Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following report prepared by the staff of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, Committee on Government Reform. This report is the result of a three- year investigation initiated in the Committee on Government Reform.

Mercury in Medicine--Taking Unnecessary Risks

I. Executive Summary

Vaccines are the only medicines that American citizens are

mandated to receive as a condition for school and day care

attendance, and in some instances, employment. Additionally,

families who receive federal assistance are also required to

show proof that their children have been fully immunized.

While the mandate for which vaccines must be administered is

a state mandate, it is the Federal Government, through the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its

Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices that make the

Universal Immunization Recommendations to which the majority

of states defer when determining mandates. Since the early to

mid-1990s, Congress has been concerned about the danger posed

by mercury in medical applications, and in 1997, directed the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate the human

exposure to mercury through foods and drugs.

In 1999, following up on the FDA evaluation and pursuant to

its authority, the House Committee on Government Reform

initiated an investigation into the dangers of exposure to

mercury through vaccination. The investigation later expanded

to examine the potential danger posed through exposure to

mercury in dental amalgams. This full committee investigation

complemented and built upon the investigations initiated by

two of its subcommittees. In January 2003, the investigation

continued in the newly formed Subcommittee on Human Rights

and Wellness.

A primary concern that arose early in the investigation of

vaccine safety was the exposure of infants and young children

to mercury, a known toxin, through mandatory childhood

immunizations. This concern had been raised as a possible

underlying factor in the dramatic rise in rates of late-onset

or ``acquired'' autism. The symptoms of autism are markedly

similar to those of mercury poisoning.

Significant concern has been raised about the continued use

of mercury in medical applications decades after the

recognition that mercury can be harmful, especially to our

most vulnerable population--our children. This report will

address one form of mercury in medical applications,

Thimerosal, as a preservative in vaccines.

In July 2000, it was estimated that 8,000 children a day

were being exposed to mercury in excess of Federal guidelines

through their mandatory vaccines.

One leading researcher made the following statement to the

Committee in July 2000:

``There's no question that mercury does not belong in

vaccines.

``There are other compounds that could be used as

preservatives. And everything we know about childhood

susceptibility, neurotoxicity of mercury at the fetus and at

the infant level, points out that we should not have these

fetuses and infants exposed to mercury. There's no need of it

in the vaccines.''

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) mission is to

``promote and protect the public health by helping safe and

effective products reach the market in a timely way, and

monitoring products for continued safety after they are in

use.'' However, the FDA uses a subjective barometer in

determining when a product that has known risks can remain on

the market. According to the agency, ``at the heart of all

FDA's product evaluation decisions is a judgment about

whether a new product's benefits to users will outweigh its

risks. No regulated product is totally risk-free, so these

judgments are important. FDA will allow a product to present

more of a risk when its potential benefit is great--

especially for products used to treat serious, life-

threatening conditions.''

This argument--that the known risks of infectious diseases

outweigh a potential risk of neurological damage from

exposure to thimerosal in vaccines, is one that has

continuously been presented to the Committee by government

officials. FDA officials have stressed that any possible risk

from thimerosal was theoretical: that no proof of harm

existed. Upon a thorough review of the scientific literature

and internal documents from government and industry, the

Committee did in fact find evidence that thimerosal posed a

risk. The possible risk for harm from either low dose chronic

or one time high level (bolus dose) exposure to thimerosal is

not ``theoretical,'' but very real and documented in the

medical literature.

Congress has long been concerned about the human exposure

to mercury through medical applications. As a result of these

concerns, in 1997, Congress instructed the FDA to evaluate

the human exposure to mercury through drugs and foods.

Through this Congressionally mandated evaluation, the FDA

realized that the amount of ethylmercury infants were exposed

to in the first six months of life through their mandatory

vaccinations exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency's

(EPA) limit for a closely associated compound methylmercury.

The FDA and other Federal agencies determined that in the

absence of a specific standard for ethylmercury, the limits

for ingested methylmercury should be used for injected

ethylmercury. The Institute of Medicine, in 2000, evaluated

the EPA's methylmercury standard and determined that based

upon scientific data that it, rather than the FDA's, was the

scientifically validated safe exposure standard.

Rather than acting aggressively to remove thimerosal from

children's vaccines, the FDA and other agencies within the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted an

incremental approach that allowed children to continue to be

exposed to ethylmercury from vaccines for more than two

additional years. In fact, in 2001, the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) refused even to express a

preference for thimerosal-free vaccines, despite the fact

that thimerosal had been removed from almost every childhood

vaccine produced for use in the United States.

On three occasions in the last 15 years, changes have been

made to vaccine policies to reduce the risk of serious

adverse effects. First, a transition from oral polio vaccine

to injected polio was accomplished in the United States to

reduce the transmission of vaccine-induced polio. Second, an

acellular pertussis vaccine was developed and a transition

from DTP to DTaP was accomplished to reduce the risk of

pertussis--induced seizures in children. And third, when the

Rotashield vaccine for rotavirus was linked to a serious

bowel condition (intersucception), it was removed from the

U.S. market. Ethylmercury has been largely removed from every

major childhood vaccine manufactured for use in the United

States, except the influenza vaccine, which continues to

contain trace amounts.

This success, however, does not change the fact that

millions of American children were exposed to levels of

mercury through vaccines that exceeded comparable federal

guidelines. Many parents, and a growing number of scientists,

believe that this mercury exposure may have contributed to

the explosive growth in autism spectrum disorders, and

neurological and behavioral disorders that this country has

experienced. The scientific evidence in this area is

considered by some to still be inconclusive, in large part

due to the lack of serious, effective inquiry by our health

agencies. The federal government has an obligation to

vigorously pursue the necessary research to determine the

extent of the impact of these heightened exposures to

ethylmercury on our population.

A second concern that arose during the investigation was

the continued use of mercury in dental amalgams. Mercury has

been used as a component in dental fillings since the Civil

War era. The American Dental Association and its member

dentists have taken a position that the mercury in fillings,

which are considered toxic until placed in the tooth, and is

considered toxic when removed from the mouth, is completely

safe while in the human mouth. This position seems counter

even to the ADA-funded research that shows the daily release

of small amounts of mercury vapors in the human mouth where

dental amalgams are present, as well as minute chipping and

swallowing of the mercury fillings over time.

Babies and young children are exposed to this additional

mercury. As developing fetuses, babies are exposed to mercury

through the placenta. If pregnant women have mercury

amalgams, they are unknowingly excreting low levels of

mercury on a daily basis to their fetuses. Additionally,

children who receive dental services through Medicaid are

also potentially exposed to mercury. When these children need

dental fillings, because of the low cost, only mercury

amalgams are available for use. This concern remains under

investigation by the Subcommittee on Human Rights and

Wellness.

II. Findings and Recommendations

A. Findings

Through this investigation of pediatric vaccine safety, the

following findings are made:

1. Mercury is hazardous to humans. Its use in medicinal

products is undesirable, unnecessary and should be minimized

or eliminated entirely.

2. For decades, ethylmercury was used extensively in

medical products ranging from vaccines to topical ointments

as preservative and an anti-bacteriological agent.

3. Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal, (an

ethylmercury compound used in vaccines), have never conducted

adequate testing on the safety of thimerosal. The FDA has

never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety

testing on thimerosal and ethylmercury compounds.

4. Studies and papers documenting the hyperallergenicity

and toxicity of thimerosal (ethylmercury) have existed for

decades.

5. Autism in the United States has grown at epidemic

proportions during the last decade. By some estimates the

number of autistic children in the United States is growing

between 10 and 17 percent per year. The medical community has

been unable to determine the underlying cause(s) of this

explosive growth.

6. At the same time that the incidence of autism was

growing, the number of childhood vaccines containing

thimerosal was growing, increasing the amount of ethylmercury

to which infants were exposed threefold.

7. A growing number of scientists and researchers believe

that a relationship between the increase in

neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit

hyperactive disorder, and speech or language delay, and the

increased use of thimerosal in

vaccines is plausible and deserves more scrutiny. In 2001,

the Institute of Medicine determined that such a relationship

is biologically plausible, but that not enough evidence

exists to support or reject this hypothesis.

8. The FDA acted too slowly to remove ethylmercury from

over-the-counter products like topical ointments and skin

creams. Although an advisory committee determined that

ethylmercury was unsafe in these products in 1980, a rule

requiring its removal was not finalized until 1998.

9. The FDA and the CDC failed in their duty to be vigilant

as new vaccines containing thimerosal were approved and added

to the immunization schedule. When the Hepatitis B and

Haemophilus Influenzae Type b vaccines were added to the

recommended schedule of childhood immunizations, the

cumulative amount of ethylmercury to which children were

exposed nearly tripled.

10. The amount of ethylmercury to which children were

exposed through vaccines prior to the 1999 announcement

exceeded two safety thresholds established by the Federal

government for a closely related substance--methylmercury.

While the Federal Government has established no safety

threshold for ethylmercury, experts agree that the

methylmercury guidelines are a good substitute. Federal

health officials have conceded that the amount of thimerosal

in vaccines exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.1 micrograms per

kilogram of bodyweight. In fact, the amount of mercury in one

dose of DTaP or Hepatitis B vaccines (25 micrograms each)

exceeded this threshold many times over. Federal health

officials have not conceded that this amount of thimerosal in

vaccines exceeded the FDA's more relaxed threshold of 0.4

micrograms per kilogram of body weight. In most cases,

however, it clearly did.

11. The actions taken by the HHS to remove thimerosal from

vaccines in 1999 were not sufficiently aggressive. As a

result, thimerosal remained in some vaccines for an

additional two years.

12. The CDC's failure to state a preference for thimerosal-

free vaccines in 2000 and again in 2001 was an abdication of

their responsibility. As a result, many children received

vaccines containing thimerosal when thimerosal-free

alternatives were available.

13. The Influenza vaccine appears to be the sole remaining

vaccine given to children in the United States on a regular

basis that contains thimerosal. Two formulations recommended

for children six months of age or older continue to contain

trace amounts of thimerosal. Thimerosal should be removed

from these vaccines. No amount of mercury is appropriate in

any childhood vaccine.

14. The CDC in general and the National Immunization

Program in particular are conflicted in their duties to

monitor the safety of vaccines, while also charged with the

responsibility of purchasing vaccines for resale as well as

promoting increased immunization rates.

15. There is inadequate research regarding ethylmercury

neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity.

16. There is inadequate research regarding the relationship

between autism and the use of mercury-containing vaccines.

17. To date, studies conducted or funded by the CDC that

purportedly dispute any correlation between autism and

vaccine injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and

fatally flawed. The CDC's rush to support and promote such

research is reflective of a philosophical conflict in looking

fairly at emerging theories and clinical data related to

adverse reactions from vaccinations.

B. Recommendations

1. Access by independent researchers to the Vaccine Safety

Datalink database is needed for independent replication and

validation of CDC studies regarding exposure of infants to

mercury-containing vaccines and autism. The current process

to allow access remains inadequate.

2. A more integrated approach to mercury research is

needed. There are different routes that mercury takes into

the body, and there are different rates of absorption.

Mercury bioaccumulates; the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) clearly states: ``This substance may

harm you.'' Studies should be conducted that pool the results

of independent research that has been done thus far, and a

comprehensive approach should be developed to rid humans,

animals, and the environment of this dangerous toxin.

3. Greater collaboration and cooperation between federal

agencies responsible for safeguarding public health in regard

to heavy metals is needed.

4. The President should announce a White House conference

on autism to assemble the best scientific minds from across

the country and mobilize a national effort to uncover the

causes of the autism epidemic.

5. Congress needs to pass legislation to include in the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP)

provisions to allow families who believe that their

children's autism is vaccine-induced the opportunity to be

included in the program. Two provisions are key: First,

extending the statute of limitations as recommended by the

Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines from 3 to 6

years. Second, establishing a one to two-year window for

families, whose children were injured after 1988 but who

do not fit within the statute of limitations, to have the

opportunity to file under the NVICP.

6. Congress should enact legislation that prohibits federal

funds from being used to provide products or pharmaceuticals

that contain mercury, methylmercury, or ethylmercury unless

no reasonable alternative is available.

7. Congress should direct the National Institutes of Health

to give priority to research projects studying causal

relationships between exposure to mercury, methylmercury, and

ethylmercury to autism spectrum disorders, attention deficit

disorders, Gulf War Syndrome, and Alzheimer's Disease.

III. Thimerosal Has Been Used In Vaccines And Other Medical Products

For Decades

A. A brief description of mercury

Mercury is a silver-colored metal, which unlike any other

metal, is a liquid at room temperature. It flows so easily

and rapidly that it is sometimes called quicksilver. The

chemical symbol for Mercury is Hg.

Mercury has many properties that have made it popular for a

number of commercial uses. For example, mercury expands and

contracts evenly when heated or cooled. It also remains

liquid over a wide range of temperatures and does not stick

to glass. These properties have prompted its use in

thermometers. Mercury conducts electricity and is used in

some electric switches and relays to make them operate

silently and efficiently. Industrial chemical manufacturers

use mercury in electrolysis cells to charge substances with

electricity. Mercury vapor, used in fluorescent lamps, gives

off light when electricity passes through it. Before its

health effects were well understood, mercury compounds were

widely used in such common products as house paints and

paper.

Various alloys (mixtures of metals) containing mercury have

many uses. Mercury alloys are called amalgams. These would

include silver amalgam, a mixture of silver and mercury that

dentists use to fill cavities in teeth.

Mercury comes in many different forms--organic, inorganic,

elemental, and metallic. As a result of its many practical

uses, mercury became widespread in the environment. However,

it is now widely recognized that overexposure to all forms of

mercury can harm the central nervous system (brain) and the

renal system (kidneys). This has led to regulatory actions to

reduce the exposure of humans to mercury on many fronts.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR): ``The nervous system is very sensitive to

all forms of mercury.''

B. Thimerosal, which contains ethylmercury, has been used in medicines

since the 1930's

In addition to its many commercial applications, mercury

has been used in a number of medical applications. One such

product that came into frequent use during the twentieth

century was thimerosal. Thimerosal is an organic compound

made up of equal parts of thiosalicylic acid and

ethylmercury. It is 49.6 percent ethylmercury by weight.

Thimerosal was developed by Dr. Morris Kharasch (1895-1957;

Ukraine/USA), a chemist and Eli Lilly fellow first at the

University of Maryland (1922-1927) and then at the University

of Chicago. He filed for a patent on June 27, 1929, for what

he described as an alkyl mercuric sulfur compound

(thimerosal), which he felt had potential as an antiseptic

and antibacterial product. Dr. Kharasch was considered a

pioneer in his field, contributing to the development of

plastics and the creation of synthetic rubber. He also went

on to found the Journal of Organic Chemistry.

In October 1929, Eli Lilly and Company registered

thimerosal under the trade name Merthiolate. Merthiolate was

used to kill bacteria and prevent contamination in antiseptic

ointments, creams, jellies, and sprays used by consumers and

in hospitals. Thimerosal was also used in nasal sprays, eye

drops, contact lens solutions, immunoglobulins, and most

importantly here--vaccines.

Thimerosal was patented the same year that Alexander

Fleming discovered penicillin. But because it took more than

a decade for penicillin to be fully developed, and large-

scale production to begin, thimerosal was widely used in the

interim. To the medical profession, who were without

antibiotics during the 1930's and 1940's, thimerosal

(marketed as Merthiolate) and other antiseptic products were

gladly received.

Dr. H. Vasken Aposhian, Professor of Molecular and Cellular

Biology and Pharmacology, University of Arizona discussed

thimerosal's history during Congressional testimony:

``In the early thirties, in fact the 1940's and up until

the mid-1950's, mercurials were used in medicine . . . The

medical community . . . had nothing better to use. They had

nothing better to use as a preservative at that time than

thimerosal. And I would venture the opinion that it has just

been going on because no one has objected to it. And there's

no need for it any longer. And I don't know any medical

community or scientific community that would agree to the

need for having thimerosal in any vaccine.''

Thimerosal became the most widely used preservative in

vaccines and other medical products. Its use in antiseptic

products to prevent infections was common. By the time that

the FDA conducted its review of mercury in 1999, more than 50

licensed vaccines contained thimerosal.

While thimerosal became widely used, there were repeated

references in the scientific literature to the lack of

substantial understanding of its safety. In numerous

publications, researchers suggested that caution be taken in

human exposure. For example, a paper published in 1934 noted,

``little is known about the mercuric compounds when

inoculated into humans. It is therefore preferable to use the

minimum amount of this preservative.''

Eli Lilly ceased its production of vaccines in 1974.

Shortly after the FDA advisory committee determined that

thimerosal in over-the-counter products was no longer

``generally recognized as safe,'' Eli Lilly and other

companies chose to cease production of products such as

merthiolate and mercurichrome. By the mid-1980's, Eli Lilly

was completely out of the business of manufacturing or

selling thimerosal-containing products. However, thimerosal

continued to be used in vaccines. In the 1990's, thimerosal

was manufactured by numerous companies, including Sigma-

Aldrich, Inc.; EM Industries, Inc. (now EMD Chemicals Inc.,

the North American extension of Merck KGaA); Dow Chemical

Company; Spectrum Laboratory Products, Inc. (formerly

Spectrum Quality Products, Inc.); and GDL International, Inc.

C. Mercury is a known neurotoxin, but methylmercury has been more

carefully studied than ethylmercury

After more than a century of research, it has become widely

accepted in the scientific and medical communities that

mercury is a neurotoxin. While debate continues over what

levels of exposure to mercury are safe, it is unquestioned

today that overexposure to mercury in any form can cause

neurological and renal damage. There is also a growing

consensus around the theory that some individuals are more

susceptible to harm from mercury than others, confounding

efforts to adopt a population-level threshold for safe levels

of mercury in the environment. A research paper published in

2002 summarized the scientific consensus very succinctly:

``Mercury and its compounds are cumulative toxins and in

small quantities are hazardous to human health.''

Because of its many commercial applications and its

widespread presence in the environment, methylmercury

received the lion's share of the attention in the scientific

community during the twentieth century. A concise history of

the early development of scientific knowledge about

methylmercury is found in Dr. Thomas Clarkson's, ``The Three

Modern Faces of Mercury'':

``The first methylmercury compounds were synthesized in a

chemical laboratory in London in the 1860s. Two of the

laboratory technicians died of methylmercury poisoning. This

so shocked the chemical community that methylmercury

compounds were given a wide berth for the rest of the century

. . . early in the twentieth century the potent anti-fungal

properties . . . were discovered, leading to applications to

seed grains, especially for cereal crops . . . Despite the

widespread use, few cases of poisoning were reported for the

first half of the twentieth century. However, in the late

1950s and 1960s serious outbreaks of alkyl mercury poisoning

(methylmercury) erupted in several developing countries . . .

Also in the late 1950s, evidence emerged of environmental

damage from treated grain. It was observed in Sweden that

predatory birds were developing neurological disorders . . .

analysis . . . indicated a sharp rise in mercury levels.''

Public health concerns about methylmercury in the edible

tissue of fish suddenly erupted in 1969 when fish from Lake

St. Clair bordering Michigan were found to have high levels.

This and other findings . . . have maintained public health

concerns over this form of mercury.''

As a result of these emerging concerns, public health

officials worldwide began researching methylmercury. Today,

the scientific literature is replete with evidence on toxic

effects of methylmercury. In 2000, the National Academy of

Sciences published Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,

which concluded:

Methylmercury is highly toxic.

The data indicate that the adverse effects of methylmercury

exposure can be expressed in multiple organ systems

throughout the lifespan.

The research in humans on the neurodevelopmental effects of

methylmercury is extensive.

Damage to renal tubules and nephron has been observed

following human exposure to inorganic and organic forms of

mercury. Symptoms of renal damage have been seen only at

mercury exposures that also caused neurological effects.

The cardiovascular system appears to be a target for

methylmercury toxicity in the same dose range as

neurodevelopmental effects--at very low mercury exposures.

Studies in humans on the carcinogenic effects of

methylmercury are inconclusive.

Methylmercury may increase human susceptibility to

infectious disease and autoimmune disorders by damaging the

immune system.

Methylmercury may adversely affect the reproductive system.

The medical literature is replete with references to the

dangers to methylmercury:

``The major toxic effects of methylmercury are on the

central nervous system. Its toxic action on the developing

brain differs in both mechanism and outcome from its action

on the mature organ . . . the action of methylmercury on

adults is characterized by a latent period between exposure

and onset of symptoms. The period can be several weeks or

even months, depending on the dose and exposure period . . .

paresthesia, numbness or a `pins and needles' sensation is

the first symptom to appear at the lowest dose. This may

progress to cerebella ataxia, dysarrthia, constriction of the

visual fields, and loss of hearing. . . . Cardiovascular

disease . . . accelerated progression of carotid

arteriosclerosis.''

The research is explicit that fetal brains are more

sensitive than the adult brains to the adverse effects of

methylmercury, which include:

Severe brain damage

Delayed achievement of developmental milestones

Neurological abnormalities such as brisk tendon reflexes

Widespread damage to all areas of the fetal brain, as

opposed to focal lesions seen in adult tissue

Microcephaly

Purkinje [neuron] cells failed to migrate to the cerebellum

Inhibition of both cell division and migration, affecting

the most basic process in brain development

Additionally, elevation in both systolic and diastolic

blood pressure in seven year olds correlated with prenatal

exposure to methylmercury . . . indicative of later

cardiovascular problems.

Despite the fact that ethylmercury has been widely used in

common medical treatments, ranging from vaccines to nasal

sprays to ointments, comparatively little research has been

done on its health effects. The few studies that have been

done tend to indicate that ethylmercury is just as toxic as

methylmercury.

The FDA never required the pharmaceutical industry to

conduct extensive safety studies on thimerosal or

ethylmercury. It appears that our Federal regulatory

framework (the FDA and its predecessor organizations) failed

to require manufacturers to prove thimerosal was safe. They

failed to require industry to conduct adequate testing to

determine how thimerosal is metabolized. The FDA failed to

require that industry conduct studies to determine the

maximum safe exposure level of thimerosal. These basic issues

should have been proven prior to the introduction of

thimerosal into the marketplace, but more than 70 years after

its introduction, these issues have still not been adequately

addressed. The introduction of thimerosal appears to have

been based on a single uncontrolled and poorly reported human

study in the 1920s, possibly in combination with animal and

laboratory studies. However, this sole human study was not a

true safety study and produced a faulty foundation on which

to build a robust vaccine program in which young children

would be forced to be repeatedly injected with multiple doses

of ethylmercury.

During the pre-antibiotic 1920's, meningitis was a killer.

Out of sheer desperation, the treating physician at a

hospital dealing with dozens of patients facing a sure death

from meningitis, tested thimerosal on about two-dozen

patients. He injected the thimerosal intravenously, without

apparent side effects. However, the treatment was not

successful and all of the patients died. The leading industry

scientists of that era involved in thimerosal research

published a paper that made a brief reference to this study:

``Merthiolate was injected intravenously into 22 persons . .

. these large doses did not produce any anaphylactoid or

shock symptoms.'' In the paper, the authors acknowledge that

Dr. K.C. Smithburn, the clinician who treated the meningitis

patients, was not convinced of its efficacy: ``beneficial

effects of the drug were not definitely proven.'' Drs. Powell

and Jamieson also noted in 1930 that a ``wide range of

toxicity and injury tests should be done.'' There is no

evidence that Drs. Powell and Jamieson took their own advice

and conducted studies to address these concerns.

As a result, in 1999, 70 years after the product was first

licensed, neither the FDA nor the industry had followed

through on determining a safe exposure level to thimerosal or

ethylmercury. Thus, when facing a policy decision on

thimerosal and vaccines, the FDA had to work from an

``assumption'' that the toxicity of ingested methylmercury

was the same as injected ethylmercury.

One study that compared the toxicology of ethyl and

methylmercury was published in 1985 in the Archives of

Toxicology, written by researchers from the Toxicology Unit

of the Medical Research Council of England. The researchers

exposed rats to ethyl and methylmercury to ``compare total

and inorganic mercury concentrations in selected tissues,

including the brain, after the daily administration of methyl

or ethylmercury and to relate these findings to damage in the

brain and kidneys.'' This study found that both ethyl and

methylmercury caused damage to the brains and the kidneys. It

also found that male and female rats were affected

differently:

``It has been well documented that one of the first toxic

effects of methylmercury in rats is depressed weight gain or

even weight loss . . . based on this criteria, ethylmercury

proved to be more toxic than methylmercury . . . in both

sexes . . . the concentration of total mercury (the sum of

organic and inorganic mercury) and organic mercury was

consistently higher in the blood of ethylmercury-treated rats

. . . both alkymercurials damaged the dorsal root ganglia and

9.6 mg Hg/kg/day ethylmercury caused more damage than 8.0 mg

Hg/kg/day methylmercury. Ethylmercury was more renotoxic than

methylmercury . . . tubular dilation was frequently present .

. . in kidneys . . . both damage and mercury deposits

were more widely spread in ethylmercury-treated rats.''

While there is frequent reference to the paucity of science

in understanding the harm that ethylmercury can do, there is

more understanding in the scientific community than

government officials have shared with the Committee. The

following dialogue between Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) and

Dr. David Baskin during the Committee's December 10, 2002

hearing sheds a great deal of light onto the true nature of

ethyl versus methylmercury.

Dr. Weldon: ``I have a couple of questions for Dr. Baskin

about ethylmercury versus methylmercury. I have had some

people say that data on methylmercury is fairly good, but we

don't have good data on ethylmercury. I take it from your

testimony there is actually quite a bit of data on

ethylmercury and it's as toxic as methylmercury.''

Dr. Baskin: ``There is more data, more and more data on

ethylmercury. The cells that I showed you dying in cell

culture are dying from ethylmercury. Those are human frontal

brain cells. You know, there has been a debate about . . .

ethyl versus methyl. But from a chemical point of view, most

chemical compounds that are ethyl penetrate into cells better

than methyl. Cells have a membrane on them, and the membrane

is made of lipids, fats. And ethyl as a chemical compound

pierces fat and penetrates fat much better than methyl. And

so, you know, when I began to work with some of the Ph.D.s in

my laboratory and discuss this everyone said, `oh gosh, you

know, we've got to adjust for ethyl because it's going to be

worse; the levels are going to be much higher in the cells.'

So . . . I think at best they're equal, but it's probably

highly likely that they are worse. And some of the results

that we are seeing in cell culture would support that.''

Dr. Baskin explained that according to scientific research

in humans and animals, brain tissue absorbs five times more

mercury than other tissues in the body.

Dr. Weldon: ``Now, you said several times in your testimony

that uptake in the brain is probably much higher than in

other tissues. What do you base that statement on?''

Dr. Baskin: ``Well, the literature on methylmercury is much

better than ethyl on this issue. And if you look at the

studies, the brain is 2 percent of the body weight but took

10 percent of the exposure. So that's a five-fold

preferential uptake.''

The testimony of Dr. Baskin builds upon earlier testimony

that the Committee received from recognized experts in

chemistry, toxicology and pharmacology. It includes the

following statement from Dr. H. Vasken Aposhian, Professor of

Molecular and Cellular Biology, and Pharmacology at the

University of Arizona, who provided the Committee the

following information about the evidence on mercury toxicity

at the July 18, 2000 hearing:

``The mercury amalgams in your mouth, the so-called silver

fillings, contain 48 to 50 percent of elemental mercury.

These fillings continuously emit mercury vapor, which will go

to the brain and is converted to mercuric mercury . . .

Certain fish contain methylmercury; again, very rapidly taken

up from the GI tract, transported quickly to the brain, and

converted very slowly to mercuric mercury . . . thimerosal,

which again will be taken up by the brain and quickly

converted to mercuric mercury--all three forms are

neurotoxic.

``By neurotoxic, we mean it will damage nerves and it will

damage brain tissues.

``Let me just say as a final statement that there is no

need to have thimerosal in a vaccine.''

In making a presentation to the Institute of Medicine's

Immunization Safety Review Committee, in July 2001, the

former Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program at

the National Institutes of Health, Dr. George Lucier,

proffered the following conclusions:

Ethylmercury is a neurotoxin.

Infants may be more susceptible than adults.

Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to

methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin. This conclusion

is clearly public health protective.

Ethylmercury exposure from vaccines (added to dietary

exposures to methylmercury) probably caused neurotoxic

responses (likely subtle) in some children.

While the debate over whether ethyl or methylmercury is

more toxic will probably not be resolved in the near future,

a consensus appears to be emerging that exposure to these

different types of mercury cannot be considered in isolation.

Rather, witnesses before the Committee stressed that in

determining safe levels of mercury exposure, the cumulative

level of exposure to all types of mercury must be considered.

Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet made the following observation at the

July 19, 2002 hearing:

``More concerning to me in the Institute's treatment of

mercury problems, was the almost complete absence of regard

for compounding effect of thimerosal on preexisting mercury

levels. The NHANES Study from the CDC had already established

that perhaps one in ten children is born to mothers with

elevated mercury burden.''

D. Because of its toxicity, mercury has become heavily regulated.

As the dangers of mercury have become better understood,

the United States and other governments around the world have

taken actions to reduce the release of mercury into the

environment. In 1972, the federal government halted the use

of mercury compounds for many industrial uses, such the paint

used on the hulls of ships and compounds used to prevent the

growth of fungi in lumber, because the mercury had leached

into the environment and found its way into the human food

chain.

In 1972, while certain agencies within the federal

government recognized that mercury was a cumulative poison

that damaged brain cells, the FDA's vaccine division seems to

have ignored the issue until 1999.

1. The EPA is Regulating the Release of Mercury Into the Environment

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean

Air Act regulates airborne emissions of mercury. In December

2000, the EPA announced that it would issue new regulations

on the emissions of mercury from coal and oil-fired power

plants. That action was taken because, ``mercury has been

identified as the toxic of greatest concern among all the air

toxics emitted from power plants.''

More recently, President Bush announced on February 14,

2002, that mercury emissions from power plants would be

reduced 69% under his Clear Skies Initiative. Under this

plan, mercury emissions would be reduced from the current

level of 48 tons nationally to 15 tons by 2018. The EPA also

regulates mercury emissions from municipal waste combustors,

medical waste incinerators, and hazardous waste incinerators.

The EPA works both domestically and internationally to

reduce mercury exposures in the environment. The ``Canada-

United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of

Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Basin'' is an

example of these activities.

2. Different Limits to Exposure to Mercury Have Been Established by

Different Agencies

In the course of regulating mercury, different government

agencies have established different minimum risk levels for

daily exposure to mercury. Exposure to less than the minimum

risk level is believed to be safe, while exposure that

exceeds that level is believed to increase the chances of

injury. All of the levels apply specifically to ingested

methylmercury.

The EPA established the most conservative level: 0.1

micrograms of mercury per kilogram of body weight per day.

Under this standard, an 11-pound baby (roughly 5 kilograms)

could be exposed to up to 0.5 micrograms of mercury per day

and be considered safe. This exposure standard is a marked

contrast to the 25 micrograms of mercury that was contained

in several childhood vaccines until very recently.

The most lenient federal minimum risk level for mercury is

the FDA's, which sets its limit at 0.4 micrograms per

kilogram of body weight per day. (The United Nations' World

Health Organization sets a slightly higher limit of 0.47

micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight per day.) Falling in

between is the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR) at 0.3 micrograms.

In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report

titled, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, validating

the EPA's lower limit as a ``scientifically appropriate level

that adequately protects the public.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methylmercury guidelines -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guideline

value for

maximum

daily

consumption

(g/kg/day)

Agency (micrograms Guideline `type'

per kilogram

of

bodyweight

per day) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EPA 0.1 Reference dose (RfD). ATSDR 0.3 Minimal risk level. FDA 0.4 Tolerable daily intake. WHO 0.47 Provisional daily tolerable

intake (converted from a

weekly tolerable intake). ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee repeatedly heard from government officials

that merely exceeding the guideline was not cause for

concern. One Merck official, in teaching a Grand Rounds

session to staff in November of 1999, postulated that the

minimum risk level would need to be multiplied by ten to

reach a level at which harm would be expected through

exposure. Dr. Roberta McKee of Merck wrote:

``A number of environmental and public health agencies have

set a Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for toxic substances. An MRL

for ingestion is conceptually equivalent to the Reference

Dose of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the

Acceptable Daily Intake of the US FDA, and the Tolerable

Daily Intake of the WHO. Any exposure to the substance below

the MRL is assured to be safe, while exposure to ten times

the MRL is assumed to place one at risk of overdose. Exposure

at or near the MRL is assumed to be safe but should trigger

deliberate and careful review.''

Based on Dr. McKee's explanation, many babies were exposed

to levels of mercury that ``placed one at risk of overdose,''

and were exposed to amounts well over ten times the EPA's

scientifically validated reference dose. For example, at a

recent Committee hearing, Chairman Dan Burton (R-IN)

discussed his own family's experience with vaccine injuries:

``My grandson received vaccines for nine different diseases

in one day. He may have been exposed to 62.5 micrograms of

mercury in one day through his vaccines. According to his

weight, the maximum safe level of mercury he should have been

exposed to in one day is 1.5 micrograms, so that is 41 times

the amount at which harm can be caused.''

According to the analysis of Dr. McKee, based on the

methylmercury ingestion guidelines, the Chairman's grandson

would have

exceeded the ``ten times the MRL'' and therefore was placed

``at risk of overdose.'' In fact, with a 62.5 microgram

exposure alone, the EPA, ATSDR, and FDA levels would have

been exceeded by 10 times. Because the FDA chose not to

recall thimerosal-containing vaccines in 1999, in addition to

all of those already injured, 8,000 children a day continued

to be placed ``at risk for overdose'' for at least an

additional two years.

It should also be noted that none of the Federal guidelines

on mercury exposure have been included specific provisions

for safe exposure limits for infants and children. It is

widely accepted that infants and young children would be five

times more sensitive to the toxic effect of mercury or other

neurotoxins than adults. ``Exposures early in life are

reasonably of greater health concern . . . because of greater

brain organ susceptibility.''

The FDA has conceded in recent years that many children

received doses of ethylmercury through their vaccinations

that exceeded the EPA's minimal risk level for methylmercury.

However, it is also clear that many infants received doses of

ethylmercury that exceeded the FDA's higher threshold.

3. Warnings Have Been Issued About Mercury in Seafood

The FDA's actions regarding the risk of medical exposures

to mercury have differed greatly from their actions regarding

food exposures to mercury. The agency has a long history of

issuing warnings to the public to monitor their fish

consumption due to concerns about mercury exposure. During

the 1990's, the FDA repeatedly issued warnings advising

pregnant women and young children to avoid certain fish, or

to limit their consumption of these fish because of their

mercury content. In September of 1994, the FDA issued an

advisory entitled, ``Mercury in Fish: Cause for Concern?'' in

which they stated:

``Swordfish and Shark taste great--especially grilled or

broiled. But reports which state that these and other large

predatory fish may contain methylmercury levels in excess of

the Food and Drug Administration's 1 part per million (ppm)

limit has dampened some fish lover's appetites. . .`there is

no doubt that when humans are exposed to high levels of

methylmercury that poisoning and problems in the nervous

system can occur' . . . the types of symptoms reflect the

degree of exposure . . .

``During prenatal life, humans are susceptible to the toxic

effects of high methylmercury exposure because of the

sensitivity of the developing nervous system . . .

Methylmercury easily crosses the placenta, and the mercury

concentration rises to 30 percent higher in fetal red blood

cells than in those of the mother . . . none of the studies

of methylmercury poisoning victims have clearly shown the

level at which newborns can tolerate exposure . . . Pregnant

women and women of child bearing age, who may become

pregnant, however, are advised by FDA experts to limit their

consumption of shark and swordfish to no more than once a

month.''

Similarly, a March 2001 FDA advisory states:

``Some fish contain high levels of a form of mercury called

methylmercury that can harm an unborn child's developing

nervous system if eaten regularly. By being informed about

methylmercury and knowing the kinds of fish that are safe to

eat, you can prevent any harm to your unborn child and still

enjoy the health benefits of eating seafood.. . . While it is

true that the primary danger from methylmercury in fish is to

the developing nervous system of the unborn child, it is

prudent for nursing mothers and young children not to eat

these fish as well.''

In addition to the public advisories, the FDA, in January

of 2001, established an aggressive ``Education Plan on Methyl

Mercury.'' In January 2001, Associate FDA Commissioner

Melinda Plaiser, responding to Congressman William J. Coyne

(D-PA) regarding the National Academy of Sciences' report on

Methylmercury, wrote:

``[L]et me reiterate, the FDA's commitment to protecting

the public's health and the environment regarding mercury.''

Furthermore, in their training materials for employees, the

FDA reflects a slightly different emphasis on mercury's

toxicity than what they presented to the Committee:

``People are exposed every day to a tremendous number of

substances in our environment. These substances include major

and trace elements that may or may not be essential for

sustaining life . . . Other elements are not known to be

essential but are constantly found in living tissues . . . Of

these elements that have no known nutritional value, some

have been found to be toxic at concentrations well below

those of other nonessential elements. Lead, cadmium, and

mercury are examples of elements that are toxic when present

at relatively low levels.''

Other HHS entities have taken very strong mercury reduction

positions. For example, the National Institutes of Health's

(NIH) Division of Safety has initiated a program to make the

NIH mercury-free. According to the Division's own website:

``Elemental (metallic) mercury and its compounds are toxic

and exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or

fatally injure the brain and kidneys. Elemental mercury can

also be absorbed through the skin and cause allergic

reactions. Ingestion of inorganic mercury compounds can cause

severe renal and gastrointestinal toxicity. Organic compounds

of mercury such as methylmercury are considered the most

toxic forms of the element. Exposures to very small amounts

of these compounds can result in devastating neurological

damage and death.

``For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health

effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low

levels of mercury exposure, such as result from a mother's

consumption of methylmercury in dietary sources, can

adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on

memory, attention, language and other skills have been found

in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb.

``The Campaign for a Mercury Free at the NIH seeks to

eliminate, as far as possible, the use of mercury in NIH

facilities; to encourage the use of safer alternatives in

biomedical research; to increase general awareness of mercury

hazards; and to prevent mercury pollution.''

This NIH program has initiated a ``Hatters Pledge'' program

to recruit scientists to reduce the use of mercury at the NIH

and to educate children on the dangers of mercury.

The NIH Hatters Pledge:

I will:

Improve my awareness of mercury hazards and how to reduce

them.

Replace mercury thermometers and other mercury-containing

items with non- or low-mercury alternatives if suitable

alternatives are available.

Dispose of mercury wastes following NIH procedures.

Report spills of mercury.

On the NIH campus, call the Fire Department (911) who are

the NIH hazardous material (HAZMAT) emergency responder.

Off campus, call the local fire department or facility's

hazardous material (HAZMAT) emergency responder.

Have areas that might have been contaminated by mercury

surveyed and decontaminated, if necessary.

4. Over the Course of Two Decades, the FDA Slowly Removed Ethylmercury

From Many Medicinal Products

In 1980, the FDA began a lengthy regulatory process to

remove ethylmercury products from over-the counter products

like topical ointments, diaper rash creams, and

contraceptives. Topical ointments are products used on the

skin either for the treatment or prevention of skin

infections or inflammatory processes. They are typically

divided into four categories, first-aid products to be

applied to small superficial wounds to prevent infection;

skin wound protectant to provide a protective barrier to

small wounds; antibiotic or antifungal creams to prevent

or treat overt skin infection; and anti-inflammatory

agents used to reduce inflammation and inhibit pruritis.

In 1980, the FDA asked their Over-the-Counter (OTC) Review

Panel to conduct a massive review of OTC products. The panel

opted to divide the task into categories, one of which was a

review of OTC products containing ethylmercury.

As a result of the panel's work, in 1982, the FDA issued a

proposed rule to ban thimerosal from OTC topical ointments.

In addition to raising questions about the general

effectiveness of thimerosal for preventing infections, the

FDA found that thimerosal was too toxic for OTC use. Among

the findings that they published were the following:

At the cellular level, thimerosal has been found to be more

toxic for human epithelial cells in vitro than mercuric

chloride, mercuric nitrate, and merbromim (mercurichrome).

It was found to be 35.3 times more toxic for embryonic

chick heart tissue than for staphylococcus aureus.

Delayed hypersensitivity in 50 percent of the guinea pigs

tested, indicating that thimerosal is highly allergic and

that it is reasonable to expect humans to be equally

allergic.

The FDA concluded that while it has been suggested that

hypersensitivity may be due to the thiosalicylate portion of

the molecule and not the ethylmercury, this was not

confirmed.

They noted a Swedish study which found in healthy subjects

the following levels of hypersensitivity to thimerosal: 10%

of school children; 16% of military recruits; 18% of twins,

and 26% of medical students.

In 1982, the FDA advisory panel concluded that thimerosal

was not generally recognized as safe: ``The Panel concludes

that thimerosal is not safe for OTC topical use because of

its potential for cell damage if applied to broken skin and

its allergy potential. It is not effective as a topical

antimicrobial because its bacteriostatic action can be

reversed.''

Despite this strong finding, the FDA's proposed ban on the

OTC use of thimerosal was not finalized until 1998, 18 years

later. At the time of the OTC review, the industry chose not

to challenge the findings of the Panel regarding the toxicity

of thimerosal in OTC products. It is unclear why the FDA

chose to do nothing for 18 years after a ``not generally

recognized as safe'' finding.

Although the FDA went through that 18-year regulatory

process to remove thimerosal from topical ointments,

apparently no one at the FDA was prompted to review the use

of thimerosal in vaccines. Action to remove thimerosal from

vaccines did not begin until 1999, in response to the

Congressionally mandated review. This will be discussed in

more detail later in this report.

At the time of the 1999 FDA review on thimerosal, it was

learned that over 50 vaccines

contained thimerosal. On July 9, 1999, the American Academy

of Pediatrics joined the U.S. Public Health Service in

issuing a joint statement recommending the removal of all

thimerosal from vaccines. On its website, the FDA provides

the following rationale for its policy on thimerosal:

``Over the past several years, because of an increasing

awareness of the theoretical potential for neurotoxicity of

even low levels of organomercurials, and because of the

increased number of thimerosal-containing vaccines that have

been added to the infant immunization schedule, concerns

about the use of thimerosal in vaccines and other products

have been raised. Indeed, because of these concerns, the Food

and Drug Administration has worked with, and continues to

work with, vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate

thimerosal from vaccines.''

In 1999, the FDA was criticized by some for not taking more

forceful action to remove thimerosal from vaccinations; as a

result of the FDA decision to seek a gradual removal, many

children continued to receive injections of the DTaP, Hib,

and Hepatitis B vaccine that contained mercury well into

2001. Mercury-containing vaccines manufactured in the United

States, up to today, continue to be administered to infants

and small children in the United States and abroad.

E. Thimerosal is still used in some medical products

While the FDA has taken steps over the last 20 years to

remove ethylmercury from topical ointments and most pediatric

vaccines, a number of medical products continue to contain

this preservative.

Some nasal and ophthalmic products containing thimerosal

remain on the market.

About 75 percent of the flu vaccines, recently recommended

to be given to children as young as six months, contain at

least trace amounts of thimerosal.

Many adult vaccines contain thimerosal.

Vaccines containing thimerosal continue to be manufactured

in the United States and delivered through the World Health

Organization (WHO) to Third World Countries. The WHO has

continued to require the use of multi-dose vials and to use

preservatives, including thimerosal, to address storage and

transportation issues.

Of additional concern to the Committee, but not discussed

in detail within this report, is the continued use of

thimerosal in adult vaccines. There is a growing emphasis on

adult immunizations, including getting boosters to childhood

immunizations. Additionally, all new military recruits,

active duty, and reserve forces that are deploying overseas

are routinely given a large number of vaccines, many

containing ethylmercury. These vaccines are often given

consecutively and all in the same day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the ``Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 (H.R. 1170),'' which would prohibit the required administration of psychotropic medications in order for children to attend school.

Like many Members, I believe that our children are our future. We need to do our best to protect and improve the health and well-being of our Nation's children, including protecting them from medications that can potentially harm them.

While I was the Chairman of the Full Committee on Government Reform, I held a hearing on September 26, 2002, to examine allegations that too many children are being medicated for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at increasingly younger ages, and to discuss the health implications of these drugs.

Our investigation found that disorders, such as ADD and ADHD, are diagnosed by a checklist of behaviors, not medical science. According to the National Institutes of Health, the behaviors, or ``symptoms'' used to diagnose these disorders are inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Based on these descriptions, almost every child in the United States would be considered afflicted, and under current law, be required to take psychotropic medication to attend school.

Ritalin is perhaps the most prescribed psychotropic drug used to control children with behavioral problems. It is estimated that four to six million children are taking this drug daily in the United States, a 500 percent increase since 1990.

Ritalin is classified as a Schedule II stimulant. This means that it has met three criteria: (1) it has a high potential for abuse; (2) it has a currently accepted medical use in the treatment; and (3) it is shown that abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. According to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Ritalin was shown to be a more potent transport inhibitor than cocaine. In addition, the chronic use of Ritalin can lead to: aggression, agitation, disruption of food intake, weight loss, and even death.

Schools should not be able to force parents to administer these psychotropic drugs to their children--not only are these disorders diagnosed without physiological testing, but they can also lead these children to further drug-use and dependence, or even the worst of all scenarios . . . death.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1170 would protect our children from being required by schools to become subject to psychotropic medications that can lead to detrimental health effects as well as drug addiction based on unscientific diagnoses. I urge continued support from my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I say for our colleagues who are back in their offices and watching this special order, or anyone else that is paying attention, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is the fellow who has been carrying the mail on this issue. He should be congratulated.

There are well over 1 million people in this country that get their pharmaceutical products through pharmacies in Canada because it does save them so much money, and those people are the people that the gentleman is fighting

for, as well as a lot of other people who, when they find out about the issue, the gravity of the situation, will also be buying their products from up there.

The thing I would like to start off with, because the gentleman covered the issue so well, when we had our subcommittee hearing and the gentleman was in attendance and participated, the gentleman will recall the Food and Drug Administration and the gentleman that was there, I think his name was McClellan from the FDA. Or what was the fellow's name? McClellan is the FDA commissioner.

Anyway, the gentleman who was there indicated that there was a question about the safety of pharmaceutical products coming from pharmacies in Canada to the people here in the United States.

There was an article which was in the Washington Post on Thursday, May 8, last week. The Canadian government said officially that it will be responsible for the safety and quality of the large and growing flow of prescription drugs across the border to American consumers.

It was also said, the Health Ministry of Canada said that all imported drugs must be equally safe and effective, whether they are used by Canadians or for exports. They testified that Canadian laws require that drugs that are from third countries that come through Canada are also very closely regulated and scrutinized.

The assistant health director general for the Canadian Health Department, Danielle Dione, said that those were very, very safe. She said, ``As soon as any drug crosses the border into Canada, it has to meet all the regulations of our laws.'' She described the new posting as a clarification, rather than any new policy.

What they are telling us is these drugs in Canada, pharmaceutical products, are absolutely safe for Canadians and they are absolutely safe for Americans. So the only reason anybody could come up with, as far as I am concerned, that would prohibit pharmacologic products from being sold by Canadian pharmacists into the United States is money, money.

Let us take a hard look. The stock market in the last year has suffered. People who own stocks have suffered. The economies of major companies in the United States and around the world have suffered. Yet the pharmaceutical industry had a 17 percent profit during one of the worst years that we have seen in a long time. The executives for the pharmaceutical companies have been making $15, $20, $25 million a year for the CEOs. They are making a lot of money. They want to make sure that the profits they are realizing do not go away.

The country that pays the most for pharmaceutical products, as the gentleman stated so many times so well, is the United States. We pay 10, 15, 20 times as much as they do in other countries for the very same product. I am convinced that it is not just research, which is very important. It is not the scientific studies, which are very important. It is the god-awful dollar, the money that they are making that they are trying to protect.

Now, how are they trying to protect it? Well, we did a search on the Internet, and I think the gentleman probably has that as well.

They have 600 lobbyists here in the United States, 600, making sure that the prices stay high. They pay those lobbyists a half a billion dollars a year to lobby the Members of Congress. In order to make absolutely sure that they have Members of Congress who will look with favor upon what they want, they paid $20 million last year in contributions to our colleagues.

I am not saying any of our colleagues and their votes can be purchased. I am not saying that at all. But what I am saying is that the money that is being spent by the pharmaceutical industry for our health agencies, FDA, HHS, and CDC, the revolving door policy that appears to be prevalent over there, because they make so much more money when they go with these pharmaceutical companies and they get these benefits and everything, a lot of the people in these health agencies look with a jaundiced eye to anything that might impede their ability to make a lot of money when they go to the pharmaceutical industry and get a job.

Many of our colleagues get contributions from the pharmaceutical companies. Many of the people in the health agencies go from the pharmaceutical industry to the health agency and back again. I think that does have an impact on what goes on around this place.

As a result, who suffers? The American people. We should not pay any more for our pharmaceutical products in this country than they do in Europe, Canada, Mexico, or anyplace else, or South America. Yet, as the gentleman said so eloquently so many times, and the gentleman has been the lone voice in the wilderness for a long time, the gentleman has said that it is because America is paying the freight for the rest of the world. We have to do something about that. I applaud the gentleman for taking the lead on this.

I might tell the gentleman that we are going to have another hearing in early June, and the gentleman will be invited to be a participant in that hearing. We anticipate that some of the companies that are trying to cut off the pharmaceutical supplies coming from Canada into the United States will be testifying before that committee.

We would like for the gentleman from Minnesota to participate, and hopefully we will get some answers from them directly as to why they say that they do not want to have their pharmaceutical products sold from a Canadian pharmacist to an American citizen for any reason other than the American citizen is saving money.

We have heard, as the gentleman and I have talked about before, we have heard them say it is a safety issue. We know that is not the case, because the Canadian health agencies have said very clearly and publicly that they test everything, they check everything before it goes into or out of their country.

We want to find out from the pharmaceutical executives themselves why they are discriminating against American purchasers. That hearing will be taking place in June.

Not much.

Six times the amount.

Let me interject something, because this is an important point. How many people have died because they simply cannot afford the drugs that are prescribed for them?

Twenty-nine percent go unfilled?

And walk away.

If the gentleman will yield, one of the arguments we heard when the FDA was before our committee, and the gentleman was there, was that they were concerned about counterfeit drugs. And one of the things that I think is very, very important, and it goes right along with what the gentleman is talking about, and why not hold that up, I think our colleagues back in their offices should see that, that is a device that guaranties that the package has not been doctored in any way. If that package were used in conjunction with a prescription that was filled in some other part of the world, it would guarantee beyond any doubt that that product was genuine and it was not a counterfeit and it was completely safe.

Yet the FDA continues to use that argument, when it is absolutely certain that there is a way to make absolutely sure that that is a safe prescription drug.

Our colleagues might want to know how you can guarantee that that would not be counterfeit. I recall the gentleman pointed this out at the committee hearing that that is the same technology that is used on the twenty-dollar bill that guarantees they are not counterfeit any longer; and it works very, very well.

No. UPS, FedEx?

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. First of all, we have had no cases that we know of where people have died from imported pharmaceutical products.

So, first of all, the argument there is a big risk involved holds no water because they have no proof that it has caused a problem.

Secondly, the gentleman has just pointed out that tampering with pharmaceuticals that are coming into the country is not a problem because now there is a way where you can absolutely guarantee that that package has not been tampered with, that it is the right package, that it has the right product in it, because it has a sealing device that guarantees that it is what it is supposed to be.

So I still do not understand, and maybe the gentleman can explain it to me, because he is pretty learned on this, since he has been working on this a long time, the two main arguments were that people could be hurt, and there is no evidence of that; and, second, that we might be getting counterfeit products that are inferior, and the gentleman has proven that that can be overcome. So what is the argument the FDA is using beyond those two?

It does not.

We have used the logical arguments that the FDA has used, or illogical arguments, as to why they want to stop importation of pharmaceutical products from Canada and elsewhere. The arguments they use do not hold water. I think the gentleman has made that very clear here tonight. So what is the reason?

There is only one reason, and the gentleman is reluctant to say this, but I am not, and that is the pharmaceutical industry makes the biggest share, the lion's share of their profits right here on the backs of the American consumer.

That is not right. They will say it is R&D, research and development, but the research and development should be shared equally around the world. But as far as them making huge profits on the back of American consumers, when they are making a profit in Europe, Canada and Mexico, but not to the degree they are here, is just unconscionable. It bothers me that the almighty dollar as far as corporate executives are concerned is more important than the health of American citizens.

The facts bear this out. There are American seniors and others who are going wanting for pharmaceutical products because they cannot afford them, whereas the same products are being sold for one-sixth the price someplace else in the world, and that is critical. We ought to hold these pharmaceutical companies accountable. We cannot let them go on raping the American people, and that is a very strong word and I am using it advisedly, but they are raping the American people while the rest of the world is benefiting from these lower prices. We need to hold them accountable.

The thing that bothers me is that the FDA comes before our committee with the lame excuses that they used that do not hold water, as the gentleman has made clear here tonight, these lame excuses, and we ask why? They are the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect Americans to make sure that the products are safe but also to make sure that they get the products to which they are entitled. The FDA is blocking, they are like a lineman in a football game blocking for the pharmaceutical industry. Why are they doing that? The pharmaceutical industry is making huge profits on the back of the American people, but why is the FDA helping them?

The only reason I can imagine is there is some kind of subliminal, sweetheart revolving door between the people over at FDA, HHS and CDC and over at the pharmaceutical companies. That is something that smacks of being unethical, at the very least. The FDA and HHS should be concerned about the safety of products and to make sure that the American people have access to the products that will protect their health. They have been blocking for the pharmaceutical industry, and it is something that should not be tolerated in the future. The gentleman does not need to say that, but I will.

And that is taxpayers' money.

They have the 936 program down there.

Mr. Speaker, because of the Enron debacle and the other corporations around the country that padded the books that made it look like they were making profits when actually they were losing money, and at the same time corporate executives were making tons, because of that, the Oxley bill that you talked about a few minutes ago set certain guidelines and standards that they had to meet. I do not know why we couldn't propose some kind of legislation that would mandate the same kind of standard be applied to the pharmaceutical industry as well as other corporations around this country.

The other thing that I think we ought to take a hard look at is when Congress, you and I, when we leave here, we cannot lobby our colleagues for a year. The reason we cannot is because there is a concern that there might be collusion between an incumbent congressman and some corporation where they are going to benefit from the judgment and the vote of a congressman in exchange for him lobbying down the road. So we make sure that a congressman has to wait a year before he can lobby his fellow Members.

Why cannot we do the same thing with the FDA and HHS and CDC? Why can we not stop this revolving door policy that exists by saying, if you are working for a health agency here in the United States of America, you cannot work for a pharmaceutical company where you were sitting in judgment on their products or on their policies? I know it would be very difficult to draft a bill like that, but it might send a message if we introduced one, that that kind of chicanery must not exist.

I cannot think of any other reason in the world other than profits that are keeping the pharmaceutical companies from people being able to buy their products in the United States from places like Canada. I cannot think of any other reason other than the FDA is deeply involved with the pharmaceutical industry, especially after what you have said here tonight about the reasons that they use. I cannot think of any reason in the world other than profit or collusion for the FDA to stand in the way of us being able to buy those products from Canada or anywhere else.

When they sat before our committee and they looked us in the eye and they said it was a safety issue, which we know is not the case, then there has got to be a reason. I cannot put my finger on it other than there is some incentive for them to support the pharmaceutical industry's position, and we have to put a stop to that.

That is $550 billion a year.

If the gentleman will yield further, one of the things that concerns me about the prescription drug benefits the gentleman from Minnesota alluded to a moment ago is that if we pass a prescription drug bill in the Congress to provide benefits for seniors in this country and we do not do something as he suggested to make sure that they are paying a fair price for their product, then the taxpayers are going to be paying $360 for a product that you could buy in Germany for $60. Six times.

I do not think the taxpayers want to be paying six times the price of a drug in Germany here in the United States. It would actually just bankrupt the United States Treasury in a few years if we did not do something about that. I am not for price controls, either; but I do believe that the marketplace ought to dictate the prices and a free market not only here in the United States but around the globe. I think the gentleman makes a very valid point. The American people should not pay six, seven, eight, 10 times the price that they do in other countries. That is what scares me about the prescription drug benefit we are going to pass in this Congress this year. I think the gentleman and I will be down here debating that when that bill comes to the floor to make sure that the taxpayers are getting their dollar's worth when we buy these pharmaceuticals for seniors.

What is the price comparison?

So six times.

But why?

I think I do.

Let me say, God bless you for what you are doing, and I think there are seniors and people all across this country who cannot buy pharmaceuticals at the proper price who are saying, go man go. Go Gutknecht go. I am one of them. But I want to find out why. My committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was charged with the responsibility of investigating waste, fraud and abuse in government and I was chairman for 6 years. We found that there were a lot of abuses in government. I want to find out why the FDA and HHS and CDC, why these kinds of problems are existing. There is no reason for it. The purity of the products are guaranteed by the Canadian Government as well as our government. That was stated by their government officials just this past week. They are making a profit in those countries, but they are making a huge profit here, eight, nine, 10 times as much in some cases. I want to find out why the FDA appears to be protecting this industry. There has got to be something to that.

The gentleman from Minnesota mentioned the GAO, a GAO investigation. I think a GAO investigation of this entire area is something that needs to be done. Not just the pharmaceutical companies and whether or not they are

benefiting from government largesse from our research dollars but also I think we ought to have the GAO investigate what is going on with our health agencies and why this sort of appearance of chicanery exists. I am going to join with you in the GAO study, but I might want to expand it just a little bit further.

There is one last thing I would like to bring up. We passed a law in this Congress that allows people to buy imported pharmaceuticals. The gentleman recalls that. The FDA and HHS said no, because there were concerns about the safety of the imported pharmaceuticals. But the Congress of the United States, the House and Senate combined, have spoken on this issue. They want the American people to be able to buy these pharmaceuticals safely from anyplace where they can get the best price.

That is a law passed by the Congress. The only thing that is stopping it, and this is something we should have started on earlier, the only thing that is stopping it is our health agencies, who are saying, wait a minute, we want to make sure they are safe. You have proven tonight, and I think conclusively, that they are safe. There has been no indication whatsoever, no cases where people have died from imported pharmaceuticals. Even if there were a problem like that, which there is not, there is a way to make absolutely sure that the products coming into the country are safe, in a sealed container where there can be no tampering. So there is no way that we cannot make sure these products are safe. Yet the FDA continues to block it. I maintain it is because of this relationship with our pharmaceutical companies. But in any event, Congress has spoken and we need to keep beating on this issue so that the current law passed by the Congress is enforced and FDA and HHS just get the hell out of the way.

324.

Let me just conclude my participation in your Special Order by saying I am proud to be a member of the Gutknecht army.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Republic of China as it prepares to celebrate President Chen Shui-bian's third anniversary in office. President Chen should be commended for his leadership in guiding Taiwan through many challenges and maintaining prosperity and democracy for its 23 million people on the island.

Despite economic downturns in many parts of the world, Taiwan has maintained a healthy, albeit slow, growth. Taiwan's substantive relations with nearly all the free countries have been steadily improving, especially with Taiwan's recent accession to the World Trade Organization. However, much more needs to be done to expand Taiwan's international presence.

For years, I have been sympathetic to Taiwan's goals of obtaining a greater international presence. With the recent outbreak of SARS, I feel even stronger that Taiwan needs to be included in any and all international medical cooperation and collaboration. With the spread of SARS, the importance of public health information disclosure is paramount. As Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said, ``infectious disease knows no borders and requires an effective and coordinated response at local, national and international levels.'' Time has come for Taiwan to be included in all World Health Organization activities. For a start, I believe the United States should strongly support Taiwan's efforts to obtain observer status at The World Health Assembly this May.

Moreover, I believe we should support Taiwan's bid to be a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in view of the fact there are 270 direct flights a week between the United States and Taiwan. There is no doubt in my mind that we should give Taiwan all the support, including Taiwan's bid to return to the United Nations.

On the eve of President Chen Shui-bian's third anniversary in office, I. join my colleagues in wishing President Chen all the best.

Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been coming to the floor on a regular basis talking about children who are autistic. A few short years ago, one in 10,000 children in this country was autistic. Now it is more like one in 200. This is a 50-fold increase. We have an absolute epidemic.

The major culprit in most people's minds is the mercury, mercury that has been in vaccines as a preservative. Since the 1930s and 1940s, they have been putting mercury in vaccines as part of a preservative called thimerosal. As children started getting more and more vaccinations, the amount of mercury in their systems grew and grew and grew. And now children get between 25 and 30 shots before they go to kindergarten. The cumulative effect of all that mercury in their brains is causing severe neurological problems for these children, their families, and the entire country.

We did a report, a report that took 4 years in studying the problems with these vaccinations, and most people in the country are not even aware of the problem. A lot of people do not even know what autism is. But the fact of the matter is an awfully large number of these children who have been damaged and who are autistic, we believe and our report believes and shows, that they were damaged by the mercury that was injected into their bodies along with the vaccinations they were getting.

Mr. Speaker, I have been coming to the floor for some time, and every time I come to the floor I talk about letters I have been receiving from families of children and pictures of children who are autistic and their stories about how their child became autistic. We have found from all these letters that the children get their vaccinations, four, five, six, and seven shots in 1 day, in many cases; and within a very short time after that these children who are normal, who make eye-to-eye contact, who laugh and walk and do all the things that normal children do, they change. They no longer communicate, they no longer look you in the eye, they bang their heads against the wall, they have chronic diarrhea and constipation alternatively. And the problems go on and on.

I have a letter here from a fellow who says it has cost him his house. He had to sell his house, $45,000. He had to borrow money. He is in debt up to here, and he has nowhere to turn. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, which was supposed to help these people, it was created to help these people whose children were damaged by vaccines, shows no hope.

Many of these people did not get in within the 3-year time limit because they did not know what caused their child to be autistic. They did not even know their child was autistic because the doctors misdiagnosed them. So they missed the 3-year statute of limitations, and they have nowhere to go.

So we are trying to get the Senate and the House together to work out a program where children can get into the program, can have their case reviewed. And if it is proven that they were damaged by the mercury in the vaccines, or the MMR vaccine, then they can get restitution from this fund. But we are having a terrible time because the pharmaceutical companies are fighting us because they are afraid of the liability they might incur.

So we come down here every day, and we beat on this issue and beat on this issue and will continue to do that until we get some positive results, because these parents, and we have thousands of these letters, thousands, and it is growing every day, these parents have no place to turn. These children are going to grow up living to be 65, 70 years old and the taxpayers of this country are going to be taking care of them. That is the only place they can turn because the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund is not doing what it is supposed to do to help these children.

I wish everyone would look at these pictures, my colleagues back in their offices and those on the floor. These are normal children who were damaged by vaccines. Their parents have no place to turn, and the pharmaceutical companies have turned their backs on them. That is criminal and something has to be changed.

Madam Speaker, tonight on the program ``Hardball'' on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is a very expert interviewer, will be interviewing Prince Bandar, who is the Saudi Ambassador to the United States of America. I hope tonight Chris will ask him some of these questions that are very, very important that need to be answered for the American people. Here are a few of them:

Why were 15 of the 19 hijackers that attacked us on 9/11 from Saudi Arabia?

Why does the Saudi Government provide financial aid to families of suicide bombers?

Why does the Saudi Government support Wahabi clerics and institutions that preach hate and call for suicide attacks against Christians and Jews? They are teaching these children in their schools with the help of the Saudi Government on a daily basis.

According to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police report, through phony charities, huge sums of Saudi money are sent to terrorists; $1- to $2 million a month went to al Qaeda.

Why did the Saudi Embassy provide travel documents to Maha Marri, the wife of a terrorism suspect, and her five children so they could escape the United States even though a grand jury had demanded testimony from that lady and the FBI had confiscated her passport? They helped her leave the country.

And why was Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, providing $130,000 to a Saudi woman in Virginia, who in turn gave some of this money to a family who gave shelter to two of the September 11 hijackers?

And how is it that 19 al Qaeda operatives who battled the Saudi police in a gunfight just days ago escaped?

These are things that must be answered. Tonight Chris Matthews has the opportunity to put it right to the Saudi Ambassador. I hope he will do that.

Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been coming to the floor on a regular basis talking about the problem of the epidemic of autism. Just a few short years ago, 1 in 10,000 children were autistic. Today it is closer to 1 in 200. Think about that. We have had a 50-fold increase in the number of children who are autistic, and yet we have not had any real attention paid to the problem.

I wrote a letter to President Bush and to his administration, asking that there be a national conference called with leading scientists and experts from around the country and around the world to get together to try to find out why we are having such a terrible problem with this epidemic of autism, and this epidemic is one that is going to be with us for many, many, many years. These children who become autistic are going to grow up, live to be 65, 70 years old, but they are not going to be able in many cases to take care of themselves; so they are going to be dependent upon the taxpayers, upon society to take care of them, and so it is extremely important that we address this situation right now.

I have on this lectern beside me pictures of children from across the country who are autistic, and I and the parents of these children believe that many of them, maybe most of them, became autistic because of mercury that was in vaccines put in by the pharmaceutical companies under the title of thimerosal. Thimerosal is a preservative that was put in children's vaccines and other vaccines for a long time, since the 1940s, and now that we give children 25 to 30 vaccines before they start kindergarten, the cumulative effect of all that mercury going into their system and into their brain is an epidemic of autism, and yet nothing is being done about it.

We passed a Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund that was supposed to provide a nonadversarial approach to helping solve these problems of these autistic children and their families because of the huge amount of money that they have to lay out to take care of their children, and yet it has not worked. We have been trying to correct that, but we have not received the kind of cooperation from the other body that we need to get that job done.

Today we have got a new report from California, the Department of Developmental Services, and it says that in the past 4 years the amount of autistic children that have been found has doubled, in 4 years. That is in the State of California alone, and this has been going on all across the country. In some parts of the country, the number of children that are born and becoming autistic is much greater than 1 in 200. It is down to 150 in parts of New Jersey and Georgia and elsewhere in this country, and we must pay attention to it. We must get to the bottom of it, and we must provide a mechanism for these parents and these children to be taken care of before it is too late.

As I said before, it was 1 in 10,000 children were autistic. Now it is 1 in about 200. There has been almost a 300 percent increase in autism in 11 years, from 1987 to 1998, and in California they said that their report has led to numerous subsequent epidemiological studies in autism throughout the United States as well as the global health community, and yet we have not as a Nation addressed this problem.

It has been said in this study that in just a short period of time in California, autism will be more prevalent than cancer in children, than diabetes in children, Down Syndrome in children, and within 3 to 4 years will surpass in total number of cases both cerebral palsy and epilepsy in California. That is just California alone.

This is a silent epidemic, and most people in America who are not conversant with what autism is do not even realize it, and many of my colleagues unfortunately do not understand the gravity of this situation. So tonight and every night I am going to be coming down here. Tonight I am talking about the study that was done in California, but I am going to be coming down here reading letters from autistic families, from parents of autistic children who have noplace to turn and nowhere to go, because when they go to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund for support and help, they are turned down without any review of their situation. We are trying to open that up.

There is about $2 billion in that fund right now, and we need to make it nonadversarial. If children are damaged by vaccines, if they are damaged by the mercury in vaccines, then those parents ought to be having access to that

program as quickly as possible. It has been closed to them so far, many of them. We need to open it up with a 2-year look-back provision so that they can get in and have their case reviewed, because to have their child in that situation, to have them not be able to look at them, talk to them, running around flapping their arms, having chronic diarrhea and constipation is something that parents must not live with, and this Government needs to address this problem.

California has talked about it in this report, and the Congress of the United States and the White House need to come to grips with this problem right away.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I just wanted to say that the committee has done a pretty good job on a very difficult issue. They are going to be up to 21 percent. The goal has been 40 percent for a long time. Let me just say that I have a personal interest in this issue. I did not have a few years ago but I do now. And I want to tell you that there are children being left behind and they are going to be left behind unless we get additional funds.

I have talked to school boards and school teachers and others and the funds are not there to give these children the educational additional attention they need, particularly children who are autistic. And we have 1 out of every 200 children in America now that are autistic. And we need to get to that 40 percent level before 6 years; and I know the gentleman is doing his absolute best to get there, but that is not enough. We are not moving fast enough. We waste a ton of money around here, and these kids who are autistic and who are Down syndrome children are going to be burdens on society as they grow up if they do not get the attention they need right now.

And it will cost 10, 20, 30 times more if we do not do it now by educating them and giving them a chance to be a productive member of society, than if we wait.

So what I would like to do is say to my colleagues in this Congress, and I know we are all well-intentioned and we care about these kids, the problem is real. Children are being left behind, and it is going to come back to bite us in the fanny in the future if we do not do something about it right now.

So I would like to say to my colleague who has worked very hard on this and his committee and the members of the Committee on Appropriations, let us get to the 40 percent level a lot quicker than 6 years from now because these kids cannot wait.

We are going to bear the responsibility 10, 20, 30 years from now when they grow up and they cannot produce.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) introducing this amendment.

Autism is one of the most misunderstood maladies that children have and adults have in this country, and it is a growing problem. We have one out of every 200 children in America now becoming autistic. It used to be one in 10,000. It has been multiplied by 50 the number who are affected.

Many of these children do have problems occasionally, where they flap their arms, they will bang their heads against the wall, they will even speak incoherently. It takes somebody who understands to be able to deal with them. It is very difficult on parents, but it is more difficult even for people who are trying to educate these children.

So I think this is a great amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) in introducing this amendment.

The parents of these autistic children for the past 5 or 6 months here in the Congress have been fighting a very difficult battle with pharmaceutical companies, because they think, and I believe, that many of these children were damaged by mercury in some of the vaccines that we had. So they have had a tough fight, and I am glad to see that we are showing a little concern about their problems by having this amendment on the floor; and I assume it will be adopted without any opposition.

So I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank the committee for accepting it.

Mr. Speaker, today we passed the IDEA bill, which was designed to help children who have learning disabilities to get the kind of attention they need in the educational systems across this country. The bill was not a bad bill. It did not go far enough. We only provide about 21 percent of the funds that are necessary. It should be 40 percent. That is what we promised the States. We are not there yet, but hopefully we will get there before too long.

The reason I am here on the floor tonight is because I have received thousands of letters from parents of children who are autistic, and, as autistic children, they do have these learning disabilities.

These parents believe, and I believe, after having hearings for the past 4 years that their children, many, many of their children, have been damaged by the mercury that was in children's vaccines. We have been putting mercury from a product called thimerosal in children's vaccines since the 1930s, and now that we are giving children 25 to 30 vaccinations before they start into kindergarten, you have a tremendous amount of mercury being built up in their systems.

Mercury has a cumulative effect in the brain. So when you were giving a child one shot, it might not have been so bad. Obviously, you do not want mercury in their system, but the mercury was getting into the brain, and in many cases it was not causing damage. But when you give a child 30 shots before they start into kindergarten, many, many, many of those children are going to have brain damage and neurological damage such as autism.

I have received, as I said, thousands of letters from parents of autistic children from around the country, and I have been coming down here showing

pictures of these children and reading these letters, because the pharmaceutical companies and the Congress of the United States have a responsibility to those families who are suffering financially and mentally from the terrible trauma of autism their children are going through.

It used to be one in 10,000 children were autistic. Now it is 1 in 200. We have had a 50-fold increase in autism in the last 10 to 15 years. It is an absolute epidemic, and something has to be done about it. We have been debating how to handle it in the Congress of the United States.

Every child who is damaged by vaccine should have access to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, but many of these children and their families who are autistic have not had access to that fund, and that is why this debate rages on.

In the other body we have had some real problems, and that is why we are trying to bring to the attention of the other body, the leader of the other body, as well as Members of Congress, how deep this problem is and how important it is to the people of this country that we get it solved.

I do not have time to read a lot of letters tonight, but I want to read part of one letter I received. It is many, many pages from a man named James W. Coll. James is from Hanover, Pennsylvania. He has a son, Jacob, who became autistic. He says in his letter, ``Jacob is 5. There is no doubt in my mind that my son Jacob has thimerosal-induced autism.''

Why does he say that? He says it for the same reason that I say that about my grandson. My grandson was a very normal child, as Jacob probably was, and he was speaking and he was laughing and he was a lot of fun to be around. He actually got nine shots in one day, seven which had mercury in them, and, 2 days later, he was running around banging his head against the wall, flapping his arms, had chronic diarrhea and constipation at the same time, and we lost him. He looked at you blankly. He would not talk any more. He became incommunicado, if you will.

That has happened to thousands and thousands of families across this country. We cannot leave them high and dry. It is costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are mortgaging their homes, they selling everything they have to take care of their children. They did not realize they had access to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund until the 3-year statute of limitations ran out.

We need to reopen that fund so that every person who has an autistic child has a day in court, if you will, to make their case before the fund to get money to help their child and help their family.

There is $1.8 billion in that fund. We protected the pharmaceutical companies by allowing them to put so much money in the fund so that they would not be sued when people are damaged by vaccines. So the people who have been damaged by the vaccines ought to have access to that fund. It should be non-adversarial. It is adversarial right now. They have been keeping people out, they have been keeping children out, and damaged children have been suffering, their families have been suffering, and they have nowhere to turn.

So that is why every night I come down here and show pictures. These are called ``The Faces of Autism.'' We have thousands of these children. I have probably 50 or 60 here. Here is a new one we have. It says on this, ``Vaccines Stole My Health, Childhood and Future. Don't Steal My Rights.'' I think that is very important. We should not steal this child's rights, or any child's rights. They should have access to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, they should have access to education.

If we do not deal with these children now, they are going to grow up, they have an average life expectancy, and if they cannot cope with society and we do not deal with them now, we are going to pay 10, 20, 30 times more to take care of them when they are adults and they cannot make a living and cannot function in our society. So it is absolutely imperative.

I say this to my colleagues in the other body and here, we need to pass legislation this year that will give these people access to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund so that they will have somewhere to turn and they won't be left high and dry.

I will be back here tomorrow night or several nights in the future to bring up other cases, and I hope that we will be able to make this case time and again to the American people until we get the job done.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from James W. Coll.

Dear Sir: I would like to begin this letter by telling you

a little about myself and my wife Christine. We are both 31

yrs old and have two children. We live in Hanover,

Pennsylvania. She is a stay-at-home mom and I am a paramedic

for a private company in Washington, DC. My older son James

is eight yrs old and my younger son Jacob is 5. There is no

doubt in my mind that my son Jacob has thimeroSal-induced

autism. I am going to tell you my family's story the best way

I can. Before I get started I just want to tell you that my

heart goes out to you, your daughter and grandchild. I know

for me it is the most challenging thing I ever faced. I feel

like I can related more to parents of autistic children than

my own distant family.

My son Jacob was born on July 21, 1997 in Pittsburgh, PA.

He was born by cesarean section because he weighed ten pounds

and was too big for a vaginal delivery. His Apgars were

normal at birth and there were no complications after

delivery. He received his first vaccination, which was the

hepatitis one, at the hospital, just like all children in

America. During the first few weeks he was home, we noticed

he vomited his formula a lot. Some took him to his

pediatrician. He was then put on Soy formula and it was

thought he might be lactose intolerant. This did not help

much. He would still gag and vomit. It wasn't all the time.

He was still able to hold enough down to thrive and grow. The

pediatrician told us that this was a problem for some

children and that it would subside in time. During the first

year of his life he learned to crawl. This milestone appeared

normal. There were some things that confused us. He did not

like to be sat down in the grass outside, he would cry

inconsolably and wanted to be picked up. His eye contact with

us was not very good. You could not capture his interest with

toys. He liked to be held close to us a lot and would put his

face next to ours. He was quiet unless he was hungry or

something disturbed him. Sometimes we would push him in the

stroller and he would cry when we tried to push him back

home. He was very hard to console at these times. We just

thought he was different and this was his personality. My

mother told me I was a fussy baby. At this point we never

suspected autism. We didn't even know anything about autism,

outside of the movie Rainman. At a year old he received more

immunizations. They were given at one of his pediatrician's

offices, Dr. Tuchin. After that we noticed that his glands in

his neck, under his armpits and on the back of his head,

swelled up. They appeared like little peas under his skin.

His pediatrician told us he had a virus and that this was

normal because his body was fighting off infection. She did

not feel any testing was necessary. Myself and my wife

thought it was and a blood test was ordered at Children's

Hospital of Pittsburgh. The results were unclear. The CMV

virus was suspected or a virus that closely mimicked CMV.

There wasn't real concern by the physicians in charge of

Jacob's care. In fact, we seemed to bother his pediatrician

because she was not very nice to us about this problem and

wrote little sarcastic notes in his chart about the testing.

Otherwise he continued to grow and thrive, despite his food

sensitivity and everything else (as in his vital signs and

physical appearance appeared normal). His lymph nodes stayed

enlarged for about six months from when he was a year old. We

were just told it takes a while for them to go back down and

it was a good sign because his body was fighting off the

virus. From 1\1/2\ years old to 2\1/2\ years old his food

sensitivity continued to be a problem and a lot of solid food

made him throw up. We were referred to Children's Hospital of

Pittsburgh Occupational Food Sensitivity Clinic. They

observed Jacob eat french fries. They wanted to feed him

pudding, which to this day he dislikes. They told us that he

had some food sensitivities of an unknown cause and that he

needed therapy. The team of therapists who observed him

wanted to send a therapist to our house a couple of times a

week and teach him to eat different foods. This idea, to us,

seemed unnatural. We did not think this would help him. We

decided to just keep on feeding him what he liked and he

would out grow this. The only things he would eat were

chicken and fries, grilled cheese, cookies--basically,

anything dry and tasty. He does not eat any vegetables to

this day, or wet foods. He always coughed a lot too when he

drank liquids. Our doctor told us not to worry, as long as he

did not get pneumonia. His speech was very limited at 2 yrs

old. Sometimes he could say Mom or Dad, but it wasn't all the

time. He would jump up and down a lot and flap his hands in

front of the TV. We thought he was just happy and playing. He

did not have interests or imaginary play with his toys. He

liked only push button toys. In the back of my mind and my

wife's we knew he was a little different, but we thought if

we just gave him some time he would start talking more and

eat more foods, and not be so hyperactive. In February, 2000

we moved to the Washington, DC area because I got a job offer

paying more money. We moved to a small 2 bedroom apartment in

Woodbridge, VA. The people downstairs complained a lot

because my son jumped up and down and they could hear it. We

lived there six months and the management would not renew

our lease because of the noise of the jumping and Jacob's

tantrums. During this time my wife took Jacob to his new

pediatrician, Dr. John Farber. When he was approximately 3

years. old, Dr. Farber diagnosed Jacob with Pervasive

Developmental Disorder. He told us this term coincided

with autism and that Jacob would improve in time or that

we should go to Child Find Services in the county in

Virginia in which we lived. My wife took Jacob there. It

was a hot day and his evaluation took place in a trailer

which was not air-conditioned. My son tantrumed and did

not like it there. They could not even test him. They

agreed with the diagnosis. We later learned that this term

is routinely used with children when the child is young

and that a physician is not ready to totally label the

child autistic. We then took Jacob to Johns Hopkins

University Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland for a second

opinion. They had a special clinical therapy place called

the Kennedy Krieger Institute. There at approximately 3\1/

2\ years. old he was examined by a Dr. Andrew Zimmerman

who diagnosed him with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. He also

had some bloodwork done which ruled out Fragile X

Syndrome. He told us to find a good speech therapist. At

that time we had moved to Fredericksburg, Virginia where

rent was cheaper and we could afford to live in a nice

rental town-home community. We found a speech therapist,

but we didn't think this was very effective. She was

trying to teach Jacob to talk more with picture cards. We

didn't feel this was intense enough. We then learned of a

therapy called Applied Behavioral Analyses. We tried to

get the Spotsylvania County School District to pay for a

40 hour week program which was recommended by all the six

physicians that examined Jacob. We also had his diagnoses

confirmed by other physicians. We have diagnoses letters

from all of them. We were hoping for a better second

opinion. We were hoping Dr. Farber was wrong. The county

school services would only pay for 20 hours a week of in-

home services. ABA is a therapy that consists of teaching

your child tasks, by breaking them down into smaller steps

and doing them over and over again, until the child

understands. Every verbal sentence is given concrete

meaning the child can associate with. This therapy was

developed by Dr. Lovas of UCLA. I'm sure you probably

heard of it. In September, 2001, we moved back to

Pittsburgh, PA and rented a small house. We did this

because we found out that Pittsburgh had the Allegheny

intermediate unit which payed for these services. This was

funded by the State of Pennsylvania. They had a Lovas

replication site which taught ABA therapy.

We had Jacob evaluated and we are setting up an in-home

therapy workshop for Jacob. After a couple of workshops,

though we decided that we did not like the way he was treated

they wanted to isolate Jacob when he had a tantrum and ignore

him. This seemed very unnatural to us. A lot of people view

this therapy as programming a child like a robot. Myself and

my wife agree. At least in my son's case, we don't feel it's

the answer. After that we decided there was no point in

staying in Pittsburgh. Approximately one year ago we

purchased a new home in Hanover, PA. My job was still in

Washington, DC. When we lived in Pittsburgh, I drove 250

miles to work, stayed the weekend and drove home on Mondays.

We chose Hanover because it's the closest you can be to the

DC area, and still be in PA. If we ever decide in the future

that PA is the way we want to go, we will still live in PA,

which will pay for it. After we moved to Hanover in March

2002 we learned there were doctors who specialized in

biologically treating children with autism. They follow a

protocol that the Autism Research Institute in San Diego

California developed. It's called the Don Protocol. The

Autism Research Institute sent us a list of doctors

nationwide who were trained by the Autism Research Institute

and attend the lectures. Most of these doctors are into

homeopathic medicine and don't take health insurance. I make

about $70,000 a year. I definitely didn't have the money left

over to privately pay for a physician. We were fortunate and

found a doctor in Baltimore, MD which is about 35 miles south

of Hanover. His name is Arnold Brenner. He has been treating

children with autism and other disabilities for 20 yrs. When

we first took Jacob he ordered blood work and a hair

analysis. The purpose behind this was to look for a cause of

Jacob's autism. Then you can give supplements or change the

diet so the child's nervous system is not irritated, thus

improving the symptoms. We found out that Jacob was allergic

to gluten and casein, and that he had an abnormal reading of

mercury in his hair. We were shocked! My son's mercury

reading was in the low medium range. Most people don't have

any in their body. This also proves that Jacob's body could

not detoxify the thimerosal from the immunizations. I feel

like my child has been assaulted by the pharmaceutical

industry. Mercury is toxic to humans. Science has known this

for a long time. Why then has the Ely Lilly Company produced

it (thimerosal) for the pharmaceutical manufacturers? They

have knowingly poisoned our children. The only thing that

keeps me from going crazy is the fact that I love my son and

my family. Jacob is being treated with a medication called

Chemet. It was previously used to treat lead poisoning. The

goal of the therapy is to remove the mercury from the body.

His urine is tested every four weeks and sure enough,

there are traces of mercury in it. Our doctor told us the

only other way he could have gotten mercury in his body

was from eating fish, and we don't eat any fish. He also

takes daily vitamins that come from a place called

Kirkmans Labs, which are specially formulated for artistic

individuals. In addition to this, he takes about ten other

supplements which support his liver and supplement any

other abnormalities in his blood work. We also learned

that mercury poisoning can cause allergies to casein and

gluten. My son now is on a case/gluten-free-diet, which is

also recommended during the chelation process. We don't

know if the chelation is really working yet. The Doctor

tells us that the 20 other children that he is chelating

are all making improvements. I don't know if this will

work in my son's case. I am hoping and praying. Chelation

is a relatively new therapy. It has only been in use for

about two years. Jacob's doctor feels Jacob was not born

this way and that the immunizations may have caused it. He

told me that he has found that when you remove the

mercury, the symptoms improve. The Chemet costs about $500

for a one-month supply. Fortunately my insurance covers

it, the blood work, and some of the urine testing. The

vitamins are not covered. So far I've spent approximately

$700, in all. My son is going to be six years old in

July--July 21st. He is not potty-trained and doesn't

understand to go to the bathroom when he has the urge. We

are trying to work at this. His speech consists of loudly

saying what he wants. Examples are: Cookies! Drink!

Chocolate! We can understand it, but it's not real

pronounced. He says ``stair,'' to get help over the gate,

which is in the doorway of his room. He eats with his

fingers and throws the food he doesn't want on the floor.

He rocks on a kitchen chair when he sits in it, on his

knees. He'll rock the chair as he kneels on it, while

holding onto the backrest with his hands. You have to tell

him all day long to turn around and sit down. He'll

listen, but thirty seconds later he'll get right back up

and rock again. He also likes to jump on the couch and

stand on the armrest. Again you have to tell him to get

down all day long. He will get right back up and keep

doing it. He doesn't understand about danger. Examples

are: a hot stove, hot water, falling from heights, such as

the couch. He needs to be watched and constantly

supervised all day long. He doesn't understand the

reasoning behind everything. Examples of this are: ``Jacob

don't rip the pages out of your book,'' ``Jacob, don't run

out in the street.'' He cannot bathe himself. He cannot

write his name or draw simple pictures. We buy him toys

that are at a 2-yr-old level. He cannot brush his teeth by

himself. He will put it in his mouth, but usually just

sucks the tooth paste off it. Sometimes he screams at the

top of his lungs for no apparent reason. We know it's a

nervous impulse he cannot control. If I tell him to shut

the refrigerator door, he might go and do it, but it's

after I say it 5 times. He can understand simple

instructions, such as ``stand up,'' ``sit down,'' ``Jacob,

come here'' (sometimes). He walks on his tiptoes,

frontwards and backwards all day long. When he's home, he

takes all his clothes off. He won't sit at our dinner

table through the whole meal. He'll get up and run around

with food in his mouth. Sometimes he's aggressive and

he'll bite or pinch you if he's upset about something.

Myself and my wife understand because we love him and we

know he has a disorder. Our day consists of getting up,

bathing him, getting him to take all his vitamins and

Chemet. We use a syringe because he can't tolerate a spoon

in his mouth. All his food has to be made and purchased at

Health Food Stores. On top of this, you have to watch him

while you do all this to make sure he doesn't fall and

break his leg or something worse. He likes to take a ride

in the car and he'll let you know he wants to, by carrying

an article of clothing he wears, over to you, because he

usually just walks around at home in his diaper. He knows

he has to put clothes on to go outside--although the

article of clothing he brings you may not always be his

own. He cannot dress himself. You have to help him with

zippers and buttons. He may, in the summer, be able to put

a pair of stretch elastic shorts on, but he may put them

on backwards. You cannot explain to him that the tag on

the shorts goes in the back. His joints in his wrists are

weak and he has poor muscle tone in his arms. Sometimes

his wrists crack. He is very affectionate and will hug me

and his mom. His brother, too. He likes to be around us

and likes when I wrestle with him. He will say ``mom,''

but sometimes has difficulty saying ``dad.'' I took him in

my backyard a couple of days ago and he will toss a big

ball with me, if we stand about 3 feet apart. He looked in

the sky, saw some birds and said ``birds.'' This gives me

hope that the Chemet is working. I hope this gives you a

picture of what my son is like. This disorder has also

affected my older boy greatly. I can't spend time with

James because I have to help my wife watch Jacob. My wife

watches Jacob by herself for 72 hours, Friday,

Saturday, and Sunday every week. During that time I'm

working a 72 hour shift in Washington, DC. I'm a paramedic

and work for a private ambulance company. The company is

not that busy at night so I am able to get sleep. I'm off

Monday through Thursday every week, which is

spent watching Jacob and changing his diapers. This works

out well because it gives my wife a break and a chance to

go out with my son James. Jacob takes melatonin at night,

which helps him sleep. Ninety-five percent of the time now

he sleeps a full night. Before he would stay up till 3

a.m. and wake up at 7 a.m. This was exhausting for me and

my wife. He goes to bed at midnight now and wakes up at 10

a.m. To change jobs now would be very hard for me. I would

like to, but my family needs this break every week. This

disorder has limited my career, but I greatly appreciate

the flexibility of my employer. When I found out a bill

was sneaked into the Homeland Security Act, I was outraged

that someone would try to cover this up. I am glad it was

removed. As for a 3 year statute of limitations, this

should not apply in thimerosal-induced autism. Nobody

knowingly decided to inject a harmful substance into their

child. We immunized our children because it was

recommended to us by the health care industry. I am not

proud to be an American. Our standard of living is good

and this is also not just a U.S. problem, but a world-wide

problem. Our country should have made sure that these

immunizations were not given to children. Mercury is

toxic! That's why it's not in thermometers. That's why

they don't let kids play with it in science class anymore.

As soon as they made this discovery about mercury, it

should have been removed from the immunizations. I have

heard they found out mercury was toxic to humans 20 years

ago. But our country still let the Ely Lilly Co.

manufacture it to be used in multidose vials of

immunizations. Why is it recently that all the

manufacturers removed thimerosal from the immunizations?

Simply because they know it causes autism. I will only

believe in this country again if every family in my

situation is compensated, and I don't mean thousands, I

mean millions of dollars for each family. And if chelotion

does work, it needs to be paid for by our government, NO

QUESTIONS ASKED. Whoever put thimerosal in immunizations

and knew it could cause autism, needs to be punished to

the fullest extent of the law! A life sentence for these

people would be getting off easy. Congressman Burton, if

you need any copies of my son's testing or medical

records, please let me know. I hope the good people on

your side of the government are able to overcome the

people who knew about this and didn't care about hurting

innocent children like my son Jacob.

Yours truly,

James W. Coll.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I agree with what my colleague with the great voice, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), just said; and I rise in support of the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) on our side of the aisle for guiding this bill through this legislative body at this time.

It is very important that we have a strong and viable postal service, and that is why during the last Congress I was disappointed when we did not pass the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and others worked very hard on that legislation, and it would have helped a great deal.

As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) just said a few minutes ago, there are a lot of problems with the postal service that need to be addressed, but this is a very important one; and that is why I am happy to see this bill before us today.

Why is immediate action needed? Because, if we do not do anything, that simply is not an option. If Congress does not correct the retirement benefit formula in current law, postal rates will probably increase in the not-too-distant future, and everybody who deals with the postal service and has businesses understands how important that is. Such an increase in postal rates in the current economic environment threatens the postal service, its employees and the entire country, as well as the mailing industry.

Congress has a duty to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service is on a sound fiscal footing and to protect the American postal customers from unstable rates. Changing the way the U.S. Postal Service retirement payments are made is going to go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. Without this change, businesses throughout the country will continue to be unfairly taxed by having postal rate increases.

This bill is very, very needed and will ensure stable postal rates into the foreseeable future, and I think will help facilitate an economic recovery in many sectors of the economy.

Once again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) for his hard work on this. He is doing a great job as a new chairman, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis I come down here and talk about children who are autistic and the reasons for it. We have been receiving letters from across the country from literally hundreds and probably thousands of parents who have autistic children, and they do not know what to do about it, and all of them believe their children were damaged by the mercury that is in vaccines. It has been in children's vaccines for a long, long time.

Children get between 25 and 30 vaccinations before they go to school, and up until just recently almost all of them contained thimerosal which was 50 percent mercury. We all know mercury is toxic to the brain, and yet they had it as a preservative in vaccines. And our children, in my opinion, and scientists and doctors from across the globe and here in the States believe that mercury in the vaccines was one of the major causes.

Here on this easel I have pictures of probably 50 or 60 or 70 kids who were damaged by the mercury in the vaccines, and I have letters that I read every night. We have a system here called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund that is supposed to take care of these children if they are damaged by vaccines. It has $1.8 billion in it. It is supposed to protect the pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, and yet these parents of these kids have had a very difficult time getting satisfaction and restitution from that fund, and many of them, because there was a 3-year statute of limitations, could not even get in the fund.

The reason I bring this up right now is because we are in the process of working on legislation that would deal with this problem, that would help these kids who missed the opportunity by getting in that 3-year window of opportunity to be put in the program so that their case could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the special master. These families are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are going bankrupt, selling their homes, borrowing money, doing everything to help their children, and there is nowhere for them to turn. We need to

make sure that they have access to this fund for which it was created and not have to go to courts to have class action lawsuits. And that is what we are working on with the other body and the majority leader in the other body to get done.

I want to read just a couple of letters that come from these people who have no place to turn. Here is a letter that came from a Marcy Kelly from Mullica Hill, New Jersey, and she writes:

``My son turned 4 in October, 2002, and was diagnosed with autism after a long history of medical problems that began at 2 months, within 1 week of his first series of thimerosal-containing vaccines. His immune system, weakened to where he couldn't handle viruses (resulting in recurring ear infections and RSV), he had reflux, terrible allergies and eczema, and a reaction to his MMR shot that is documented to have caused vomiting nightly for 6 months post vaccination and 2 years of diarrhea. Medical tests show toxic levels of metals, reduced glutathione, malabsorption, maldigestion, severe allergies, and liver problems, all common in those poisoned by mercury. He regressed into autism between 18 and 24 months.'' As a father and grandfather, you understand the heartbreak that I felt.

This is a picture of him.

``We have spent well over $100,000 in the last 2 years, mostly on medical visits, tests, and therapies. Our insurance company, Aetna US Healthcare, stopped paying for these funds.'' So they have noplace to go.

And she ends up by saying, ``I understand that you intend to take our stories before Congress, not individually but as a group. If you could take a single child (or family with more than one child on the spectrum) and pile up all of the medical and therapy bills, ADA drill books and materials, and supplements used to help them heal from the effects of vaccines, it would be quite mountainous and tell a story as well. God be with you and with other politicians as they vote on matters relating to autism. In the quiet of night, if politicians would ask themselves the question `what is right?' the answer in their hearts would be to help their children and their families.''

We have the ability to do that, and we must do something and we must do it very soon, because these families are suffering; and we have to be very diligent to make sure the other body does not put some language in the bill that would be like what was in the homeland security bill which protected pharmaceutical companies but not the children.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will contact the gentlewoman on that legislation. We will be down here every night that is available to talk about this issue. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman covered the issue very well.

I just wanted to make one comment, and that is that some of the pharmaceutical companies, like SmithKline of England, are going into Canada and saying if you sell pharmaceutical drugs in the United States for the price that you are paying in Canada, which is about one-fourth or one-half of what they are here, we are going to cut you off. They are doing that in a bullying way.

I do not think pharmaceutical companies should say to a country, you cannot sell those drugs in the United States because it is the same product that in America we are paying two or three times for it. It makes no sense to me.

Mr. Speaker, the right to self-determination is the essence of democracy. The lack of it is one reason that many of us here in Congress believe India falls short of a full-fledged democracy.

In January 1949, India promised the United Nations that it would allow self-determination in Kashmir through a free and fair vote. It is now 2003 and this plebiscite has still not been held. India refuses to allow the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan, predominantly Christian Nagaland, Muslim Kashmir, and the other nations seeking their freedom from India to exercise their right to self determination through a free and fair vote, the democratic way, despite their claim that there is no support for independence. If not, why not just hold a vote and get the issue behind you?

Instead of following the democratic principle of self-determination, India has tried to continue the subjugation of the Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities through force. They have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 85,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of other minorities, including Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, and Tamils. A report from the Movement Against State Repression showed that India admitted to holding 52,268 Sikhs as political prisoners under the expired TADA law, one of the most repressive laws I know of. TADA expired in 1995. Some of these political prisoners have been held in illegal detention since 1984. According to Amnesty International, tens of thousands of other minorities, such as Christians, Muslims, and others, are also being held as political prisoners. How can a democratic country hold political prisoners? The State Department reported in 1994 that over 41,000 cash bounties were paid to police officers for killing Sikhs. They picked up human-rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra after he exposed their practice of secret cremations and Mr. Khalra was killed in police custody. Independent investigations showed that the Indian government's forces carried out the massacre of 35 Sikhs in March 2000.

Recently, the All India Christian Council reported that the government is sending out agents to seek intrusive information about Christians, such as whether they are first-generation Christians and how long they have been in India. This is happening in a country where American missionary Joseph Cooper was severely beaten and had to spend a week in the hospital, then was thrown out of the country for the crime of preaching. Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burned to death while they slept in their jeep by militant Hindu nationalists chanting ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. Priests have been murdered, nuns have been raped, churches have been burned, and schools and prayer halls have been violently attacked. A Christian festival was ended by police gunfire. Now two states, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, have enacted laws prohibiting conversions to any religion except Hinduism. The survey of Christians is also occurring in Gujarat.

Gujarat is the state where at least 2,000 and up to 5,000 Muslims were murdered last year, according to Indian newspapers. The press also reported that the government planned the attacks in advance.

Mr. Speaker, the Council of Khalistan recently issued an open letter detailing these and other Indian government atrocities, repression, and violations of human rights. I urge everyone to read it. India has 18 official languages and it is not one nation. India must stop violating the human rights of minorities and instead follow democratic principles by allowing self-determination for all the minority nations that seek it. That is the only way to bring real freedom, peace, and stability to the region. Until then, the United States should stop its aid with India and Congress should put this country on record in support of self-determination.

I would like to place the Council of Khalistan's open letter into the Record at this time, Mr. Speaker. It will be very informative to my colleagues and the people of this country.

March 19, 2003.

Open Letter to the Sikh Nation: Khalsa Panchayat Represents Sikh Nation

and Deserves Our Support

Akali Leadership and Jathedars Are Under Indian Government Control

We must liberate Khalistan now. This is the only way for

the Sikh Nation to prosper, progress, and project the Sikh

religion and the interest of the Sikh Nation. Nations and

religions without political power disappear.

Our experience since 1947 has been very disappointing and

repressive. Colonial rule was better for everyone in India

except the Brahmins than Indian rule is. We have been

victimized by repression, tyranny, discrimination, and other

abuses of our basic, god-given rights. India has used

genocide, murder, torture, rape, and everything in its

arsenal to destroy the Sikh Nation. It has even blown up its

own airliner to blame it on the Sikhs, as the book Soft

Target, written by two Canadian journalists, proves beyond a

doubt. They paid former Punjab governor Surendra Nath $1.5

billion to foment and support terrorism in Punjab and

Kashmir.

The present Sikh leadership is dishonest, corrupt, and

completely under Indian control. They are complicit in the

crimes of the Indian regime. The book Chakravyuh: Web of

Indian Secularism by Professor Gurtej Singh shows their

complicity. What a shame that they connived with the Indian

government before the Golden Temple invasion to murder Sant

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, General Shabeg Singh, and

thousands of other good Sikhs who were working for Sikh

freedom. Over 20,000 Sikhs were murdered in the attack on the

Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh Gurdwaras throughout Punjab,

Khalistan in June 1984. Another 20,000 were

killed in the November 1984 massacres in Delhi and other

cities. Overall, the Indian government, which boasts about

being ``the world's largest democracy,'' has murdered over

250,000 Sikhs since 1984. The death sentence given to

Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar based on a false

confession is the latest example of India's effort to

eliminate the Sikh religion and intimidate the Sikh Nation.

Indian police arrested human-rights activist Jaswant Singh

Khalra after he exposed their policy of mass cremation of

Sikhs, in which over 50,000 Sikhs have been picked up,

tortured, and killed, then their bodies are declared

unidentified and secretly cremated. Then Mr. Khalra was

murdered in police custody. His body was not given to his

family. Rajiv Singh Randhawa, the only witness to the Khalra

kidnapping tried to give a petition to Jack Straw, then the

British Home Minister and now its Foreign Minister, outside

the Golden Temple in Amritsar. For this, he was arrested and

tortured.

Similarly, the police murdered former Jathedar of the Akal

Takht Gurdev Singh Kaunke. His body was not handed over to

his family. No one has been brought to justice for the Khalra

kidnapping and murder. The murderer of Akal Takht Jathedar

Gurdev Singh Kaunke, SSP Swaran Ghotna, has never been

brought to trial. Nor have those who carried out the massacre

of 35 Sikhs in Chithisinghpora three years ago this month.

According to a report by the Movement Against State

Repression (MASR), 52,268 Sikhs are being held as political

prisoners in India without charge or trial. Some have been in

illegal custody since 1984! Yet Chief Minister Amarinder

Singh denies that there are any political prisoners at all.

Have they murdered them all? Most of these political

prisoners were taken into illegal custody under the Beant

Singh regime, a Congress government. Can't Amarinder Singh

find these records? Amarinder Singh should be commended for

prosecuting corrupt government officials. Now he should keep

his promise to prosecute Parkash Singh Badal and his family

for their corruption during his tenure as Chief Minister. He

sold government jobs for money. Services were only delivered

after they received bribes. His wife Surinder Kaur is so

experienced at this corrupt practice that she could tell

the amount of money in a paper bag just by lifting it.

What a shame for the Akali government! The Badal family

has tarnished the pious Akali name of the first half of

the last century. That Sikh leadership gave sacrifices for

the glory of the Khalsa Panth.

The Indian regime paid over 41,000 cash bounties to police

officers for killing Sikhs, according to a 1994 report from

the U.S. State Department. One of these bounties was paid to

a policeman who killed a three-year-old boy! In another case,

a man brought suit because he had been listed as having been

killed in one of these incidents but was actually alive. Who

was murdered in his place?

The legs of the driver for Baba Charan Singh were tied to

two jeeps which drove off in opposite directions and he was

torn in half. An attorney in Ropar who defended Sikh youth

was picked up along with his wife and his two-year-old son.

They were made to ``disappear'' just like 50,000 other Sikhs.

The Indian Supreme Court called the Indian government's

murders of Sikhs ``worse than a genocide.'' On October 7,

1987, the Sikh Nation declared the independence of its

homeland, Punjab, Khalistan. No Sikh representative has ever

signed the Indian constitution.

The Sikh nation has awakened. I call on all Sikhs to

support the Khalsa Panchayat. These good Sikhs forced

Jathedar Manjit Singh of Kesgarh to resign. Now Jathedar

Vedanti must resign along with him. Please help the Khalsa

Panchayat in these efforts. And work to build a party that

will lead a Shantmai Morcha to liberate our homeland,

Khalistan, from Indian occupation. Just as the Akalis took

control from the Mahants of the last century, we must take

control of our future from the new Mahants, the present Akali

leadership and Indian-controlled Jathedars.

India is on the verge of disintegration. Khalistan will

soon be free. Home Minister L.K. Advani said that if Kashmir

goes, India goes. The Kashmir problem has been

internationalized. The only way to solve the Kashmir problem

is to have a referendum where the Kashmiri people can decide

their own future. With self-determination, the Kashmiri

people will either be independent or go with Pakistan. Either

way, Kashmir is going to go. As soon as Kashmir goes,

Khalistan will be independent within a year. We can achieve

freedom much earlier if our leadership is not under Indian

control and they are sincere and honest.

Only in a free Khalistan will the Sikh Nation prosper. Only

then will the Sikh Nation get justice. India must start

acting like a democracy and allow self-determination in the

form of a free and fair plebiscite on independence for

Punjab, Khalistan and the other nations seeking their freedom

from India. Let us join hands to secure our freedom, for

ourselves and future generations.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh,

President, Council of Khalistan.

Mr. Speaker, the small nation of Eritrea occupies a very strategic location on the coast of the Red Sea. This is an area that is and will continue to be very important to our country's security interests. Fortunately, Eritrea is a stable, reliable friend of the United States. Practically alone in its region and in its continent of Africa, Eritrea is developing a democratic, accountable, and responsible government.

I have been privileged to know many of Eritrea's leaders, since the time that they were freedom fighters struggling against the communist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia. Over all these years, they have been consistent in advocating, and implementing decent values. I am especially gratified that Eritrea is one of the countries standing shoulder to shoulder with us now in the ``Coalition of the Willing''. I might add that they are one of only two countries in all of Africa to do so.

I would like to insert into the Congressional Record an excerpt of an article written by Robert Kaplan, which appeared in the April issue of the Atlantic monthly and focuses on Eritrea. I commend this article to all my colleagues in Congress who want to know which countries of the world are deserving of the label ``U.S. ally'' and worthy of American support.

Eritrea

On the Horn of Africa, just a forty-five-minute flight from

Yemen, across the Red Sea choke point of the Bab el Mandeb

(``The Gate of Lament''), is the newly independent, sleepily

calm, and remarkably stable state of Eritrea. While the West

promotes democracy, market liberalization, military

demobilization, and the muting of ethnic hatreds as necessary

to domestic tranquillity, Eritrea, at least for the moment,

provides a rejoinder to all that. The country has achieved a

degree of non-coercive social discipline and efficiency

enviable in the developing world and particularly in Africa--

and it has done so by ignoring the West's advice on democracy

and development, by cultivating a sometimes obsessive and

narcissistic dislike of its neighbors, and by not

demobilizing its vast army, built up during a thirty-year

conflict with Ethiopia, unless there are jobs waiting for the

troops.

Whereas Yemen's streets and shops are plastered with photos

of President Saleh (whose cult of personality is mild

compared with those of other Arab and African leaders), one

never sees such photos of the Eritrean President, Isaias

Afewerki, the veritable founder of this country. For decades

Afewerki led a low-intensity guerrilla movement that finally

wrested independence from Ethiopia in 1991. ``Photos of me

would create an air of mystery and distance from the

people,'' he told me in December. ``It's the lack of photos

that liberates you. I hate high walls and armed guards.''

While other leaders in the region live inside forbidding

military compounds, Afewerki lives in a modest suburban-style

house and greets people in his secretary's office, which sits

at the end of an undistinguished corridor. He moves around

the capital in the passenger seat of a four-wheel-drive

vehicle, with only one escort car, stopping at red lights.

Western diplomats here say they have seen him disappear into

large crowds of Eritreans without any security detail at all.

``It's easy to put a bullet in him, and he knows it,'' one

foreign diplomat said to me.

Security, which consumes the Western diplomatic and aid

communities in Sana'a (and everywhere else in the Middle

East), is barely an issue in Asmara, Eritrea's capital.

Despite its tattered storefronts, Asmara not only is one of

the cleanest capital cities in Africa but also may be the

only capital south of the Sahara where one can leave the car

doors unlocked or prowl the back streets at all hours without

fear of being robbed, even though the police are barely in

evidence. American, Israeli, and other resident diplomats and

aid administrators in Eritrea move freely around the country

without guards or other escorts, as if they were at home.

Desperately poor and drought-stricken, with almost three

quarters of its 3.5 million inhabitants illiterate, Eritrea

nonetheless has a surprisingly functional social order. Women

run shops, restaurants, and hotels; handicapped people have

shiny new crutches and wheelchairs; people drive slowly and

even attend driving school; scrap-metal junkyards are

restricted to the urban outskirts; receipts are given for

every transaction; there are few electricity blackouts from

sloppy maintenance or badly managed energy resources. Foreign

diplomats in Asmara praise the country's lack of corruption

and its effective implementation of aid projects. Whereas

rural health clinics in much of Africa have empty shelves and

unexplained shortages of supplies, clinic managers in Eritrea

keep ledgers documenting where all the medicine is going.

An immense fish farm near the port of Massawa testifies to

Eritrea's ability to utilize foreign aid and know-how. The

1,500-acre complex channels salt water from the Red Sea,

purifies it, and then uses it to raise shrimp in scores of

circular cement tanks. The nutrient-rich excess of that

process is used for breeding tilapia, a freshwater fish. The

remaining waste water is pumped into asparagus and mangrove

fields and artificially created wetlands. Though the

operation was initially overseen by a firm from Phoenix,

Arizona, and for a time employed an Israeli consultant, the

consultant is now only rarely used. The Eritreans themselves

run the operation in every respect.

Such initiative and communal discipline are the result of

an almost Maoist degree of mobilization and an almost

Albanian degree of xenophobia--but without the epic scale of

repression and ideological indoctrination that once

characterized China and Albania. The Eritrean xenophobia and

aptitude for organization are, as Eritreans never cease to

explain, products of culture and historical experience more

than they are of policy choices. Eritrea never had feudal

structures, sheikhs, or warlords. Villages were commonly

owned and were governed by councils, or baitos, of elders.

``It was not a society deferential to individual authority,''

I was told by Yemane Ghebre Meskel, the director of President

Afewerki's office, ``so we didn't need Marxist ideology to

achieve a high stage of communalism.'' Wolde-Ab Yisak, the

president of the University of Asmara, observed, ``Communal

self-reliance is our dogma, which in turn comes from the

knowledge that we Eritreans are different from our

neighbors.'' (On my flight out of Eritrea, I overheard a

teenage Eritrean girl from the diaspora lecturing her younger

siblings in American English about how ``the Ethiopians

murdered our people.'')

A monument in downtown Asmara definitively symbolizes such

self-reliance, collectivity, and rudimentary survival. The

monument celebrates not an individual, or even a generic

guerrilla fighter, but a giant pair of sandals--shedas, in

the native Tigrinya language. Such sandals, worn by every

Eritrean fighter during the long struggle with Ethiopia,

were homemade from recycled tire rubber, and gave fighters

the ability to move quickly in the stony desert war zone.

The monument shows what mythic proportions the conflict

with Ethiopia has achieved in the minds of Eritreans; it

has come to supersede the power of religion itself, in a

society split evenly between Islam and Orthodox

Christianity. This is an impressive achievement on a

continent where Muslims and Christians are forming

increasingly antagonistic group identities.

Eritrea's clarified sense of nationhood, rare in a world of

nation-states rent by tribalism and globalization, is in part

a legacy of Italian colonialism. ``We acknowledge that the

legacy of colonialism was not all negative,'' says Yemane

Ghebreab, the political-affairs officer of the People's Front

for Democracy and Justice--successor to the country's

guerrilla force, the Eritrean People's Liberation Front.

Having conquered Eritrea in the late nineteenth century, the

Italians had by the late 1930s turned their new colony into

one of the most highly industrialized places in Africa, with

road and railway networks that united a people previously

divided by mountains and deserts. To drive from Asmara to

Massawa--a descent of more than 7,500 feet in only seventy

miles, down tangled vertebrae of coppery-green peaks, on a

road of never-ending switchbacks, bridges, and embankments,

built by Mussolini in the mid-1930s and kept in excellent

condition by Eritrean highway crews working seven days a

week--is to experience the historical energy of the

industrialized West transplanted successfully to an African

nation.

Another benefit of Italian colonialism, according to Ghebre

Meskel, was town planning. Rather than concentrate everything

in Asmara, the Italians developed Massawa and similar towns

so as to prevent the overcentralization that now plagues

other developing countries. To stem migration into Asmara and

preserve this legacy, the Eritrean government has tried to

improve life in rural areas; thus Asmara is not surrounded by

shantytowns that might breed political extremism.

Following the defeat of Fascist Italy in World War II, and

the dissolution of its East African empire, the new United

Nations voted to incorporate Eritrea into Ethiopia. The

Eritreans, unhappy with this decision, finally revolted in

1961. For thirteen years Eritrean guerrillas fought an

Ethiopia backed by the United States. In 1974, when

Ethiopia's Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown, leading to

a Marxist regime headed by Mengistu Haile Mariam, Eritrean

guerrilla activity did not cease, and from then on the

Eritreans fought an Ethiopia backed by the Soviet Union.

Despite their ability to grind away at a Soviet-supplied war

machine, which featured MiG fighter jets in the air and

Soviet generals on the battlefield, the secretive and

independent-minded Eritreans received no aid under the Reagan

Doctrine (a U.S. program for arming Third World anti-

communist insurgencies). Nevertheless, in 1991 Eritrean and

Tigrean guerrillas, fighting on separate fronts, defeated

Mengistu, and Eritrean tanks rolled triumphantly into the

Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa. In the minds of the

Eritreans, they had fought and won a three-decade struggle

against a state ten times as populous, with no help from

either of the superpowers or anyone else in the outside

world. They now feel that they owe nothing to anybody, and

they are filled with disdain for international opinion. (A

taxi driver berated me for the West's focus on the crimes of

the former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic; Mengistu, he

said, was responsible for at least twice as many deaths

through his collectivization programs, but now lives in

lavish exile in Zimbabwe.)

In 1996, following a long series of town meetings, the

Eritreans drafted what one foreign diplomat has called ``an

impeccable constitution.'' But a second war with Ethiopia

erupted in 1998, and the constitution has never been

implemented. That war lasted until 2000; by some estimates it

left 19,000 Eritreans and 60,000 Ethiopians dead, after tanks

and fighter jets engaged in desert combat reminiscent of the

Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. A U.S.-brokered ceasefire

has resulted in the current demarcation of the disputed

border under UN auspices.

Since this latest war the very stubbornness and social

discipline that continue to make Eritrea the most civil of

societies, in ways rarely considered by Western journalists

and policy elites, have also made it a pariah in Europe and

the United States--and for good reason. In 2001 national

elections were postponed indefinitely (though free and fair

elections at the village level were under way at the time of

my visit). Far more disturbing, though, is that Eritrea now

has the worst press repression in Africa. And in a widespread

government crackdown on political dissent, eleven high-

ranking officials, nine journalists, several businessmen, and

two Eritreans working for the political and economic sections

of the U.S. embassy were arrested; they are still being held

without charges. Moreover, a campaign of national

mobilization requires young men and women to spend eighteen

months in the military or the civil service: a good idea in

principle, but they are often kept much longer, with no

guaranteed release date. That, together with the political

repression and the exceedingly slow pace of economic reform,

has induced young people to quietly leave the country. An

increasingly disaffected diaspora has refused to invest

substantial amounts in Eritrea until conditions have been

liberalized.

``We're not asking all that much,'' one foreign diplomat

told me. ``They don't even have to hold national elections.

If they would just implement a version of China's economic

reforms, this place could bloom overnight, like Singapore,

given its social control and small population.'' But several

diplomats admitted that the sense of patriotism is so strong

here, except among some of the urban elite in Asmara, that

they detect no widespread unhappiness with the regime. ``The

change would have to come at the top,'' one foreign resident

told me. ``It's not altogether impossible that we will wake

up tomorrow morning and learn that Isaias is no longer

around.'' Another outside expert told me that he has not

given up on the President, but if 2003 goes by without some

political and economic reforms, he will consign Afewerki to

the ranks of boorish African strongmen.

My first interview with Afewerki was in 1986, in a cave in

northern Eritrea, during the war with Ethiopia. That meeting

had been scheduled for ten in the morning--and at ten exactly

he walked in and said, ``You have questions for me?'' He

hasn't changed. He was just as punctual when we met this

time, and he spoke in the same blunt and remote tone, with

the same shy asceticism. He spoke in intense, spare bursts of

cold analysis--in contrast to the gasbag homilies one hears

from many Arab and African politicians--for more than two

hours. Afewerki may be the most intellectually interesting

politician in the history of postcolonial Africa.

``All that we have achieved we did on our own,'' he said.

``But we have not yet institutionalized social discipline, so

the possibility of chaos is still here. Remember, we have

nine language groups and two religions. No one in Africa has

succeeded in copying a Western political system, which took

the West hundreds of years to develop. Throughout Africa you

have either political or criminal violence. Therefore we will

have to manage the creation of political parties, so that

they don't become means of religious and ethnic division,

like in Ivory Coast or Nigeria.'' He went on to say that

China was on the right path--unlike Nigeria, with its 10,000

dead in communal riots since the return of democracy, in

1999. ``Don't morally equate the rights of Falun Gong with

those of hundreds of millions of Chinese who have seen their

lives dramatically improve,'' he told me.

Yemen, Afewerki thinks, is ``a medievalist society and

tribal jungle going through the long transition to

modernity.'' He accused it of advancing an ``Arab national-

security strategy against Israel,'' a country he openly

supports. However, he accepted the international arbitration

that awarded the disputed Hanish Islands, in the Red Sea, to

Yemen. As for Ethiopia, he said it could fragment, because it

is controlled by minority Tigreans who have created a

Balkanized arrangement of ethnic groups (Amharas, Oromos, and

so on) rather than trying to forge an imperial melting pot,

in the way of Halle Selassie.

Despite Afewerki's refreshing, undiplomatic brilliance, a

few hours with him can be troubling. His very austerity,

personal efficiency, and incorruptibility are mildly

reminiscent of Mengistu himself (who also suffered from a

seeming excess of pride), even though the latter was a mass

murderer and Afewerki could yet turn out to be among Africa's

most competent rulers. Civilization in the Home of Africa has

often bred sharp political minds that, with cold efficiency,

dealt with their intellectual enemies not through written

attacks but by imprisoning or killing them. And it is said

repeatedly in Asmara that the President has closed himself

off since arresting the very people who challenged him

intellectually.

General Franks, on several visits here, and Secretary of

Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit last December, have

held long talks with Afewerki. ``The meetings were superb,''

Afewerki told me. ``I mean that they were frank, without

pretensions or flattery on either side. I share the strategic

view of the Americans in the region. French forces in

Djibouti have been a stabilizing factor, and U.S. troops will

add to that. You need outside powers to keep order here. It

sounds colonialist, but I am only being realistic.''

When I pressed Afewerki about human-rights abuses, which

Rumsfeld had pointedly raised in their meeting two weeks

earlier, he said, ``If you just leave us alone, we will

handle these matters in a way that won't damage our bilateral

relationship and won't embarrass us or you.'' He indicated

that he would be more likely to satisfy U.S. demands on human

rights in the context of a growing military partnership, but

would not do so if merely hectored by the State Department.

I worried that Afewerki, like many other realists, is

obsessed with everything that could go wrong in his country

rather than with what could go right. True realism requires a

dose of idealism and optimism, or else policy becomes

immobilized. And that might be Afewerki's problem. He seemed

more comfortable when I first met him, in a state of wartime

emergency, than he does now, in a state of peacetime

possibility. He analyzes brilliantly what he knows, but he

gives in to paranoia about what he doesn't know. He did not

seem to understand that U.S. foreign policy is often a

synthesis of what the State and Defense Departments are

comfortable with, and that therefore Foggy Bottom alone

cannot be blamed for Eritrea's image problems in the United

States.

Nevertheless, Afewerki has essentially offered the United

States exactly what it wants: bases enabling its military to

strike at anyone in the region at any time, without

restrictions. Although the World Bank has questioned the

economic viability of a new airport at Massawa with a long

jet runway, Afewerki reportedly told Rumsfeld, ``The runway

can handle anything the U.S. Air Force wants to land on it.''

Eritrea also boasts deepwater port facilities at Massawa and

Assab, both strategically placed near the mouth of the Red

Sea.

Afewerki told me, ``The increasing social and economic

marginalization of Africa will be a fact of life for a very

long time to come.'' Ethiopia in particular, he said, will

weaken internally as the Oromos and others demand more power.

Its Tigrean Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, already lives

inside a vast security apparatus designed for his protection.

Meanwhile, across the Red Sea in Yemen, not only water but

oil, too, is running out even as the armed young population

swells, potentially threatening the political order of

significant parts of Arabia. And with fighting terrorism now

a permanent strategic priority of the United States, the

stability and discipline of Eritrea make it the perfect base

for projecting American power and helping Israel in an

increasingly unstable region. That, in turn, might foster the

Singaporean kind of development for which, according to some,

Eritrea appears suited.

So there you have it: Yemen and Eritrea, two case studies in the war on terrorism. In Yemen the United States has to work with unsavory people in a tribalized society in order to prevent more-unsavory people from destabilizing it to the benefit of Osama bin Laden. In Eritrea the United States may have to use a bilateral military relationship to nudge the country's President toward prudent political and economic reform, so that Eritrea, too, won't be destabilized. Thus our military involvement with both nations will mean political involvement in their domestic affairs-and throughout the ages that has been the essence of imperialism.

Mr. Speaker, today the House considered H. Res. 113, a resolution that recognizes the scope of child abuse and neglect and declares support for efforts to raise public awareness of this tragic problem. I wholeheartedly support H. Res. 113 for several reasons. Approximately 3 million cases of suspected or known child abuse and neglect involving 5 million American children occur each year. The actual incidence of abuse and neglect is estimated to be 3 times greater than then number reported to authorities. This social problem results in human and economic costs due to its relationship to crime, delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and welfare dependency.

As a child growing up in Indiana, I personally experienced the horrors of child abuse in my own family. Children in abusive homes have very few options to improve their situations. I believe that the public needs to be better educated about the effects of abuse. It is important that children living in abusive homes know that there are people and organizations available to help them. Children shouldn't have to live in fear of abuse. The law should be there to protect them, and when it doesn't we should take steps to ensure their safety.

H. Res. 113 recognizes the need for better public awareness of the tragedy of child abuse. I urge my colleagues to continue to promote awareness of this tragic problem.