“Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Protecting the U.S. Stone Slab Industry from Lawfare”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
For everyone, this is an example of a machine where both water are being used. The water is being reclaimed. But most importantly, no person is there. It's completely sealed. So it's a double safety capability.
Speaker 3
Silica, a common component in many stone surfaces, becomes hazardous when improperly cut, ground, or polished, by releasing fine dust that is harmful when inhaled. Whether using hand tools or fully automated machinery, wet processing is one of the most effective engineering controls to manage silica dust by using water to prevent dust from becoming airborne. Regardless of size and equipment, every stone surface fabrication shop must adhere to all federal and state OSHA regulations and requirements, especially with regards to respirable crystalline silica. Following wet cleaning protocols, using appropriate personal protective equipment, ensuring proper ventilation, training workers, and maintaining a compliant air testing program, water is key to a safer work environment. Water-fed hand tools help manage dust during cutting, grinding, shaping, and polishing.
The right volume, quantity, and delivery are critical, and a robust water reclamation system ensures water is efficiently reused within the fabrication shop. Beyond dust suppression, wet processing reduces tool wear, improves product quality, and keeps the workspace cleaner. When you implement wet processing and diligent housekeeping throughout the fabrication process, you help manage silica dust and create a culture of safety for your most valuable assets, your people. Contact your local OSHA consultation office directly, or consult with an industrial hygienist for additional information. If you want to learn more about Cambria, visit us online or contact your regional product representative.
Cambria, where safety and quality are non-negotiable. Family-owned, American-made.
Speaker 2
Okay. Would you play the second one? It's shorter. Those are masks that are not, in fact, protecting the person. There's no wet activity, and this is one of those shops of which there are many of them.
Doctor Michaels, I'm sure, is aware of it. With that, I will recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 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. But this silicosis epidemic is caused by working with a material called artificial stone, in other words, fake stone, and 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. So sick that they can no longer work and no longer provide for their families. So sick that they slowly and painfully suffocate to death. Fake stone produces dangerous toxins when it's cut, and there's no way to use a fake stone slab without cutting into it.
So 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. So 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 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. So 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, and Congress would make multimillionaire CEOs 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 or 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 level 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. And 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 bailout. I'm here today for Mitchell Bolwear, a Georgia resident who's owned and worked at a stone fabrication shop for over 2 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. And it is unconscionable to propose that we take that right away from them. So thank you, mister chairman, 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. And they deserve the opportunity, like everybody else working in this country, to bring their case to court.
And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his opening statement.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doesn't look fake to me. It looks pretty real. This idea, this is of some fake stone in this is a real industry where we got real problems going on. Everyone wants to protect workers, but you don't wanna drive a $30,000,000,000 industry out of our country, which is where this thing is headed.
So I appreciate the chairman having this hearing. Appreciate the witnesses who are going to testify, and I look forward to their testimony. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Now recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his opening statement.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, chairman Aiza, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. The House Judiciary Committee, of course, is not a jury. We're not a courtroom. And when we do our work right, we're facilitating the proper execution of the law and the protection of the rights of the people in courts, across the land. That's our proper role.
I feel like we're somehow being invited to be jurors today. But 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, cutting off your oxygen supply. There's no cure for it.
If you don't get a million-dollar double lung transplant, you effectively 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 settle in the lungs. They're so small and so plentiful in artificial stone that they can escape any respirator and evade any protections designed for avoiding harm 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. Now I confess I knew nothing about any of this before the hearing was scheduled. But as I researched this horrid disease, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that her colleagues were suddenly focused on a severe health crisis afflicting working-class craftsmen across America. I simply assume 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. And 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 who is the only major domestic manufacturer of this artificial stone, and is working like Houdini to escape liability for any and all of the injuries caused by the business that he's involved in. We are here for one reason and one reason only, because the jury system and American tort law are actually working for the people who work in this field right now. The workers are getting extremely sick, and courts are finding that artificial stone manufacturers are at least partially at fault for it. So 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 a deliberate or negligent failure to warn workers, as Spain did in 2023? No.
Do they wanna let our American court system do what it does best, and hear claims on a case-by-case basis under the general principles of American tort law and products 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. You know, I'll close with this thought, Mr. Chairman. There was a brief fleeting moment when 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, five, ten years from now, we'll be a different party. You're gonna have a workers' party on the campaign trail in 2024. Now Vice President JD Vance told a crowd, we need a leader who's 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 Bright Barton News, we've got a lot of working class voters who frankly don't care what was Republican worth at Oxy 25 years ago. They're 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 wanna escape all liability is not an agenda that would be embraced by the party of the working class. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
I think the ranking member I will note that the foreign manufacturers are outside the reach of the very courts that we'd like to have enforce. Only a domestic manufacturer finds himself in that litigation. And with that, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. And without objection, all opening statements will be included in the record. We begin with Miss Rebecca Schultz.
Miss Schultz 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, hospitals, businesses across the country. Mister Jim Haib is the chief executive officer of the Natural Stone Institute, an association of manufacturers, dealers, and other stone industry. He also serves as executive director of the Natural Stone Foundation, a nonprofit organization that focuses on education, advocacy, and standard development. And I will note at this point that we will be talking about manufactured stone a great deal, but the standard, even according to doctor Michaels, is a single standard whether it's natural stone or manufactured in a composite.
Mister Gary Taua is the vice president of the Natural Stone Resources. It's a family-owned stone distributor based in California. The company sells their products to wholesalers and distributors, and is not a fabricator. Doctor Michael, doctor David Michaels. Doctor 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, and as I previously said, was instrumental in the standard that we'll be talking about today. Before I begin their opening statements, I would ask that all witnesses rise to take the oath. And 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 material 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. And that if you get close to the end, please summarize, so we can close and move on. We'll begin with Miss Schultz. Oh, and there we always have to tell at least one person to push the little button. You got to be the person.
Speaker 1
It's because I'm first. Good morning, Chairman Isa, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Rebecca Schult. 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 the small rural community of Lissour, Minnesota. This here is our product. Our industry and the many thousands of workers it employs, including 1,800 workers at Cambria, face 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 tragically developed very serious occupational diseases, including silicosis, as the result of working at dangerous workplaces.
This is unacceptable, and the 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. But rather than hold the bad actor account bad actors accountable, the lawsuits are being filed against dozens of innocent stone slab manufacturers. The wrong parties are being sued, and the lawsuits are overwhelming good companies throughout our industry.
That is why we support H.R. 5437. A nationwide ban is also not the answer to dangerous fab shops clustered in California. Union representatives at last month's CalOSHA 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, and California jobs are on the line too. According to the data that doctor 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 cases in the other 49 states. It's absolutely horrific that members of this vulnerable workforce in California are being exploited and exposed to indisputably dangerous conditions. And it's outrageous that these American sweatshops are not being shut down. What those of us in the industry know is that fab shops cut many types of stone, both quarried and engineered, or what we call quartz. And when these stones are cut safely, workers are not overexposed to silica dust.
But 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 courts can be cut safely. At Cambria, we own and operate three fab shops that serve several Midwest markets. 1,000 Cambria fab shop employees have spent more than 10,000,000 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 quarts can be fabricated safely. And 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 members of the subcommittee and Doctor Michaels as well to come to Minnesota and visit us, and see how we fabricate our sap 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.
Speaker 7
Chairman ISA, ranking member Johnson, and 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. And many thanks to Congressman McClintock for introducing this bill, which brings fairness to the sellers of stone slabs. My name is Jim Hebe, and I serve as the CEO of the Natural Stone Institute based in Oberlin, Ohio. The NSI is the leading trade association representing the natural stone industry, and our membership includes many of the industry segments most directly impacted by this important silica issue, notably stone fabricators, stone distributors, quarriers, and tooling and equipment manufacturers. And the average number of employees for our members ranges between 20 and 30.
First and foremost, we are deeply 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 is paramount, which is why the NSI operates a robust, comprehensive silica and workforce training program, which is provided free of charge to companies across the nation regardless of whether they're 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 Kalosha 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 quarryers, 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, and it is wrong to shift responsibility from non-compliant third-party employers.
The vast majority of companies impacted by these lawsuits are, in fact, small to medium-sized 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, and their insurance premiums have doubled. Now they're considering closing their business after 26 years and 142 jobs impacted. Or another who employs just 14 employees but is facing 40 lawsuits. They told me.
Why am I being penalized for 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 the non-compliant 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% of our staff. Now a tooling company with 30 employees shared, we're gonna go bankrupt if something doesn't change. So 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.
And finally, a courier in Utah, Corying Natural Stone, said we are facing 20 lawsuits filed in California, and we don't even sell products in California. And 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 the injury. I urge passage because it brings fairness to our legal system. And, chairman, I would love the opportunity to work with your staff to bring forth some of the amendments that I mentioned, and am happy and thankful to be part of this conversation.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
We always welcome expertise in our ability to legislate, and I know mister McClintock would be saying that if he had the gavel right now.
Speaker 8
Mister Tawa. Chairman, ISA, ranking member Johnson, and 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'd 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 to 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 US sales office for the family's 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 leased our first warehouse, where I was actually our first forklift operator. By 2008, we expanded into the building next door. And in 2014, we moved to our current headquarters in Anaheim. Today, we have two locations in Anaheim. We distribute from a facility in Atlanta, and we import about 3,500 different products from 17 different countries.
But 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 truly explains what's at stake today. Silicosis is a 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 shops. We do not control the safety standards or practices used when stone is cut, nor control whether a 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. And like most distributors in our industry, our role ends when the slab leaves the 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 employee 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 the 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're 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 for 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 the 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 honored to be here testifying before the 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 who control fabrication practices. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Doctor Michaels. Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, 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 University Milken Institute School of Public Health. The views expressed here are my own and do not represent those of the university. From 2009 to 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 to 2001, I served as assistant secretary of energy for environment, safety, and health, charged with protecting workers, the community residents, and the environment in and around the nation's nuclear weapons facilities. Under my leadership, OSHA issued a long-overdue and strengthened standard 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, and the artificial stone fabrication industry is one of the most hazardous of all industries where workers are exposed to silica. There's 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 needed lung transplants.
The number of cases is alarmingly high and growing rapidly. The enormous costs of treating these cases, including lung transplantation, are borne primarily by taxpayers. Passage of HR 54 37 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 from 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. Twenty-seven have died.
52 have undergone lung transplants. And these are just the cases in California where there's 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 the OSHA silica standard. The manufacturers know their product is being used unsafely, but they do absolutely nothing to stop it. Other industries that manufacture hazardous products take a very different approach. They practice product stewardship.
Responsible firms in high-hazard industries consider the risks faced by downstream users of their products and endeavor to 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. And 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, as 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 a national lung disease screening program and to provide treatment for the sick workers. The firms 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 banned lawsuits. After careful study, Australia banned the deadly product. This forced manufacturers to use a safer substitute, which they sell and earn their own 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 USA. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And with that, we will go to Mr. Fitzgerald for his round of questioning.
Speaker 10
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. And the stories that we've already heard are once again testimony to, you know, something that this committee should be examining, which is fixing the judicial system instead of going after people that are caught up in it. Miss Shoot Shoal, I'd like to begin just from your testimony. You state that over the last 20 years, Cambria has itself successfully fabricated only Cambria cord slabs and has done so without a single reported case of a fab shop worker contracting silicosis or other occupational diseases.
You also state that after more than 10,000,000 labor hours, excuse me, in our fab shops, not a single cabrio fab shop worker has reported occupational disease including scoliosis. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
Yes. Absolutely. And I should note for the record too, we started small. You know, 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, and 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. And one of the stones that's 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. And that type of quarried stone has silica content ranging between 90-99%. And so it's just not true that engineered stone or quartz is the cause of these workers' problems. And, of course, their plight is incredibly sad.
But until and unless these workplaces are addressed, the illnesses will continue.
Speaker 10
So when workers follow OSHA workplace safety mandates, the risk of silicosis or other occupational diseases is negligible at best. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
Yes. And we rely, of course, on OSHA, both federal and state OSHA, to set the appropriate regulations and the appropriate permissible exposure limits for the products that we work with. And this is true for any workplace in America. We are all bound to provide our workers with a safe workplace. And so at Cambria, we do that in compliance with OSHA's regulations, and we are able to control our employees' silica exposure to below the action level, which is half of the permissible exposure limit.
And those are the limits that were set during Dr. Michael's tenure at OSHA.
Speaker 1
Yeah. We're currently defending approximately 400 lawsuits, most of which are pending in California state courts. While two have gone to trial, it's simply overwhelming to defend against this number of cases. And the chilling reality is that the lawsuits are doing nothing to address the workplace conditions. Going after the good manufacturers simply is not fixing the problem.
Speaker 10
And, in dollars as a result, any idea, yeah. What would that number be?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Of course. It's hard to estimate, but I can tell you that it costs millions of dollars to defend a case all the way through the trial. And then, of course, there's the potential for a nuclear verdict. You know, these workers are very injured and very sympathetic.
And so when they go to a jury, you know, it's a perfect case for a products liability lawyer to have the opportunity to show a very danger endangered worker. They're very difficult to defend.
Speaker 10
Very good. So let's envision a world in which the trial lawyers win a few massive verdicts, and businesses 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? Mister Talwar, I mean, what are you guys anticipating could happen down the road?
Speaker 8
For a small business like us, we're just being hammered. So the misconception in our industry is that big business makes up the entire industry. But in reality, 95% 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 it is 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's still other stones that are being cut, quartz stones that are being cut.
Those produce dust. If you're not controlling the actual fabrication of these stones, there's still dust. If you breathe that dust, it still has silica. If you're breathing in silica, the problem doesn't go away. So as far as cost goes, you know, I couldn't even imagine a world where if stone went away and quartz went away, what are you putting on your kitchen countertops?
So I couldn't even answer that question.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. We'll now go to the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening round of questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Schulte, you work for the billionaire owner of Cambria, Marty Davis. Correct?
Speaker 4
And Marty Davis is a well-known election denier and contributor to Donald Trump. Correct?
Speaker 1
Representative Johnson, I'm not here on that topic today. I'm here to talk about stone in the industry. And K. What we can.
Speaker 4
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. And 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 manufacture 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?
Speaker 1
Yeah. First of all, this new term fake stone, I'm not unfamiliar with, but.
Speaker 4
I understand. Let me is there any, I mean, this it doesn't cure any diseases or anything like that, does it? This. Yeah.
Speaker 4
You artificial stone. I call it fake stone. I don't think there's much of a difference. But let me go to the doctor Michaels. Doctor Michaels, in your testimony, you discuss how other industries that manufacture hazardous products take a very different approach than the fake stone industry.
You call it product stewardship. What is product stewardship?
Speaker 9
Or turn on the mic? Thank you. Yes. 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. And they recognize that their products are dangerous, though many are far less dangerous than the silica released by artificial stone. And they say we will work with companies who buy our product to make sure they're 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. But, obviously, these products are being sold to companies. Yes. They break the OSHA standards, but the manufacturers know that's what's gonna 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 it's 54 percent of all the fabrication shops in California are reporting silicosis cases. These aren't bad actors that Chairman Issa is talking about. This is the entire industry, and this is who Cambria is selling to.
Speaker 4
So 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?
Speaker 9
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 gonna be hurt, we wouldn't have any more silicosis cases.
Speaker 4
So you say that there are safe substitutes for fake stone. Can you go into that?
Speaker 9
Yes. You can make equally fashionable, beautiful, artificial, you know, stone countertops using a recycled glass product. It's called amorphous silica. It's a different silica. It's not respirable crystalline silica that OSHA has a standard for.
It is far safer, and the major manufacturers of the world other than Cambria sell this product in Australia. Caesarstone, Constantino, they make this product. You wouldn't be able to differentiate the countertop made with recycled glass from the ones made with artificial stone, and it doesn't kill people.
Speaker 4
Well, that sounds like a viable alternative that perhaps litigation and hitting the pocketbooks of these manufacturers will bring about.
Speaker 9
That certainly is my hope. We shouldn't be discussing immunity from litigation. We should be discussing banning this product to make it safe for workers, and that would protect the manufacturers and the distributors as well.
Speaker 2
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? You're off again.
Speaker 9
Yes. The product made by Cambria as it comes out of their factory is a slab. It's not unsafe, but what has to be done with that product is to mechanically remove surfaces, generate silica that's coated with resins, which is far more dangerous than natural silica, by the way, into the air, and it becomes dangerous at that point. You know, it's like tobacco. A cigarette is produced by the factory.
If it sits there on the table unused, it isn't dangerous. But if you light it up and breathe what's coming out of it, it kills you.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I'm it wasn't just for clarification. We now go to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan.
Speaker 5
No one's got the disease. No one's filing a suit against you. Now he, 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?
Speaker 5
No one's got it. No one's a plaintiff. How about you, Mr. Talwar? Any of your employees, plaintiffs, these lawsuits is how it's mostly happening in your state if I got the No, sir. 0.
0? Do any of them have any problems? 0. You handle the same product that Cambria handles. Is that right?
Speaker 5
Yeah. And isn't it true, Miss Schulte, that you got a university? Because doctor Michael said you guys are the bad guys. You should stop altogether. But I think you got a place where you actually train people to do what you're obviously doing, and no one is getting hurt.
The same thing with Mister Talwar and his family-run business. You're training people how to handle this product appropriately. Is that right?
Speaker 1
That's right. And Cambria University started in 2005 as a learning and knowledge exchange center for stone fabricators and installers.
Speaker 5
Twenty years ago, you started telling people, here's how you do it. We got 1800 employees. You've probably had people work for you and retire. No one gets a disease, and yet Doctor Michael says you should go out of business.
Speaker 5
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Just do it the right way. That's all we're saying. Right? Alright.
Mister Heath, how about you? How about the other folks that you represent? Are they doing the same thing that Mister Tawar's family-run business is doing and Cambria is doing? Are they doing it that way as well?
Speaker 7
I will tell you that there are a lot of fabricators that are operating compliant shops. They're bringing in OSHA every year. Many are now doing medical surveillance for their employees, and there's outrage around the good fabricators as well, that a few bad actors are causing this.
Speaker 5
Now is there any indication that the trial bar bringing these suits are working with these few bad actors? It's sort of an organized operation to go after Mister Talwar's family-run business in Cambria. Have you seen that, Mister Heap, in your industry?
Speaker 7
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 gonna be in business in the future because of the weight of these lawsuits.
Speaker 5
Alright. Now I think I got this right. This is primarily happening in California. Or how many of the 400 suits are in California, Miss Shult?
Speaker 5
95%. And 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 mister Michaels is suggesting. Is that right?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Because I heard the ranking member talk about how we need to be workers and unions. Fine. But they don't want this stuff put out. They don't want you put out of business.
They wanna do this in the right way. Is that accurate?
Speaker 1
Yes. They do it safely, and they know that it will cost jobs if there is a ban of this product.
Speaker 5
Yeah. 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 chairman of our immigration subcommittee, the remaining time for him to ask some questions.
Speaker 11
Well, thank you, miss Schultz. You testified of your single company spacing about 400 lawsuits, mainly from California. What control did you have over the practices that caused these injuries?
Speaker 11
Was the only role of your company to sell a safe and legal product to a willing buyer? Yes. 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? Yes. And because of the illegal acts 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?
Yes. California is a sanctuary jurisdiction. It controls Cal/OSHA. It appears they're just turning a blind eye to law breaking by sweatshops that are breaking our immigration laws, labor, health, and safety laws, exposing their employees to the dust that causes silicosis. And it appears that instead of enforcing the law against these illegal practices, the Democrats prefer to drive you out of business.
So tell us, what's the future of your employees and their families if this injustice is not corrected?
Speaker 1
Yes. Our US manufacturing jobs really matter. They matter to our workers, to their families, to our communities.
Speaker 11
And these people will all be decimated if this isn't corrected. And, 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 be injured in the first place. Am I correct?
Speaker 1
Right. Right. If their employers follow the law, they will not be sick. Silicosis is preventable.
Speaker 9
Excuse me. Excuse me. Chairman Jordan misquoted me or made a misstatement about what I said. May I correct?
Speaker 9
Briefly before this. Well, coming towards and said, I want Cambria to go out of business. That's absolutely not the case. I would like them to sell a safer product or ensure that their product is.
Speaker 5
Their entire business. That's all. Yeah. Well, every other major, 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 professors telling Cameron, telling a business that is operated safely. Such a deal, you're telling them what to do. No.
Speaker 5
No. No. No. That's a fact. That's what you testified to.
That's why I said it that way.
Speaker 9
No. I said they can, other major manufacturers have all shifted to a different product that's safer, and Cambria can do the same.
Speaker 5
Guess what? We want you to change. You can't be in the lumber business anymore. That is the same argument. It's ridiculous.
It is ridic, just do it right.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And with that, we go to who do we have next? Miss Ross? Oh.
Speaker 6
The ranking member. Mister chairman, thank you very kindly. Well, you can stay in a business that is inherently dangerous if you want to. The chairman's right about that, but you've got to follow the law when you do it. Now as I understand it, Doctor 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 wanna make sure the law is being properly enforced. Okay? Here's what I understand is going on. Michelle testifies, and to my mind, perfectly honestly, that they've not had cases from the fabricators that they work with within their own business of silicosis.
They've not been sued by their own fabricators, but they were not 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 a 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 the cigarettes. Cigarettes are perfectly safe until someone smokes them. Well, if you're the manufacturer of cigarettes, you know people are gonna smoke them. And, of course, Cambria understands how their product is going to be used and that it is going to be part of a construction process. But they have not engaged in the proper reasonable failure to warrant.
They don't like the consequences, which is that they've been sued for, and they've been held liable in court. I don't know what it is we can do about that. If you wanna change the laws of product liability, if you wanna change the laws of failure to warrant, go ahead and change them. 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's who's a billionaire Republican donor. 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, Michelle, let me just give you a chance to answer what I just said. Do you talked about Cambria University where you educate on the proper methodologies for using your product.
Is that right? Is that what that does?
Speaker 1
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. And, of course.
Speaker 6
You're selling the, you are selling to the bad apples you're denouncing today, basically. No. You're not?
Speaker 1
Well, I can tell you. Yeah. There are 400 cases, so I can't speak to all of them. But the two cases that went to trial, including the one where Cambria was found liable, yes. And has a $10,000,000 judgment against it. Yes.
Even though the employer was responsible for 70% on the verdict form.
Speaker 1
We never contracted with that employer to sell slabs to him. Same thing with the second lawsuit. Okay. We're facing.
Speaker 6
Lawsuit where we were the upstream supplier that got down to them. But 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% liable in that case, and that's what you ended up paying. So, but I don't understand exactly what your complaint is.
Speaker 6
I mean, nobody wants to be sued and married, but the alternative is that we have lots of people who are wronged all over the country who are injured and damaged. I mean.
Speaker 1
So the intent of H.R. 5437 is to address the situation where third party misuse is a cause of injury. So the.
Speaker 6
Is there any cause? Not the complete cause, but, well, there's the problem right there. In other words, you're basically saying you want them to take 100% of the wrap for it, and you don't wanna take any responsibility as a seller of it. But that's not what the law is.
Speaker 1
In California. That's absolutely incorrect, Mr. Raskin. If I may finish, please. Thank you. Cambria, according to Hascom, identifies the potential hazard of respirable crystalline silica when stones are unsafely cut in violation of OSHA's requirements.
It's on our safety data sheet.
Speaker 6
data cover. Nine seconds left. I, well, here's what I gotta correct in what you're saying. You can't just pin it on the regulators. Okay?
That's like saying if somebody drives and smashes into your car, but they weren't violating the speed limit, they are not guilty. Just because you are within the state's regulatory system doesn't mean you have 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. So it's not enough to say, well, we've got OSHA out there.
OSHA will take care of it.
Speaker 1
I apologize. I don't follow all of the example of the automobiles. But with respect to cars, we don't sue car manufacturers when somebody speeds or drives drunk. Car manufacturers still get to exist even though people criminally. Absolutely.
Speaker 6
But 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're in.
Speaker 1
I disagree, Mr. Raskin. It the language of the h r fifty four thirty seven 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.
Speaker 6
No. You're looking for categorical absolute immunity in all these cases.
Speaker 1
If there was a genuine defect in the product that made it so that in normal use, it was. But
Speaker 6
On your definition, there's no defect in the product. Right? So how could you ever be held liable? You’re basically saying you’re not responsible for educating anyone downstream.
Speaker 1
That's not at all true. We do educate downstream, and we take responsibility for what.
Speaker 6
Well, then a jury found you had not done it. A jury found you didn't live up to it, but then.
Speaker 1
that's incorrect. Mister Raskin, I don't believe failure to warn was even a claim or was even we went to the jury in that trial. I'll double check and confirm that in my written testimony. But 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.
Speaker 2
I've been very yeah. Saying if the gentleman will, has something new, I'll allow it, but let's be brief. Okay. But.
Speaker 6
Okay. I'll close with this question then because, you've described it as basically a handful of bad apples, although doctor Michael said that silicosis is showing up, I think, 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. But if you know who these bad apples are, if they are the illegal, you know, immigrant sweatshops that Mr. McClintock described so vividly, why do you sell to them? Why don't you just stop selling to those people and make sure it doesn't get down to them?
Speaker 1
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 of 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 Kalosha 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 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 CalOSHA and other regulators in California to try to promote worker safety, to try to educate people in the industry about this problem. And the very reason that we're really here today is to help raise awareness of the problem and to seek relief from this onslaught of loft suits that threaten our good American manufacturing jobs and jobs throughout our entire industry.
Speaker 6
Mister chairman, thank you for your patience, and it does sound like it's an overwhelming California problem. I hope you guys in California can work it out, and I assume that you can. Thanks.
Speaker 12
Can we start the next hearing at 7 AM if everyone's gonna have ten minutes to talk? The first three minutes of the last ten were 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? What's that you held up?
Speaker 1
And here's an example. This is the safety warning label that's provided in English and in Spanish on all of the slabs that leave our Cambria.
Speaker 12
Back. That can't be right because the first three minutes of the last ten were spent telling you how you didn't warn any consumers of anything. So, are you lying now?
Speaker 12
Yeah. It didn't make any sense, did it? I mean, 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.
Speaker 1
It says no dry cutting, no dry grinding, no dry polishing. The first thing up.
Speaker 12
To the minutes of the last ten 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. Ain't that what you did with that sheet? That's what it says. Right?
Speaker 1
We want it to be very clear to fabricators. They should not dry-cut. And if they want to dry cut, they shouldn't be in business.
Speaker 12
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 wanna go to you, Mr. Talwar. Can you, I've seen you writing down. Can you share with us what's on your mind that you haven't gotten to say?
Speaker 8
Thank you for the question. I'm just a little guy at this table, but I'm representing a huge chunk of our industry that feels that we're put in a corner. And 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, you do it the right way, it's not bad for you. So that doesn't really apply to our industry. And another thing is, you know, say you take quartz away. It's just gone.
You ban it. You fall you do what Australia did. They're still cutting granite. They're still cutting marble. They're still cutting quartzite.
There's still dust. There's still silica. Doctor Michael said that the type of silica or the percentage of silica is different, but at the end of the day, it's greater than zero. It's even if it's 1% 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.
And, you know, in our industry, with all due respect, it's common sense that if you cut it wrong, it's bad for you. So, yeah, those are a couple of.
Speaker 7
You know, I wanna remind everyone that the numbers in California are rising. And every month, hot off the press, they will say the numbers are rising. We're over 400 cases right now. But you have to put it into context. The first 100 cases, between 10 and 12 of the first 100 cases were from one company.
Let that sink in. Less than 15% of those first 100 employees were covered by workers' comp. It is inappropriate to say 50% of the fabrication facilities in California have a silicosis case. Those numbers are being taken out of context. A lot of those numbers are coming from a select few companies.
So 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, but 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 about are wondering if they're gonna be in business next year.
Speaker 12
Well, I appreciate you. I'm sorry for what you're going through. I hope we get this fixed, and I yield my remaining 7 minutes to the chairman.
Speaker 2
I think he meant me. But, I just wanna ask one quick follow-up, and whoever feels most qualified. If you don't have workers' comp in California, aren't you breaking the law? How do these people not have workers' comp, Mr. Heap?
Speaker 7
You know, in California, there is a fund that is established by the state that will pay the medical expenses.
Speaker 7
Illegally employed. And, yes, I mean, the fabricators that are up in arms about this are just saying, just hold everybody accountable to operate as a legal business.
Speaker 2
So if the state were enforcing against these people aggressively, there wouldn't be many of these people who would have received those, that disease because they would have been in a protected environment.
Speaker 7
That's what we want, is we want those employees in a protected environment. Yes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all of our witnesses, for being here. Thank you for your testimony, as we consider the legislation from my colleague from California. Miss, is it Scholte or Scholte?
Speaker 13
Scholte is fine. That's alright. My is tough to pronounce. Help me understand. I wanna just kinda 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 manufactured?
Speaker 1
Yeah. There are plants in Tennessee, and there are plants in Georgia. There have been plants in Florida. Sure. LG, also known as LX Houses.
Mhmm. There is Dahl Tile, which is a subsidiary of Mohawk Industries.
Speaker 13
Let me put it a different way. In terms of market share, I guess it's your contention that the other companies that you're mentioning have similar market share as you do?
Speaker 13
not Okay. Yeah. I guess, 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?
Speaker 1
I believe it's true that we produce more domestically. Correct. Made quartz than any other kind of company. But I would note that the other companies that I mentioned also do import products, so it's difficult to.
Speaker 13
Talking about domestic manufacturing. I mean, I don't, my assumption is something you'd be proud of. I don't think it's not something you'd, you know, would be avoiding that you all produce more domestically large scale courts slab than any other company in The United States.
Speaker 13
Okay. And this bill would give you immunity, your company, I should say the company you work for, immunity on the grounds that you've described. And I was watching some of your testimony here in the judiciary room. That's correct. Right?
Speaker 1
Only with respect to third-party misuse of the product and the fabrication process.
Speaker 13
Got it. What other industry has the type of immunity as a matter of federal statute that you're seeking here?
Speaker 1
That's a good question. I'd say what other industry that's as important as a building materials industry and the stone industry with thousands. No.
Speaker 13
Miss Schult, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking you, you're here on behalf of your company.
Speaker 13
Asking the United States Congress to pass a law that gives your company and other companies like yours immunity under federal law from litigation by, you know, countless citizens across the country, as we've 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 tech you're seeking to emulate?
Speaker 13
Is it that there are none? I don't I'm trying to under the answer is either I don't believe there's any other industries that have this type of immunity, and so here's why we'd like to convince the United States Congress to give us immunity. Or the answer is no. These are the other industries that have similar product liability immunities.
Speaker 1
So the other examples of immunity, you know, without speaking to whether they're analogous or not, could include things like the airline industry after the terrorist attacks, where, for example. And there may be others, and I'm happy to address that in my written responses.
Speaker 13
Okay. Well, I would love to be able to review. Mhmm. Written responses from you and perhaps from 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 United States Congress.
Right? The defense industry, and in certain circumstances, vaccines. So guns, bombs, vaccines, and luxury kitchen countertops, slab, quartz products. That 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, miss Schult, and the other folks in the industry, and I respect your point of view. But I think these are arguments that are best positioned to be delivered to a jury, not to the United States 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, you know, sectioned out and bifurcated.
But asking Congress to give you blanket immunity under the circumstances you're describing, that this Congress has only afforded to the gun industry and the defense industry, which, by the way, we should not have done in those instances. But that's, perhaps, a hearing for another day, if the chairman will indulge us on that front. I just don't really understand what we're doing here.
Speaker 1
Well, I am happy to explain. And I hear what you're saying. It's unique requests that we're making here today, and that's because we cannot defend against 400 lawsuits. What's happening in California state courts is effectively regulation through litigation, and it's having a nationwide effect on businesses across the country. So that's why we're here, coming to congress today.
The over the over expansion of very basic tort principles threatens our entire industry. But do you appreciate the word? To other industries.
Speaker 2
It may also be a word law. Time has expired. I'm sure this will be further explored by additional witnesses. We now go to Mr. Fry.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think the witness is correct that this is far beyond just a California issue. There's a company in South Carolina, Elite Courts, that is also facing similar lawsuits. And so while this issue is new to me and we're studying it, really appreciate the testimony of the witnesses. And with that, I'm gonna yield to my good colleague or my good friend from the state of California, mister McClintock.
Speaker 11
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mister Aib, we've heard that Cambria employs 1,800 family breadwinners. How many depend on your industry nationally?
Speaker 7
We have nearly 2,200 members, of which over 500 of them are stone distributors like Gary.
Speaker 11
When you say members, you're talking about companies. How many Americans depend upon your industry for their livelihoods?
Speaker 7
The vast majority of our industry is, in fact, family-run businesses. Yes.
Speaker 11
And what will happen to them and their employees and their families if this continues.
Speaker 7
If this continues and we allow everything just to go through the courts as has been explained, there will not be businesses in existence five years from now.
Speaker 11
So 100,000 families lose their livelihoods. Is this gonna prevent silicosis injuries if these same sweatshops continue to be protected by sanctuary jurisdictions and simply switch to foreign-manufactured product?
Speaker 7
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.
Speaker 11
Mister Tower, so we know that 100,000 American families will lose their livelihoods. We know that domestic manufacturing of this product will collapse, taking about $30,000,000,000 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?
Speaker 11
Well, let's look at the other side of the equation. Who's enriched by this practice?
Speaker 11
And are undercutting their competition by deliberately breaking the law while sanctuary jurisdictions turn a blind eye. Is that a sentence?
Speaker 11
Obviously, the sanctuary state of California is not interested in enforcing our labor laws that require workers' 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 of legitimate businesses employ. The ranking member wished us luck in dealing with this attitude, and I appreciate that. But doesn't this affect the entire country, and not just California?
Speaker 8
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 silicosis is 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 the 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.
Speaker 11
And when you've testified that when those safety regulations are followed by legitimate businesses, there are no silicosis injuries.
Speaker 11
So this is entirely because we had sanctuary jurisdictions simply refused to enforce our existing health and safety laws. Is that essentially what's happening here?
Speaker 11
And instead, they wanna sue your industry out of business, and put 100,000 American families on the breadline.
Speaker 8
Honestly, I would put it much higher than that. And a lot of today's discussion has been about the manufacturer, and it's a serious problem the manufacturer is facing. But 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 at 100. I would put it at hundreds of thousands of families.
Speaker 8
Exact, and where I've talked to business owners across the country, and they don't know how to handle this.
Speaker 11
Well, so much for the warm embrace of collectivism. I yield back. Thank the gentleman again for yielding his time.
Speaker 2
And the gentleman yields back. For what purposes does the ranking member of the subcommittee seek recognition?
Speaker 4
Thank you. I'd like to introduce for the record a letter from doctors Jane Fazio and Stafale Gandhi, leading researchers and physicians from California, opposing HR 54.
Speaker 4
And explaining artificial stone cannot be fabricated safely. I also ask unanimous consent to introduce a letter from the American Public Health Association opposing HR 5437. Without objections, are ordered. I ask unanimous consent to introduce a 01/13/2026 letter from AFL CIO to this subcommittee, which highlights how, quote, this bill would make it safer for dangerous workplace.
Speaker 4
End quote. Also, 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 HR.
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. I think you're finally. We now recognize Ms. Ross.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this hearing. I actually like being at the end, because I've learned so much along the way.
Speaker 15
Mhmm. So far, two silicosis lawsuits against stone slab manufacturers have made their way through court. And, one, the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the injured worker $52,400,000 in damages. But in another, a jury ruled in favor of the defendant manufacturers. So 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.
And so far as we've heard, there are around 500 other cases that have been filed and are working their way through the court system. And doctor Michaels, it's true that many of these cases are not in California. There are even a nice little Google search during this test, hearing revealed that some have been in Colorado, in Texas, in Washington State, in Oregon State. Doctor Michaels, are you familiar with those cases?
Speaker 9
No. I'm not an attorney. I haven't really followed the cases. I mean, the legal cases, that's less of interest to me.
Speaker 9
Yes. I've heard about silicosis cases popping up around the country. What's clear to me is that there is a system in California of a reasonably good surveillance system from doctor Fazio and others who've weighed in here. And the word has gone out, and workers are being screened, and that's why we have these hundreds of cases. In fact, I'd 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.
Okay. But we haven't seen them around the country, because
Speaker 2
There's no without objection, all of your material will be placed in the.
Speaker 9
record. But 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.
Speaker 15
Okay. And, before he left, mister Ngoose handed me some information about a case in Colorado where the fabricators' small business followed all the safety standards and had this wet cutting that we saw the video of, and followed what happened. And, according to the information provided by Mister Ngoose, all the workers in the shop have developed silicosis. All of them. And they are now facing a nightmare.
And so 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 Mister 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. And you just look at all those facts. Is that correct, Mr. Michaels?
Speaker 9
That's correct. In fact, it's very important that I correct what the chairman said earlier. The OSHA silica standard is not a safe standard. OSHA sets standards based on health effects, also on economic and technological feasibility. So just because you're in the silica standard from OSHA, it doesn't mean you're safe.
And 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 are exposed 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 ocean 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 it can. The president's budget is wiping out OSHA.
And beyond that, the cosponsor of this bill, mister McClintock's colleague from California, mister Biggs, is the primary sponsor of a bill called OSHA, the No Occupational Safety Administration Act. It abolishes OSHA. So to say if for this congress to talk about we need stronger OSHA protections, and that will, you know, essentially save this industry. It's rich irony.
Speaker 15
And 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. And thank you. I will yield back.
Speaker 2
Of course. Thank you, chairman. The lady yields back. I've got a couple of things. You have a UC?
Speaker 6
Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. And, this is from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, filed 08/07/2024, finding as to plaintiff Gustavo Reyes Gonzalez for products liability. Failure to warn, we find in favor of the plaintiff against the Cambria company. So both in.
Speaker 6
be that'll be me for raising the failure to warn. That's precisely what the guilty verdict was about. Thank you.
Speaker 1
And I apologize. And if I may clarify one thing, and I was going to anyway, is that our failure to warn did go to the verdict, to the jury in that first case. It's on appeal now, and 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.
Speaker 2
We'll let the record speak for itself, but I thank the gentleman for placing that.
Speaker 2
And 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. And then I'd like to also place into the record for reference the actual bill H.R. 5437 so that we all have it. I failed to do that in the beginning.
And lastly, I wanna place in the record from the Milken Institute School of Public Health, a press release that is a press statement that says David Michaels briefs congress on new silicon dust at rule 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 silicon dust occurs when workers cut, saw, drill, or crush concrete, brick, ceramic tiles, rock, and stone products. I just wanna make sure that your testimony or your quote in that case is particularly there because of both natural and manufactured that you spoke on at that time. And with that, I have the privilege, as the unanimous consent went, of recognizing for his own five minutes Mister McClintock.
Speaker 2
I may not be the practice, but it was unanimous consent. And if Mister Carrera is here, he'll be recognized. The gentleman's recognized.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I wanna make it clear. No one opposes health and safety regulations. Doctor 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, and one of the objectives of those of us who believe in the constitution is to restore those guardrails between those three very distinct functions of government.
Miss Shult, Cambria not only manufactures themselves to third parties, but it also fabricates product itself. Does it not?
Speaker 1
Yeah. That's right. And our workers are protected when we follow OSHA's regulations and requirements, which we do. And our workers are safe and protected. And in fact, our CEO's own children work on the floor of our fab shops.
Speaker 11
And this because you fabricate according to all the health and safety laws, and you've not had any injuries as a result of fabrication.
Speaker 11
The ranking member just introduced an article that contends there's no safe way to fabricate your product. And we've heard, from the Democrats that it's inherently of, dangerous. How does this comport with actual experience?
Speaker 1
Yeah. From our real world experience in industry fabricating exclusively court surfaces, we know that workers can be protected by following OSHA's regulations and controlling silica exposure to below the permissible exposure limit. And in fact, at our shops, we control exposures below the action level, which is half of the PEL.
Speaker 7
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, 30 years. We have companies that exist in the Midwest that have not had a case of silicosis in over 50 years. So it is really important to acknowledge that there are a few bad actors that are causing this. Also in California, as Miss Schultz 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. And all that SB twenty did was say it's illegal to dry cut, which we support, but we want them to do the next step.
And so industry will continue to be front and center, helping government, working with government. But 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.
Speaker 8
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. I think we've hammered that home. But 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's hundreds or 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.
Speaker 11
Miss Schulte, the equipment to protect your workers that we saw in the video looks rather expensive. Is it not?
Speaker 1
Well, the safety precautions are integrated into the equipment itself. So, but
Speaker 11
It's expensive. I mean, you have to invest in that shielded and water protected system. Correct?
Speaker 1
So the shielded system is not the key. The key is the use of water, and that can be achieved through small handheld devices and equipment and tools that are available to fabricators. And we teach how to use those smaller saws at Cambrian University.
Speaker 11
Well, I assume so. Why is it then that these illegal fabricators are not using this?
Speaker 11
And engaging. So they are saving money by not protecting their workers with these basic precautions, and I assume that gives them a competitive advantage over the legitimate fabricators that are employing these processes.
Speaker 1
Yes. They're putting profits above people, and then we get sued out of existence.
Speaker 11
And 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?
Speaker 2
I thank the gentleman. I'll note for the record that the general waiver that I asked for under unanimous consent, the minority did not understand the broadness of it. So in order to make things equal under the intent, we will consider that I actually yielded to mister McClintock my five minutes. I now ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 5 minutes per side, as a second round if the witnesses can remain that long. Without objection, so ordered, and the ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor 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% crystalline silica, toxic 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 don't involve cutting it?
No. So 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? Absolutely. Doctor Michael's medical professionals in Australia warned that it could become the next asbestosis without intervention. What do scientists mean when they refer to something as the next asbestosis?
And are they correct?
Speaker 9
Yes. I mean, asbestos is an amazing mineral that's used as an insulator for fireproofing. It was very clear at the early part of the last century, even before that, that breathing asbestos causes a terrible lung disease we call asbestosis. The industry for many years tried to deny that, to hide it, make sure studies weren't done. But the result is that we had millions of workers exposed, and huge numbers have developed lung disease, 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. And actually, they went out of business. They were found by juries over and over again to have essentially covered up what the problems were and not sufficiently warned these people. And we had tens of thousands of deaths as a result of asbestos exposure. We don't want that to happen again.
Speaker 4
Well, what did the litigation response to the asbestos public health crisis result in? What are the ramifications?
Speaker 9
Well, it certainly raised the issue tremendously, and a lot of companies stopped using asbestos. The secondary companies, the companies that would use asbestos in other materials and gaskets and brake shoes, they said we can't use asbestos anymore, and they found substitutes. You know, litigation is like regulation in that it drives technology. Companies that don't wanna be involved with litigation find better products, safer products, and they substitute. And that's what will happen here when companies say, this is too dangerous to use artificial stone.
Let's move to amorphous silica, which is recycled glass. We'll make a product that's equally, you know, beautiful, equally fashionable, but doesn't kill workers.
Speaker 4
Well, that would be a product that Mr. Talwar and his firm could distribute. Mister Hybe, all of his members could distribute. It's something that, Miss Shult, your company could manufacture. Isn't that correct? A safer product?
Speaker 1
No. Our product is safe. The issue is when unsafe fabrication practices are used in violation of OSHA laws.
Speaker 4
The evidence is clear that engineered stone containing crystalline silica is too toxic to fabricate and safely install, and 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?
Speaker 4
Unstable workplace is taken. Stand. Doctor Michaels, would you disagree with that statement?
Speaker 9
I would not disagree with that statement. You know, it can be done safely in an enclosed environment, cost millions of dollars to set that up, and we're not gonna make new countertops for the country, you know, in these very expensive facilities. That's just not going to happen.
Speaker 4
What would immunity do to this industry, to the public health of this country, and the cost to the taxpayers?
Speaker 9
It is. All bets are off. There's no stopping the number of silicosis cases we'll see around the country. Putting aside litigation, the number of these cases are being paid for by the Medicaid system, by VA. Lung transplants cost over a million dollars each, and we've got dozens of them in California already, and they're being picked up by Medi-Cal.
So it's gonna impact hospitals, the public health system, and, of course, it's gonna make many people sick.
Speaker 8
So, doctor Michael said that I could easily switch over to recycled glass. But in actuality, less than 1% of my sales are artificial stone or quartz. But that less than 1% is gonna put me out of business, potentially. And these cases have expanded to stone as well, not just artificial chords. So 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 doctor Michael said. That's floor tile. When you cut that and you cut it wrong, that will have dust, and it'll have the same effects too.
Speaker 2
I'll now recognize myself. Doctor 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. Marble, obviously, would be in there. All of these can exceed the OSHA guidelines if crushed or used incorrectly.
Correct? Yes. Okay. So we get rid of this industry. We're not getting rid of concrete, sand, pottery, and the like.
So, 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.
Speaker 2
No. No. No. That's 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, and yet in those 54% of California job sites, the vast majority of them appear to be illegal, using illegals, in fact, abusing, primarily Latinos who have come into this country looking for work. They find work in these sweatshops, and they're too desperate to say no.
And I share the union's objections to the idea that these unprotected workers are there. But are you going to protect them or anyone, including concrete and other marble? Are you gonna protect them by simply saying, let's sue the marble manufacturer, the concrete manufacturer? And I will say here today, Doctor Michaels, you appear to be supporting the idea of eliminating something that, when you had the chance, you set a standard. And I'm sorry, but OSHA standards are based on safety in the workplace.
Manufacturers' production, including my own when I was a manufacturer, relies 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. And if they don't, then it's your job to lower them. So I find it amazing that just a few years ago, you set a standard, and today, the standard is zero. Unfortunately, mister or, actually, miss Schultz, because I have a couple of questions for you.
The standard of zero, if you switched, wouldn't be achieved in any product, would it?
Speaker 2
Wait. I'll get back to you. Okay. Will is a standard of zero that doctor 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?
Speaker 2
Are they currently suing, to your knowledge, the concrete manufacturers?
Speaker 2
But they are, Mister Habib, they are now getting into the other stone manufacturers. Right? So they're going after the natural stone.
Speaker 2
Okay. So 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. And it is the example of the automobile, Doctor Michaels. The automobile is an incredibly dangerous tool when used incorrectly, isn't it? Certainly.
Okay. And yet we don't sue the auto manufacturer when someone drives drunk and runs someone over. We have a lot of we might sue the bar that had some percentage of liability. Right?
Speaker 2
Okay. And, miss Schultz, my understanding is that you were held somewhat accountable for a nondisclosure, it's up on appeal. But wasn't it far less than 50%? Wasn't it the proximate cause even in that case?
Speaker 2
Okay. So when a jury flips a number and says, oh, we'll hold you 10% responsible because you didn't sufficiently, in their mind, disclose something, at least on some occasion, maybe your manufacturer, you had 100% of the penalty because you were the one with the pockets, isn't it?
Speaker 2
So the one of the problems here, which is a general tort problem, is you only have to be 1%, one tenth of 1%, but have deep pockets and or the other pockets disappear. And you not only bear the cost of the defense, but you bear 100% of the damages. Isn't that true?
Speaker 2
Well, I think 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. And with that.
Speaker 9
May I respond briefly? Yep. We heard from Mister Ngoose and Miss Ross that there are cases in California of workers with silicosis who are 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, and 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 from coal in coal mines where there's quartz or in foundries or construction sites because it's coated with toxic resins and other pigments, things like that. They clearly make it even more dangerous. Furthermore, the OSHA standard that I issued in 2016, where that press release is from, the process began in 1997. We issued the proposal, I think, in 2013 or 2014. This industry barely existed, and the cases weren't there.
We didn't have the research to include that.
Speaker 2
And I've allowed you to do that. But, again, I noted all the other products that you said in this. These products did exist. Concrete is not new. I'm a Californian.
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. So you set standards. The standards are met, but meeting the standard doesn't give you any protection from being sued. As a matter of fact, if you, as mister Tawa, 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 gonna hurt me, that I could sniff, that I could use as a cutting board isn't gonna 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, and, by the way, the trucking company that moved it in and out. And you're saying today, effectively, you should be able to do that. I understand the gentleman has unanimous consent before we close.
Speaker 4
I do. It's the story of the Colorado family that owned the stone fabrication shop in Colorado that Congresswoman Ross referenced in her.
Speaker 4
It tells the story of how they followed OSHA standards and still everybody in the shop gets sick with silicosis.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the entire statement will be placed in the record. And this concludes today's hearing. And I wanna thank our witnesses, for appearing before the committee and giving us a lively opportunity to understanding a major, emerging threat and one that concerns particularly California. Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days in which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the record, and I know there will be a great many. Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.