the more transparent they were, the sooner that we could have gotten to the bottom of this to address it and avoided exposing literally thousands of people to harm from the impacts.

To those of you that have disagreed or refused to answer, you are playing a part in this national emergency.

Does DuPont have plans to compensate servicemembers who have been harmed by exposure to these chemicals?

Does DuPont have plans to compensate servicemembers who have been harmed by exposure to these chemicals?

Are any of your companies that were responsible for using any of these chemicals that firefighters and military servicemembers were exposed to planning any type of compensation to harmed victims?

Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report detailing PFAS contamination at 131 military facilities across the United States.

I'm sorry, that's just not--that doesn't conform with what information I know that we've been given about 3M's awareness of the harmful effects of these chemicals.

We support very clearly the line items that are included as part of the NDAA.

If you actually take this issue seriously, making sure that this report is issued in a timely fashion is essential.

Let the record reflect that the gentleman essentially said, no, there are no plans.

That's not actually accurate in terms of the documents and the information that has been provided to the committee and to the military.

Did DuPont care more about its bottom line than about our men and women serving in the Armed Forces?

So to the panel, and I would like a straight yes or no answer, do you agree that legacy PFAS chemicals like PFOA and PFOS should be designated as hazardous substances under the Superfund law?

I know I don't have the confidence that EPA is going to propose a rule that takes that step, let alone finalize one.

Did DuPont care more about its bottom line than about our men and women serving in the Armed Forces?

However, you are not FDA approved for that purpose, and efforts to increase nicotine delivery highlight why that is the case.

Let me be very clear--JUUL is not a cessation product.

Verbally, JUUL has been supportive of regulations, but your actions speak differently.

So obviously JUUL has determined that it can still make money selling a product at less-dangerous nicotine levels.

the rise in e-cigarette use among children is deeply troubling, and I know I have met with kids in my district who have become addicted to nicotine through your products.

If you could answer briefly.

I really just want a clear answer of can you achieve your stated mission of helping adult smokers to quit smoking conventional cigarettes using a 20 milligram per milliliter product?

Okay. I really just want a clear answer of can you achieve your stated mission of helping adult smokers to quit smoking conventional cigarettes using a 20 milligram per milliliter product?

Actions speak louder than words. Thank you. I appreciate the chairman's indulgence.

This was all the time ORR needed to present a prefabricated tour that painted the rosiest picture possible.