Dr. Moline, is there any safe level of asbestos in consumer talcbased products . No. And why is that . Theres no safe level of asbestos period. Its a carcinogen. Its a type 1 carcinogen and there should be no exposure. Dr. Longo, both the fda and the epa agree that there is no safe or acceptable level of asbestos for human exposure, correct . That is correct. In fact, just this past year, Johnson Johnsons ceo was asked in a deposition whether asbestos is safe. He stated, quote, i would agree that asbestos is considered unsafe. Im not an expert geologist or safety expert in that particular area. But generally speaking, we would say, yeah, asbestos is not safe. On october 18th, the fda announced it had detected asbestos in j js talcum powder. Dr. Moline, what is the significance of this announcement . That to this day, theyre finding asbestos when they go off the shelf. In talcum powder. And its putting thousands, if not millions, of people at risk in the future. Dr. Longo . That is correct. And those results verify our results of finding asbestos in the Johnson Johnsons product from the chinese mine, which is the mine thats being used today. Dr. Longo, its important that we have sensitive testing methods to detect any level of asbestos in consumer products, right . Yes, sir, thats correct. And you personally tested historical samples of j js talcum powder, correct . Yes, our laboratory has. And from what decades did you test this powder . We have analyzed samples from the 40s all the way up to the 2000s, as well as the as well as the current Johnson Johnson products. And what did you find . Overall, 65 of all the samples we tested were positive for regulated asbestos. Did you use the same asbestos detection methods as j j . No, sir, we did not. And how did they differ . We used what is called a heavyliquid separation technique, which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive. And do you believe that sensitivity is essential to detecting asbestos in talc . Absolutely. Now, has Johnson Johnson ever acknowledged any asbestosdetection tests that have concluded that the companys samples contain asbestos . Not that im aware of. So just so i understand, youve tested historical samples from the 40s through today using this hls method of detection. And in in those tests, youve determined 65 of those samples contain asbestos. But on the other hand, Johnson Johnson has never acknowledged that any of their samples contain asbestos. How could that be . Not currently, they havent. Certainly, some of their testing of consultants in the past. They dont acknowledge it. They say what we are testing is really not asbestos and now it comes down to the argument of whats the g the excuse me the geometry of the fibers versus what they call cleavage fragments. Okay. And why does that matter . Well, on our side, it doesnt matter because were following absolute, regulated protocols to identify asbestos recognized by epa, osha, the astm, as well the International Standards organization. Its a defining in what the definition is. Its misleading at best. Okay. Now, as you know, on october 18th, fda announced its contract lab found asbestos in j js talcum powder. Did fdas contract lab this is the ama firm did they use the hls method . They did not. What kind of method did they use, do you know . I would call it the standard method where you have to find a needle in a haystack. And every now and then, youll find that needle. But its rare. And theyve had, in a rare event in my opinion, that they found the needle in this particular bottle. So what would have happened had they used the hls method of detection, which is a much more sensitive method . If they had used that method as in its current state, they would not have found the asbestos. But they could have found the amphable asbestos, which is what that method is really designed for. And again, tell us what is the significance of finding one type of asbestos versus the other . No significance because theyre both regulated. The significance is that current products are being sold with trace amounts of asbestos in it. Just so i understand, either one would be carcinogenic. Thats not my area. I think dr. Moline would tell you that either one is carcinogenic. Dr. Moline, you want to tell us if either one is carcinogenic . All the forms of asbestos are carcinogenic. Thank you. Let me now congresswoman miller for five minutes of questions. Thank you, chairman krishnamoorthi. The Oversight Committee has long played an important part of overseeing the role government plays in protecting the public. Congress has mandated the food and Drug Administration be the responsible one for regulating certain products, including consumer cosmetics that use talc. While the committee has the jurisdiction to complete this oversight on the possibility of asbestos in talc, todays hearing does nothing to accomplish that goal. Johnson johnson has provided over 10,000 pages of material to the committee on their asbestos testing methods and have offered to provide over 300,000 more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle declined to receive them. Johnson johnson has also offered to have its own experts in asbestos testing appear in front of this committee to provide real documentation and evidence. And, again, has been unfortunately denied. This hearing does not help consumers and it is neither the right form, nor the fair process, needed to have this important conversation. It is inappropriate for this committee to attempt to influence ongoing litigation. Todays hearing is not the role of this committee and i look forward to the opportunity to perform the oversight duties that the American People elected us to do in order to keep us safe. Dr. Longo, is it true that in the early 2000s, you testified, under oath, that talccontaining asbestos was an urban legend . Yes, maam, i did. What has changed since then . What has changed since then is weve been using a much more sensitive method and that was at the time that we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands of thousands of Johnson Johnson confidential documents showing that their own testing, of their own products and their own mines, had regulated asbestos in it. And we were not using the the most sensitive techniques. And since that time, in three years, we have analyzed over 109 Johnson Johnson bottles and found 65 of em positive for regulated asbestos using heavyliquid heavyliquid density separation. And many other cosmetic talc company. How long has that that testing been available . It was initially been available since for Johnson Johnson, when their consultants, in 1973. In 1974, developed the heavyliquid density separation method for ample asbestos and presented it to Johnson Johnson. But in 2001, when you were asked if you were familiar with the content of asbestos cosmetics, you said in my field i have. Its sort of like an urban legend about the talcs in cosmetics containing termalight. I did say that back in 2001. And again, thats before we received all the confidential documents from Johnson Johnson showing that they had a heavyliquid density separation process that was presented to them in 73 and 74. Have you ever visited a talc mine that supplies Johnson Johnson product . No, maam, i havent. Has your lab ever tested a Johnson Johnson product that has been confirmed positive for asbestos . Yes, we have tested many Johnson Johnson products that we have confirmed positive for asbestos, as well as other laboratories. Dr. Moline, in your written testimony, you cite a study by dr. Victor rogley, but dr. Rogley says that cosmetic talc does not cause cancer, is that correct . Im not sure what study youre referring to. The study i was referring to was from early work he did where he analyzed the lung tissue of women with mesothelioma. This was in 2019. Specifically, in august of 2019, dr. Rogley stated that he and his fellow researchers identify no evidence of any causative role of cosmetic talc in malignant mesothelioma. I think that doctors may disagree on that and i think the weight of the evidence is to the contrary. But hes entitled to his opinion. Thank you. I yield back my time. Thank you, congresswoman miller. Now, congresswoman pressly, you have five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. And respectfully, i disagree with my colleague across the aisle. I think this is the very exact vehicle and forum where this sort of oversight is supposed to take place. This is the committee where we pursue truth and justice for the American People. And there has been a great injustice done to many. And so im grateful for the hearing today. I find it insulting to this committee and to the men and women across this country whose trust in Johnson Johnson has destroyed their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Today, we have heard brave testimony from people like pastor etheridge. And let me say what mr. Gorski wouldnt. Im sorry. Im sorry for the pain you have endured because you put your trust in a company that placed profits over your very life. And safety. When Johnson Johnson asked people to trust them, the fda should have said show us. Show us that your products arent hazardous. And when they refused to do this, when research showed that asbestos was showing up on their talcum baby powder, rather than inform the public, Johnson Johnson tried to discredit it. They looked for ways to sell more of it. And they set their sights on black and hispanic women. Mr. Gorski, i hope you are watching today because we still want answers. And thats exactly why representative of illinois and i earlier submitted a letter that we planned submitted a letter so that we can continue to get to the bottom of this and to demand answers and accountability for those who have been harmed by Johnson Johnson because of their companys greed. And they deserve to be held accountable. Pastor etheridge, i know you had to step away from the pulpit but i could argue, as a woman of faith, that your ministry continues. As evidence by your testimony here today. Could you share with us what were your initial symptoms . My initial symptoms were unexplained weight loss. I never lost weight by accident in my entire life. I had fever. Shortness of breath and fatigue. And so and was there was there any other context around this . Were you going on a trip or something . We were on vacation in hawaii and had some was taking a antibiotics and my symptoms, instead of getting better, were getting worse. So we went to an e. R. And i was diagnosed with cancer at that time. Later when i returned home, it was determined it was mesothelioma. Thank you. I have some more questions and due to the interest of time, if youll please try to answer them as succinctly as possible, preferably with a yes or no answer. Did you consult additional doctors when you returned from vacation . Yes. Did your doctor discuss with you the causes of mesothelioma . Yes. Have you ever been exposed to asbestos in your profession as a pastor . No. How long have you been a pastor . I was a pastor for 33 years. How often in adulthood would you use Johnson Johnsons talcum baby powder and for what purpose . Maybe two or three times a week to powder my genitals after i showered. Common. Again, im so sorry for the pain you have endured. As a lawmaker, i know the power of having those closest to the pain driving our policy solutions, as well as the general accountability given the jurisdiction or reach of this committee. So just for the record, and you spoke to this in your earlier testimony but i think it bears repeating. Pastor etheridge, do you believe Johnson Johnsons talcbased baby powder caused your mesothelioma . Yes, i am convinced of that. If you the chance to prevent other people from using products that cause mesothelioma, what would you do . Ideally, we need to get this stuff off the shelves. All right. Well, well certainly do everything we can to ensure justice for you and your family. God bless you. Thank you and i yield. Thank you, congresswoman. Im going to use the remainder of your time for a couple questions here. Dr. Longo, when was the first known reporting of asbestos in j j talcum powder made public . I keep forgetting. The first reporting i think was only recently. Public. And was that positive asbestos finding conducted by an independent lab . Yes, sir, it was. And let me ask you this. In response to a couple questions that you were asked, i think that they they mentioned that earlier in 2001, you had indicated that you werent aware of asbestos in talc powder. But then after reviewing documentary evidence, as well as conducting additional tests, you then learned of the presence of asbestos in talc powder. Do you want to say anything more about that . Yes. It was early on and as scientists, we keep our minds open. And then the there was a published paper in 2014, 2015 that i became interested in. Finally, in 2016, decided to go ahead. But had to look for a more sensitive method and thats where the liquid heavy density separation method came in. Thank you, dr. Longo. Now, i will recognize mr. Growthman for five minutes. Thank you. This is a very interesting committee on oversight. You never know what youre going to get. A different topic every day. I am a little bit disappointed here and ill say this because of course people back home are watching. This is being filmed and we have four people testifying today. As i understand it, and of course you know we sometimes meet with people in our offices prior to these hearings. Johnson johnson had an expert they wanted to have testify. I understand Majority Party wanted mr. Gorki, i think was his name, the ceo to testify. But not surprising, Johnson Johnson wanted a expert. And i see we have three doctors testifying today. They wanted their own expert to be able to testify. There are usually two sides to every story. I think their expert was a woman by the name of kathy widmer. And for whatever motivation, kathy is not here today. She was not allowed to testify. And i think its disappointing because i came here open minded. I wanted to hear both sides of the story. I assume theres both sides to the story. As i understand it, there are four or five times in which an Appellate Court has ruled on this situation. And all four or five times, theyve ruled in favor of Johnson Johnson. Now, im as jaded about courts as anybody. But i assume that when people have when judges have time to review briefs, maybe read hundreds of pages on this topic, and they decide against the plaintiffs, theres something there. Theres a story that i should be able to hear. And i resent a little bit of the fact that im not able to hear that story. I dont think its out of line for Johnson Johnson to say we dont want our ceo to testify. We have three doctors testifying. We want our own doctor. But we didnt hear their own doctor. And ill ill just say one more time that thats disappointing. And in case anybody is paying attention to this hearing at home, for our homeviewing audience, that they are aware that were getting one side of the story today. Ill plunge ahead with that one side and and see what i can hear from these folks. As i understand it, four or five times on appeal, judges decided that plaintiffs did not have a Strong Enough case or ruled against plaintiffs. I have other questions, too, but ill ask because we dont have the people on Johnson Johnson side, could i ask, say, dr. Longo. Why on appeal does Johnson Johnson seem to keep winning these cases . I keep doing it. Again, my understanding is the appeal had to do with jurisdiction. Issues. Not anything to do with the science. And thats just my understanding. Okay. And sometimes before juries, as well. Juries dont always get it right but there are juries who listen to all the evidence. Not just fiveminute question from congressmen and they are sometimes deciding that Johnson Johnson has not done anything wrong in these cases. Dr. Longo, and i i hope this isnt true but, you know, were provided some stuff in advance here. You you own a company m. A. S. Or have a 75 in m. A. S. , is that true . Yes, sir, i do. Okay. And m. A. S. Makes money testifying or providing evidence before trials of this nature . Yes, sir, we do provide experts that bill for their time. Yeah. Could i find out how much on these cases, how much you billed out total to to claim that Johnson Johnson is negligent in these cases . I believe m. A. S. Has billed for all its research and development and and Sample Analysis 100,000 . A million . Ten million . 30 million . There are all sorts of numbers around out there. How much have you guys, about, billed out to on this on this matter . I would estimate, in the two years, 2017, 2018, and 2019, i would estimate somewhere a million. Million point two. I think thats an estimate. Total of now, somebody gave me something. Maybe theyre lying. Theyre saying total mas may have billed out as much as 30 million but youre saying its only 1 or 2 million . Well, thats two different questions. Mas started in 1988. And for 31 years, weve probably we have we have averaged a Million Dollars in litigation. But you have to understand were 20,000squarefoot laboratory. I understand you got expenses. We have when people tell me you might have billed out 30 million to to take a side on this matter, are they lying to me . Or is it about 30 million . I wont call somebody a liar but thats just not true. If i had billed, personally, 30 million, i think not personally, the company. If the company had billed the company has not billed 30 million involved in Johnson Johnson. 20 million . No. I would say in the three years for the Johnson Johnson litigation, maybe 1. 5 million. Okay. Thank you much. I i hope someday we do have a chance to hear from ms. Widmer. Well, thank you. And the minority always has the option to provide a witness. They declined to do so today. Nobody. Now, were going to call on congresswoman talib for five minutes. Thank you so much, chairman. I do sincerely appreciate you using this committee to kind of elevate the voices of people like the pastor here and others that have been impacted. I think its really hard for me to sometimes sit here and hear folks, you know, kind of be the the defendant lawyers for the corporations. I mean, how much money, millions and billions of dollars, did Johnson Johnson make . And poisoning people. I mean, literally. Why arent we asking that question . Because you cant get away from the facts. Fda found asbestos in baby powder. Now, remember, its baby powder. Its not even just its baby powder. Not only that, they, later on, furthermore, reports state the asbestos was detected in one of the tests Johnson Johnson itself conducted using from the sample as the same bottle as the fda. Okay. Fact. Fda is coming to us saying this. Are we going to say no. These are folks that are coming and trying to protect the public. That is our job. That is our job, to protect the public. Reports show that Johnson Johnson contracted with rg lee labs rj reportedly deviated from its standard testing procedures in order to deliver rushed results at the request of the company. Check this out. In rd lee scientist stated that Johnson Johnson wanted, quote, very rapid turnaround for obvious reasons. Then the lab found asbestos in its sample. But later, retracted its results and claimed initial detection was due to contaminants in one of its testing rooms. They discredited rj lees initial finding blaming the asbestos detection on all kinds of stuff that is, you know, what we say in detroit, bs. Dr. Longo, have you evaluated this particular rj lee testing report . Yes, i have. Yeah. I mean, do you do you see whats the problem here . I mean, they found asbestos, correct . They detected asbestos in this actual talc samples and then their controls are blanks. When they were analyzed, they did not detect asbestos. And samples of a bottle of Johnson Johnson baby powder have tested positive in two separate labs, correct . I know yes. In the ama lab, as well as the rj lee lab. And Johnson Johnson proceeds to accuse both labs of being contaminated with asbestos. I know. Dr. Longo, i mean, wow. Like, i am just you know, ive only been here a year. But some i am just so taken aback that my colleagues dont even see it. I cant even make this stuff up. This is i cant even make it up. These fda folks. Theyre not republicans or democrats. Theyre government officials that are doing their jobs, right, pastor . I mean, thats what theyre supposed to be doing. They are public servants. Theyre doing exactly what they were hired to do, which is protect the public. And i am just taken aback that my colleagues, who represent each of us, represent close to 700,000 people back home, that doesnt expect us to be defendant lawyers for Johnson Johnson who have basically poisoned people. They expect us to defend them. To protect them. And we have to be realize like how much money did they make off of the human suffering of people . My god, pastor. 33 years pastoring people. You know, i hope this was this for you is you are continuing your work for the people by by talking about this in the very profound way through your own personal experience. But i am just, you know, chairman i cannot stress enough just how important it is that this committee is used for good. And thats exactly what were doing. Were sharing exactly what is happening to people because of this. And they want to come up with these kinds of little conspiracy theories and all this other stuff. The fact of the matter is fda found asbestos in the testing. Two companies that Johnson Johnson hired found asbestos. How much more testing do our people need . How much more . Enough is enough. And so i just urge my colleagues and and to support the chairman as he proceeds to find the truth. And ill tell you ive been here. They have every opportunity to bring their own witness forward. I actually went and asked staff whos their witness . They said they dont have one. They had every opportunity, the republicans, to actually put somebody up here to talk about this. So i, obviously, am very passionate about this. I can just tell you, you know, for my district of folks, i have the third poorest Congressional District in the country. Very strong, resilient people. They are the people that got targeted by Johnson Johnson. Theyre the ones that they thought was disposable for profits. So im not going to keep my mouth shut or try to say, well, this aint fair. No. If the fda found asbestos, shouldnt that be enough . Thank you, chairman. Thank you, congresswoman talib. Were just going to go to a second round of questions and then finish up here. It is true. The minority did not call a single witness, whether it was from Johnson Johnson or anybody. So they had the opportunity and they declined. And of course, as we know, the ceo as opined on this issue multiple times. Hell go to the media. Hell go in other forum and talk about this but he doesnt want to talk about it in congress and thats a problem. Now, let me just ask a couple more questions here. Mr. Etheridge, at the time that you had used Johnson Johnsons baby powder, did you have any inkling whatsoever about this presence of asbestos in its powder . There was no reason for me to suspect this hazard. Theyre known as the baby company. In fact, they advertise the powder in a way that makes it seem like its as pure as any any material out there. And obviously, thats why moms and families apply it to babies, right . I used it on my own children. I did, too. And i think that i hear some of my colleagues saying the same thing. And i think generations of families have used it around the world. Dr. Longo, you know, i wanted to ask you a little more about your testimony with regard to your own practice. I think the other side wants to make a big deal out of your prior testimony. Would you like to comment on, i think, their suggestion that somehow your testimony is really motivated by money as opposed to what youve discovered in your scientific testing . No. Our practice is not motivated by money. We do participate in litigation but our company testifies be for both plaintiffs and defendants over the last 30 years. We have to charge for our time. We we have to pay for the electron microscopes. We have to pay for the optical microscopes. We have to pay the rent. Im not sure a lot of these folks understand what it takes to run a small business. We we go with every type of analysis we do with the utmost integrity. I had no idea back in the day that cosmetic talcs would have this kind of asbestos levels in em. It wasnt until i got interested in it and realized that it was the detection limits that was the problem. That the trace amounts of asbestos in the detection limits was causing all the labs who were analyzing it at the time to think there was nothing there. Using the best detection method, they were now seeing these minerals are there. And you cant product when youll find it or not. Its almost almost ambiguous. The only way to get rid of the problem and to assure, in my opinion, that there is no more exposures to this is to eliminate talc from these cosmetic products. Okay. Dr. Moline, its pretty clear that mesothelioma can only be caused by one material and that is asbestos, correct . Thats basically true. Theres some evidence that folks who have undergone therapeutic radiation may be at increased risk. We theres no studies that look at the combination of those two. There are some folks that have had both and is at increased risk. In terms of outside products, in the united states, asbestos is the only product that were aware of that causes mesothelioma. Although, there is some question of some other Minerals Like tacinite thats found in minnesota. But its about 99 or more. Okay. And dr. Metcalf, i think that you talked about the mineral mining. And i think maybe some of my colleagues will talk about this a little bit further. But talc and asbestos are naturally occurring, together, correct . Thats correct. Its like you cant mine talc without mining asbestos in the same process. Well, i i did outline a very narrow set of conditions where talc might be produced without at least without asbestos. But for most of the geologic settings where talc forms, we very much expect to find asbestos minerals with it because it is the minerals that are breaking down to form talc. I see. And let me add that that these processes are taking place at almost at the atomic scale that these minerals are growing. But we are mining this stuff with drills and frontend loaders and blasting and dump trucks. And so to be able to assure, the way dr. Longo does, that the material were mining is free of this, we need to test lots of it because theres lots of heterogenities. Very good. Now, ill recognize congresswoman pressley for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to say i associate myself with the impassioned detroit, tell it like it is comments of representative talib a moment ago. And completely disassociate myself with the comments offered by my colleague across the aisle. I find that i have that dual experience often on this committee of comparable pride. Of our honoring the words of our late chairman and being in efficient and effective pursuit of the truth. And simultaneous shame with all of the efforts to obstruct the work of this committee to get to the truth. But since there was a desire expressed earlier to center the science, id like to ask some line of questioning in line with that. It is reported that Johnson Johnsons talc tested positive for asbestos as far back as 1957 and 1958. Yet, on more than one occasion, labs have tested samples from the same bottle of Johnson Johnsons talcbased powder and come to different conclusions. As representative talib mentioned in her impassioned testimony or statement, Johnson Johnson commissioned its own studies with samples from the same bottle and predictably announced their samples tested negative for asbestos. Notably, Johnson Johnsons own Commission Lab also detected asbestos in one of the companys samples. Yet, later attributed the false positive to environmental contaminants of an air conditioning unit. Dr. Longo, how are divergent detection results possible when two samples from the same bottle are tested for asbestos . If you have trace levels and youre using a unsensitive method, you can have where one sample will be detected. And then another, you may not see that. So its very hard to say. Especially, if you have a laboratory that did detect it, then didnt detect it. So cant really compare apples to apples here. Mr. Metcalf, gee logically, how closely related are talc and asbestos . Very closely related. As i said, many of the reactions that form talc, the metamorphic reactions are breaking down under the kinds of conditions that make them fibrous. And ill say i actually came to this not to to look at talc. Not because i was interested in talc. But because i was interested in understanding why which were sometimes fibrous and sometimes are not fibrous, why are they why are they fibrous . What controls it . And as i started to do literature review and there is a lot of papers published in the 70s and 80s and early 90s that looked at this with High Resolution microscopes. And i kept running into textures and understanding that we went from nonfibrous to fibrous to talc. And it was a reaction sequence that ended in talc. And thats what really got me interested and i really wasnt paying attention to the talc stories in any of the stuff until i kept running into this in the literature. And so, yes, asbestos and talc are linked by geologic processes. So talc and asbestos evolve from the same protolith . Yes, thats correct. So what environmental processes cause it to evolve into asbestos and talc . The process thats involved in this most of the time, as i talked about, is something called hydrothermal alteration. Its a type of metamorphism. When a preexisting rock is subject to differing conditions of pressure and temperature, and particularly fluid flow. So over the course of the metamorphism, fluids are passing through the rock. And its the reaction of those fluids that drives these processes. All these minerals are so during the rock efb lavol, asbestos can eventually become talc . Right. Ill add one thing. Again, i said this in my opening statement. We often talk about asbestos as being a contaminant in the talc as though it were fell out of a air conditioner, for instance. Its some foreign body that was introduced. But the reality is the way that talc forms, it forms the road to talc leads through amphorable asbestos. So its a relic of the process, not a contaminant from some foreign body. Again, just to be clear. This will be my final question. So is is it the case and accurate to say that talc cannot reliably be asbestos free . I wouldnt go quite that far. As i said, there are some reactions that have the potential and and its been reported that there are asbestosfree versions. Theres a mine in montana. However, i dont think anybodys ever tested it to the sensitivity that bill longo has been discussing. So i i think of the ones that people say are asbestos free, i think thats not been demonstrated. I think the the responsibility is to is to do the best testing possible and make sure that these things are are asbestos free. But i would i would be surprised if we could find any thats asbestos free. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. And now, congresswoman talib. Five minutes. Thank you so much, chairman. I do want to submit, for the record, if theres no objection, mother jones article where it shows Johnson Johnson has poured money into directly influencing federal lawmakers. So far this year, the company has spent 100,000. Mr. Chairman, i would like to submit the article. Without objection, so ordered. Also, id like to submit a press statement from the Michigan Attorney general dana nestle who announced a 3 million share of multistate settlement with Johnson Johnson and its subsidiary. According to is that okay . Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, chairman. But according to the statement, it looks like Johnson Johnson and its subsidiaries to pay over 3 million for their deceptive marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh devices. The total multistate settlement is nearly 116. 9 million. I just want to show a pattern of this company and i know this is very critically important to show. Now, they actually have subsidiaries so that we have to now worry about whether or not, in those instances, that theyre exposing people to devices and to chemicals that are very toxic and harmful. I know that weve been talking a lot lot about testing. Which i think is really critically important. It gives credibility to the pastors claim as well as others who have come forward saying im sick because of being exposed to this product. In 2009 and 2010, fda conducted a survey of products for asbestos testing. Fda selected ama labs to conduct its testing for all three surveys. And then just last month ama detected a sample in the talc powder. In its public its called request for quote solicitation for asbestos testing. It was said the detection of asbestos of cosmetics is using the most sensitive testing available. Your labs conduct these kinds of testing. Are you familiar with this at all . Im familiar with that i have a big note that says push talk button. That was the me first month so dont worry about it. Im very familiar with the testing. Im very familiar with our request for proposal and the detection limits that ama has for the analysis they did in 2010. So does ama labs fda consistently contracted with 2009 employ what you consider the most sensitive asbestos testing methods available . No, theyre not. Their detection limit was approximately 10,000 excuse me. 10 million asbestos fibers of talc. Would they have detected earlier in time if they used more sensitive detection meds . In my opinion, yes. Is there a detection thats most sensitive . The heavy liquid is a standard method now for the International Standards organization that has a specific section especially for talc using this method published in 2014. Why is it essential to use the most sensitive medthods . So we can find it, right . And also because i believe its hard to grasp around the fact if you have something at trace levels, you can still have hundreds of millions of asbestos fibers in there because theyre so small and weigh so little. And do you believe the heavy liquid density separation method which we just talked about is the most sensitive method available and youre saying internationally thats whats been seen as the process . Yes, i do. So just to get a little more deeper and i cant believe this is stuff my son would love. My 14yearold. This south of my area. I just know if somebodys harmful, i want to be able to speak up for them. But how does the sensitivity of high liquid density separation detect asbestos in samples that would otherwise test negative for asbestos . If you have a detection limit of 10 million to 14 million, that would eliminate almost 95 of the samples that we found that were positive if we had to have that detection limit. The heavy liquid density separation method, weve been able to increase that sensitivity to between 2,000 and 3,000 times. Thats why were now seeing what i believe is the reason why people have not been seeing it in the past. Okay. Thank you so much, chairman. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you so much, congresswoman. And thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today. Thank you to the audience members for being present for this very important hear pg id like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. All member wills have five legislative days in which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair. Which will be forwarded to the witnesses for responses. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. This hearing is adjourned. After being injured, tim couldnt return to work and fell on hard times. He applied for s. N. A. P. So he could afford to buy food. Because the state of maine chose not to waive the time limit for able bodies without dependents, he lost benefits after only three months. And three months is the limit. Rehe peetedly asked to the may. What do i eat between now and then. Nobody had an answer for tim. He started scrounging for food and catching squirrels to eat to get by. Reflecting on his time, tim shared, quote, there are many times when i can go two or three days without food. The food bank has only limited resources. I would add seven holes on my belt to keep my pants on. S. N. A. P. Can literally save lives. Suggests that nearly twothirds of veterans who struggle and are eligible for s. N. A. P. Are not currently enrolled. Nobody and certainly no veteran like tim should be forced to ask what do i eat because they cant get the help they need from the country they fought to protect. And thats just one story that a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee heard. Aimed at helping veterans. You can watch the entire hearing tonight at 8 00 eastern here on cspan3. 2020 democratic president ial candidates joe biden, pete buttigieg, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren deliver remarks at the union in des moines. Watch Live Saturday beginning at 10 25 eastern on cspan, or listen live with the cspan radio app. For the third time in history, a president is on trial in the u. S. Senate. Watch live tuesday at 1 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2 as the Senate Begins the trial with a vote on rules. This Senate Impeachment trial of president trump, live unfiltered coverage on cspan2, on demand on cspan. Org impeachment, and listen with the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Coming up next, the house energy and subcommittee meeting on federal m