[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TOXIC, FOREVER CHAMICALS:
A CALL FOR IMMEDIATE
FEDERAL ACTION ON PFAS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.house.oversight.gov
http://www.docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-553 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Acting Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Britteny Jenkins, Subcommittee on Environment Staff Director
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Subcommittee on Environment
Harley Rouda, California Chairman
Katie Hill, California James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Minority Member
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jackie Speier, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Jimmy Gomez, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Alexandira Ocasio-Cortez, New York Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 19, 2019................................ 1
Witnesses
Mr. Mark Ruffalo, Actor, Producer and Artist
Oral statement............................................... 7
Mr. Scott Faber, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs,
Environmental Working Group
Oral statement............................................... 9
Tiger Joyce (minority witness), President, American Tort Reform
Association
Oral statement............................................... 10
Mr. Mark Favors, U.S. Army Veteran, Member, Fountain Valley Clean
Water Coalition
Oral statement............................................... 12
*Written opening statements, and the written statements for
witnesses are available at the U.S. House Repository: https://
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
The documents listed below are available at: https://
docs.house.gov.
* British Medical Jorunal article from 2019 that concludedPFAS
was not associated with toothdecay: submitted by Rep. Gibbs.
* List of 30 corporations that have employed lobbyist to discuss
PFAS policy and legislation; submitted by Rep.Ocasio-Cortez.
* Department of Defense Memorandum; submitted by Rep. Ocasio-
Cortez.
* Pictures of a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol with
Mark Ruffalo and membersof Congress; submitted by Rep. Keller.
TOXIC, FOREVER CHAMICALS:
A CALL FOR IMMEDIATE
FEDERAL ACTION ON PFAS
----------
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Environment
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley Rouda,
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Rouda, Wasserman Schultz, Tlaib,
Khanna, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Comer, Gibbs, and Keller.
Also present: Representative Kildee.
Mr. Rouda. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
This subcommittee is continuing its examination and call
for immediate Federal action on PFAS. I now recognize myself
for five minutes to give an opening statement.
Good afternoon. This is the fourth hearing the
Environmental Subcommittee has held on the contamination of
air, water, and food with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, a class of manmade chemicals referred to as PFAS.
Our previous hearings have established the scientific facts
about these chemicals. They do not degrade, earning their
nickname ``forever chemicals,'' and they are toxic to humans,
having been linked to serious adverse health outcomes such as
low fertility birth defects, suppression of the immune system,
thyroid disease, and cancer.
We have heard witnesses testify to the pervasiveness of
PFAS contamination in America's water, air, and food supplies.
Some of them are here today.
At our hearing in September we heard about the actions of
certain corporations that downplayed the scientific research
linking these dangerous chemicals to serious adverse health
effects and to conceal this evidence from the American public.
Today, our goal is to urge this administration to take
immediate Federal action to regulate and cleanup these
dangerous chemicals.
You know, at these hearings we--public officials tend to
speak perhaps a little too clinically. We say PFAS chemicals
can cause birth defects and cancer in humans.
But what we should be saying is this. Because these
chemicals have been cavalierly dumped by corporations in rivers
and landfills, they have poisoned pregnant women and
permanently injured and damaged their children, who will suffer
severe health problems for the rest of their lives.
People have lost their spouses, parents, and other loved
ones. People have been saddled with medical bills they cannot
afford and that will put them into massive long-term debt,
sometimes for the rest of their lives.
We have got people who are just now realizing they have
been drinking contaminated water for years, who have to pray
each day that they don't get sick and their families don't get
sick.
So even now, we might speak about the PFAS crisis in terms
that sound impersonal and bureaucratic, like saying we need to
regulate these chemicals and set maximum contaminant levels.
What we are really trying to say is that we need government
to save people's lives by protecting them from dangerous
chemicals they did not know they were drinking and wouldn't
have drunk if the truth had not been shrouded by them from
corporations that knew for decades how toxic these chemicals
were and are.
We need the Federal Government to protect people because we
have seen what happens when it leaves it to corporations. And,
you know, in what has become an intensely partisan environment
here in Congress, this is one issue on which the two parties
really can find agreement.
The ranking member of this subcommittee to my right, James
Comer, said at our July 24th hearing on PFAS, quote, ``It is
bipartisan that we want clean drinking water. It doesn't matter
if you are a conservative or a liberal or moderate. We all want
clean drinking water. There is no question about that.''
But the ranking member knows as well as I do that water
doesn't stay clean on its own. By taking one look at the
Environment Working Group's map of congressional districts with
known PFAS contamination we can see just how true this is.
Our water is poisoned in Ohio, in Arizona, in North Dakota,
just to name a few. We, the representatives of the people, have
to work to protect that water to keep that water safe from
companies that seek to maximize their profits through
pollution.
And yes, that does require regulation. So when it comes
right down to it, the debate we are having over whether to
regulate PFAS is a debate about two camps: the American public
and all of us who want clean water and the companies who have
made a lot of money by exposing people to toxic substances
against their will.
This is a horror story of epic proportions and so it is no
surprise that it caught the attention of one of our witnesses
today, Mark Ruffalo.
In the new ``Dark Waters'' movie he plays the attorney,
Robert Bilott----
Mr. Ruffalo. Bilott.
Mr. Rouda. Bilott. Thank you. Robert Bilott, who himself
testified before this subcommittee in September. Mr. Bilott
defended thousands of plaintiffs in Parkersburg, West Virginia,
against DuPont, a chemical manufacturer that not only
contaminated the groundwater in Parkersburg but also spent
decades covering up that they had done so.
And the horror story does not end there. The drinking water
supplies on and around military bases have been contaminated by
these chemicals and haven't yet been cleaned up.
These men and women answered the call of duty and risked
their lives for our country, and yet they can't safely take a
drink of water from their canteen.
This is a tragedy, plain and simple. Mark Favors, a U.S.
Army veteran, is here with us today to share his story and
those of his family members who are suffering the human cost of
PFAS contamination on and around military bases.
The Environmental Protection Agency needs to set maximum
contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act, not just
for the two most notorious types of PFAS chemicals, PFOS and
PFOA, but for PFAS as a class--a class of more than 5,000
different manmade chemicals.
And the Department of Defense needs to commit to cleaning
up contamination around military sites expeditiously and work
with the urgency this crisis demands to find an alternative to
the PFAS-containing firefighting foam used in training
exercises.
The EPA has announced that it will issue its proposed
regulatory determinations for PFOS and PFOA by the end of the
year, and it can't come soon enough.
But it is imperative that Americans be kept safe from all
PFAS chemicals. The fact is we don't know the full extent of
the effects these chemical alternatives to PFOA and PFOS will
have on humans.
But the scientific evidence thus far suggests that these
chemicals are toxic, that they do bioaccumulate in the human
body just like their predecessors.
Do we really want to be sitting here 50 years from now
asking ourselves why we didn't take action on the so-called
alternatives, the same way we are sitting here in the year 2019
asking ourselves why we didn't regulate PFAS and PFOA earlier.
I hope we take the opportunity to learn from our mistakes
rather than repeat them. We are finished with being hoodwinked
by corporate interests. We are done being placated, being told
we are moving forward when we are actually standing still.
The American people are paying attention and I promise you
all that I will work relentlessly with my fellow members here
to ensure that you have the freedom to drink water from your
faucet and your well without worrying that it will someday give
you cancer.
I will work to ensure your safety. The United s should not
be a place where your water can kill you.
Before I invite the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr.
Comer, to give his opening statement, I want to say a few words
about the conduct we witnessed at our minority--from our
minority at our last hearing on tailpipe emission rollbacks and
Federal policy to address climate change.
You know, it is not always fun being in the minority and
Republicans are going through a tough time right now being
forced to defend a deeply unethical president.
But there is no excuse for trying to shut down a hearing
that this subcommittee convened in good faith in an effort to
ensure Americans' right to breathe clean air.
The minority requested and was granted their own witness
for that hearing. Yet, neither Mr. Comer nor any of my other
colleagues in the minority ever came to me or my staff before
the hearing to broach any concerns.
Frankly, when my Republican colleague from Arizona made the
motion to adjourn, I wasn't even sure he was still a member of
the subcommittee because I can count on two fingers how many
times he has attended these subcommittee meetings.
But he did find the time to come and try and shut down a
hearing on climate change policy and Americans' right to clean
air.
Those actions were not in good faith. I certainly hope that
in the future my Republican colleagues would have the courtesy
and the decency to come to me beforehand to raise any concerns
they might have.
I should also point out when we Democrats were in the
minority we never once, not once, tried to adjourn one of the
committee's hearings.
In a sad way, my Republican colleague's stunt at the last
hearing represents exactly what is wrong with their party's
entire approach to addressing the most important environmental
issue of our time.
They just ignore the problem, put their heads in the sand,
and try to shut down any attempt to promote smart policy that
addresses scientific reality.
If that is the way my Republican colleagues think the
government should be run, they should be ashamed, because it is
not just the members of one political party whose lives are at
risk.
If we do not act now to protect the right to clean air and
clean water, if we don't work to address the existential crisis
of climate change, then all of our lives are at risk.
We are the stewards of the public interest. We owe it to
the American people to tackle the big problems, not waste time
with cheap stunts.
And with that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member,
Mr. Comer of Kentucky, for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Chairman Rouda. It is good to
start off with a good bipartisan tone for this committee.
We are here today for the subcommittee's fourth hearing on
this--on the large group of chemicals collectively known as
PFAS.
I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to
appear before this subcommittee and, hopefully, we can have a
good productive discussion that will actually lead to
achievable results in the future.
As I have said in each of the previous four hearings,
potential drinking water contamination is frightening for any
community and it is--there is bipartisan support to have clean
drinking water.
It is important to remember that the reason that PFAS
substances became so predominantly used in the first place is
they provide strength, durability, and resilience in a broad
range of applications from nonstick cookware to firefighting
foams that save lives.
Why does the medical technology industry care about
proposed actions related to PFAS? Because the medical devices
made by these companies for over 50 years have been made with
fluoropolymers, a PFAS compound.
Tens of millions of these devices have been used by
patients without demonstrating any adverse health effects. In
fact, they have achieved the opposite.
They have kept patients alive and healthy. As I have told
you before, Mr. Chairman, I am committed to working with my
colleagues on solutions that will contain any existing damage
from legacy PFAS substitutes and reduce the risk for future
harm.
But I also that we, as a body, can make responsible
evidence-based science-driven decisions. It is important to
note that nearly 5,000 chemical compounds make up the PFAS
family. Five thousand chemical compounds.
These compounds have different structures and
characteristics, which means they also have varying health and
environmental impacts. Thorough research has only been done on
a small number of these compounds.
So we should be careful about taking any sweeping actions
that could have the unintended consequence of negatively
impacting a broad segment of the economy, including public
entities like hospitals and airports.
Any legislative or regulatory actions we consider should be
based on solid scientific understanding of the toxicity of
specific compounds.
I would also like to note for the record something about
today's hearing makeup, Mr. Chairman, since you mentioned
previous hearings.
During the Oversight Committee hearing last week, one of
the majority members--one of your party's members--questioned
the minority witness about her lack of, quote, ``scientific or
particular expertise in the subject matter whatsoever,''
unquote.
In short, the Democrat member tried to say that the
minority witness should be ignored. I have heard from several
of my colleagues today that they found the witness testimony
compelling and informative.
But I would like to note for the record that if this is the
majority's view of witness suitability, it is unclear to me why
a Hollywood actor with no scientific expertise on PFAS
chemicals would be called to testify today.
It appears to me that this fourth hearing on PFAS could be
viewed as an attempt by committee Democrats to use it to assist
the promotion of a movie that may include--may include--false
narratives about PFAS.
This is similar to the last hearing on PFAS in September,
which----
Mr. Khanna. Mr. Chairman, I object to the ad hominem
attacks on Mr. Ruffalo.
Mr. Rouda. So noted. Please continue.
Mr. Comer. This is similar to the last hearing on PFAS in
September, which featured a plaintiff's attorney in ongoing
litigation against the chemical industry as well as a paid
expert witness involving those cases.
Today, we have the actor who is portraying that same
plaintiff's attorney testifying.
Now, I am a firm believer in the broad authority of
congressional oversight. But I become very concerned when
Congress uses its investigative tools in ways that can
interfere with or give the appearance of interfering with
ongoing litigation.
I hope the subcommittee will commit to doing its best to
refrain from interfering or appearing to interfere with ongoing
litigation as we move forward.
Today, I would like to spend some time discussing EPA's
PFAS Action Plan, which the agency released in February of this
year.
In it, EPA outlined several short-and long-term actions to
minimize risk, increase scientific knowledge about the broad
range of PFAS substances, prevent exposure and cleanup existing
contamination. That is what our goal should be, in a bipartisan
manner.
A few weeks ago the EPA sent two actions from the PFAS
action plan to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
The first action would allow the public to provide input on
adding PFAS to toxic release inventory--toxic chemical list----
Mr. Rouda. The member's time has expired.
Mr. Comer. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you went
over a few seconds as well.
Mr. Rouda. Please wrap up your comments.
Mr. Comer. The second action would ensure that certain
persistent long-chain PFAS chemicals cannot be imported into
the United States without notification review.
The two actions taken in late September show the continued
commitment by EPA to implement the PFAS Action Plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to welcome the
witnesses here today.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Now I want to welcome our witnesses. We have Mark Ruffalo,
actor, producer, and activist; we have Scott Faber, senior vice
president for government affairs, the Environmental Working
group; Mark Favors, U.S. Army veteran, member of Fountain
Valley Clean Water Coalition; and Mr. Tiger Joyce, president,
American Tort Reform Association.
Please stand. Raise your right hand. I will begin by
swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. Please be seated.
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative. The microphones are sensitive so please speak
directly into them.
We have had votes called. So I think what we are going to
do is go through one, maybe two five-minute opening statements
and then we are going to have to do a short recess.
Okay. So the floor is yours, Mr. Ruffalo.
STATEMENT OF MARK RUFFALO, ACTOR, PRODUCER, AND ARTIST
Mr. Ruffalo. Thank you very much, and I am honored to be
here today and have the opportunity to testify.
My name is Mark Ruffalo and I am honored to play the role
of Rob Bilott in the upcoming film ``Dark Waters.'' You have
already heard testimony from Rob so you know that Rob has
dedicated his life to protecting all of us from PFAS.
What you may not know is that Rob has risked everything,
including his career and his own health, to uncover one of the
greatest corporate environmental crimes in history. So he
should be seen as a true American hero.
It was Rob who uncovered what this committee has now shared
with the American people, that by the 1950's, 3M knew that PFAS
could buildup in our blood; that by the 1960's, DuPont and 3M
knew that PFAS could be toxic; that by the 1970's, DuPont and
3M knew that PFAS was, indeed, building up in the blood of all
of us and harming their own workers; and that by the 1980's,
DuPont knew that PFAS was contaminating the tap water of nearby
communities.
But that is not all. Rob not only discovered that these
toxic chemicals were building up in our blood; he also sounded
the alarm, sharing what he found with the EPA and also Rob
secured the funding through a legal settlement with DuPont to
undertake the biggest human health study of toxic chemicals
ever.
Thanks to Rob, independent experts reviewed the blood work
and medical records of 70,000 people whose water had been
poisoned by DuPont.
That study found a probable link between PFOA and cancer
and five other serious diseases including reproductive and
immune system harm.
Hundreds of subsequent studies have found that PFAS
chemicals, including replacements for PFAS chemicals, like the
new GENX, pose many of the same risks.
Here is what we now know. We know that PFAS are called
forever chemicals because they buildup in our blood and organs.
We know that PFAS chemicals have been linked through animal,
worker, and human studies to serious health problems.
But, Mr. Chairman, we have done absolutely nothing. We have
not stopped industrial releases of PFAS into the air and water.
We have not stopped PFAS from being used in food packaging,
cookware, cosmetics, and other everyday consumer products. We
have not stopped the use of PFAS in firefighting foams nor have
we cleaned up legacy PFAS pollution.
This is decades. There is still no legal requirement to
filter PFAS from tap water. So more than a hundred million
Americans today are likely drinking water contaminated with
PFAS. Nor is there any legal requirement to clean up the most
contaminated sites.
So who is paying for this failure to act? It is the people,
people like Sandy Wynn-Stelt, whose husband died from liver
cancer after a nearby tannery poisoned the drinking water with
PFAS.
It is people like Bucky Bailey, who is here today, whose
mom, Sue Bailey, worked at DuPont's Teflon line while she was
pregnant with him and who was born with numerous birth defects.
These are real people, guys. It is real people, Mr.
Chairman - people who live in the frontline communities like
Oscoda, Michigan. Real people who are paying the price in the
form of higher health care costs and higher water bills.
These chemicals don't respect political boundaries, which I
am so glad we can understand and we agree bipartisan. They are
found in the blood of people in Oatman, Arizona, and they are
found in the blood of people in Fargo, Dakota.
They are found in me. They are found in my kids. They are
found in every one of you.
So who should pay? The companies. The companies that made
billions upon billions of dollars producing chemicals they knew
were building up in our blood and knew--and they knew they were
toxic but failed to tell anyone.
Failed to tell their workers, failed to tell their
neighbors, failed to tell the regulators, which keeps us from
making a choice about how we are going to live our lives.
These companies are making us sick, Mr. Chairman, and we
are paying--we are paying to have to heal ourselves.
I understand that today's hearing is focused on PFAS. But
the problem is not limited to PFAS. In America, it falls to us,
the ordinary people, to prove that these chemicals are toxic
before the chemical is regulated by our government. That is
simply backward.
It is the companies that make billions of dollars producing
these companies, not us--not the rest of us--who should be
required to prove their products are safe before them bring
them to the market. Cautionary principle--it is used throughout
the world today and it keeps communities from being sick.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to regulate PFAS chemicals. It is
time to end industrial releases of PFAS into the air, into the
water.
It is time to end needless uses of PFAS in everyday
products like food packaging or cosmetics. It is time to
finally filter PFAS out of our drinking water and it is time to
clean up the legacy of PFAS contamination, especially at our
military bases. This goes far outside medical uses.
So let me close by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for now
holding four hearings on PFAS contamination and the crisis that
we are all facing, and for elevating the stories of real people
like Sandy Wynn and Bucky Bailey and real-life heroes like Rob
Bilott.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair is going to recognize a recess now so that we can
go vote. Let us plan on being back in good form 10 minutes
after the last vote.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Rouda. Well, like elementary school, recess is over.
The committee is back in order here.
I think we left off with Mr. Ruffalo. So, Mr. Faber, you
now have five minutes for opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT FABER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
Mr. Faber. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee.
My name is Scott Faber. I am testifying today on behalf of
the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental
health organization that has fought to address the PFAS
contamination crisis for more than two decades.
I know you have many questions so I will just quickly
summarize my testimony.
To date, PFAS has been detected in the groundwater or tap
water of more than 1,300 communities including 14 communities
in Ohio, 20 communities in Pennsylvania.
Just a few weeks ago, EWG testing revealed 10 different
PFAS in the drinking water of Louisville, Kentucky, and as Mr.
Ruffalo said, it is probably the case that more than a hundred
million Americans are drinking tap water or eating food
contaminated with PFAS. Nearly all of us have PFAS in our
blood, including our babies.
Because PFAS have been linked to cancer and harm to our
reproductive and immune systems, we must take immediate steps
to reduce ongoing PFAS releases and to clean up legacy PFAS
contamination.
Despite the risks, the well-documented risks of PFAS,
hundreds of manufacturers--hundreds--can still release
unlimited amounts of PFAS into the air and water and have no
duty to tell anyone.
Despite the risks, PFAS can still be used in food packaging
and migrate into our food. Despite the risks posed by PFAS,
biosolids contaminated with PFAS can still be applied to farm
fields and buildup in our food crops, animal feed, and,
ultimately, in all of us.
Despite all of these risks, PFAS can still be used in
firefighting foams that seep into our drinking water supplies.
Despite the risks posed by PFAS, badly contaminated sites still
do not have to be cleaned up, including contaminated sites on
our near our military installations.
Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, this Congress is finally treating
PFAS contamination with the urgency it deserves. More than 40
bills and amendments, many of which are bipartisan, have been
introduced to reduce ongoing PFAS releases and cleanup legacy
PFAS contamination.
Earlier this year, the House passed the National Defense
Authorization Act that would quickly end DOD's use of
fluorinated firefighting foams and PFAS in food packaging,
would regulate industrial PFAS releases into our water, and
expand efforts to monitor for PFAS.
The NDAA also designates PFAS as hazardous substances,
which will kick start the cleanup process at the most
contaminated sites and ensure that polluters pay their fair
share of cleanup cost.
This morning, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began
to consider 17 PFAS bills including bills to regulate PFAS
discharges into the air, require more PFAS reporting by
industry, and to increase funding for water utilities to filter
PFAS from our drinking water.
No American, as you said, Mr. Chairman, should ever have to
wonder if their water is safe to drink or if their food is safe
to eat.
But after decades of inaction, we may have finally begun to
reverse the tide of PFAS pollution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, and you recognize some of the past
efforts of Members of Congress.
One of them is here with us today, Representative Kildee,
and without objection, he shall be permitted to join the
subcommittee on the dais and be recognized for questioning of
the witnesses. Glad to have you here.
And with that, the chair now recognizes Mr. Joyce for five
minutes for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SHERMAN JOYCE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN TORT REFORM
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Joyce. Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Comer, members of
the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to be here on
behalf of the American Tort Reform Association.
I would like to make it clear at the outset that I am here
as an advocate for lawsuit reform to discuss the overall impact
of excessive litigation on legal businesses as well as its
impact on the laudable goal of environmental remediation.
To be clear, I am not here as a scientist or to express a
position on environmental policy or regulation.
The American Tort Reform Association believes that civil
litigation should not be used to punish businesses today for
making products many decades ago when they have substantial
public benefits, particularly those that were developed or
demanded by the government.
So-called PFAS substances are precisely that type of
product as they--and they are the subject of a fast-growing
number of lawsuits brought by individuals as class actions as
well as cases brought by state and local governments.
Since the 1950's, thousands of substances that constitute
PFAS have been made--have made possible important breakthroughs
like surgical gowns and drapes that protect patients and health
care providers against airborne pathogens.
They have allowed us to have implanted medical devices and
improve protective gear for firefighters, chemical workers and
military personnel.
It has also been the--you have heard about this a little
today--the basis for firefighting foams. In fact, the U.S. Navy
developed such a foam containing PFAS in collaboration with 3M
to do just this in response to tragic loss of life of military
personnel on Navy ships during the Vietnam War.
The Navy is now far better prepared to deal with such a
situation and saves lives as a result. The Navy continues to
consider this product to be, and this is their term, mission
critical.
In the case of PFAS, ATRA believes that the science has
gotten out in front of the litigation that we have seen.
Improved technology has allowed greater detection of the
presence of PFAS which, in our view, has been the catalyst for
more and more litigation involving these products.
One legal commentator stated earlier this year in the ABA
Journal, quote, ``We may be just seeing the tip of the PFAS
iceberg, at least as far as litigation goes.''
This is despite the fact that the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry stated last year, and I quote,
``The available human studies have identified some potential
targets of toxicity. However, cause and effect relationships
have not been established for any of the effects and the
effects have not been consistently found in all studies,'' end
quote.
Thus, the premier agency responsible for evaluating health
and safety risks for products such as PFAS have not concluded
that this broad category of products injures the public.
Yet, litigation moves forward as if the science does
support that legal, and I emphasize legal, causation.
Environmental protection has been a major public policy
topic for the Congress and the executive branch appropriately
for decades in response to the impacts of our rapidly changing
economy and way of life.
That said, it has to be acknowledged that that worthy goal
has been significantly hampered by litigation over the years.
Carol Browner stated in 1994, as President Clinton's EPA
administrator, quote, ``A lot of time is taken up with
companies suing each other over how much they owe to clean up a
particular site,'' and that continues to be the case.
Members of the subcommittee should know that additional
legal issues have developed with regard to Superfund and
CERCLA.
States can look to impose remediation plans to clean up a
Superfund site even if it conflicts with the EPA-directed
cleanup. Atlantic Richfield, which agreed to do that in an EPA-
approved cleanup of a copper smelting facility in Montana, is
asking the U.S. Supreme Court to preempt the plan imposed by
the state. That case will be heard in two weeks.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, lawsuits,
liability, statutes, and regulations should not get out in
front of science.
My understanding is that the EPA is developing and
implementing an action plan to address PFAS in order to protect
public health.
This includes many facets which have been discussed here.
The American Tort Reform Association has no position on the
scope of this process, how it should proceed, and, ultimately,
how it should conclude.
But we do believe that the key is for law, regulation, and
litigation involving PFAS to be based on scientific consensus.
In conclusion, we believe it is wrong for a business to be
subjected to extensive liability simply because a microscopic
level of a company's product can be found in the air, water, or
bodies absent--this is the key--a clear scientific
determination of causation.
It is counterproductive to impose liability on
manufacturers that develop products that provide substantial
public benefits based on fear--that it, while understandable,
is not scientifically substantiated.
I thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Joyce.
In the previous PFAS hearing we have had, we have had the
opportunity to hear individual stories. It is a complex issue
with a lot of comments about the chemicals and the reaction and
the process.
But when we have the personal stories, such as Bucky Bailey
in a previous hearing and the personal stories of Mr. Favors as
well as his family and community, it is a great opportunity for
all of us to take note and have clear understanding of the deep
ramifications of the impact these chemicals have on us.
And with that, Mr. Favors, you are now recognized for five
minutes of opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARK FAVORS, U.S. ARMY VETERAN, MEMBER, FOUNTAIN
VALLEY CLEAN WATER COALITION
Mr. Favors. Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Rouda and
Ranking Member----
Mr. Rouda. Turn on the microphone, if you would, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Favors. I want to thank Chairman Rouda and Ranking
Member James Comer and this committee for this hearing and
allowing me to testify.
I was born and raised in El Paso County, Colorado, around a
large loving family, many of whom are U.S. military veterans
like myself.
However, we are struggling to obtain justice and
accountability for our family members and their neighbors dead
or suffering from cancer and other diseases after firefighting
foam containing toxic PFAS from nearby Peterson Air Force Base
contaminated the drinking water and groundwater for decades.
This contamination began in early 1970's in the drinking
water and remained until 2016, all during that time unknown to
the public.
In addition to these toxic chemicals causing contamination
by seeping underground off base to nearby civilian water
sources, Peterson Air Force Base officials have now admitted
that they actually dumped these toxic PFAS chemicals into our
community's drinking water source several times a year from
1990 until 2016.
Again, Colonel Schiess from Peterson Air Force Base in 2016
admitted that they actually discharged knowingly these
chemicals into our drinking water source several times a year
from 1990 until 2016.
This resulted in not only extremely high levels of PFAS in
the drinking water far exceeding the EPA's nonenforceable
health advisory, but also in the blood of residents 10 times
higher than the national average.
Some of our PFAS drinking water levels were more than a
hundred times higher than the EPA's nonenforceable advisory,
according to a Pentagon report to Congress.
Subsequently, in my family we have had 16 family members
diagnosed with cancer who resided for a significant time within
these toxic PFAS drinking water-contaminated residential areas
of Widefield, Security, Fountain, and Stratmoor. At least four
of these family members have died of kidney cancer, including
my father in 2017, you know, which has been linked to PFAS
contamination by scientists and the U.S. courts.
These cancer deaths permanently separated mothers, fathers,
and grandparents from their children and grandchildren. A few
years ago, a teenage cousin of ours required a kidney
transplant and the doctors ruled it out that it couldn't have
been genetic. His mother lived in a contaminated area since she
was 10 years old.
And because these kidney cancer deaths occurred on both
sides of my family including one person, a Vietnam veteran
decorated for combat who married into the family, it cannot be
explained by genetics.
Also, none of my family living outside of this area--the
contaminated area in Colorado Springs--has ever been diagnosed
with kidney cancer or failure.
Included among my affected family members are at least
seven U.S. military veterans who themselves, along with their
spouses and children, were being poisoned unknowingly by
these--by these toxic PFAS chemicals from Peterson Air Force
Base while they were on active duty and/or deployed to fight
for our country in Iraq.
Indeed, there is a picture of two of my family members
while they were deployed in the Iraq War together. Yet,
meanwhile at that same time, Peterson Air Force Base was
dumping toxic PFAS chemicals into the drinking water of their
spouses and children.
We also have several family members who, as military
veterans, are buried in Fort Logan National Cemetery along with
their spouses.
Yet, not buried there due to lethal wounds they received
when they served in our military during World War II, the
Korean War, and Vietnam, but instead, dead from cancer after
having their drinking water contaminated with toxic PFAS
chemicals for decades here in the United States without their
knowledge nor consent.
So imagine surviving World War II, the Korean, or Vietnam
War as a U.S. military service member fighting for our country
only to come home safe. But then years after unknowingly
drinking toxic PFAS chemicals put in there by our government be
diagnosed with deadly cancer.
And in the case of Leonard M. Haynes, not only are you
stricken with deadly cancer but so are your wife, child, and
grandchild, a grandchild who, at the age of 39, was buried last
year, dead from cancer, leaving behind two daughters and a
husband.
And we also just buried my aunt Ivory, pictured here, in
Fort Logan National Cemetery last month. My cousin, Princess,
died of kidney cancer at 55, who was raised in the area.
The Colorado Health Department, they did an investigation
and found that lung, bladder, and kidney cancer rates were
significantly higher than expected in the contaminated areas
versus the noncontaminated areas.
But then they chose not to investigate, stopped the
investigation, along with the EPA because they said they didn't
have the money and the DOD has been in charge of the
investigation since then and has given us information on a need
to know basis and has denied us to be a resident advisory
board.
And also now they have admitted that the Air Force
Academy's contamination from PFAS is just as large as Peterson.
You know, they never offered any blood tests nor has the state
of Colorado set legally enforceable statewide PFAS drinking
water levels.
And when the Colorado Health Department tried to induce a
site-specific standard--a groundwater standard for PFAS, the
Pentagon said it would not apply to the military because they
have sovereign legal immunity.
And the Air Force knew about these warnings for years from
their own scientists. In fact, Fort Carson, which is in our
same county, 10 minutes away from Peterson Air Force Base, a
DOD agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, told them in 1991
to stop using PFAS-laden firefighting foam and to replace it
with something nonhazardous.
Meanwhile, a 10-minute drive away, another DOD facility
decided it was a great idea to dump those same toxic chemicals
into the drinking water. And also in 1997, an Army study told
the soldiers to treat the firefighting foam as something toxic
to the environment.
So if the Defense Department via the Army didn't have to
wait for EPA guidance in 1991 and 1997, why do they have to
wait--why are they not doing anything based on EPA guidance
now?
So here we have two U.S. military bases in the same county
10 minutes apart. A DOD agency tells one ban the PFAS. They do
it. The other one says, you know what, we will just dump it
into the drinking water source.
I want Congress to investigate that and, you know, and
figure it out. Right now I have used up all my time. But what I
want to say is, you know, my mother worked for Peterson for 40
years serving from Colorado Springs. Serving in the military is
part of our culture.
We will continue to serve in the military. My niece just
called me last week saying she wants to join the Navy. So, you
know, we need to get this fixed so we can protect the people,
you know, as they serve and I hope and I wish that you could be
bipartisan and just, you know, have the courage to do
something, just an investigation, because most of these men in
my family, did I tell you they went to Vietnam?
They joined in the 1950's. There wasn't even a Civil Rights
Act or a Voting Rights Act but they signed up to go fight for
this country overseas doing a leap of faith.
And now we are just asking you just to have the same
courage that they had and try to, you know, help these families
and help us out.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Favors, and thank you for your
story.
The chair now recognizes Congresswoman Tlaib for five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Favors, I just want you to know I believe you. You
know, sometimes you need to feel believed and there is many of
my colleagues we believe you that it is killing your family
members.
Corporate disease--corporate greed is a disease in our
country and it is killing our people, and I don't know how many
of you all know--I know Mr. Joyce doesn't believe in science,
but I know--did you all know that 99 percent of Americans have
toxic PFAS chemicals in their blood? Ninety-nine percent of
Americans.
In the 1950's, 3M scientists knew that PFAS buildup would
get built up in blood. In the 1960's, DuPont and 3M knew that
these chemicals were toxic. By the 1980's these companies knew
that PFAS exposure caused birth defects in animals like rats
and further outcomes--health outcomes in humans.
Internal company documents have been made public that
confirm that they all knew. They all knew, and what I am more
and more frustrated with is that it is like this so what
approach.
You know, there is a sense of urgency, I think, with many
of my colleagues from Michigan and, of course, our chairman who
has been leading this fight from day one. But there is this
attitude of so what.
So I want to ask you Mr. Favors, if there is anything--if
there is one thing that you can tell every single American
across the country about PFAS, what do you want them to know?
Mr. Favors. That, you know, after 69,000 people gave blood
samples in West Virginia it was linked to cancer and diseases
and, you know, it is no--like, I tell people my grandmother
decided to move to this area.
She only has one sister. She was dead 11 years later. My
grandmother's only sister is 98 years old and lives alone, you
know.
So, you know, we just keep seeing and I have asked for a
congressional investigation. You know, I don't even want to
jump to conclusions but we can't even get a transparent
comprehensive investigation like what happened with Flint or
these other crises or what is happening at the border, you
know.
My family members are being separated from their children
based on government actions. So I just want the same vigor and
the same help that--you know, that other issues are getting.
Ms. Tlaib. You know, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Ruffalo and Mr. Faber, what more can we do in Congress
to shine the light of decades of cover up and misinformation?
And that is my worry is this constant misinformation but also
how do we combat this whole, like, so what attitude?
Because I want you to know, Mr. Favors, this is our fourth
hearing. We have had investigative hearings. I actually look to
my colleagues because I am one of the new ones here.
After the investigative hearings we will followup on
letters. We will do the things that we need to do, based on
what we heard in those investigative hearings.
But then we have these kind of political tactics that are
happening and, again, corporate interest, corporate greed is
tainting our democracy in a way that it drives away some of my
colleagues to have the political courage to do something. But
going to all of you----
Mr. Favors. Maybe try subpoenas.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Thank you.
So to you all, how do you combat that? How do we combat
that as Congress of this so what attitude and this
misinformation out there?
Mr. Ruffalo. If I knew that, the world would be a different
place.
I just want to comment. Mr. Comer, I know you care about
this because you said you did, and I guess--I guess it is
really like an opening of our hearts to our brothers and
sisters in the world, you know.
When we--when we decided to make this country we gave up
our freedoms and we gave up our tax dollars in order for--and
by giving those things up we made an agreement with this
country that they would take care of us people.
And I think part of the disease that we are seeing in the
world--in America today is a feeling that somehow that covenant
that we made has been broken and that we have become slavish to
corporate interests and economic interests and we have lost our
connection to our fellow man and women and children.
And I know you guys have families. Like, I know that we
all--we all relate to each other on these levels and I know--I
believe you when you say that you care about this.
But how can we sit here and listen to these stories from
Bucky Bailey or from Mark Favors and not be moved to take
action?
And, you know, you can do this by, basically, stopping the
things that we come into contact with--our drinking water,
cosmetics--those things that we use every day--food wrappers,
our clothing.
Even firefighters. We shouldn't be telling firefighters the
only--listen, guys, you are going to have to get cancer. It is
just part of your job. There should be no job in America that
that is a disclaimer. And it is just really, like--it is just--
it is just dropping our slavishness to this economic system.
I mean, it is so out of balance and there are so many sick
people. We have the science. We did the studies. We know, you
know.
We can't sit here and pretend like this didn't happen or
that this new EPA Blue Ribbon Panel, which they had already did
one in 2001--like, we don't need to know any more about this to
make the changes that we know in our hearts we have to make.
If you know that you are poisoning your kid, you are not
going to--you are not going to give them that anymore. I don't
care what side of the aisle you stand on.
I would say that we need a kind of--a realigning with what
it is to be a human being and think more about each other and
less about ourselves or less about corporate interests in this
country.
And then when we do that a lot of this stuff will take care
of itself.
Ms. Tlaib. I couldn't agree more, and you took up most of
my time but that is okay.
Mr. Ruffalo. Oh, I am so sorry.
Ms. Tlaib. It was completely worth it. But I would just
leave with all of you, my 14-year-old son, he says, Mom, what
about peopleism? Do peopleism. Put people before profits.
So I will leave you with all of that. But no, it was
completely worth it, Mr. Ruffalo. I think what you said was
exactly what we need to do in Congress.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Congressman Gibbs for five minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. And, of course, we all want to make
sure we have clean air and clean water and protect our
citizens.
We also need to recognize that the chemical industry has
done a lot to advance life and prolong life so we never forget
that.
Mr. Favors, you know, it is tragic to hear your testimony.
One thing that stuck out when you--when there was a little
clarification you talked about the Air Force base dumped--
dumped this stuff.
If that is the actual case, I believe they were--they were
breaking the law when they--if they actually were dumping and
not going through, you know, a process.
They were just making discharges of contaminated water.
That would have already broke the--that should be illegal and
that ought to be looked at. So I will just leave it there.
Mr. Favors. The issue is they said they had written
permission from the Colorado Springs Utility Department.
The Colorado Springs Utility Department said, I have no
idea. That is not true.
They have no written records ever giving the Air Force
permission, which is one of the reasons I have been, for the
last couple of years, coming to Congress to do an investigation
to find out----
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Well, I am--I am going to go on to another
witness.
Mr. Faber, I know some organizations, including yours,
argue that PFAS--the 5,000 known substances--should be
regulated as a class instead of individually.
My first question is, are all the PFAS chemicals the same
structurally?
Mr. Faber. Thank you for the--thank you for the question.
This class of chemicals, PFAS, has something that is--all
of these chemicals have one thing in common, which is the
carbon fluorine bond.
That is what the--the nature of these manmade chemicals
that causes them to buildup in our blood and, ultimately,
contribute to the diseases we have heard about.
And I know that it has been the subject of a lot of
conversations.
Mr. Gibbs. Because PFOS, P-F-O-S----
Mr. Faber. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. has actually been discontinued in
this country because we know that is a problem, right, and that
is--is that the key one that is used in the foam?
Mr. Faber. So the--we know a lot about PFOA and PFOS, P-F-
O-S, because we have reviewed the medical records and tested
the blood of 70,000 people who live in the mid-Ohio River
Valley, as you know, and had an independent panel of some of
the Nation's most respected epidemiologists look at all of that
data and draw the conclusion that PFOA is a probable cause of
kidney cancer, as we heard about, testicular cancer and other
diseases.
Mr. Gibbs. But are--but are chemical--like, DuPont and 3M,
didn't they voluntarily quit making that product, the PFOA?
Mr. Faber. That is--yes, thank you for the question.
So they--those companies phased out the use of PFOA and
PFOS but began to use very, very similar replacement chemicals
like GENX that we now know, because EPA and CDC have told us,
present many of the same health risks, including cancer.
So I think the challenge here is we are playing a game of
chemical whack-a-mole where we focus on one of these chemicals
and we say--we convince industry--we don't regulate it.
We regulate convince industry to phaseout that particular
chemical--in this case, PFOA--and instead we replace it with
another chemical that may pose and in this case does pose many
of the same----
Mr. Gibbs. Well, that is all up to speculation. I got to
move on so I am going to run out of time.
Mr. Faber. Well, sir, that is--that is based on what EPA
said in----
Mr. Gibbs. Okay. Mr. Ruffalo, I watched your movie trailer
this morning and there was a young girl riding a bicycle, and
it was evident that her teeth were either blackened or rotten
or whatever. Is the--that image, was that supposed to intend
that PFAS exposure causes tooth decay?
Mr. Ruffalo. I am not an expert on this but I will tell you
what I know about it. Because of the fluoride it can, in mass
quantities, begin to stain teeth.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, it depends on the question of mass
quantities. But I do have from a peer-reviewed British Medical
Journal earlier this year concluded that the PFAS were not
associated with prevalence with tooth decay.
And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert this
into the record.
Mr. Rouda. Without objection, so moved.
Mr. Gibbs. Do you know if there is anything else in that
movie that is coming out Friday that might play more on
emotions to sensationalize things and maybe not be accurate?
Because you just said you are not sure that it does have--tooth
decay is an accurate----
Mr. Ruffalo. It is not tooth decay, sir. It is tooth
staining. I didn't say tooth decay.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
Mr. Ruffalo. And that is the truth. And it is true that
high levels of fluoride do stain the teeth black and there were
many children that had that staining in that community.
Mr. Gibbs. Okay.
Mr. Ruffalo. So that is true. Okay. As far as--oh, did you
want me to finish?
Mr. Gibbs. I got 12 seconds so go ahead and use it.
Mr. Ruffalo. What you see in this movie except for what we
had to leave out, which was things like the DOJ getting
involved in this process and dropping the case just out of the
blue for criminal action and on behalf of DuPont, the things
that we have in the movie are the things that happened.
And yes, they are emotional because we are talking about
human lives here. We are talking about people getting sick,
people dying. So yes, those are emotional things. But those
things all happened. Everything that is in that movie happened.
Mr. Gibbs. I think it is interesting that the movie is
coming out Friday and we are having this hearing today. So I
kind of wonder what is going on here. But I think it is a
little bit inappropriate with the----
Mr. Ruffalo. Well, we could talk about that. I would be
willing to talk about that.
Mr. Rouda. Member's time has expired.
The chair recognizes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez for five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it is quite funny how the matters of people's lives
are being diminished by such horrible allegations. But what I
also find laughable is the idea that something like a movie can
cause us to hold a congressional hearing because I want to get
to the bottom of something.
I have pulled a list of about 30 corporations that have
employed registered lobbyists this year to advocate on their
behalf before Congress to discuss--to discuss PFAS policy and
legislation, and I would like to seek unanimous consent to
submit the list of corporations to the record.
Mr. Rouda. Without objection, so moved.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Some of these corporations include oil
companies like Shell, Exxon Mobil, and Phillips 66. 3M this
year alone in 2019 has spent $2.5 million on outside lobbying
alone. That doesn't even include inside lobbying.
We have DuPont, which has spent a large amount of money on
inside lobbying. Exxon Mobil has spent $5.1 million of
lobbying. Those are the folks who are not at this table.
So when we make accusations, I can--I can say, along with
this document, that there are people spending far more money to
purchase our public policy than a movie trailer right now. So I
can assure the opposition that that is the case.
One thing that I am concerned with, and Mr. Chairman, I
would like to also submit a second memorandum where--and enter
it into the record where a Department of Defense memorandum
from just last month where the department appears to be
disregarding safety recommendations from the EPA regarding PFAS
groundwater contamination.
Mr. Rouda. Without objection, so moved.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Favors, I am confused by this
because we now have the Department of Defense saying that we
don't need to worry about this to the EPA.
Can you shed any light as to why that is?
Mr. Favors. Why they say they don't need to worry about it?
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
Mr. Favors. I am dumbfounded because, like, you know, here
is an official Air Force document from 1989 where the Air Force
says clearly other chemicals which could conceivably cause
acute toxicity problems would be fuels, oil spills, and a
triple F firefighting foam.
So there has been tons of research where they have done it.
I mean, ironically, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who told
the Army to replace it in 1991, it is the same agency that the
Air Force is using now to investigate their PFAS.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So we are saying--so the Army has said
this is dangerous. The Air Force, in the past, has said this is
dangerous?
Mr. Favors. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and, yet, Air
Force scientists and Air Force, you know, personnel have said
yes, it is dangerous. I have documents----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yet, we just have a memo from just last
month the Department of Defense saying this is not.
Mr. Favors. That is why we need subpoenas issued for this
and we need a comprehensive investigation from Congress, you
know, like what happened with Flint and other big tragedies.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I concur. I concur with you, Mr. Favors.
Mr. Ruffalo, I think one of the things that you alluded to
earlier in this story is that at the core this is a story about
corruption and that corruption has--this level of political
corruption has, essentially, poisoned people's blood.
Can you tell me a little bit about some--you alluded to
there being the--you know, an activist life being ruined or
impacted by this or the fact that there were mysterious
shutdowns of this investigation.
Can you tell a few--tell us a little bit about some of
those anecdotes and strange occurrences?
Mr. Ruffalo. So for something like this to happen at the
level it did, there either had to be extreme malfeasance on
the--on the corporate level, which we see from the story, but
there were things that seemed to happen that this got lost in
the EPA, it got lost in the DOJ, and you have to wonder what
political forces were working at that time to make this story
disappear.
I mean, this is--I am a film maker. I tell stories. This is
a significant story. This is--this is millions of people being
contaminated with a company that knew it was happening, even
before they brought the actual product onto the market and we
don't know anything about it. We are sitting here today
discovering this.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And you said that when Mr.--when Mr.
Bilott approached the EPA with the findings on PFAS it was
DuPont's attorneys that attempted to stop him with a gag order.
Is that correct?
Mr. Ruffalo. That is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much. I yield my time to
the chair.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Keller--Congressman Keller for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Favors, thank you for your service to our country. It
is very much appreciated.
Mr. Faber, I am glad to notice that you mentioned in your
testimony that there is language addressing this issue included
in part of the NDAA. So it is not like we haven't done
anything. We are trying to get things done. So I appreciate you
recognizing that.
And Mr. Chairman, I commend you on recognizing this is a
complex issue. So thank you for doing that.
And with that, I would just like to cover a few things
here. Last week, the majority of this committee held a hearing
on abortion where the only pro-life witness was attacked for
not having, quote, ``scientific or particular expertise in this
subject matter whatsoever,'' end quote.
This week, the majority is once again trying to
inappropriately use this subcommittee to sway public opinion
and rush to try and regulate an industry where more research is
required, research that should be done by scientists and
subject matter experts.
But knowing no depths to how far they will go to show off
their hypocrisy or help their allies in Hollywood, the majority
has called as their star witness an actor. That is right, an
actor.
An actor with no medical, no scientific or research
expertise except for a few scenes as Dr. Bruce Banner. An actor
that has a record of anti-business activism.
More importantly, to Mr. Ruffalo and maybe Democratic
allies, an actor with a movie remembering--excuse me, a movie
premiering this week that attacks private sector job creators
with loose facts and hyped-up emotional rhetoric.
And I would like to submit for the record today's press
pictures of today's press conference, for the record, that show
that while this is--while this is happening the movie is being
promoted right outside the Capitol with Members of Congress
there.
Mr. Rouda. Without objection, so moved.
Mr. Keller. I am not sure if Mr. Ruffalo is looking for an
Academy Award for his performance in the upcoming movie or for
his performance in this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, there is bipartisan legislation out there
that can actually start to get to the heart of this problem
based upon scientific data we have.
Language addressing this issue is included as part of the
Senate-approved National Defense Authorization Act and was
unanimously reported out of the Environment and Public Works
Committee.
This approach would use a number of EPA authorities such as
the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow for better coordination
between Federal agencies on the issue and would set drinking
water standards for PFOS and PFOA, the PFAS chemicals that EPA
has the most data on.
Mr. Chairman, maybe we should spend more time--more of our
time working toward a real solution, getting real answers, and
not talking to attention-grabbing headliners.
I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Wasserman Schultz--
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz--for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Favors, thank you so much for taking the time to
testify and thank you for your service, of course.
Your testimony really reminds us all that this is an issue
of life and death. Congress and the administration cannot lose
sight of the fact that real people, particularly our service
members and veterans, are suffering.
I want to ask you, and I have a couple other things I want
to cover so if you can try to answer succinctly. When did you
and your family first learn that your water on Peterson Air
Force Base may have been contaminated with PFAS chemicals?
And military bases, obviously, form the heart of several
communities across the Nation. Could you describe the reaction
that your family and other people in the community had when
they heard about this contamination?
Mr. Favors. I didn't--it was 2016 where they were told to
stop using their tap water. I live in New York now. I didn't
know about this until 2017 when I went to visit my mother and
CBS This Morning had did--was doing a little news report on
Peterson Air Force Base and the drinking water, and let us just
say I was very disappointed in hearing that my grandmother--my
grandparents had been poisoned.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Right. I can only imagine. It is,
obviously--I am sure you wouldn't be surprised to learn that
this isn't an uncommon experience. The PFOA and PFOS level
detected at MacDill Air Force Base in my home state of Florida
in Tampa is 523,710 parts per trillion. The PFOA and PFOS level
detected at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville in my home
state is 1,397,120 parts per trillion.
The PFOA and PFOS level detected at Patrick Air Force Base
in Brevard County in my home state of Florida is 4,338,000
parts per trillion.
And these are just a handful of the military installations
in Florida alone. So I want everyone present and watching this
hearing now to hear this fact.
The risk level found by CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry is 11 parts per trillion for PFOA and for
PFOS it is seven parts per trillion. Seven. Above that and you
start running a real risk of public health problems.
For the record, 4.3 million is greater than seven. So, Mr.
Favors, it seems to me that we have a national water crisis on
our hands here and our service members have been unfairly and
cruelly put on the front lines of this chemical crisis.
Do members of your community believe that DOD's response to
the water crisis has been adequate?
Mr. Favors. No. Most of them do not because we have been
denied a RAB, a citizen advisory board, and they have been in
control of the investigation.
The EPA stopped investigating and the state and it is a
need to know basis. I mean, we have gotten emails from Germany
where people on bases in Germany have been told to get out of
their housing because of PFAS.
But they won't give them any specific numbers. They are
just, like, you know, don't--you know, we have fliers and
everything. So no, it is not just in our community but it is,
you know, people connected to our community who are stationed
around the world.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. So, basically, they have been
blocking your access to information about----
Mr. Favors. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz [continuing]. how this happened and--
--
Mr. Favors. A lot.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Well, not surprising. I am sure it
won't surprise you to learn that in the last PFAS hearing that
we had in the subcommittee I sat on this dais and asked
representatives of DuPont and 3M if they had any plans to
compensate service members by the chemicals they manufactured
and I had to wrench an answer out of them and they finally,
sheepishly, said no, that they didn't. I told them, and I will
reiterate here, that I don't know how they sleep at night.
Mr. Favors, what is your reaction to hearing that these
polluters continue to deny responsibility and refuse to help
people like you and your family?
Mr. Favors. You know, it is difficult because the period of
contamination of the Air Force is from 1970 to 2016.
Per Colorado's strict two-year statute of limitation, a lot
of my grandparents and family members that fought in World War
II and in Vietnam because they died before 2014 they are not
able to sue anyway.
So this isn't about--and plus, there is not enough money in
the U.S. Treasury to compensate for poisoning my grandmother.
So, you know, it is--we are just trying to get justice and
accountability. But everybody wants to pass the buck so that is
why we are here.
Ms. Wasserman-Schultz. Well, as a cancer survivor myself, I
certainly can personally understand how devastating that is.
When you, as I have, faced your own mortality and stare it
right in the face, you get a little bit more motivated than I
might have already been about environmental justice and making
sure that the actions of government or the inaction of
government isn't poisoning our citizens and then allowing
corporate America to get away with it.
So I chair a subcommittee in Appropriations on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs and I can assure you that we
are going to continue to make sure that we hold these
companies' feet to the fire.
We have added $60 million above the president's budget
request for this cleanup and we will continue to fight by your
side.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Comer for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I want to
reiterate the fact that I think we all support clean water and
trying to get sensible solution to this problem.
I want to reiterate what Mr. Keller said. There are
efforts--bipartisan efforts to try to fix this problem.
And, Mr. Favors, I wholeheartedly support if any families
have been poisoned intentionally by corporate America that they
get compensated for that, and I want to make sure that if they
get compensated they get what they are due and not have
scenarios where big corporate law firm take an overwhelming cut
of the money.
With that, I want to ask Mr. Joyce let us talk about these
lawsuits.
Have you seen an increasing trend of state attorneys
general contracting with outside law firms to conduct
environmental litigation against corporations on states'
behalf?
Mr. Joyce. Yes, we have. I think that that kind of
litigation is become more common in a lot of areas and I would
just extend that to beyond the states to individual
communities, sometimes counties and cities.
Mr. Comer. On what basis are these outside law firms paid
typically? Is it a contingency fee basis or how are they paid?
Mr. Joyce. I think, overall, that is the typical process.
Mr. Comer. In your experience, have state attorneys general
been forthcoming and transparent about the relationship with
outside law firms in these matters?
Mr. Joyce. Well, I think there is a lot is known about it
and I think organizations like ours sometimes will go on the
record and ask them to provide, and oftentimes they have to
indicate if the--if a law firm enters into a contract with a
state it has to be done publicly.
Mr. Comer. Good. According to your testimony, the American
Tort Reform Association released a report called ``For Profit
or For the Public Interest,'' which documents how local
governments are increasingly accepting invitations from private
plaintiffs' law firm to bring lawsuits.
Can you describe why you feel this is a dangerous path to
go down?
Mr. Joyce. Well, I think our perspective is really kind of
in multiple parts. First off is--and this is not to disparage
anybody that is involved, but whether it is you in Congress,
members of the executive branch, or state attorneys general and
others, your responsibility is to--is to protect the public,
serve the public interest.
Lawyers operating on a contingency fee basis--and again,
this is not an indictment of them--but they have a profit
motive and I think those can be fundamentally incompatible.
Any litigation brought by a governmental entity should
serve the public interest, not the private interests of
lawyers. We think that that is important.
Mr. Comer. Right.
Has there been a rise in the number of PFAS lawsuits
brought by plaintiffs' attorneys in recent years?
Mr. Joyce. We are seeing more and more of it, and it is a
growing area. I think we highlighted that in the report that
you mentioned.
Mr. Comer. In your opening statement you stated it is
troubling when the civil justice system is used today to punish
businesses for making products decades ago that had substantial
public benefits and, in some cases, were developed or demanded
by the government itself.
PFAS chemicals have helped in the past many people's lives,
correct?
Mr. Joyce. I think so, yes.
Mr. Comer. And the U.S. Navy worked with 3M to develop
firefighting foams containing PFAS to help save lives. Is that
correct?
Mr. Joyce. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. Comer. And I have said this in the--in testimony before
in the three previous hearings that my firefighters union in
Kentucky said that, you know, very important that they have the
tools--when they were aware of the PFAS testimony and
everything--that they had the tools necessary to put out--to
put out fires and to save their lives.
So, you know, this is something that has been used in the
past to do good things. This is something that the government
required companies to do.
So many of these businesses could be in a tough spot then,
especially if the government required them to use these
chemicals. Is that--is that correct?
Mr. Joyce. Well, I think, again, it was done in
collaboration with the government and I think with respect to
the Navy, the particular instance that you mentioned--we
highlighted this--back, you know, in the--in the 1960's during
the Vietnam War damage to Navy ships when they caught on fire
were often tragic and there was no ability to put out the
fires, and now I think that has been significantly enhanced.
Mr. Comer. And, Mr. Chairman, again, I am happy that we are
having these hearings. I think that there can be a path forward
to help solve the problem to clean the waters to ensure that at
the very least that this--that there is no more toxic chemicals
that end up in our--in our drinking water.
And I yield.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Congressman Kildee for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and for your leadership on this issue, and to the
witnesses, thank you for your testimony.
I just need to sort of get something off my chest. Let us
not be afraid of a movie. We should be afraid of the story that
that movie tells.
So I know it is fun and maybe sport for some on the other
side to want to attack anyone who is in the business of telling
these important stories.
But I will tell you one thing. As a guy who represents a
community that was poisoned and overlooked, I will take help
from anyone who will step up and help tell this story to the
American people.
And when I needed help in Flint, Michigan, a lot of my
friends here helped. Mark Ruffalo showed up in Flint, Michigan,
to help bring attention to that crisis.
So Mark, keep doing what you are doing because the way we
change policy is by informing people of what policy that is
currently in place is doing to them, and right now the policy
that is in place in this country is poisoning people and it is
our responsibility to do something about it.
So don't be afraid of a movie and don't judge the movie by
just watching the trailer, by the way.
So get that off my chest.
But it is important to note--one of the comments that was
made from the gentleman on the other side who is no longer in
the room is that we shouldn't say we are not doing anything
because we have all these provisions in the NDAA, and then
after a comma, but we shouldn't regulate this until the science
tells us.
The language we have in the NDAA allows us to regulate it.
So, Mr. Faber, I wonder if you could just address what it would
mean specifically to list PFAS under CERCLA and what that
process looks like.
Is it a ban? How does it actually work?
Mr. Faber. Thank you for the question. This is a really
important question because there is a mistaken assumption that
designating PFAS as a hazardous substance would be a de facto
ban.
That is simply not true. CERCLA is a cleanup statute. It
does not regulate chemicals. When we regulate chemicals, we
regulate chemicals under TSCA, which we updated three years.
When we regulate medical devices, we regulate them under
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. We do not regulate them
under CERCLA. CERCLA only regulates releases of toxic chemicals
and only applies when a site is so contaminated that it has to
be cleaned up.
So that is a really--and I will just add one quick point on
that, which is that there are hundreds and hundreds of
chemicals that have been designated as hazardous substances
under CERCLA. Seven hundred and sixty-one of those have been
designated as a hazardous substance.
Do you know how many of those are still being used in
commerce today? Five hundred and ninety-nine. They are used in
all sorts of things. Three hundred and thirty-nine of them are
produced at very high volumes.
So to your point, Mr. Kildee, a hazardous substance
designation is not a ban. It simply requires the cleanup of the
most contaminated sites and it ensures that the polluters who
knowingly contributed to this worldwide contamination pay their
fair share of the cleanup costs.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
If you could also comment. There is this discussion, and I
have to point out, Mr. Joyce, you echoed something we heard in
a previous hearing that the science is incomplete in order to
come to any conclusion.
I don't know when there is enough science. But just looking
at the C8 study, and I see Mr. Bilott and Bucky here--Bucky
Bailey, one of the heroes of the story in Parkersburg--at least
at the time and maybe still, the most exhaustive human health
study ever conducted, there is pretty solid science that says
this is bad stuff and we ought to protect people from it. Isn't
that right, Mr. Faber?
Mr. Faber. That is right. Again, we reviewed the medical
records and blood work of 70,000 people. Imagine what it would
take to get 70,000 people to donate their blood so that
independent scientists could assess whether there was, indeed,
a link between PFOA and cancer and other serious health
effects.
But that is not all. There have been hundreds of additional
peer-reviewed studies done by EPA, CDC, by others. But the most
important source of information about the threats posed by
these chemicals comes from the industry itself.
The reason we know that these chemicals cause cancer and
other serious health problems is because we have seen it in on
DuPont and 3M letterhead. We know because they knew.
We know because they knew in the 1950's that this stuff
built up in our blood, and in the 1960's that it was toxic, and
then in the 1970's it was poisoning their own workers, and in
the 1980's it was poisoning their neighbors. And they never
told anyone.
They didn't tell their workers. They didn't tell their
communities and, most of all, they didn't tell the EPA. And
then when they did tell EPA, EPA did nothing.
EPA has known since 2001 and they have done nothing and
that is why it is so important, as Mr. Keller said, that
Congress has finally, in 2019, almost 20 years after EPA first
found out about this, finally saying we need to reduce releases
of PFAS, we need to end the use of PFAS in food packaging, and
we need to clean up this mess.
We need to--we need to tell DOD, as Mr. Favors said, that
when we find high levels of contamination that it is their
responsibility to clean up the mess they have created over the
decades.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chair, if I could just close. I know I have
gone over my time.
But there is a question before Congress right now on this,
and so I was glad to hear my colleague on the other side
mention the NDAA provisions.
There is an organized effort right now to have those
provisions taken out of the NDAA in its final form. We worked
really hard in the House, in a bipartisan way very often, to
get those provisions included.
This is a chance to get real protection to the president's
desk signed and put into law and not just a get well card to
people who are facing poisoning or communities that are facing
poisoning, but something tangible.
So for those of you that want to see something done, the
moment is right now. Speak up.
I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes myself for questioning.
You know, I look at this. I think there is three things we
have got to do.
One, stop dumping. Two, cleanup where we have dumped. And
three, do testing on these Next Gen chemicals.
And Mr. Favors, you--in your opening testimony, I know you
weren't able to get through all of it but you aptly said,
quote, ``If I wanted to sell PFAS as a medicine, I would have
to wait for several years of testing to prove it is safe before
applying to the FDA. However, I can immediately discharge these
chemicals into our environment,'' and let me turn to that
because I know there was some questioning up here as well.
Mr. Faber, if you could elaborate on what limitations, if
any, are on the dumping of these chemicals.
Mr. Faber. That is right. Thank you for the question.
Right now, there is no limitation whatsoever under the
Clean Water Act with regards to discharges of PFAS into waters.
Per Mr. Gibbs' question to Mr. Favors about whether or not
it is illegal to simply dump or discharge PFAS into a river,
the answer is yes.
Right now, municipal--sorry, industrial polluters can
release as much PFAS into the water and into the air as they
want because EPA has not used the authority Congress has given
it to set limits on those releases into the air and into the
water.
That is why it is so important for Congress to set a
deadline for EPA to take action.
Mr. Rouda. Right. So they can dump, they can release, and
they don't have to clean up unless there is a successful
lawsuit against them to do such.
And third, they have introduced up to 5,000 Next Gen
chemical compounds that have not had proper testing as to the
impact it has on Americans and our children.
Is that correct?
Mr. Faber. That is right, and many of those replacement
chemicals were approved for use in commerce even though there
were studies showing links to very serious health effects,
including tumors in animal studies and other serious concerns.
Mr. Rouda. And, Mr. Ruffalo, my apologies for the
questioning of your legitimate reasons for being here. I note
that you are an author, a podcast host, a commentator that has
worked very hard on behalf of these issues and I am kind of
curious as to why this issue is so important to you.
Mr. Ruffalo. So I am an activist as well and I have been
working in the water space for years whether it was in Flint,
Michigan, or it was in Pennsylvania and the fracking issue when
we were being told that water wasn't being contaminated by
fracking, and then we came to find out it was.
I would rather be doing other things. You know, I would
rather be with my family. But I do see an imbalance in what is
happening to people in the ground and what we are addressing in
the media and what we are addressing here in these sacred
halls.
And I have been gifted with this outsized media coverage--
celebrity--and I can decide, well, I can do that to do car
commercials and make a lot more money. I could do that--I could
use that for any number of things to ingratiate and enrich
myself.
I feel like from this blessing that I have been given that
I want to give people the voice that don't have a voice, and
that is really what I am doing here today.
That is why I wanted to make this movie. Nobody goes into
an independent movie thinking you are going to make a killing.
You will be lucky if you make a living.
Nobody comes--I mean, nobody--these people that came here
today they left work to come here because these issues are real
to them.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you for doing this because, to borrow from
one of your previous films, it is important to shine a
spotlight on these issues.
Mr. Ruffalo. Yes.
Mr. Rouda. And the fact that you have a podium and a
microphone and a platform to be able to do that is important
for this incredibly difficult issue affecting so many
Americans.
I also want to talk a little bit about Congresswoman
Ocasio-Cortez's observations about the greed of corporate
America. And yes, corporate America does provide important
products and services to our quality of life.
But let us keep in mind that 3M settled for $875 million
with the state of Minnesota after voluntarily stopping the
production of PFAS chemicals.
They did not do this gratuitously. They did this because
they recognized the extensive liability associated with the
continued manufacturing and dumping of those chemicals into our
environment and settled, again, with just one state for $875
million.
And the reason that they have so many lobbyists and give so
many campaign contributions to so many people that operate here
on the Hill is because they want to maintain as little
liability as possible and it is our job to make sure we hold
them accountable.
With that, my time has expired. Before we close this
hearing, I would like to take the opportunity to give each one
of the witnesses, if there is anything--last comments you would
like to make, if you could keep them brief.
So Mr. Ruffalo, we will start with you.
Mr. Ruffalo. Well, I appreciate being here, and even though
I took some licks I am honored to be here.
I appreciate this--what is happening. I do appreciate what
Mr. Comer is saying about this bipartisan effort and the NDAA
and I want to see that happen and it would be a travesty if
that doesn't happen.
And so I am honored that I could come here today on behalf
of these people. I am honored to be sitting here with somebody
like Bucky Bailey and Mark Favors, and I am going to keep doing
this as a service to my country.
So thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Ruffalo.
And Mr. Faber, thank you too for your service. I meant to
point out the study that you had shared with me recently
regarding California, that 40 percent of its municipal water
districts are showing contaminant levels above the EPA
guidelines and I recognize that Ken Cook is sitting behind you
as well and I appreciate the efforts of both of you in keeping
a strong focus on this.
The floor is yours.
Mr. Faber. I will just add that no one wants PFAS in their
drinking water. No one volunteered to have PFAS in their
drinking water or their food, no one in Louisville, where EWG
just found 10 different PFAS in their drinking water.
So everyone agrees we ought to clean it up and, in
particular, everyone agrees we shouldn't make the problem
bigger by discharging even more PFAS into the air and water.
Unfortunately, EPA hasn't used the authorities you have
already given them to do so. EPA hasn't chosen to regulate PFAS
under the Clean Water Act, under the Clean Air Act. EPA hasn't
chosen to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
And until we do those things, until we force EPA to do
those things we will continue to discharge even more PFAS into
the air and water.
We will continue to tell communities in Colorado that the
DOD does not have to clean up legacy PFAS contamination.
So and the last thing I will just say is I think we all
agree we don't want to make this problem bigger and that we
should begin to clean it up.
But the other thing I think we--ultimately, the hazardous
substance designation fight in the NDAA is about who pays.
Should it be--if we simply say we are going to take it out
of the water, then it is just all of us who are going to pay in
our water bills.
So the real question is whether or not the companies that
knowingly polluted all of these rivers--rivers in Kentucky
where there are very high levels of PFAS in northern Kentucky,
rivers in Michigan, rivers all across the country--whether it
should just be all of us who have to help pay for those costs
or whether it should be the companies who should have to pay
their fair share, and that is really the question Congress will
answer in the next few days.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Faber.
Mr. Joyce?
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you again to
the members of the subcommittee.
You know, I would simply say that public health and
protecting the environment are the responsibility of the
Congress and the agencies that you fund and authorize and
direct to do those--do that important work.
My point in being here today was simply to talk about the
litigation in this area. But as far as whatever should be done
according to what is best to serve the interests of the public,
my organization, I would suspect, overwhelmingly people would
agree that that should be done and we should protect Mr. Favors
and those who serve our country. It should protect all of us.
It should be reasonable. It should be science based.
I am here simply to talk about the aspect with the
litigation and making sure that litigation, regulation, all of
them, are based on science--the best science, the best
judgment, and that those who are in the best position to
protect the public and the environment are doing that work and
working to support the American people.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Mr. Favors?
Mr. Favors. I want to thank you and I hope that this
committee takes seriously what seems like a bipartisan olive
branch from Mr. Comer and Mr. Gibbs where we need to get to the
bottom of what these discharges that the Air Force did for 30
years, authorized or not.
And I think this is a perfect opportunity just to answer
that question, to show bipartisan, start, you know, sending
letters and getting to the bottom of that and just--you know,
just to say, you know, this is real to our family.
You can go to Fort Logan grave locator. You can find these
people. They are there. They are buried. And just to go back to
the human touch.
I just want to read a couple of sentences from my cousin's
obituary and where it says, you know, ``Princess volunteered
her time, treasures, talents to many organizations throughout
her lifetime. Wherever she found herself, she stood out in
crowds. Matthew 5:14, 'You are the light of the world.'
Princess nurtured her spiritual needs at various churches
until she could no longer attend due to declining health. She
was very grateful and blessed for the opportunity to reaffirm
and accept Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior.
Sunset came on Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, at her home.
Princess fell asleep in Jesus' arms with her loving mother,
aunt, sons, brothers, friends at hers side.''
I just want to know--the Air Force volunteered this
information. It wasn't like I was sending them a bunch of
Freedom of Information requests. We were minding our own
business and they said, look, this is what we have done.
Now we need some accountability and justice.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Favors.
And thank you to all of our witnesses including Mr. Bilott
and Mr. Bailey, who have testified here previously.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for the response.
I ask your witnesses to please respond as promptly as you
are able.
This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]