One of the periodic cat scans showed a clot between his skull and the brain, and for the second time in 2 weeks, this child who had never even had his tonsils removed, was undergoing open skull surgery.

My husband and I sat at his side 24 hours a day fearing that he might die and we would not be there. When he was taken off the coma inducing drug, he regained consciousness slowly and was moved to intermediate care. As he progressed, our job was to see that he walked up and down the halls to aid his respiration and regain muscle tone. At this point, the lesser injuries surfaced.

His mouth was still swollen and tender where the teeth had been knocked out and the jawbone pulverized, his broken collarbone and ribs made movement painful. He had no bladder or bowel control. The continuous intravenous insertions and blood tests made his arms and hands painful.

Two weeks after the accident, his injured spleen reruptured and he was back in intensive care, except this time he could not be sedated and was totally irrational and couldn't be physically restrained. He was given Haldol and Thorazine, usually prescribed for schizophrenics, in an attempt to calm him down. Their side effects were to cause extreme muscle spasm and constant loud animal-like moans.

I used all the tricks I had learned when my children were toddlers, and with a combination of threats and bribes we were able to keep him quiet and save his spleen. He was moved to a private room and 2 weeks later he was judged ready to go home.

On August 15, 1984, exactly 1 month after the accident with missing teeth, bone fragments in his gums, scars on his face and head, broken bones that were not healed, a precarious spleen and a supply of Valium and Thorazine to keep him tractable, he was sent home.

While he was in the hospital, we had contact with over one dozen different doctors and left with bills amounting to over $60,000.00. I slept in his room with him for a week because I was afraid that he would just get up and walk away. He started his freshman year of high school with facial scars, missing teeth, a shaved head and very disoriented.

During the next 2 years, he suffered various problems including painful oral surgery, hair loss and emotional difficulties. While we are grateful that he has made a recovery that will allow him to lead a normal life, we don't know the extent of the profound psychological and emotional damage that has been inflicted on him, and for that matter, on us as well.

This accident has changed our lives forever. I have become much more fearful of every day situations. If you multiply our experience by the number of victims of ATV related accidents, it will give you some idea of the incredible damage these vehicles have done and are continuing to do.

I recounted these experiences last July 28 before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Monetary Affairs. Why am I here in Washington again for the second time in less than 2 months? At that time, I explained that I harbor the somewhat naive yet wonderfully optimistic notion that what I

do can make a difference; that maybe the little guy doesn't have to just sit there and take it.

I would like to believe that all the phone calls, letters and conversations that I have initiated on this subject in the past 31⁄2 years as well as my testimony before the CPSČ in 1985, have in some small way helped to bring this issue to the public's attention.

I will not be able to stop my efforts until ATV's are not only regulated but also recalled, so that in the future similarly unaware families will not suffer as we have. The horror for me is that the carnage continues and will in the future, unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission and especially Chairman Scanlon, stop worrying about Japanese companies and start worrying about American children.

Before I came to Washington last January, I called a family in Minnesota whose child was injured on an ATV Christmas morning of 1984. When I told them that I was going here to testify, their voice, breaking with tears, blessed me for my efforts and pleaded with me to urge Congress to stop the devastation. Their child has been in a coma for 4 years. He won't be helped by any decision that you make.

Other children and their families will be spared. Don't forget that while you see before you just one mother, I am one of the thousands of families of victims who are not formally organized. We don't have big industry money or high priced lobbyists behind us. We are the citizens and the consumers of this country, and we demand that you protect us properly.

What has happened since I testified before Congress almost 2 months ago? Why did I feel compelled to leave my family and take the time, effort, mental anguish and expense to come before my country's lawmakers once again? I came, because after all these years and all the endless talk, I finally saw a chance of something concrete and useful being accomplished.

The Consent Decree has been attacked by so many experts on so many fronts, that I can add little to their concerns. I would just agree that we are dealing with an industry that from the start, has shown a callous disregard of the inherent dangers of their product and has made no real progress towards making these vehicles mechanically safer.

In addition, the industry has publicly stated its intention to get three-wheel ATV's back in the stores as soon as they can modify them in some way.

Our elected representatives need to realize that this industry will not respond to weak, loophole ridden, unenforced actions. The American public, and especially our children, need laws that will send strong messages about these vehicles.

Who knows, maybe a law such as this could have saved the life of 9-year-old Ryan Hanson of Waupacca, Wisconsin who was killed last Saturday when his ATV rolled over on him. Nine years old. You tell me what a 9-year-old child is doing riding a vehicle like this.

I urge the members of this subcommittee to become as informed as possible about the dangers of ATV's and to support the passage of H.R. 3991. Thank you

[The attachment to Ms. Sumner's prepared statement follows:]

The information above was derived from the following data, all figures relate to 1985:

There are 32 times as many bicycles in use as ATVs.
* The risk of fatal injury is 9.1 times higher for an
ATV rider than a bicycle rider.

The risk of sustaining an injury requiring hospital
treatment is 4.7 times higher for an ATV rider than
a bicycle rider.

These figures were obtained from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, Bicycle Market Research Institute, and the National Center for Health Statistics.

Mr. FLORIO. Thank you very much. Mrs. Duncan.

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA BURDICK DUNCAN

Ms. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity. I have waited 42 years to be able to publicly tell the story of my father's death, because it is a different story, and it's a story that I feel so fully illustrates the inherent danger of the design of these machines. I appreciate not only putting it into the written record but the chance to verbally show the correlation.

My father died as a result of an ATV accident. He died because he didn't know that that bright red three-wheeled Honda he was so in love with could kill him very easily. My father died because an ATV dealer who knew him very well, said the machine could be perfect for his use, transporting vegetables and supplies back and forth from his big garden and transporting him through the Christmas tree plantation.

My father died because 42 years ago there were no warnings, no ATV newspaper stories, no ATV radio talk shows, no general information regarding the ATV design dangers, no published studies, engineers reports, Congressional hearings and editorials written regarding ATV safety concerns.

My father died in 1983 because people then didn't know that three-wheeled ATV's were killer machines. I am here today because today, people do know that information and knowledge is available, and yet, the killing and the maiming is still going on.

The design characteristics have been studied, the reports have been made, the hearings have been held, and held, and held and held. And yet, in the face of graveyard statistics and the irrefutable evidence, the three-wheel ATV's are still out there. They are still being sold and purchased and ridden. There is still not appropriate legislation governing their use.

Thank you, Representative Barton, for you bill.

This is something that has just happened to me in the last few weeks through another experience. I am taking the time to tell you about it today because it is something that frightens me. The machines are still being loyally defended, not only by the manufacturers and dealers, but by their owners, the owner's associations and their lobbyists.

The refusal of manufacturers to take responsibility absolutely infuriates me. Quite frankly, the inability of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect consumers appalls me, but the action in the defense of ATV owners and their associations frightens me, because the unsuspecting public believes them and I am afraid so do many State and Federal legislators, the people on whom we all depend.

I am here to testify that the avid ATV owners who write the letters to the editors and call the talk shows are wrong. When Jackie Graff of Waukesha, Wisconsin writes into the Milwaukee Sentinel to say: "I believe that the ATV alone is not a killer but the people who use it are the issues, ATV's in fact, are only as deadly as the user," she is wrong.

I am here to testify that when Bill Farlow of Racine, Wisconsin writes the Milwaukee Journal that: "The real culprit is not the ATV or the manufacturer, it is the parent who wouldn't say no." He is wrong. I am here to testify that when Jeff Doyle of Burlington, Wisconsin writes the same newspaper that: "He is tired of hearing unsupported facts and statements regarding an ATV safety crisis," he is wrong.

I am here to testify that when Chuck Bille of Waupun tells the public reading the letters to the editor that: "If the Government stops ATV's they could just as easily stop hunting, motorcycling, snow skiing, snowmobiling and boating and so forth," he is wrong. Worse than just being wrong, propagating this dangerous misinformation on the unsuspecting public, I believe, is downright criminal. I am here today that my voice may be raised not only in opposition to that dangerous message, but in protest to it. And in protest to the years of the foot dragging of people who could make a difference. I am also here to tell why my prayers are that none of those letter writers or owner critics will ever, ever, have to go to an ATV funeral like I did.

Former CPSC Commissioner Stuart Statler was right when he testified in January that the evidence assembled by the CPSC and the Department of Justice confirms that the very design of the three-wheeled ATV's render them inherently unstable and unreasonably dangerous. I am here today to testify that he was also correct when he stated that: "Even repeated experience on an ATV and familiarity with its uncommon handling, does not preclude the possibility of sudden and unexpected overturning as a result of that vehicle's inherent instability."

My dad's ATV overturned on him in the neighbor's front yard. He was experienced and familiar with the machine. I am here today to testify that the Department of Justice complaint is very correct in its statement: "That there is virtually no margin for error in the operation of ATV's because of their peculiar operating characteristics. The penalty for making the smallest miscalculation may be death or serious injury."

If it was my father's small miscalculation, he paid that penaltyhe died. I am here today to testify that the Department of Justice is also correct in stating that: "The risk of harm presented by ATV's is both imminent and unreasonable. Each time an ATV is operated, a rider faces an unacceptably, unreasonable high risk that at any moment and with no sign of impending danger, he or she will either be killed or suffer severe personal injury."

With no sign of impending danger, my father suffered a very severe personal injury and it killed him. I am here today to testify that the National Association of Attorneys General ATV Task Force is right when it concludes that: "Even experienced riders can lose control of the three-wheeler in turns or uphill climbs or when encountering changes in terrain. Keep this in mind when we think about the Consent Decree. No amount of training and experience can protect the rider from the inherent dangers involved in operating a three-wheeled ATV."

My father's training and experience did not protect him from his ATV; he lost control on an easy turn and he died.