To: IAHF List
From: John Hammell
Subject: Post Hearing Questions for Burton & Congressional Research Service: Please Add to IAHF Written Codex Comments Submitted Previously
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:09:59 -0500

All Webmasters: Please Post Immediately, Time Sensitive

IAHF List: The deadline to submit comments to Congressman Burton regarding the Codex Vitamin Oversight Hearing just held on March 20, 2001 is this coming Monday, April 2. IAHF is submitting these comments, and is requesting that Congressman Burton run all questions below past the Congressional Research Service (as he stated he would in his oral and written testimony at the hearing) for their specific input on the Codex vitamin issue.

If you share IAHF's concerns as expressed below, please indicate so and forward this email, with your comments, to Congressman Burton, and to your own Senator and Congressman and to other people and ask them to do the same. Not sure of your congressman's email address? Call any member of Congress via 202-225-3121 (Switchboard) and ask to speak with the person who handle's FDA issues, and or international trade issues. Tell them you're going to send this to them, and specifically request that they run it past the Congressionl Research Service and to send you their reply. Get their email address if you can speak directly to them, otherwise ask the person answering the phone what email address, regular mail address and fax number to use. It is very important that we help educate not only our members of Congress and their staffs, but also the Congressional Research Service, and all of our families and friends on this important public health issue.

If you appreciate IAHF's efforts in your behalf, please send a donation to the address below or donate with a credit or debit card via PayPal (see for details.)

I think you will find the questions below both informative, and enlightening even if you have been following this issue for a long time. Please forward massively.

From: John C. Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
POB 625 Floyd, VA 24091 USA

March 30, 2001

To: The Congressional Research Service c/o Congressman Dan Burton, Chairman, House Government Reform Committee c/o Beth Clay, TJ Lightle, Stan Solomon

To: The Congressional Research Service c/o Congressman Rick Boucher c/o Trent Bauserman

To:The Congressional Research Service c/o Congressman Ron Paul c/o Norm Singleton

To: The Congressional Research Service c/o Congressman Peter De Fazio c/o Lisa Bart

To: The Congressional Research Service c/o Americans on the IAHF email distribution list, Radio talk show hosts Stan Solomon, Gary Null, Layna Burman, and others.

Re: Questions For the Congressional Research Service Re Codex Vitamin Issue (I would like to see CRS's answers to these questions, please send them to me at IAHF POB 625 Floyd VA 24091.)

Dear Congressmen Burton:

Thank you for stating at the oversight hearing on March 20 that you have asked the Congressional Research Services (CRS) to review the CODEX agreements and clarify our obligations. It is important that CRS be asked the right questions, otherwise, they might not clarify anything. Please run the questions contained herein past CRS and please send my their response. Since the record remains open til April 2 on your March 20 hearing, I would like this material added to IAHF's written comments, already submitted. Measures based on CODEX are deemed consistent with the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement.

You must therefor ask CRS to carefully examine the FDA's actions at Codex taken as a result of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement (and other Mutual Recognition Agreements including TBT, which our governement is expected to be in conformance with.) "SPS" which covers all measures whose purpose is to (ostensibly) protect human health from food bourne risks.

SPS requires standards to be based on risk assessment, and the FDA's actions which we want the Congressional Research Service to examine carefully and to comment on involve FDA's actions at the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses which stem from the USA's having signed the SPS Agreement as part of both NAFTA and GATT, including their putting the National Academy of Sciences paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" on the table at the Codex meeting in Berlin, over your written objection and that of Congressmen Paul, De Fazio, Stump, and Cook.

See "Both NAFTA and WTO require countries to base their environmental, food safety, public health, and worker safety standards on international standards." (See SPS Agreement, in Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, GATT Doc. MTN/FA (December 15, 1993), 33 I.L. M9 (1944), Art 3.2; and NAFTA, Arts. 713 and 905.

Also see As specified in the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 "FDAMA", the agency "will move toward the acceptence of Mutual Recognition Agreements relating to the regulation of Good Manufacturing Practices between the EU and the USA. Under FDAMA the agency will regularly participate in meetings with representatives of other foreign governments to discuss and reach agreement on methods and approaches to harmonize regulatory requirements." (Pub. L. 105-115 410(c)(2) and (3), 21 U.S.C. 383(c)(2)and (3).

Seems to IAHF that the FDA's attitude is that our having signed NAFTA and GATT makes it perfectly legal for them to take actions that in fact threaten to undermine US dietary supplement laws, and to set us up for harmonization to international standards, and we need a very in depth, very thorough, all encompassing Congressional Research Service analysis of this situation and its constitutionality, because the FDA is indeed engaging in actions that could undermine our domestic laws, FDA flat out admits this, (even while engaging in double talk where they DENY it) and Congress will have to take some very real, corrective actions- like to get us out of the UN and the WTO in defense of our sovereignty, which every member of Congress has taken an oath to uphold, and to force the FDA to UNDO actions already taken which threaten our dietary supplement laws.

[At the Congressional Oversight hearing held on March 20, 2001, in his opening statement, Congressman Burton stated:

"We have had a lot of complaints from citizens. They are concerned that if countries who regulate dietary supplements more restrictively than the US decide to vote en bloc at CODEX meetings, that our views will be overridden. Many Americans are afraid that eventually there will be restrictions placed on dietary supplement access. The FDA has stated previously that we are under no obligation to adopt CODEX, but I have asked Congressional Research Services to review the CODEX agreements and clarify our obligations. Many of the 165 countries that participate in the CODEX look to the United States to take the lead in regulatory negotiations. We fail our citizens and the citizens of the world if we do not take a strong stand in supporting DSHEA internationally. In addition to scientists, I suggest the US Delegation include representatives from the US Government who are experts in international trade negotiations and that FDA staff and all individuals representing the United States Government in negotiations regarding dietary supplements negotiate from the DSHEA perspective. It is important that we protect American's access to supplements, as well as to insure that trade barriers are not erected that will reduce US manufacturers access to the international marketplace. Dietary Supplements are an important factor in maintaining and improving health. My colleagues in Congress and I will continue to protect American's rights to access dietary supplements. The record will remain open until April 2. I now recognize the ranking minority member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement."]

Congressman Burton- if the Congressional Research Service finds that the concerns expressed herein are indeed valid, we urge you to revisit this issue through additional oversight hearings, because we have all seen the gif file of your signature on the written directive to the FDA [ under "letters from Congress"] that the FDA not put the paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" on the table at Codex. Congressmen Paul and De Fazio also signed this directive to the FDA (which the FDA ignored, as millions of vitamin consumers have seen first hand through the videotape of Dr.Yetley in the MEDIA SECTION at but none of this was brought out in your March 20th hearing.)


Through the statement Congressmen Paul and De Fazio put into the record of your March 20 hearing they clearly indicate that they think the FDA is setting us up for harmonization to CODEX via the SPS and TBT agreements. IAHF and millions of vitamin consumers world wide share their concern. De Fazio and Paul have bipartisanly told you:

"While CODEX has no direct authority to force Americans to adopt stringent regulations of dietary supplements, we are concerned that the United States may be forced to adopt Codex standards as a result of the United States status as a member of the WTO. According to an August 1999 report of the Congressional Research Service, As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multilateral body. It [the US] is legally obligated to ensure that national laws do not conflict with WTO rules." De Fazio and Paul then told you "Thus, Congress may have a legal obligation to again change American laws [including our dietary supplement laws and all dietary supplement regulations] to conform with WTO rules!"

IAHF would like to see the Congressional Research service conduct a very thorough review as to the constitutionality of this situation, because it seems to us that our sovereignty is under naked, and very BLATANT attack due to membership in the WTO, which could soon over rule our Supreme Court. [The Loewen Group Inc. v. USA]

The outcome of this case is less important than the fact that it will be decided by the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes-a NAFTA panel. NAFTA, the panel ruled, has jurisdiction over complaints from foreign countries about court decisions in the United States. It also claims jurisdiction over complaints about state and federal administrative agency actions.

What About LOEWEN vs USA???

In the Loewen Group vs USA case, the NAFTA panel scheduled a hearing October 15 on whether the United States is liable for "damages" caused by a Mississippi jury's verdict against a Canadian company. The Canadians claimed that a hefty appeal bond was an "expropriation." The panels decision will be final and unappealable except on very limited grounds. Under NAFTA, U.S. courts are compelled to enforce the panel's decisions.

Mary Bottari of Public Citizen, a Ralph Nader group based in Washington, said this is "a very shocking and broad based decision. We now have a level of review for the U.S. court system that is above that of the U.S. Supreme Court.... and it is three international arbiters who operate in secret, and whose decisions cannot be appealed."

No public role will be allowed in the legal proceedings. Amicus Briefs will not be allowed. This is very different from the US Courts where proceedings are held in accordance with the United States Constitution, wouldn't the Congressional Research Service agree???

This is very disturbing to IAHF which does not want to see America destroyed and forced into a totalitarian world government in which our fate is determined via unelected bureaucrats such as Beth Yetley of the FDA, operating in very murky, largely non transparent CODEX meetings, far from our shores, where the American people can't easily see whats going on. (See MEDIA Section where the German Chair of the Codex meeting forced me to turn my camcorder off in 1998, illustrating the non transparency of Codex proceedings- for shooting this footage the FDA and for acting as a whistleblower trying to expose Yetley, Yetley had me thrown off the US Codex delegation to the CCNFSDU meeting in Germany, leaving me no option but to protest against the meeting in the street, and on the internet (See petitions against Codex at and at where 18,196 vitamin consumers in 101 countries world wide have expressed concern about this matter.

IAHF would like the Congressional Research Service to comment on the Loewen case, and to issue an opinion as to whether or not a similar secret panel, in the form of a WTO Dispute Settlement Panel or NAFTA Panel (like in the Loewen case) could similarly some day rule against our dietary suppelement laws due to some possible violation of the SPS or TBT agreements, and whether or not FDA's "harmonization" actions at CODEX place us in jeopardy of this possibly happening, and if so, we would like the Congressional Research Service to make detailed recommendations to Congress as to what actions are necessary to insure protection of our domestic laws- so that they can't be overruled this way.

We would like SPECIFIC recommendations to insure protection of our dietary supplement laws, and whether or not the FDA was obligated to obey the written directive of Chairman Burton (along with De Fazio, Paul, Cook, and Stump) when they issued the written directive in 1998 telling the FDA not to put the paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" on the table at Codex. [See Letters from Congress, See MEDIA Section, videotape showing Dr.Yetley of FDA ignoring Burton's written directive, which was based directly on the will of the American people, and the Congress as expressed via Senator Orrin Hatch's Conference Report statement upon passage of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997. [See IAHF's written comments to Congress on the Codex Vitamin issue , click on the Green Spinning Disk.]


International Advocates for Health Freedom has been researching the Codex vitamin issue since 1996. We have been observing the FDA's actions relative to this issue from the standpoint of my being on the American delegation to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) chaired by Dr.Beth Yetley of the FDA, (the only person on the delegation with voting or speaking power at the Codex meetings.) As of March 30, IAHF has generated 6317 signatures on the petition at calling for genuine oversight of the Codex vitamin issue, and at 18,216 vitamin consumer from 101 different countries world wide are protesting against the Codex and EU anti vitamin initiatives which run so contrary to the best interests of the public health.

It would help IAHF and millions of vitamin consumers world wide who have been following the Codex vitamin issue through reports on the IAHF website and the IAHF email distribution list to get the Congressional Research Services specific comments and clarifications on the following information, questions and observations of IAHF:

1. Please go to to see the speech of Michael A. Friedman, then acting Commissioner of the FDA, made before the Senate Labor Committee on March 17, 1997 (4 years ago). [If this link won't work for any reason, go to and enter the search terms "Codex Standards, International Harmonization" Then scroll down til you find "Testimony of Michael A. Friedman" which was published in the FDA/CFSAN Federal Register 62 FR 36243 July 7, 1997.

In it Friedman stated: "FDA plans to amend its regulations and procedures for consideration of standards adopted by CODEX. This action is being taken to provide for the systematic review of CODEX STANDARDS in order to enhance consumer protection, promote international harmonization and fulfill the obligations of the United States under international agreements."

(He's referring to the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, (SPS), TBT and other numerous so called "Mutual Recognition Agreements" signed under NAFTA and the WTO by a Congress that never read any of the fine print:

Text of the Sanitary Phytosanitary Measures Agreement

Questions for the Congressional Research Service:

Was it constitutional for the USA to enter into the SPS and TBT agreements via NAFTA and via the Uruguay Round of GATT which created the WTO?

If so, how? Please explain. It seems to IAHF that Congress did not act in accordance with the Constitution, and that Congress should now be obligated to remove us from the WTO, NAFTA, GATT, SPS, TBT, CODEX in order to absolutely protect our democratically enacted laws from destruction.

Is it constitutionally acceptable for the FDA to "amend its regulations and procedures for consideration of standards adopted by CODEX"? Please explain in detail.

Is it constitutionally acceptable for the FDA to "promote international harmonization"? Please explain in detail.

[I want the situation below specifically reviewed in another oversight hearing and want CRS's analysis:

Does Congress have a constitutional right to tell the FDA not to engage in actions that the American people and the Congress have specifically stated they do not want, or can the FDA now legally IGNORE the will of Congress and the will of the American people as clearly expressed via the amendment to the harmonization language of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 Public Law No. 105-115, 111 Stat. 2296 See section 803 (c), Paragraph c-5 saying "Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall not apply with respect to dietary supplements." (See IAHF's Written Comments to Congress, click on the green spinning disk to view.)

In a letter to me responding to legal questions about FDA's actions at Codex wherein they clearly ignored the will of the people as expressed through this amendment to the harmonization language of FDAMA, L.Robert Lake, Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs at CFSAN, FDA stated:

"Paragraph (c)(5) operates solely to release FDA from the affirmative obligation established by paragraph (C)(3) of participating in harmonization efforts with regard to dietary supplements. It does not prohibit FDA from participating in these efforts. Indeed, for many years prior to the enactment of FDAMA, FDA participated in the work of Codex, including meetings of the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses. Based on authority that in part predated FDAMA, FDA may continue to participate in international harmonization efforts in CODEX relating to dietary supplements. However FDA's harmonization activities may not change the requirements of the FDCA with regard to dietary supplements."

IAHF would like the Congressional Research Service to comment on what Lake is saying, especially in light of the fact that the amendment to the harmonization language of FDAMA, intended to protect consumers from the harmonization of our dietary supplement laws to restrictive Codex standards, was clearly the expressed will of the people and the will of Congress:

(Senate - November 09, 1997)
(See the sentence in all CAPS below, you only need to skim the rest)

[How I located this on the web: 1. 2. Underneath Congressional Record click on "Text Search" Select 105th Congress ('97-'98) 3. Use "dietary supplements" as search word 4. Select Senator Hatch 5. Date search from 11/09/97-11/09/97 6. Select 5th listing: FDAMA Conference Report Nov.9, '97 Scroll down to Hatch p.S12246

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wanted to take this brief opportunity to commend Chairman Jeffords for a job well done--for producing a bill which will dramatically improve the way the Food and Drug Administration does business as we move into the 21st century.

That has been one of my top priorities during my service in the Senate. I am proud that we are having the opportunity today to vote on this historic legislation which will have so many benefits for my State of Utah.

Utah is the home to over 100 medical device manufacturers, and several pharmaceutical manufacturers as well. We also are the Nation's leading producer of dietary supplements .

The Utah Life Sciences Industries Association, the leading trade association for Utah device and drug manufacturers, has worked closely with the Congress in formulating this legislation, which will have many positive effects for Utah.

On behalf of our Utah drug and device manufacturers, let me thank you Chairman Jeffords, and our colleague in the House, Chairman Tom Bliley, for producing a bill which has encouraged the FDA to work in a more collaborative manner and to get the job done, to get it done professionally and expeditiously, without all the bureaucratic hassles we have experienced in the past.


Finally, I wish to thank all of the staff who worked literally through the night to make today's passage of the conference report for S. 830 possible. You can be proud of your work."

Additional QUESTIONs for Congressional Research Service:

Is Lake's interpretation of the amendment to the harmonization language of FDAMA accurate? If so, should Congress revisit this amendment and plug the holes, or don't they need to bother because all of FDA's actions vis a vis CODEX and SPS are unconstitional to start with?

Are FDA's actions at CODEX in fact unconstitutional, is IAHF incorrect in this view? (Please explain in detail.)

Is Hatch mistaken and or inaccurate in his assertion that our amendment truly protects the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 from FDA's harmonization efforts? Can FDA legally ignore the will of the people and the will of Congress this way?

Did Congressmen Burton, Paul, Stump, Cook and De Fazio have a constitutional and legal RIGHT to tell the FDA not to put the National Academy of Sciences paper "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" on the table at Codex in accordance with the will of the American people who were registering their anger at this situation back in 1997 by sending enough faxes to the Senate Labor Committee to make the fax machines run out of paper and ink?

Do the American people have a RIGHT to object to FDA's putting this paper on the table at Codex given the fact that the National Academy of Sciences is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act since they're not part of the government but are a non profit 501 c-3 organization?

Do the American people have a RIGHT to object to FDA's use of this paper at Codex given the fact that the Codex process is unconstitutional- that we are allegedly being "represented" by an unelected bureaucrat from the FDA who is the only person on the US delegation with voting and speaking power?

Is it now legal and constitutional for Dr.Beth Yetley, an unelected bureaucrat, to ignore the will of the American people and the will of Congress and to take the action that she took at Codex over our direct written objection?

Doesn't Congress have a constitutional and moral mandate to protect the public health of the American people, in light of these concerns (and indeed of vitamin consumers world wide) by closely examining the NAS paper titled "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" given the well reasoned scientific objections raised by Richard Malter, PhD and others (see NAS Paper and Rebuttals) especially given the fact that the NAS paper never underwent any public comments period, and that Malter's rebuttal was published in a respected medical journal? Doesn't Congress have a constitutional and moral obligation to hold the National Academy of Sciences paper up to the light of public scrutiny in light of these express concerns? Shouldn't Dr. Malter be invited to address this matter before Burton's committee for the sake of a careful public review?

"WTO members are free to choose the highest level of Health Protection they deem necessary provided the measures are based on scientific principles, and measures based on Codex are deemed to be consistent with the SPS agreement."

Does this mean that the USA must change its domestic vitamin laws in accordance with the risk assessment standards defined by the National Academy of Sciences in the paper titled " A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Safe Upper Levels for Nutrients" (or via similar National Academy of Sciences protocols, such as the ones FDA's Joseph A. Levitt, esq. announced in his testimony that FDA had contracted NAS to develop through the contract titled "Framework for Evaluating the Role of Dietary Supplements in Health" or be in violation of the SPS agreement, which requires that all WTO member nations base their domestic vitamin laws on a basis of risk assessment?

The National Academy of Science is not part of the government, they're a non profit 501 c-3 organization. As such, they're not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We can't get the raw data or CVs of the authors of any of their papers, thus there is no transparency in their deliberations, and there is no opportunity for public comments on their papers. Wouldn't this fact make it illegal under the Administrative Procedures Act and or the Federal Advisory Committees Act for the FDA to use NAS's findings at Codex, and for any changes to US law to occur directly or indirectly as a result? What about the case AFL CIO vs OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 984 '11th Circuit 1992' wherein OSHA attempted to base rulemaking on data from a foreign NGO organization, thus ignoring the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the Federal Administrative Procedures Act? Can the FDA legally ignore FACA and FAPA now that the USA has signed NAFTA, GATT, SPS, TBT???

While it is true that FDA's harmonization actions at Codex don't DIRECTLY threaten to undermine US dietary supplement laws, which we agree, only Congress can change, upon reviewing the case of Loewen vs USA and similar cases, IAHF has noticed a definite pattern that we find very alarming, and we would like for the Congressional Research Service to provide Congress with a set of specific recommendations as to steps we can take to absolutely insure that our dietary supplement laws, along with all of our other laws, cannot EVER be forced via the WTO and NAFTA to be changed.

IAHF would like the Congressional Research Service to provide specific guidance to Congress on this and for Congress to conduct additional oversight hearings on the Codex vitamin issue, as well as on all other issues of a similar nature where our domestic laws are being undermined by a pernicious process of "harmonization" to WTO so called "standards."

IAHF would like for Congressman Burton, Paul, De Fazio, and Boucher, as well as all Congressmen of people on the IAHF email distribution list to communicate back to us with the reply of the Congressional Research Service, and we would like Congressman Burton to hold additional hearings on this, but beyond holding hearings, we would like Congressman Burton to take very definite steps to insure that these grievous offenses against We, the People, are actually and in fact CORRECTED, because we don't want to wake up someday and find ourselves living under a totalitarian world government, run by unelected bureaucrats, operating via non transparent unconstitutional UN programs such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, making non transparent decisions, in far away corners of the world, in places like Berlin, Geneva, Rome, Australia, etc, where we can't go in order to easily monitor what they're up to.

I would like the Congressional Research Service and the Congress to realize that when I was on the US Delegation to the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, the government did not pay for my plane ticket to Germany.

I had to crawl over broken glass, raising donations from vitamin consumers on the internet, who wanted me to go in order to see what went on so I could report back to them. I should not have had to do that, and when I got to Germany, I should not have had to witness Dr. Yetley of the FDA ignore a letter that reflected the will of the American people and the will of Congress.

I should not have been told to turn off my camcorder.

I should not even have to be breaking my ass to write this, to explain ANY of this, but I am trying to do my part to defend the sovereign laws of this country, laws that I had input into and don't like seeing undermined by unconstitutional actions taken by unelected bureaucrats who seem to think they have a RIGHT to take these highly questionable and thoroughly offensive actions.

I want answers. This is still America. Congress must still obey the will of the people, and can't take any action without the express consent of the governed. Like it or not, that includes me, John Christopher Hammell of Floyd, Virginia, and I not only DEMAND justice here, I INSIST that my rights be protected. Please respond, in detail, to all of my concerns, please hold additional oversight hearings, but beyond holding hearings, please take CONCRETE ACTIONS to STOP the FDA and all other government bodies that are engaged in this process of harmonizing our laws to international standards. I like living in America. Washington DC is only 5 hours from me. Geneva, Berlin and Brussels are just too far away.

Having been to two UN Codex meetings in Bonn and Berlin Germany at which I had no vote, and was not allowed to speak, and at which the unelected bureaucrat from the FDA in charge of our delegation ignored my views, the will of Congress, and the views of all vitamin consumers across the USA and the world who I was there to represent, and then barred me from any future participation in this so called "process" in support of the German chair of the meeting who forced me to turn my camcorder off, I am very deeply saddened, disgusted, and outraged by this grossly immoral, grossly unconstitutional, non transparent situation, and the thousands of Americans signing the anti Codex petitions in cyberspace and in health food stores across this land share my heartfelt views and are very deeply offended and RIGHTFULLY SO.

Benjamin Rush, MD, signer of the Declaration of Independence attempted to warn us all that unless medical freedom was expressly written into the Constitution, that some day this situation that we're seeing unfold like some Kafkaesque novel would unfold as medicine organized itself into an undercover dictatorship. I hereby claim that health freedom is one of the unenumerated rights guaranteed to me under the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and I reserve all of my rights accordingly.

Please, for the sake of the public health, we need GENUINE oversight on the Codex vitamin issue. We need ADDITIONAL hearings. We need HELP from the Congressional Research Service to expertly advise Congress on what actions must be taken to insure that our Constitutional rights be properly protected in light of these detailed concerns. Thank you for asking the Congressional Research Service to carefully examine this matter, but you can't just stop with that request. I look forward to you forwarding their reply to you regarding all of my specific questions, and I strongly request additional oversight hearings, and with them CONCRETE ACTION to correct these grievous wrongs.

For the Public Health,
John Christopher Hammell, President
International Advocates for Health Freedom
Post Office Box 625 Floyd, Virginia 24091 America 800-333-2553