums and mounting litigation
costs. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share the
history of my family's business with you today, and how the
silica lawsuits are impacting not only us, but the entire
fabric of our industry on an issue we all take very seriously.
It truly is an honor to be here today.
I would like to begin by telling the story of how my
parents came to this country and built our business from the
ground up. In 1980, my parents immigrated from India choosing
to come to America because they believed in the American Dream.
When they arrived, my dad took a job in my mom's uncle's
warehouse doing physical labor, lifting 100-pound bags of rice
and doing whatever needed to be done. My mother was pregnant
with my elder sister at the time, also working for him as a
cashier. She was back at work four days after giving birth,
with my sister joining her behind the register in a portable
crib.
Soon after, my father took an entry-level job at Taco Bell
and worked his way up to become a manager. By 1990, my parents
decided to take the big leap and open their own fast-food
restaurant in Manhattan Beach, California. In 1999, my mom's
brother in India helped my dad get started in the stone
business. My dad essentially became the U.S. sales office for
the family stone factories in India selling direct to large
distributors across the country. I started working for my dad
in 2002 during my school breaks. In 2005, we released our first
warehouse where I was actually our first forklift operator and
by 2008 we expanded into the building next door. In 2014, we
moved to our current headquarters Anaheim.
Today, we have two locations in Anaheim, we distribute from
the facility in Atlanta, and we import about 3,500 different
products from 17 different countries. Most importantly, we
employ 70 great people who we truly consider part of our
family. In short, this is a story of the true American Dream.
That history matters because it explains truly what is at stake
today. Silicosis is very serious, but an absolutely preventable
disease. Worker safety matters, and no one is denying that. The
real issue at the heart of this problem is unsafe workplaces;
specifically, fabrication shops that are not following
established OSHA regulations.
NSR is a distributor. We do not fabricate stone. We do not
operate fabrication stops. We do not control the safety
standards or practices used when stone is cut, nor do we
control whether their shop uses wet-cutting, ventilation, or
PPE. Yet, distributors and manufacturers, many of them, small
family owned businesses, are increasingly being named in
lawsuits for injuries tied to unsafe, third-party fabrication
practices.
NSR doesn't even sell to fabricators. Like most
distributors in our industry, our role ends when the slab
leaves our warehouse. At NSR, we take workplace safety
seriously and conduct monthly OSHA trainings for our entire
staff, as well as annual OSHA audits, not just to confirm
compliance, but to identify areas where we can do better.
The safe fabrication shops follow OSHA regulations, because
it takes real commitment to employ safety to operate that way.
It comes down to one simple question as a business owner: Do
you want to invest in worker safety or not?
Over the past week I've spoken with friends and colleagues
across an industry. Many of them have been named in 50 and up
to 100 different lawsuits. Several have already spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars just trying to defend themselves while
paying higher insurance premium renewals or not even being
offered a renewal at all. Two of them told me they don't know
how they can keep fighting because the legal costs and time
demands are overwhelming. They are being forced to choose
between defending themselves and actually running their small
businesses.
That's what brings me here today. I'm not just here from my
company, I'm here to represent the very fabric of our industry:
Family owned businesses that were built with hard work,
sacrifice, and responsibility.
This past Saturday, I met with my dad at our office. He got
emotional and said to me, ``I remember starting our business on
our couch. And now look at you, you're going to Congress on
behalf of our industry.'' That moment really put into
perspective what this hearing means, not just to us but to so
many families whose livelihoods depend on these businesses.
I'm truly, truly honored to be testifying before this
Subcommittee on behalf of our industry. My hope is that we can
refocus accountability where it belongs on workplace safety,
OSHA compliance and the parties that control fabrication
practices.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Talwar follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Dr. Michaels.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MICHAELS
Mr. Michaels. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Raskin, Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name
is David Michaels. I'm an epidemiologist and professor at the
George Washington Milken Institute of Public Health. The views
expressed here are my own and do not represent those of the
University.
From 2009-2017, I was Assistant Secretary of Labor for the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the longest-
serving Assistant Secretary in OSHA's history. From 1998-2001,
I served as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment
Safety and Health charged with protecting workers, the
community residents and the environment in their obligation as
nuclear weapons facilities.
Under my leadership, OSHA issued the long overdue and
strengthened standards to protect workers exposed to silica
dust.
The message of my testimony today is very straightforward:
Silicosis is a deadly, devastating, and thoroughly preventable
disease. The artificial stone fabrication industry is one of
the most hazardous of all industries where workers are exposed
to silica. There is a global epidemic of silicosis among these
workers.
Over the last few years hundreds of these workers have been
sickened by silicosis, dozens have died, or need lung
transplants. The number of cases is alarmingly high and growing
rapidly. The enormous cost of treating these cases, including
lung transplantation, is borne primarily by taxpayers.
Passage of H.R. 5437 would prohibit lawsuits against the
corporations that manufacture artificial stone. Lawsuits play
an important role in public health protection. If lawsuits by
workers with silicosis are prohibited, these manufacturers will
make no effort to prevent more workers from dying or becoming
disabled by silicosis. We should not allow the carnage to
continue. There are safe substitutes that make equally
fashionable countertops. Shifting to substitutes will result in
no loss of American jobs.
In California alone in the last few years, almost 500
workers have been diagnosed with silicosis, 27 have died, 52
have undergone lung transplants. These are just the cases in
California where there is a surveillance effort to detect new
cases.
There are undoubtedly thousands more cases across the
country since artificial stone fabrication work is no different
in Washington State, Washington, DC, or anywhere else in the
country. These cases are there; we haven't seen them yet.
Now, with so many new cases on the horizon, the artificial
stone industry is asking Congress to prohibit lawsuits by
workers sickened by their product. They blame fabricators who
don't follow OSHA's silica standards. The manufacturers know
their product is being used unsafely, but they do absolutely
nothing to stop it. Other industries that manufacture hazardous
product take a very different approach. They practice public
stewardship, responsible firms in high-hazard industries
consider the risks faced by downstream users of their products
and endeavor the limit or mitigate those risks.
Instead of asking Congress to protect them from lawsuits,
beryllium, and chemical manufacturers work with downstream
users to ensure workers are safe. By doing so, they also
protect themselves from lawsuits.
When dozens of workers in microwave popcorn factories were
diagnosed with a terrible lung disease bronchiolitis
obliterans, or popcorn lung it was called at the time, caused
by exposure to the chemical diacetyl, the industry faced many
lawsuits. It didn't blame the popcorn companies, no. It hired
expert physicians to implement the National Lung Diseases
screening program and provide treatment for the sick workers.
The firmed-replaced diacetyl with a safer substitute. The
result was a win-win. There are no more workers getting sick
and no more lawsuits. The epidemic of silicosis in artificial
stone workers was identified in Australia before we saw it
here.
Australia has not bad lawsuits, after careful study,
Australia banned the deadly product. This forced manufacturers
to use a safer substitute which they sell, and they earn
profits through these sales. The same Australian workers are
still fabricating countertops, but unlike those workers in the
United States who fabricate countertops from artificial stone
and are at risk for silicosis. These Australian workers are
able to go home to their families at the end of their shifts as
healthy as when they started their day.
Passage of this misguided legislation will ensure that this
does not happen here. It promises to be a death sentence for
workers who fabricate these countertops here in the U.S.A.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Michaels follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Issa. Thank you. With that, we will go to Mr.
Fitzgerald for his round the questioning.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. This hearing
today reminds me of a lot of the other hearings that we've had
in this Congress and previous Congresses when we focus on the
specifics of maybe the industry, and not focus so much on our
broken system, which continues to be exploited and leveraged in
so many different ways. The stories that we've already heard
are, once again, testimony to something that this Committee
should be examining, which is fixing the judicial system
instead of going after people that are caught up in it.
Ms. Shult, I'd like to begin from your testimony, you State
that over the last 20 years Cambria has itself successfully
fabricated only Cambria quartz slabs and has done so without a
single recorded case of a fab shop worker contracting silicosis
or other occupational diseases.
You also State that after more than 10 million labor hours
in our fab shop, not a single Cambria fab shop worker has
reported an occupational disease, including silicosis. Is that
correct?
Ms. Shult. Yes, absolutely. I should note for the record,
we started small. The company was not the size that it is with
1,800 employees when it first opened in 2001. We had a very
small fab shop with a single saw. We still controlled exposures
to silica. Also, remember the industry that we plugged into was
the existing stone slab manufacturing and fabrication industry,
which cut quarried stone as well, which has varying degrees of
silica content. One of the stones that is cut now and is most
popular is called quartzite, which is a quarried stone like
granite or marble, where a big piece of stone is removed from
the Earth and then sliced into slabs. That type of quarried
stone had some of the content ranging between 90-99 percent.
It's just not true that engineered stone or a quartz is the
cause of these workers' problems. Of course, their plight is
incredibly sad. Until and unless these workplaces are
addressed, the onuses will continue.
Mr. Fitzgerald. When workers follow OSHA workplace safety
mandates, the risk of silicosis or other occupational diseases
is negligible at best. Is that correct?
Ms. Shult. Yes. We rely, of course, on OSHA, both Federal
and State OSHA, to set the appropriate regulations and the
appropriate permissible exposure limit for the products that we
work with. This is true for any workplace in America, we are
all bound to provide our workers a safe workplace.
At Cambria, we do that in compliance with OSHA's
regulations. We are able to control our employees to look at
exposure to below the action level, which is half of the
permissible exposure limit. Those are the limits that were set
during Dr. Michael's tenure at OSHA.
Mr. Fitzgerald. How many lawsuits is Cambria currently
facing over Silicosis?
Ms. Shult. We are currently defending approximately 400
lawsuits, most of which are pending in California State Court.
While two have gone to trial, it is simply overwhelming to
defend against this numerosity of cases. The chilling reality
is that the lawsuits are doing nothing to address the workplace
conditions. Going after good manufacturers simply is not fixing
the problem.
Mr. Fitzgerald. In dollars, as a result, any idea what that
number would be?
Ms. Shult. Of course, it is hard to estimate, but I can
tell you that it costs millions of dollars to defend a case all
the way through trial. Then of course, there is the potential
for a nuclear verdict. These workers are very injured and very
sympathetic. When they go to a jury, it is a perfect case for a
products liability lawyer to have the opportunity to show a
very endangered worker. They are very difficult to defend.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good, let's envision a world in which
the trial lawyers win a few massive verdicts, and business are
now facing millions of dollars in litigation exposure. What
does that mean for both the availability and affordability of
stone slab products like kitchen countertops. Mr. Talwar, what
are you guys anticipating could happen down the road?
Mr. Talwar. For a small business like us, we are just being
hammered. The misconception in our industry is that big
business makes up this entire industry. In reality, 95 percent
of our industry is family owned businesses, and that's across
the country. We're not taking away from the severity of
silicosis and how serious this is, but ultimately, we're out of
control of how it's cut and how it's processed. Now, if you
take away quartz slabs altogether, there are still other stones
that are being cut, quarried stones that are being cut; those
produce dust. If you're not controlling the actual fabrication
of these stones, they are still dust. If you breathe that dust,
it still has silica. If it you are breathing in silica, the
problem doesn't go away.
As far as the cost goes, I couldn't even imagine a world
where if stone went away and quartz went away, what are you
putting on your kitchen countertops? I couldn't even answer
that question.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. We will now go to the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for his opening round of
questions.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Shult, you work for
the billionaire owner of Cambria, Marty Davis, correct?
Ms. Shult. I'm the General Counsel at Cambria, yes.
Mr. Johnson. Marty Davis is a well-known election denier
and contributor to Donald Trump, correct?
Ms. Shult. Representative Johnson, I'm not here on that
topic today. I'm here to talk about stone and our industry and
what we can do about--
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you about stone in the
industry and fake stone. We give immunity for some medicines
and some vaccines, and those are highly regulated and they go
to market and directly benefit people's health. We also give
immunity to some defense contractors who are creating weapons
for use in war to protect our national security. Are there any
national security implications to the manufacturer of fake
stone, which your company, by the way, is the largest fake
stone manufacturer in the United States by far. Is there any
critical national defense contribution that the company makes
with this product?
Ms. Shult. Yes, first, this new term, fake stone, I'm
unfamiliar with.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it doesn't cure any diseases or anything
like that, does it?
Ms. Shult. I'm here to tell--
Mr. Johnson. You call it artificial stone. I call it fake
stone. I don't think there is much difference.
Let me go to Dr. Michaels. Dr. Michaels, in your testimony,
you discussed how other industries that manufactures hazardous
products take a very different approach than the fake stone
industry. You call it product stewardship; what is product
stewardship?
Mr. Michaels. No, actually that term is used very widely by
the--
Mr. Issa. Dr. Michaels, could you either get closer or turn
on the mic.
Mr. Michaels. Thank you, excuse me. Yes, the term,
``product stewardship,'' is used widely in the industry. The
American Chemistry Council which represents most major chemical
manufacturers has a responsible care program. They recognize
that their products are dangerous, though many far less
dangerous than the silica released by artificial stone. They
say, ``We will work with companies who buy our products to make
sure they are safe.'' In fact, they reserve the right not to
sell their product to companies that misuse their product so
workers will be endangered.
That is a basic principle that many companies follow and
certainly this industry should follow. Obviously, these
products are being sold to companies. Yes, they break the OSHA
standards, but the manufacturers know that's what's going to
happen. In fact, hot off the press last night, the California
Department of Public Health issued a new dashboard that says
the number of factories that have reported silicosis cases, and
its 54 percent of all the fabrication shops in California are
reporting silicosis cases. These aren't bad actors that Chair
Issa is talking about. This is the entire industry, and this is
who Cambria is selling to.
Mr. Johnson. When you manufacture an inherently unsafe
product, and then you try to shield yourself from liability for
it by blaming downstream users of the product, like people who
cut it, and you offer immunity to the manufacturer, what does
that do to hurt the health and safety of American workers in
America?
Mr. Michaels. It is extremely dangerous, because if
manufacturers sold a product that was safer or just refused to
sell it to companies where they know that workers are going to
be hurt, we won't have any more silicosis cases.
Mr. Johnson. You say that there are safe substitutes for
safe stone. Can you go into that?
Mr. Michaels. Yes, you can make equally fashionable,
beautiful, artificial stone countertops, using a recycled class
product, it is called amorphous silica, and it is a different
silica. It is not respirable crystalline silica that OSHA has a
standard for. It is far safer. The major manufacturers of the
world, other than Cambria, sell this product in Australia.
Caesarstone Cosentino, they make this product, you wouldn't
be able to differentiate the countertop made with recycled
glass from the ones made which artificial stone, and it doesn't
kill people.
Mr. Johnson. Well, that sounds like a viable alternative
that perhaps litigation and hitting the pocketbooks of these
manufacturers will bring about.
Mr. Michaels. That certainly is my hope. We shouldn't be
discussing immunity from litigation. We should discuss banning
this product to make it safe for workers and that would protect
the manufacturers and the distributors as well.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Just to make sure the record was
accurate, the Ranking Member said, ``inherently unsafe
product.'' Is that part of your testimony that the product in
any form is inherently unsafe, or that it is possible to be
safe?
Mr. Michaels. Thank you for asking that.
Mr. Issa. You're off again.
Mr. Michaels. Yes, the product made by Cambria as it comes
out of their factory is a slab, it is not unsafe. What has to
be done with that product is to mechanically remove surfaces,
generate silica that's colored with resins which is far more
dangerous than natural silica by the way, into the air, and it
becomes dangerous at that point.
It's like tobacco. A cigarette is produced by the factory
if it sits there on the table unused, it isn't dangerous. If
you light it up and breathe what's coming out of it, it kills
you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Just for clarification, we now go to
the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. Ms. Shult, 400 lawsuits you're
facing right now?
Ms. Shult. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. Any of the plaintiffs in those lawsuits work
at Cambria?
Ms. Shult. No, none of them.
Chair Jordan. Not one of them. Right?
Ms. Shult. Not one.
Chair Jordan. Any workers at Cambria have Silicosis?
Ms. Shult. No. None of them.
Chair Jordan. No one's got the disease. No one's filing
suit against you. Now, the doctor just said, do you guys cut,
grind, and--these slabs that--you're doing all kinds of work
on. At least that's what I saw in the video. Is that right?
Ms. Shult. That's right.
Chair Jordan. How many people work at Cambria?
Ms. Shult. One thousand and eight hundred.
Chair Jordan. No one's got it. No one's a plaintiff.
How about you, Mr. Talwar? Any of your employees'
plaintiffs in these lawsuits? It's mostly happening in your
State if I got the answer--
Mr. Talwar. No, sir, it's zero.
Chair Jordan. Zero? Do any of them have any problems? You
can handle the same product that Cambria handles? Is that
right?
Mr. Talwar. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. Isn't it true, Ms. Shult, that you got a
university--because Dr. Michaels said, ``you guys are the bad
guys.'' You should stop altogether. You get a place where you
actually train people to do what you're obviously doing, and no
one's getting hurt. The same thing with Mr. Talwar, and his
family run business, you are training people how to handle this
product appropriately. Is that right?
Ms. Shult. That's right. Cambria University started in 2005
as a learning and knowledge exchange center for stone
fabricators and installers--
Chair Jordan. Twenty years you started telling people,
here's how you do it. We have got 1,800 employees, you have had
probably people work for you and retire, no one gets the
disease. Yet, Dr. Michaels says you should go out of business.
Ms. Shult. That's what it sounds like to me.
Chair Jordan. That's one of the dumbest things I had ever
heard. Just do it the right way. That's all we're saying,
right?
All right. Mr. Hieb, how about you? How about the other
folks that you represent? Are they doing the same thing that
Mr. Talwar's family run business is doing and Cambria is doing?
Are they doing it that way as well?
Mr. Hieb. I will tell you that there are a lot of
fabricators that are operating compliance shops. They bring in
OSHA every year. Many are now doing medical surveillance of
their employees. There's outrage around the good fabricators as
well that a few bad actors are causing this.
Chair Jordan. Now, is there any indication that the trial
bar bringing these suits are working with these few bad actors
as organized operation to go after Mr. Talwar's family run
business and Cambria? Have you seen that, Mr. Hieb, in your
industry?
Mr. Hieb. What I've seen is that there are a lot of small-
to medium-sized companies who are selling slab material, now
wondering if they're going to be in business in the future
because of the weight of these lawsuits.
Chair Jordan. All right. Now, I think I got this right.
This is primarily happening in California. How many of the 400
suits are in California, Ms. Shult?
Ms. Shult. Ninety-five percent of them.
Chair Jordan. Ninety-five percent. I think you tell--if I
may not have heard this right, but I thought you talked about
the unions in California don't want what Mr. Michaels is
suggesting. Is that right?
Ms. Shult. Oh, that's right.
Chair Jordan. Yes, because I heard the Ranking Member
talking about we need be workers and unions--fine, but they
don't want this stuff to put out. They don't want you to put
out of business. They want to do this in the right way. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Shult. Yes, they do it safely, and they know that it
will cost jobs if there was a ban on this product.
Chair Jordan. Yes, that's why Mr. McClintock's legislation
makes so much sense. I will yield the remaining minute and a
half to the guy who sponsored the Chair of our Immigration
Subcommittee the remaining time for him to ask some questions.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman's recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you, Ms. Shult. You testified
that your single company's facing about 400 lawsuits, mainly
from California. What control did you have over the practices
that caused these injuries?
Ms. Shult. Absolutely none. Of course--
Mr. McClintock. Was it the only role of your company to
sell a safe and legal product to a willing buyer?
Ms. Shult. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Isn't that analogous to a lumber company
being sued because they sold lumber to a builder whose
employees were then injured because they refused to follow
safety laws?
Ms. Shult. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Because of the illegal action of these
buyers, have you been ordered to pay millions of dollars of
damages that you did not cause and had no way to prevent?
Ms. Shult. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. California is a sanctuary jurisdiction. It
controls Cal Ocean. It appears they are just turning a blind
eye to lawbreaking by sweatshops that are breaking our
immigration laws, labor, and health and safety laws, exposing
their employees to the dust that causes silicosis. It appears
that instead of enforcing the law against these illegal
practices, the Democrats prefer to drive you out of business.
Tell us, what's the future of your employees and their families
if this injustice isn't corrected?
Ms. Shult. Yes, our U.S. manufacturing jobs really matter.
They matter to our workers, to their families, to our
communities, and--
Mr. McClintock. These people will all be decimated if this
isn't corrected. Of course, if these sanctuary jurisdictions
were actually enforcing the law against sweatshops that are
breaking our immigration and labor and health and safety laws,
workers in these shops wouldn't injured in the first place. Am
I correct?
Chair Jordan. Well said. Well said.
Ms. Shult. Right. If their employers followed the law, they
would not be sick. Silicosis is preventable.
Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Michaels. Excuse me. Chair Jordan misquoted me or made
a misstatement about what I said. May I correct that?
Mr. Issa. Briefly.
Mr. Michaels. Well, Chair Jordan said I want Cambria to go
out of business. That is absolutely not the case. I would like
them to sell a safer product or ensure that their product
isn't--
Chair Jordan. Just change their entire business, that's
all. Yes.
Mr. Michaels. Every other--
Chair Jordan. Even though it's safe, even though there's no
plaintiffs, even though none of their employees has silicosis,
but change everything you're doing. Such a deal. Such a deal
the smart professor is telling Cambria--telling a business that
is operated safely, such a deal you are telling them what to
do.
Mr. Michaels. You and I clearly disagree.
Chair Jordan. No, no, no, that's the fact. That's what you
testified to. That's why I said it that way.
Mr. Michaels. No, I said that other major manufacturers
have all shifted to a different product that's safer and
Cambria can do the same.
Chair Jordan. Guess what, we want you to change. You can't
be in the lumber business anymore. That's the same argument.
It's ridiculous. Just do it right.
Mr. Issa. Dr. Michaels, are you satisfied you were able to
get your answer in?
Mr. Michaels. It's on the record. Thank you so much.
Mr. Issa. Thank you so much. With that, we go to--who do we
have? Ms. Ross? Oh, the Ranking Member.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very kindly. Well, you can
stay in business that is inherently dangerous if you want to,
the Chair's right about that, but you've got to follow the law
when you do it.
Now, as I understand it, Dr. Michaels--and please clarify
this for me--because again, we're not a jury. It's starting to
sound like people are making closing arguments before a jury
here. We just want to make sure that the law is being properly
enforced. OK. Here is what I understand is going on.
Ms. Shult testifies--and to my mind perfectly honestly--
that they've not had no cases from the fabricators that they
work with within their own business of silicosis, they have not
been sued by their own fabricators. They weren't sued by
fabricators, they weren't sued as a fabricator, they were sued
rather as a seller and a manufacturer, because there's a whole
different apparatus of the law that applies to manufacturing
something, putting it into the stream of commerce, and selling
it to people.
Now, as I understand it, they were held liable in cases
because they did not comply with the duty of care, and there
was a failure to warn. In other words, they were selling to
people without warning of the inherently dangerous properties
of their product. It's like your example of cigarettes.
Cigarettes are perfectly safe until someone smokes them. Well,
if you're the manufacturer of cigarettes, you know people are
going to smoke them.
Of course, Cambria understands how their product is going
to be used, and that it is going to be part of a construction
process. They have not engaged in the proper reasonable failure
warned. They don't like the consequences, which is that they've
been sued for it, and they've been held liable in court.
I don't know what we can do about that. If you want to
change the laws of product liability, if you want to change the
laws of failure to warn, go ahead and change them, and change
tort law, but don't come to the Congress and expect us to
essentially destroy the tort laws of 50 States in the country
by giving immunity to one business because it happens to be
owned by a friend of Donald Trump sues a billionaire Republican
donor. All right.
Come on, this is like ridiculous what we're being asked to
do, which is why we're getting letters from the American Lung
Association telling people not to support this. The AFL-CIO has
sent out a message about this.
Now, to be clear, Ms. Shult, let me just give you a chance
to answer what I just said. You talked about Cambria University
where you educate on the proper methodologies for using your
product. Is that right? Is that what that does?
Ms. Shult. It's broader than that. It's really a knowledge
and learning exchange center where stone fabricators and
installers from around the country can come together and share
best practices. Of course--
Mr. Raskin. OK. Are your buyers required to go through that
process?
Ms. Shult. No. We provide--
Mr. Raskin. OK. You're selling to the bad apples you're
denouncing today, basically.
Ms. Shult. No.
Mr. Raskin. No, you're not?
Ms. Shult. Well, I can tell you--
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Ms. Shult. There are 400 cases. I cannot speak to all of
them.
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Ms. Shult. They were two cases that went to trial,
including the one where Cambria was found liable and has a $10
million judgment against it--
Mr. Raskin. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Shult. --even though the employer was responsible for
70 percent on the verdict form.
Mr. Raskin. You were found responsible for 10 percent. Is
that right?
Ms. Shult. We never contracted with that employer to sell
slabs to him. The same thing with the second lawsuit.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Ms. Shult. We're facing lawsuits--
Mr. Raskin. You were the upstream supplier that got down to
them. In any event, that's what tort law is all about. We're
not a jury. Somebody worked that out and said you were 10
percent liable in that case, and that's what you ended up
paying. I don't understand exactly what your complaint is.
Nobody wants to be sued here, but the alternative is that
we have lots of people who are wronged all over the country who
are injured and damaged.
Ms. Shult. Mr. Raskin, may I explain, please?
Mr. Raskin. Please. Please do.
Ms. Shult. Thank you. The intent of H.R. 5437 is to address
the situation where third party misuse is the cause of injury.
Mr. Raskin. Is there any cause, not the complete cause,
but, there's the problem right there. In other words, you are
basically saying, you want them to dig a hundred percent of the
wrap for it, and you don't want to take any responsibilities as
the seller of it, but that's not what the law is in California.
Ms. Shult. That's absolutely incorrect, Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Ms. Shult. If I may finish?
Mr. Raskin. Please.
Ms. Shult. Thank you. Cambria, according to Hanscom,
identified the potential hazard of respirable crystalline
silica, when stones are unsafely cut in violation of OSHA's
requirements. It's on our safety datasheet--
Mr. Raskin. I have nine seconds left. Here is what I got to
correct in what you're saying. You can't just pin it on the
regulators. OK. That's like saying if somebody drives and
smashes into your car, but they weren't violating the speed
limit, they're not guilty.
Just because you were within the State's regulatory system
doesn't mean you have not behaved unreasonably with respect to
the rights of another person. That's why we have the tort law
system, otherwise everything would just be criminal law and
regulation. It's not enough to say, well, we've got OSHA out
there, OSHA will take care of it.
Ms. Shult. I apologize. I don't follow all the examples of
the automobiles--
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Ms. Shult. --but with respect to cars, we don't sue car
manufacturers when somebody speeds or drives drunk. Car
manufacturers still exist even though people criminally.
Mr. Raskin. Absolutely. If the car is created with certain
product deficiencies in it, and there are liabilities in the
way it's been constructed, the auto manufacturer and the
sellers are all responsible along the way. That's exactly the
situation you are in.
Ms. Shult. I disagree, Mr. Raskin. The language of the H.R.
5437 that's proposed is limited so that we're only seeking
relief from these lawsuits that are being caused by the illegal
misuse oftentimes which might be criminal--
Mr. Raskin. No, you're looking for categorical, absolute
immunity in all these cases.
Ms. Shult. That's incorrect.
Mr. Raskin. When would you be liable?
Ms. Shult. If there was a genuine defect in the product
that made it so in normal use it was--
Mr. Raskin. Under your definition, there's no defect in the
product, right? How could you ever held liable? You're
basically saying you are not responsible for educating anyone
downstream.
Ms. Shult. That's not at all true. We do educate
downstream, and we are responsible for what we need to do. This
is a copy of our--
Mr. Raskin. A jury found you had not done it. A jury found
you didn't live up to it, but then--
Ms. Shult. No, that's incorrect. Mr. Raskin, I don't
believe failure to warn was even a claim--or we even went to
the jury in that trial. I'll double check and confirm that in
my written testimony. No, there was no failure to warn, because
people testified that even if they saw the label, they wouldn't
do something differently.
We know of situations where there are sick workers who have
been diagnosed with silicosis, who have been to the doctor, who
have been told they have silicosis, who are being deposed, and
literally leave the deposition so they can go back to work,
where they are overexposed to dangerous silica dust. This
problem is much larger than whether or not--
Mr. Raskin. All right. You described it as a couple of bad
apples--
Mr. Issa. If the gentleman--I've been very--
Mr. Raskin. Yes, yes.
Mr. Issa. If the gentleman has something new, I will allow
it, but let's be brief.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Yes, I will close with this question then
because you've described it as basically a handful of bad
apples, although Dr. Michaels said that silicosis is showing up
in 50 percent of the cases. That he describes it as pervasive
industry, and that's a question of fact a jury would have to
figure out.
If you know who these bad apples are, if they are the
illegal--even going in sweatshops that McClintock described so
vividly, why do you sell them, why do you just stop selling to
those people, and making sure it doesn't get down to them?
Ms. Shult. Yes--
Mr. Issa. Ms. Shult, you can answer that question.
Ms. Shult. Thank you very much. We have no interest in
selling to unsafe shops. There is no benefit to us. The people
who are making money off the backs of these workers are the fab
shop owners themselves. They are cutting corners by dry-
cutting. It costs more money to do this safely and to use water
properly, and to use the right equipment and to follow OSHA's
laws. Those are the bad actors that are making money off this.
Cambria and other manufacturers and other members of the
industry have been trying to work with the Cal/OSHA Board to
try to get some sort of licensing or certification program in
place so that we can only sell to certified licensed acceptable
fabricators. We want that legislation. It was part of SB 20,
which recently passed it in California, but unfortunately that
certification requirement was pulled from the bill at the last
minute.
We're doing everything we can to work with Cal/OSHA and
other regulators in California to try to promote worker safety
and to try to educate people in the industry about this
problem. The very reason that we're really here today is to
help raise awareness to the problem and to seek relief from
this onslaught of lawsuits that threaten our good American
manufacturing jobs and jobs throughout our entire industry.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you for your patience. It does
sound like it's overwhelming in California--problem. I hope you
guys in California can work it out, and I assume that you can.
Thanks.
Mr. Issa. I thank you both. We now go to the gentleman from
Texas for his--
Mr. Gooden. Can we start the next hearing at 7 a.m., if
everyone is going to have 10 minutes to talk? The first three
minutes of the last 10 was spent talking about how you had no
disclosure, you made no awareness to the consumer about any
safety issues. Isn't it true that there are safety warnings
that you all publish and spread to make sure people are aware
of? What's that you held up?
Ms. Shult. Here is an example. This is the safety warning
label that's provided in English and in Spanish on all the
slabs that leave our Cambria factory.
Mr. Gooden. That can't be right because the first three
minutes of the last 10 was spent telling you how didn't warn
any consumers of anything. Are you lying now?
Ms. Shult. Oh, no, and I apologize. I was confused by the
questions, too.
Mr. Gooden. Yes, it didn't make any sense, did it?
Ms. Shult. Not to me.
Mr. Gooden. You very clearly make a point to say there are
dangers involved with this product, right? I can't read it from
here, but I suspect that's what it says.
Ms. Shult. Yes, it says no dry cutting, no dry grinding,
and no dry polishing. The first thing--
Mr. Gooden. The first three minutes of the last 10 before
me were just a complete waste of this room's time. Because you
very clearly make a point to let folks know there are safety
issues here. Isn't that what you did with that sheet? That's
what it says, right?
Ms. Shult. We wanted to be very clear to fabricators they
should not dry cut. If they want to dry cut, they shouldn't be
in business.
Mr. Gooden. Well, I'm sorry for all the misinformation that
seems to be coming to whoever might be crazy enough to be
watching this hearing today, if they haven't turned off after
the overtime.
I want to go to you, Mr. Talwar, I have seen you writing
down. Can you share with us what's on your mind that you
haven't gotten to say?
Mr. Talwar. Thank you for the question. I am just a little
guy at this table, but I am representing a huge, huge chunk of
our industry that feels that we're put in a corner? How do we
have a fighting chance? A couple of my notes I made, the
cigarette example, there's a warning label on it. Even if you
read the warning label, regardless, it's still bad for you.
Right? If you put a warning label on a slab, if you do it the
right way, it's not bad for you. That doesn't really apply to
our industry.
Another thing is you take quartz away, it's just gone, you
ban it. You do what Australia did. There's still cutting
granite, they're still cutting marble, and they're still
cutting quartz side. There's still dust and silica. Dr.
Michaels said the type of silica, the percentage of silica is
different, but at the end of the day, it's greater than zero.
Even if it's one percent silica, there's silica in it.
If the shops that are cutting the wrong way aren't doing it
right, it's still bad for them. In our industry, with all due
respect, it's commonsense that if you cut it wrong, it's bad
for you. Yes, those are a couple of my thoughts.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Mr. Hieb.
Mr. Hieb. I want to remind everyone that the numbers in
California are rising. Every month, hot off the press, they
will say the numbers are rising. We're over 400 cases right
now. You have to put it into context. The first hundred cases,
between 10-12 of the first hundred cases were from one company.
Let that sink in. Less than 15 percent of those first hundred
employees were covered by worker's comp.
It is inappropriate to say 50 percent of the fabrication
facilities in California have a silicosis case. Those numbers
are being taken out of context. A lot of those numbers come
from a select few number of companies. We just have to put that
in perspective. Is there a perceived epidemic? Absolutely. We
have got to focus on getting shops doing right, operating in
compliance with OSHA.
It is not fair to while we're working with trying to get
more fabrication shops to be in compliance, that companies like
Gary's and so many others that I spoke are wondering if they're
going to be in business next year.
Mr. Gooden. Well, I appreciate you. Sorry for what you're
going through. I hope we get this fixed. I yield my remaining
seven minutes to the Chair.
Mr. Issa. He meant me, but I just want to ask one quick
followup, and whoever feels most qualified, if you don't have
worker's comp in California, aren't you breaking the law? How
do these people not have worker's comp? Mr. Hieb?
Mr. Hieb. In California, there is a fund that is
established by the State that will pay the medical expenses
when--
Mr. Issa. When somebody is illegally employed.
Mr. Hieb. Illegally employed. Yes, the fabricators that are
up in arms about this are just saying just hold everybody
accountable to operate as a legal business.
Mr. Issa. If the State were enforcing against these people
aggressively, they wouldn't--many of these people wouldn't have
received that disease because they would have been in a
protected environment.
Mr. Hieb. That's what we want is we want those employees in
a protected environment, yes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all our
witnesses for being here. Thank you for your testimony as we
consider the legislation from my colleague from California. Ms.
Shult--is it Shulty of Shult?
Ms. Shult. Shult is fine.
Mr. Neguse. Sorry, Neguse is tough to pronounce. Help me
understand--I want to paint a broader picture--is it correct to
say that there is only one large-scale quartz slab producer in
the United States of America domestically manufacturing?
Ms. Shult. No, that is untrue.
Mr. Neguse. That's untrue?
Ms. Shult. Yes, there are plants in Tennessee, and there
are plants in Georgia. There have been plants in Florida.
Mr. Neguse. What companies?
Ms. Shult. LOG, also known as LX Hausys. There are Dal-Tile
which is a subsidiary of Mohawk Industries.
Mr. Neguse. Let me put it a different way, in terms of
market share--is it your contention that other companies that
you're mentioning have similar market share as you do?
Ms. Shult. I'm not saying that. I am not--yes.
Mr. Neguse. OK. I guess my--let me take a step back.
Because I don't think this is something that your company would
deny. You are the largest large-scale quartz slab producer in
the United States? Is that false?
Ms. Shult. I believe it's true that we produce more
domestically made quartz than any other kind of company.
Mr. Neguse. Correct. Right.
Ms. Shult. I would note that the other companies that I
also mentioned also do import products.
Mr. Neguse. That's fine.
Ms. Shult. It's difficult to--
Mr. Neguse. I'm talking about domestic manufacturing. My
assumption is something you'd be proud of. It's not something
you would be avoiding; that you all produce more domestically
large-scale quartz slab than any other company in the United
States.
Ms. Shult. I think that's right.
Mr. Neguse. OK. This bill would give you immunity, your
company--I should say the company you work for--immunity on the
grounds that you've described. I was watching some of your
testimony here in the Judiciary room. That's correct, right?
Ms. Shult. Only with respect to third party misuse of the
product or in the fabrication process. No.
Mr. Neguse. Got it. What other industry has the type of
immunity as a matter of Federal statute that you're seeking
here?
Ms. Shult. That's a good question. I'd say what other
industry that's as important as a building materials industry
and a stone industry with thousands of--
Mr. Neguse. No, no, no. It's not a rhetorical question.
Sorry.
Ms. Shult. Under this kind of threat of--
Mr. Neguse. Ms. Shult, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm
asking you--you're here on behalf your company--
Ms. Shult. Yes.
Mr. Neguse. --asking the U.S. Congress to pass a law that
gives your company and other companies like yours immunity
under Federal law from litigation by countless citizens across
the country as we have heard. I'm asking you, are there other
statutes that you are trying to emulate here, other types of
immunity that have been given to other industries that you're
seeking to emulate?
Ms. Shult. The situation here is that--
Mr. Neguse. There are none? I don't--I am trying to--the
answer is either, I don't believe there is any other industries
that have this type of immunity, and so here's why we'd like to
convince the U.S. Congress to give us immunity, or the answer
is, no, these are the other industries that have similar
product liability immunities.
Ms. Shult. The other examples of immunity, without speaking
to whether they're analogous or not could include things like
the airline industry after the terrorist attacks where--for
example. There may be others. I'm happy to address that in my
written responses.
Mr. Neguse. OK. Well, I would love to be able to review
your responses from you and perhaps the other witnesses.
Because as I understand it, the other examples are few and far
between. The gun industry, which has secured liability
protections from the U.S. Congress, right; the defense
industry; and under certain circumstances, vaccines.
Guns, bombs, vaccines, luxury kitchen countertops, slab,
and quartz products. That's the list that this august body will
have built in terms of giving immunity to different industries.
I don't really understand--I understand the arguments you're
making, Ms. Shult, and the other folks in the industry. I
respect your point of view.
These are arguments that are best positioned to be
delivered to a jury, not to the U.S. Congress. You have ample
opportunity to make the case to juries. In some cases, I
suspect you will lose, as you have. In other cases, you may win
and convince a jury that there shouldn't be disproportionate
liability on your particular industry or in terms of
determining how liability will be sectioned out and bifurcated.
Asking Congress to give you blanket immunity under the
circumstances you are describing that this Congress is only
afforded to the gun industry and the defense industry, which by
the way we should not have done in those instances--that's
perhaps a hearing for another day if the Chair will indulge us
on that front. I just don't really know what we're doing here.
Ms. Shult. Well, I'm happy to explain. I hear what you're
saying. It's unique request that we're making here today, and
that's because we cannot defend against 400 lawsuits. What's
happening in California State court is effectively regulation
through litigation, and it's ago a nationwide effect on
businesses across the country.
That's why we're here coming to Congress today. The
overexpansion of very basic tort principles threatened our
entire industry.
Mr. Neguse. Do you appreciate the immunity--
Ms. Shult. Happen to other industries--it may also be
appropriate for Congress--
Mr. Issa. The gentleman's time has expired. I'm sure this
will be further explored by additional witnesses. We now go to
Mr. Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The witness is correct that
is far beyond just a California issue. There's a company in
South Carolina, Elite Quartz, that is also facing similar
lawsuits. While this issue is new to me and we're studying it,
we appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. With that I am
going to yield to my good colleague, my good friend from the
State of California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Hieb, we've heard that Cambria employees 1,800 family
breadwinners. How many depend on your industry nationally?
Mr. Hieb. We have nearly 2,200 members of which over 500 of
them are stone distributors like Gary.
Mr. McClintock. Well, when you say members, you're talking
about companies. How many Americans depend on your industry for
their livelihoods?
Mr. Hieb. Oh, there are clearly over a hundred thousand
easily documented.
Mr. McClintock. These are mainly family run businesses.
Mr. Hieb. The vast majority of our industry is, in fact,
family run businesses, yes.
Mr. McClintock. What will happen to them, their employees,
and their families if this continues?
Mr. Hieb. If this continues and we allow everything just to
go through the quartz as has been explained, there will not be
businesses in existence five years from now.
Mr. McClintock. A hundred thousand families lose hair
livelihoods. Is this going to prevent silicosis injuries if
these same sweatshops continue to be protected by sanctuary
jurisdictions and simply switch to foreign manufactured
product?
Mr. Hieb. That is the heart of the situation. These
companies have avoided OSHA, avoided other regulatory agencies,
and they will continue to fabricate regardless of what the
rules are.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Talwar, we know that a hundred thousand
American families will lose their livelihoods, we know that
domestic manufacturing of this product will collapse taking
about $30 billion out of our economy, we know that worker
injuries will continue because these same illegal fabricators
will simply switch to foreign manufactured stone slabs,
couldn't that be described as a lose, lose, lose policy?
Mr. Talwar. For a small business like us, we're already
losing.
Mr. McClintock. Well, let's look at the other side of the
equation. Who is enriched by this practice?
Mr. Talwar. The small fabricators that aren't following
OSHA guidelines.
Mr. McClintock. Are undercutting their competition by
deliberating breaking the law while sanctuary jurisdictions
turn a blind eye. Is that essentially what's going on?
Mr. Talwar. Exactly. That's a simple question. Do you want
to invest in worker safety?
Mr. McClintock. Obviously, the sanctuary State of
California is not interested in enforcing or labor laws that
require worker's comp coverage. They're not interested in
enforcing our immigration laws that forbid hiring illegal
aliens. They're not interested in our health and safety laws
that require the safe fabrication of this product as legitimate
businesses employ.
The Ranking Member wished us luck in dealing with this
attitude, and then I appreciate that. Doesn't this affect the
entire country and not just California?
Mr. Talwar. Oh, absolutely. This is a problem that the
entire country is facing. I said in my opening that our
industry is really made of small businesses, of family
businesses, and what this is doing is wiping everybody out.
We're not saying that silicosis is not serious. It is
absolutely a serious problem.
We just want it to be taken care of where it's actually
happening. I'm a small business distributor. Once a slab leaves
my building, I don't control who cuts it or how they cut it. I
follow OSHA regulations. I do an annual audit myself to make
sure we're in compliance because we spend the money and we
invest in worker safety.
Mr. McClintock. You have testified that when those safety
regulations are followed by legitimate businesses, there are no
silicosis injuries.
Mr. Talwar. None that I know of, or none that I have heard
of.
Mr. McClintock. This is entirely because we have sanctuary
jurisdictions that simply refuse to enforce our existing health
and safety laws. Is that essentially what's happening here?
Mr. Talwar. I believe so.
Mr. McClintock. Instead, they want to sue your industry out
of business and put 100,000 American families on the bread
line?
Mr. Talwar. Honestly, I would put it much higher than that.
A lot of today's discussion has been about the manufacturer,
and it's a serious problem the manufacturers are facing. The
small businesses in this country, we're facing a much, much
bigger problem because it affects hundreds of thousands of
families. I wouldn't put it in a hundred. I would put it in
hundreds of thousands of families and--
Mr. McClintock. Because of spinoff, yes.
Mr. Talwar. I've talked to business owners across the
country, and they don't know how to handle this.
Mr. McClintock. Well, so much for the warm embrace of
collectivism. I yield back and thank the gentleman again for
yielding his time.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose does
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee seek recognition?
Mr. Johnson. I have some unanimous consent requests. I
would like to introduce them.
Mr. Issa. You are recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I would like to introduce for the
record a letter from Drs. Jane Fazio and Sheiphali Gandhi,
leading researchers and physicians from California opposing
H.R. 5473 and explaining artificial stone cannot be fabricated
safely. I also ask unanimous consent to introduce a letter from
the American Public Health Association opposing H.R. 5437.
I ask unanimous consent to introduce a January 13, 2026,
letter from AFL-CIO to this subcommittee which highlights how,
quote, ``This bill would make it safer for dangerous workplaces
and farm workers.'' I also ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a letter from the Association of Occupational and
Environmental Clinics to this Subcommittee which states that
the claim that stone slab producers are not inherently
dangerous is false and a distortion of the facts, and they
oppose H.R.--
Mr. Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Johnson. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. I think you are--
Ms. Ross. Finally.
Mr. Issa. We now recognize Ms. Ross.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for organizing this
hearing. I actually like being at the end because I have
learned so much along the way.
Mr. Issa. I hope the gentlelady knows that others may come.
Ms. Ross. Yes, yes.
Mr. Issa. You never quite know you're at the end.
Ms. Ross. Right. So far, two silicosis lawsuits against
stone slab manufacturers have made their way through court. In
one, the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the injured
worker $52.4 million in damage. In another, a jury ruled in
favor of the defendant manufacturer.
This doesn't always go one way, which is what happens when
you go to court and you get the facts and you apply the law to
the facts. Far as we've heard there's around 500 other cases
that have been filed and working their way through the court
system. Dr. Michaels, it's true that many of these cases are
not in California.
I even, a nice little Google search during this hearing
revealed that some have been in Colorado, Texas, Washington
State, and in Oregon State. Dr. Michaels, are you familiar with
those cases?
Mr. Michaels. I am not an attorney, and I haven't really
followed the cases. I mean, the legal cases, that's of less
interest to me.
Ms. Ross. Have you heard about silicosis problems in other
States?
Mr. Michaels. Yes, I have heard about silicosis cases
popping up around the country. What's clear to me is there is a
system in California, a reasonably good surveillance system
from Dr. Fazio and others who have weighed in here. The word
has gone out and workers are being screened, and that's why we
have these hundreds of cases.
In fact, I would like to enter for the record the
statistics put out by the health department that 54 percent of
fabrication shops in California have silicosis cases, if I can
just add that.
Ms. Ross. OK.
Mr. Michaels. We haven't seen them around the country--
Mr. Issa. Without objection, all your material will be
placed in the record.
Mr. Michaels. We haven't seen that many cases around the
country because no one's looked for them. We have no doubt
thousands of cases, if there are 500 cases in California.
Ms. Ross. OK. Before he left, Mr. Neguse handed me some
information about a case in Colorado where the fabricator's
small business followed all the safety standards and had this
wet cutting that we saw the video of and followed what
happened. According to the information provided by Mr. Neguse,
all the workers in the shop have developed silicosis. All of
them. They are now facing a nightmare.
This brings me back to my initial statement about when
things go to trial. When things go to trial--and I'll go back
to Mr. Michaels and your experience at OSHA--courts look at the
different fact patterns in the different cases and render
judgment based on those nuances. It may be that it's one of
these bad actors that we've heard about, but it may be this
fabricator in Colorado where they did everything right. You
just look at all those facts. Is that correct, Mr. Michaels?
Mr. Michaels. That's correct. In fact, it's very important
that I correct what the Chair said earlier, ``the OSHA silica
standard is not a safe standard.'' OSHA sets standards based on
health effects, but also on economic and technological
feasibility.
Just because you're reason the silica standard from OSHA,
it doesn't mean you're safe. This particular type of silica,
crystalline silica that's coated with resins is clearly more
dangerous. Workers get silicosis much more quickly, younger,
and they die more quickly than other workers who expose to
silica.
Let me also, since we're talking about OSHA, I have to say
there's some rich irony here to talk about if we only had more
OSHA inspections, if we made sure these companies followed
OSHA, the problem would be solved. You have a Congress here
that is cutting OSHA as much as they can. The President's
budget is wiping out OSHA.
Beyond that, the cosponsor of this bill, Mr. McClintock's
colleague from California, Mr. Biggs, is the primary sponsor of
a bill called NOSHA, the No Occupational Safety Administration
Act, it abolishes OSHA. For this Congress to talk about we need
stronger OSHA protections, and that will essentially save this
industry and it's rich irony.
Ms. Ross. On top of that, to have this Congress be giving
immunity when we know that a product has resulted in so many
people having such a serious injury in the workplace, that's
another rich irony. Thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Issa. Of course. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
I have got a couple of things. You have UC?
Mr. Raskin. A UC, if it's OK.
Mr. Issa. I recognize you for a UC.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, kindly, Mr. Chair. This is from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles filed
August 7, 2024, finding as to plaintiff Gustavo Reyes Gonzales
for products liability, failure to warn, we find in favor of
the plaintiff against Cambria Company. Both in--
Mr. Issa. Without objection, that will be admitted too.
Mr. Raskin. My colleague excited me for raising the failure
to warn. That's precisely what the guilty verdict was about.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Issa. OK, the--
Ms. Shult. I apologize. If I may clarify one thing, I was
going to anyway, is that our failure to warn did go to the
verdict, to the jury in that first place, is on appeal now.
That's probably why I misspoke in addition to the fact that it
followed some statements about us never warning about anything
at all, which just isn't true.
Mr. Raskin. I never said that, so please retract that, too.
Mr. Issa. OK. We'll let the record speak for itself, but I
thank the gentleman for placing that in the record.
Mr. Raskin. We will indeed.
Mr. Issa. With that, I'd ask unanimous consent that letters
in support of this legislation, including the American Tort
Reform Association, the National Kitchen and Bath Industry,
that's hundreds of thousands of people over and above those
you're counting, the Natural Stone Institute, the Granite
Association, Inc.
Then, I would also like to place into the record for
reference the actual bill, H.R. 5437, so that we all have it,
if I failed to do that at the beginning.
Last, I want to place into the record from the Milken
Institute School of Public Health a press release, their press
statement that says David Michaels briefs Congress on new
silica dust that ruled in which he says, and I quote, ``the
previous exposure limits were outdated and did not adequately
protect workers.''
Michaels commented when introducing his new rule,
``Occupational exposure to silica dust occurs when workers cut,
saw, drill, or crush concrete, brick, ceramic tiles, rock, and
stone products.''
I just want to make sure that your testimony or your quote
in that case is, particularly, because of both natural and
manufactured that you spoke on at that time.
With that, I have the privilege as the unanimous consent
went of recognizing for his own five minutes, Mr. McClintock.
It may not be the practice, but it was a unanimous consent.
If Mr. Correa is here, he'll be recognized. The gentleman
is recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to make
it clear, no one opposes health and safety regulations. Dr.
Michaels, the opposition is to the combination of Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial powers in the same hands. Madison
called this the very foundation of tyranny. One of the
objectives of those of us who believe in the Constitution is
restore those guardrails between those three very distinct
functions of government.
Ms. Shult, Cambria not only manufactures themselves to
third parties, but it also fabricates product itself. Does it
not?
Ms. Shult. Yes, that's right now workers are protected when
we follow OSHA's regulations and requirements, which we do. Our
workers are safe ad protected. In fact, our CEO's own children
work on the floor of our slab shops.
Mr. McClintock. It's because you fabricate according to all
the health and safety laws. You have not had any injuries as a
result of fabrication.
Ms. Shult. That's right.
Mr. McClintock. The Ranking Member just introduced an
article that contends there's no safe way to fabricate your
product. We've heard from the Democrats that it's inherently
dangerous. How does this comport with actual experience?
Ms. Shult. Yes, from our real-world experience and
industry, fabricating exclusively quartz surfaces, we know that
workers can be protected by following OSHA's regulation and
controlling silica exposure to below the permissible exposure
limit. In fact, at our shops, we control exposures below the
action level which is half of the PEL.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Hieb.
Mr. Hieb. We have many fabrication companies all over the
country that are in compliance with OSHA with no cases of
silicosis, with employees that have worked for them for 10
years, 20 years, or 30 years. We have companies that exist in
the Midwest that have not had a case of silicosis in over 50
years. It is really important to acknowledge there are few bad
actors that are causing this.
Also, in California, as Ms. Shult already referenced, we as
industry tried to collaborate with the State of California to
set up a licensure program so that there would be a complete
vetting process that only the good fabricators could, in fact,
secure the product and prove that it's being fabricated safely.
All that SB 20 did was say it's illegal to dry cut, which we
support, but we want them to do the next step.
Industry will continue to be front and center helping
government, working with government. There are two issues here:
The bad actors for fabrication and the unfortunate impact of
these lawsuits impacting companies like Gary's, and many of the
small employers that I spoke about.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Talwar, what are your experiences?
Mr. Talwar. The issue to us is it comes down to the same
thing is we know it can be done right. If it's done right,
there's no problem. We've hammered that home. As far as a small
business, I bring product in, I put it in a warehouse, and I
ship it out. Once it leaves my warehouse, I don't know who cuts
it, how they cut it, or what happens. There are hundreds of
maybe thousands of companies across the country, just like
myself, that are being hammered with lawsuits. We don't know
how to fight for our--we're fighting for our lives, and we
can't afford it anymore.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Shult, the equipment to protect your
workers that we saw in the video looks rather expensive, is it
not?
Ms. Shult. Well, safety precautions are integrated into the
equipment itself. So.
Mr. McClintock. It's expensive. You have to invest in that
shielded and water-protected system, correct?
Ms. Shult. The shielded system is not the key. The key is
the use of water and that can be achieved through small
handheld devices, equipment, and tools that are available to
fabricators. We teach how to use those smaller saws at Cambria
University.
Mr. McClintock. Well, I assume--why is it then that these
illegal fabricators are not using this?
Ms. Shult. I really don't know. It's seemingly--they're
cutting corners, and they are--
Mr. McClintock. They are saving money by not protecting
their workers with these basic precautions. I assume that gives
them a competitive advantage over the--
Ms. Shult. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. --over the legitimate fabricators that are
employing these processes.
Ms. Shult. Yes, they're putting profits above people, and
then we get to see other--
Mr. McClintock. That seems to be the side that the
Democrats have chosen in this fight which I find rather
strange. The Democrats have repeatedly referenced Donald Trump
because one of his supporters owns one of the companies. I
assume that's Cambria that's affected. Do you get the
impression that a lot of this is political, and that some of
our members are missing the big picture of what this is doing
to the livelihoods and safety of tens of thousands of American
workers?
Ms. Shult. I'm afraid so. We should prioritize worker
safety over politics.
Mr. McClintock. I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. I will note for the record
that the general waiver that I asked for under unanimous
consent, the Minority did not understand the broadness of it.
To make things equal under the intent, we will consider that I
actually yielded to Mr. McClintock my five minutes.
I now ask unanimous consent that we have an additional five
minutes per side as a second round, if the witnesses can remain
that long. Without objection, so ordered. The Ranking Member is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Michaels, I've heard
arguments today that we should grant manufacturers' immunity
from liability because artificial stone slab products are not
inherently dangerous when they enter commerce.
Now, I don't believe it's Congress' job to litigate
products liability cases, but since it appears relevant to this
question of immunity, fake stone slabs have over 90 percent
crystalline silica, topic metals, and toxic resins in them,
which generate poisonous, carcinogenic dust during the
fabrication process.
Artificial stone slabs are produced solely for the purpose
of alteration. Are there any uses for an artificial stone slab
that doesn't involve cutting it?
Mr. Michaels. No.
Mr. Johnson. If the artificial stone product makes the air
around it unsafe when cut, isn't that just another way of
calling the product itself unsafe?
Mr. Michaels. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. Dr. Michaels, medical professionals in
Australia warned that it could become the next asbestos without
intervention. What do scientists mean when they refer to
something as the next asbestos or next asbestos, and are they
correct?
Mr. Michaels. Yes, asbestos is an amazing mineral that's
used as an insulator for fire proofing. It was very clear in
the early part of the last century, even before that breathing
asbestos causes a terrible lung disease we call asbestosis.
The industry for many years tried to deny that to try to
hide it; make sure studies weren't done. The result is that we
had millions of workers exposed, and huge numbers of them
developed lung disease and lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other
conditions.
Eventually, because of their really poor judgment and not
warning people, just selling it widely, most of those companies
were sued. Actually, they went out of business. They were found
by jurors over and over again to have essentially covered up
what the problems were and not sufficiently warning these
people. We had tens of thousands of deaths as a result of
asbestos exposure. We don't want that to happen again.
Mr. Johnson. Well, what did the litigation response to the
asbestos public health crisis, what did it result in? What
other ramifications and--
Mr. Michaels. Well, certainly, it raised the issue
tremendously. A lot of companies stopped using asbestos. The
secondary companies, the companies that would use asbestos in
other materials--in gaskets and brake shoes--they said we can't
use asbestos anymore, and they found substitutes.
Litigation is like regulation in that it drives technology.
Companies that don't want to be involved in litigation would
find better products, safer products, and then substitute.
That's what will happen here when companies say it's too
dangerous to use artificial stone. Let's move to a more
facilico, which is recycled glass. We'll make a product that's
equally beautiful, equally fashionable, but doesn't kill
workers.
Mr. Johnson. Well, that would be a product that Mr. Talwar
and his firm could distribute. Mr. Hieb, all his members could
distribute. It's something that, Ms. Shult, your company could
manufacture, isn't that correct? A safer product?
Ms. Shult. No, our product is safe.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Ms. Shult. The issue is when unsafe fabrication practices
are used in violation of OSHA's laws.
Mr. Johnson. The evidence is clear that engineered stone
containing crystalline silica is too toxic to fabricate and
safely install. Education and enforcement alone will probably
not be sufficient to curtail the escalating occupational health
emergency that is being caused by this product. You would
disagree with that statement?
Ms. Shult. Yes, what needs to happen is the unsafe
workplaces need to end.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask Dr. Michaels then. Dr. Michaels,
would you disagree with that statement?
Mr. Michaels. I would not disagree with that statement. It
can be done safely. An enclosed environment cost millions of
dollars to set that up. We're not going to make new countertops
for the country in these very, very expensive facilities.
That's just not going to happen.
Mr. Johnson. What would immunity do for this industry to
the public health of this country and the cost to the
taxpayers?
Mr. Michaels. It is all bets are off. There's no stopping
the number of silicosis cases we'll see around the country.
Putting aside litigation, these cases are being paid for the
Medicaid system, by VA. Lung transplants cost over a million
dollars each. We've got dozens of them in California already,
and they're being picked up by Medi-Cal. It's going to impact
hospitals and the public health system. Of course, it's going
to make many people sick.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Talwar, briefly. You have been holding up
your hand.
Mr. Talwar. Dr. Michaels said that I could easily switch
over to recycled glass. In actuality, less than one percent of
my sales are artificial stone or quartz. That is less than one
percent is going to put me out of business potentially. These
cases have expanded to stone as well, not just artificial
quartz.
If you look at the hallways in this building that we're
walking on, it's marble. That also has silica. When you cut
that, it's not a countertop, as Dr. Michaels said, that's floor
tile. When you cut that, and you cut it wrong, that will have
dust, and it will have the same effects, too.
Mr. Issa. I will now recognize myself. Dr. Michaels, in
this statement I put in the record earlier, you didn't say
manufactured stone, you said glass, pottery, concrete products,
sand in large quantity, and marble obviously would be in there.
All these can exceed the OSHA guidelines if crushed or used
incorrectly. Correct?
Mr. Michaels. Yes.
Mr. Issa. OK. We get rid of this industry. We're not
getting rid of concrete, sand, pottery, and the like. Really,
it is a question, even in your opinion, that what we have to do
is ensure that OSHA standards are met on the job site. Is that
right?
Mr. Michaels. That's a piece of it. Though, what--
Mr. Issa. Well, no, no, no. That seems to be--the piece of
it is that no one in compliant industries, as far as we've
heard in testimony today, under oath, no one has contracted
this disease. Yet, in those 54 percent of California job sites,
the vast majority of them appear to be illegal using illegals,
in fact, abusing primarily Latinos who have come to this
country looking for work.
They find work in these sweatshops, and they're too
desperate to say no. I share the union's objections to the idea
that these unprotected workers are there. Are you going to
protect them or anyone including concrete and other marble? Are
you going to protect them by simply saying let's sue the marble
manufacturer, the concrete manufacturer? I will say here today,
Dr. Michaels, you appear to be supporting the idea of
eliminating something that when you had the chance you set a
standard.
I'm sorry, but OSHA standards are based on safety in the
workplace. Manufacturers, production, including my own when I
was a manufacturer, we rely on those standards to make sure
that we're below them, the decibel level, and everything else.
I'm a big believer that OSHA guidelines, when implemented, do
make the workplace safe. If they don't, then it's your job to
lower.
I find it amazing that just a few years ago you set a
standard, and today the standard is zero. Unfortunately,
actually, Ms. Shult, because I have a couple questions for you,
the standard of zero, if you switched, wouldn't be achieved in
any product, would it, that would be hard-surfaced--
Mr. Michaels. May I respond to what you've said?
Mr. Issa. I'll get back to you.
Mr. Michaels. OK.
Mr. Issa. Is the standard of zero that Dr. Michaels is
implying, if you only worked with marble, you wouldn't meet
that standard or at least people fabricating in dry cutting
wouldn't meet it. They wouldn't meet it in granite. They
wouldn't meet it in concrete. All of that is true, right?
Ms. Shult. Right. Workers are grossly overexposed through
the dry cutting process.
Mr. Issa. Are they currently suing, to your knowledge, the
concrete manufacturers?
Ms. Shult. Not the concrete manufacturers.
Mr. Issa. They are, Mr. Hieb, they are now getting into the
other stone manufacturers, right? They're going after natural
stone.
Mr. Hieb. They're going after natural stone as well.
Mr. Issa. OK. The fact is although this legislation looks
and targets stone, the reality is that this Committee probably
has to take a good look at wood, metal, and everything else
that has no adverse effect when used properly, but in some case
can in fact be dangerous on the worksite.
It is the example of the automobile, Dr. Michaels. The
automobile is an incredibly dangerous tool when used
incorrectly, isn't it?
Mr. Michaels. Certainly.
Mr. Issa. OK. Yet, we don't sue the auto manufacturer when
someone drives drunk and runs someone over. We might sue the
bar that had some percentage of liability, right?
Mr. Michaels. Sure. If you say so.
Mr. Issa. OK. Ms. Shult, my understanding is that you were
held somewhat accountable for a nondisclosure, and it's been up
on appeal. Wasn't it far less than 50 percent? Wasn't it not
the proximate cause even in that case?
Ms. Shult. Oh, yes, it was only 10 percent.
Mr. Issa. OK. When a jury flips a number and says, oh,
well, we'll hold you 10 percent responsible because you didn't
sufficiently, in their mind, disclose something, at least on
some occasions, maybe your manufacturer, you had a hundred
percent of the penalty because you were the one with the
pockets, isn't it?
Ms. Shult. That's right. Under joint and several liability.
Mr. Issa. One of the problems here, which is a general tort
problem is you only have to be pne percent, one-tenth of one
percent, but have deep pockets, or the other pockets disappear,
and you not only bear the cost of the defense, but you bear the
hundred percent of the damages. Isn't that true?
Ms. Shult. Yes, for the economic damages.
Mr. Issa. Well, this hearing has done a good job of making
sure we understand why this important legislation in an
industry is going forward, but that industry is the tip of what
is likely to be a growing set in which this Committee will
likely have to come back. With that--
Mr. Michaels. May I respond? Yes, we heard from Mr. Neguse
and Ms. Ross, that there were cases in California of workers
with silicosis who were exposed under the standard. That isn't
surprising to me because OSHA standards are not safe levels.
They're safer, but OSHA has to look at economic and
technological feasibility.
We could not drive the level down to a purely safe level
because the law doesn't allow that. In this case, we also know
that the silica that comes from artificial stone is not like
the silica that you get in coal mines where there's quartz or
in foundries or construction sites, because it's cold with
toxic resins and other pigments, things like that clearly make
it even more dangerous.
Furthermore, the OSHA standard that I issued in 2016 with
our press release is from--the process began in 1997. We issued
the proposal in 2013 or 2014. This industry barely existed, and
the cases weren't there. We didn't have the research to include
that.
Mr. Issa. OK. I've allowed you to do that. Again, I noted
all the other products that you said in this, these products
did exist, concrete is not new. I'm in California, and I've
seen an awful lot of wet cutting of concrete as I drive down
road improvements. That wet cutting is an example that is being
done because they don't want to have all that dust from the
concrete in the air.
You set standards, the standards are met. Meeting the
standard doesn't give you any protection from being sued. As a
matter of fact, if you as--Mr. Talwar--import a product or buy
a product and sell it and never, in fact, fabricate it at all,
moving something that I could lick, and it isn't going to hurt
me; that I could sniff, that I could use as a cutting board
isn't going to hurt me; using that, in fact, he's not exempt,
even though he had nothing to do with it, this is like suing
the car dealer, the car distributor--
By the way, the trucking company that moved it in and out.
You're saying today, effectively, you should be able to do
that. I understand the gentleman has a unanimous consent before
we close.
Mr. Johnson. I do, it is the story of the Colorado family
that owned the stone fabrication shop in Colorado that
Congresswoman Ross referenced in her--
Mr. Issa. Without objection, that entire--
Mr. Johnson. It tells the Story of how they followed OSHA
standards and still everybody in the shop got sick with
silicosis.
Mr. Issa. Without objection, the entire statement will be
placed in the record.
This concludes today's hearing. I do want to thank our
witnesses for appearing before the Committee and giving us a
lively opportunity to understand a major and emerging threat
and one that concerns particularly California.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days in which to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses and additional materials for the record and I know it
will be a great many.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=118817.
[all]