Written statement submitted by Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc. a non-governmental organization in special consultative status.
By Olivier Vuillemin
Feb. 11th, 2019
(Links to statement and references can be found below)
Olivier Vuillemin is an entrepreneur with a background in innovation management. He has been suffering from Radio Frequency – Electromagnetic radiation poisoning since 2004. Among other things, he spent the better part of the past decade involved as an independent expert at the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and International Standards Organization (ISO) on topics related to healthcare metrology, telebiometrics and environmental metrology. He currently serves as main UN representative for the Planetary Association for Clean Energy in Geneva (UNOG), Vienna (UNOV) and New York (UNHQ).
This document was submitted to the UN Human Rights Council on February 11th 2019 from the perspective of human subjects experiments and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as cited in the preamble of UNGA Resolution 39/46. It seems that this is the first time ever since the signature of this treaty that anyone has used this mechanism in this specific way. The precedent is the doctor’s trial at Nüremberg.
From the legal perspective, this document was worked on by lawyers specialized in international law, environmental law and human rights law which included veterans at the UNHRC. It was peer-reviewed and commented upon by 25 scientists and medical doctors who also participated in the development of its 89 pages of references.
This is a valid UN work document which was established and submitted within its legal framework. Due to its unequivocal stance on the degree of conflicts of interests at the WHO, ITU, IEC, ICNIRP, SCENHIR and others, it was obvious from day one that neither the Special Rapporteurs nor the High Commissioner of the UNHRC would discuss its explosive content. Although polite, this document says that every UN sister organization who has a say on the topic of EMR is basically willingly and knowingly plagued with conflicts of interests. These organizations are not only accomplices but play the lead role in this cover-up. Five Special Rapporteurs were contacted (environment, toxic waste, rights of handicapped people, rights of children, inhuman and degrading treatments) to no avail except a brief discussion with the SR on Toxic Waste’s assistant.
Supporting References (89 pages):
By Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
This message describes, as briefly as I can, the answers to the questions below. Kindly read what interests you. I present these comments as a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics, Harvard University).
- Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
- Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?
- What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
- What is Maryland’s implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?
- Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
- What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?
- What should our telecommunications goals be?
- Who am I?
Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
Control by local government of the deployment of 5G’s small cell towers is, indeed, an important goal, because local governments are closer to the people and can better reflect their wishes. That makes HB1020/SP713 the better approach, as intended by its authors, compared to HB654/SB937 which forfeits local control entirely.
But there is an even more important goal: STOPPING the deployment of 5G altogether. The reason, as shown throughout this message, is that there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only “bad ways” and “worse ways”. So local control means that local governments can have a say in the choice among the “bad ways”.
Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?
Both bills reaffirm the worst aspect of Federal policy: a prohibition against stopping all deployment. For example, HB1020/SP713 makes statements like these:
S-703 (C) (1): “THE APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW AND REGULATION PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION:
(1) MAY NOT GENERALLY PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION OF ALL WIRELESS FACILITIES OR POLES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND”
S-704 (C): “THE DESIGN AND AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS OF AN AUTHORITY MAY NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING ANY WIRELESS PROVIDER’S WIRELESS SERVICE.”
Statements like these write into Maryland law the principal provision of Federal policy that so many efforts are now trying to overturn. For this reason, in my view, neither HB654/SB937 nor HB1020/SP713 should be made law.
What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of electricity have already been forced on virtually every home and business in Maryland. These meters bring the source of radiation up close and personal to the residents, even to the walls against which children sleep. They transmit pulses of radiofrequency throughout the day and the night, every day of the year. To escape the radiation from your own meter, you must pay the electric power company a monthly Opt-Out fee, forever, for a non-radiating meter. At last report, about 44,000 Maryland homeowners have made this choice. But there is NO way to escape the radiation from your neighbors’ wireless meters.
Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of natural gas and water are either already implemented in parts of the State, or are contemplated (WSSC), and will worsen the problem already created by the Wireless Smart Meters for electricity.
WiFi is implemented widely in Maryland’s schools and bathes the children and teachers in radiofrequency radiation every school day for all their school years. Parents who don’t want their children exposed to such radiation MUST forfeit a public school education for their children. All this has occurred even though the Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, which reports to the Governor, recommended phasing WiFi out of the schools in favor of much safer wired technology. (Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report, December 13, 2016, page 8, https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf
The addition of the radiation from 5G’s small cell towers, located up close and personal to Maryland residents, and operating 24 hours per day throughout the year, will complete this assault on the health of the public.
What is Maryland’s implicit policy on radiofrequency radiation?
The State’s implicit policy appears to be this:
“No resident of Maryland shall be permitted to escape 24-hour exposure to radiofrequency radiation, at ever higher levels, even though such radiation has already been shown to be harmful to human health.”
“All biomedical research from any source, including the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the international biomedical research community more broadly, that shows that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is harmful to human health, will be categorically denied.”
Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
In the simplest terms, human beings are bioelectrical in nature. That is why electrocardiograms work when they monitor a beating heart. And that is why electroencephalograms work when they monitor the activities in the brain. Humans evolved in levels of radiofrequency radiation far below those produced by human technology today. We humans are simply not designed to tolerate today’s high levels of radiofrequency radiation.
When the radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, including 5G’s small cell towers, and other wireless sources, hits the body, that radiation disrupts the bioelectrical workings of the body. This disruption occurs at levels of radiation far below those set as the FCC’s Maximum Permitted Exposure limits. In response, the body must fight back constantly to regain control. This battle can lead to a wide range of symptoms. Here is just a partial list: sleep disruption, headaches, irritability, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration and memory, nerve pain, dizziness, eye problems, nausea, heart palpitations, depression, and cancer.
No one is immune to harm, but vulnerability varies widely with the individual. That vulnerability does appear to be greatest for pregnant mothers, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, seniors, the disabled, and those with chronic health conditions. A host of major medical conditions are now under study by the international biomedical research community to determine what role exposure to radiofrequency radiation may play in causing, or aggravating, them. Examples include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease, among so many others.
The effects of radiofrequency radiation appear to be cumulative; so the longer that exposure continues, the greater the chance that an individual will be overtly affected. Some individuals will develop a devastating condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, with a host of symptoms, including extreme pain from exposure to even very low levels of radiofrequency radiation. Just to survive, such individuals must often leave their homes and jobs, where exposure levels were too high, and move to rare locations away from radiation sources. Such individuals regularly contact scientists (including me), doctors, and other aware individuals for advice on what to do.
What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
There are thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to the body in one way or another. These have been collected and reviewed in a number of summary documents. Here are just two examples: (1) BioInitiative 2012, draws on about 1800 publications (https://bioinitiative.org/); (2) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses, draws on 308 references (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111). (“EMF” stands for electromagnetic fields, a term inclusive of radiofrequency radiation.)
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen (“possibly carcinogenic”), naming explicitly “wireless phone” radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma. Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal. It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden. (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf)
In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals. (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)
In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations, described below. These scientists have “published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation).
“Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses.” (https://www.emfscientist.org/)
For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the Science tab. (https://ehtrust.org/)
What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?
5G has some true advantages. 5G is expected to employ higher radiofrequencies than those currently in use in cellular systems in the United States. Those higher frequencies will permit more rapid rates of data transfer compared to current WIRELESS technology. And, as a wireless technology, 5G will support mobility.
But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in so many other ways. Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard. Fiber-optic technology is safer, faster, more reliable, more cyber secure, and more private than any wireless technology, including 5G. (See https://whatis5g.info for a detailed description of the limitations of 5G.)
So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families and colleagues.
When listening to the hype about 5G, consider the following:
Is the hype coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G?
Is the RUSH to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?
Is the RUSH to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?
What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans? The burden of proof is on the providers.
When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing studies and none in progress. (Story: https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks; Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4)
What should our telecommunications goals be?
Let me suggest the following:
Promote the expansion of fiber-optic technology as widely as possible, instead of degrading our environment with more harmful radiofrequency radiation, this time from 5G.
Require that the safety of 5G be proven by impartial studies before 5G can be installed in Maryland, instead of facilitating the use of Maryland residents to be the guinea pigs to test that safety.
Join forces with other state governments, and with local governments, to fight back against Federal laws and regulations that force any potentially harmful technology on the states without adequate PRIOR proof of safety. Any technology with the potential to harm, and even take, life should not be mandated by the U.S. Government or encouraged by the states.
It will be difficult to stop 5G, but it will be easier to stop it NOW than to get it removed later after huge numbers of Maryland residents have become ill.
Who am I?
I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University). I worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community. I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with aware individuals around the world on the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health.
I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.
Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.
Following are some studies, reviews, and compilations to share with people who would like to learn more about the health impacts of 5g and cell towers. Also included are a few studies on health impacts of Electromagnetic Radiation in general. (Please note, there may be some overlap in the links provided.)
Cell Tower Health Effects April 30th, 2018
Resources regarding the health effects of exposure to cell tower radiation.
Environmental Health Trust compilation of cell tower studies.
International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation
Belpomme D, Hardell, L, Belyaev I, Burgio E, Carpenter DO. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollut. 2018 Jul 6; 242(Pt A):643-658. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019.
5G AND HIGHER MILLIMETER WAVE FREQUENCIES
Published Literature 5G High Frequency, Gigahertz RF Physicians For Safe Technology
Scientific Research on 5G and Health
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
(2018) Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University
5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.
Russell CL. Dr. Cindy Russell
5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?
May 4th, 2018
5G and the IOT: Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks
Millimeter Wave Frequency Studies and Reviews
5G & IOT
One must also consider the synergistic effects of RF combined with other environmental toxins
Modified health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation combined with other agents reported in the biomedical literature. Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins (2017): 97-158. Kostoff, R.N. and Clifford G.Y. Lau. 2017.
STUDIES ON HEALTH EFFECTS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields
April 18th, 2018
Peer Reviewed Scientific Research on Wireless Radiation
Published Research Links Cell Phone and Wireless To Health Effects
Physicians For Safe Technology has organized the science into RF impacts on specific systems.
Scientific Literature (Click on the tab at the top of the page that says “Scientific Literature”)
National Toxicology Technical Report on Cell Phones and Cancer.
Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies In Hsd:Sprague Dawley Sd Rats Exposed To Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation At A Frequency (900 Mhz) And Modulations (Gsm And Cdma) Used By Cell PhonesMarch 26-28, 2018. 2 Year Study showing increased incidence of right ventricular cardiomyopathy.
“Clear Evidence Of Cancer” Concludes U.S. National Toxicology Program Expert Panel On Cell Phone Radiation Environmental Health Trust
Ramazzini Study On Radiofrequency Cell Phone Radiation: The World’s Largest Animal Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link
The Federal government is once again trying to strip away local authority over cell towers siting. Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) introduced the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act (S.3157)
S.3157 is an effort to make Congressional law consistent with recent FCC actions. In 2017 and 2018, Telecom managed to get the FCC to pass sweeping regulations that strip municipalities of local zoning rights and greatly cut back environmental and historic reviews.
Following you will find further information about the bill and actions you can take to oppose it:
For a detailed look at how S.3157 would alter Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, stripping municipalities and the public of our rights, please see:
Here’s a simple description and easy template to take action to oppose S.3157.
Overview of S.3157 written by the National League of Cities
The National League of Cities (NLC) opposes S. 3157. They wrote, “Despite urging from NLC and other local government advocates during the bill’s drafting phase, many preemptive provisions remain in the bill, including limiting the actions local governments can take on small cell wireless facility siting in an effort to make deployments cheaper, faster, and more consistent across jurisdictions.”
Please take a moment to do one or all of the following:
- Call your Federal representatives. If on the Senate Commerce Committee, please ask them to put a hold on S 3157.
“I’m calling to ask the (Senator or Representative) to please protect our rights and our property by prohibiting telecom companies from placing wireless transmitters all over our neighborhoods with no local review. We have the right to determine how to integrate technology into our own community. Telecom companies should not be allowed to override local control. Please do not allow S. 3157 or any other 5G bills to pass.”
- Email your representatives. You can use this link to find contact information for all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials
- Consider also contacting members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. which is the Committee where S 3157 currently is awaiting a hearing. The full list of members can be found at the end of this post (scroll down) or at this link: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committeemembers
- The website https://zero5g.com, has an excellent letter and portal you can use for contacting your federal representatives. https://zero5g.com/take-action-usa/
- The National League of Cities will send a letter directly to your representatives in Congress for you. At this link, you can fill in your zip code (and your full address if your postal zone is split between jurisdictions), and the letter template will appear with a message to legislators generated by the National League of Cities (NLC). http://advocacy.nlc.org/nlc/app/onestep-write-a-letter?0&engagementId=487075
PLEASE NOTE: The NLC opposes Federal control of small cell deployment, but does NOT mind small cells regulated by municipalities. So instead of using the NLC generated letter, which has statements in support of small cells, either
- craft your own letter
- copy and paste the following text into their letter template
- use the letter given at this link, https://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Possible-letter-for-NLC-Template.pdf
Text to copy and paste into NLC letter template:
As a constituent, I am writing to express my opposition to the “Streamlining The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure Necessary to Enhance (STREAMLINE) Small Cell Deployment Act” (S. 3157).
S. 3157 is similar to a California bill (SB 649) which would have created a state mandated system of cell towers and eliminated local review and safety oversight. SB 649 was opposed by 300 cities, 47 counties and over 100 community, planning, health, environment and justice organizations. SB 649 was vetoed SB 649 by Governor Brown on October 15, 2017.
The threat of public and environmental harm from wireless radiation is real and growing. Local control is needed to ensure community safety, welfare and compliance with federal, state, and local laws.
Peer-reviewed published science shows wireless radiation harms public health and nature. Health effects include: fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, ringing in the ears, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, increased cancer risk, and more. Children, the ill, and the elderly are more vulnerable.
International independent scientists are calling for biologically-based public exposure standards and reducing wireless radiation.
S. 3157 represents a direct affront to traditionally-held local authority. S. 3157 introduces an unnecessary, one-size-fits-all preemption of local jurisdiction. The bill also imposes unfair and inappropriate timelines on local governments.
For more information see this joint letter to Congress asking you to oppose any and all bills related to 5G and wireless radiation expansion: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-to-Congress-2017-1.pdf
(Sign your name)
Resources from Environmental Health Trust for Policy Makers:
Environmental Health Trust has compiled several key resources to ensure policy makers and governments have the scientific resources they need. Please take the time to review this list as well as the linked 5G organizations.
Become Acquainted with Grassroots Environmental Education:
Doug and Patti Wood and the Grassroots Environmental Education team, are spear-heading an effort to bring together the organizations and individuals around the country who are working to oppose 5g. Please check out the following links put out by Grassroots Environmental Education as well as the suggested actions:
1. Short video clip on 5g: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u7k-7msciM&feature=share
2. The prior video will lead you to the website, https://www.telecompowergrab.org
There you will find instructions for urging senators to NOT MOVE ON ANY BILLS RELATED TO 5G AND WIRELESS EXPANSION until after the election.
3. You will also see a link to the Grassroots Environmental Education website, Wireless Information Network (WIN), http://www.win19.org/
Wireless Information Network (WIN) is an excellent resource for up-to-date information about the harms of wireless radiation and what we can do to oppose 5g.
At the website, people can also sign up for the WIN ListServe which is intended for individuals and organizations to share their research, ideas and experience. Here is the link to the WINListServe: http://www.win19.org/listserv.html
List of committee members on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Senator John Thune (R-SD) is the Commerce Committee Chairman.
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is the Ranking Member.
Contact Information for the Committee
Full Committee Office
Majority Address: 512 Dirksen Senate Building; Washington DC, 20510
1. CHAIRMAN: Senator John Thune, South Dakota
Washington D.C. Office
United States Senate SD-511
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2321
Fax: (202) 228-5429
EMAIL FORM: https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
2. Senator Roger Wicker Mississippi
555 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: (202) 224-6253
Fax: (202) 228-0378
EMAIL FORM https://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact
3. Senator Roy Blunt Missouri
260 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5721
EMAIL CONTACT FORM: https://www.blunt.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-roy
4. Senator Ted Cruz Texas
Washington, DC 20510
5. Senator Deb Fischer Nebraska
454 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6551
Fax: (202) 228-1325
6. Senator Jerry Moran Kansas
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6521
Fax: (202) 228-6966
7. Senator Dan Sullivan Alaska
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
8. Senator Dean Heller Nevada
324 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
9. Senator Jim Inhofe Oklahoma (site down)
10. Senator Mike Lee Utah (site down)
11. Senator Ron Johnson Wisconsin
328 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-5323
Fax: (202) 228-6965
12. Senator Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia
13 Senator Cory Gardner Colorado
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
P: (202) 224-5941
F: (202) 224-6524
14. Senator Todd Young Indiana (site down)
1. Ranking Member Bill Nelson Florida
WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE
United States Senate
716 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
2. Senator Maria Cantwell Washington
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3441
Fax: (202) 228-0514
3. Senator Amy Klobuchar Minnesota
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
4. Senator Richard Blumenthal Connecticut
706 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC, 20510
tel (202) 224-2823
fax (202) 224-9673
5. Senator Brian Schatz Hawaii
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
PHONE: (202) 224-3934
FAX: (202) 228-1153
6. Senator Ed Markey Massachusetts
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
7. Senator Tom Udall New Mexico
531 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
8. Senator Gary Peters Michigan
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
9. Senator Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin (site down)
10. Senator Tammy Duckworth Illinois (site down)
11. Senator Maggie Hassan New Hampshire (site down)
12. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto Nevada (site down)
13. Senator Jon Tester Montana (site down)