House Public Health, Welfare And Labor Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (7)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1038
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1038”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1011
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…a challenge to a bill that we have set for special order on House Bill 1011, and looking at the content of the bill and then also the r…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1468
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1468”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1492
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1492”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1842
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “can go ahead and move House Bill 1842 down. It's just a shell”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB2261
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…o ahead actually Representative Ferguson has requested that HB 2261 be moved to deferred so without objection we'll”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB533
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB533”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
First thing, get the right file here, started the meeting without Phillip here, that was a mistake. Oh, there you are, okay. Well, it's okay. I was afraid you weren't in the room, then I was going to really be lost. There has been a challenge to a bill that we have set for special order on House Bill 1011, and looking at the content of the bill and then also the rules that govern legislation and deadlines and filing on legislation that affects scope of practice.
Without objection, I am going to remove that House Bill 1011 from special order and send it to rules to issue a ruling on whether or not it violates the rules that I laid out. So without objection, so ordered. Also, I know that I've said this a few times, but we're about to get serious. Today is the last day. If there's anything that is on the agenda starting next week, a bill that has really shown no action,
we're just going to move everything down to deferred. So just so you know right now where we are, we've got 98 total bills on the agenda. 32 of them are active, 24 are deferred, and 42 are shells. I think I'm just going to move all the shells to deferred on Tuesday, and then anything that's active that we haven't really seen a lot of action on, go ahead and move those down also. So basically what that means is if you have a bill that you want to stay on the active calendar, let Phil know.
Otherwise, I just think for moving forward, I think we need to clean the agenda up a little bit and make sure everybody kind of knows what to expect coming down the stretch because we're at the point where, you know, things are going to be moving fast. And just as a committee, you need to know if a bill is likely to come up or not, whether or not you need to be here. There's also 111 bills in the Senate Public Health Committee. So we're under them. They've got 111. So we're going to have all those bills coming or some of them coming our way.
So just note that. And also, I'm just going to be honest and kind of turn myself in. It's just kind of to the point where if you've stopped me, and this maybe goes for people in the audience, if you've stopped me and told me something in the hallway as I'm walking somewhere and I nod my head and say, okay, that means I'm not going to remember what you said. And so don't count on me to do what I just asked you to do. talk to the staff send a note catching me going from A to B
does not count as a meeting and we're all kind of that way we've all got a lot of stuff going on so I just don't want you to rely on me and something you mentioned to me in passing because I promise you I will not remember it just note that I'm sorry for that flaw I've probably made all of you mad already at some point doing that we can go ahead actually Representative Ferguson has requested that HB 2261 be moved to deferred so without objection we'll
move that down and that's a good precedent so thank you Representative Ferguson so she's setting the bar everybody be active in that now we'll move on unless anybody else has a housekeeping note or questions Representative Meeks you recognize Yeah, we'll keep the thing going. You
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
3:34
can go ahead and move House Bill 1842 down. It's just a shell
bill right now. All right. Without objection, 1842 be moved down. Any other for the altar call?
All right. We'll take care of the rest of it on Tuesday. Representative Altus, you'll be recognized to present House Bill 1038. And just a good note here, we're probably all getting to the point of the session where we're kind of we've maybe discussed some of this before i'm i'm going to grant sponsors of legislation a little bit more leeway just as a member and as a sponsor of the bill but just from the beginning i think we just need to know some things that we covered in the beginning
keep your testimony uh to members of the audience and then to members of the committee keep testimony limited to the subject of the bill um keep it pointed make it fast uh we don't have to uh I said something the other day in rules, and I don't think anybody got it, but in Harrison we have occasionally people will say, you know, it's kind of like beating a dead horse. You don't want to wall or opossum hairless. So we're not going to wall or any opossums hairless today. Talk about the bill and what it does and keep the testimony focused. Again, we'll cut the members a little bit more,
the sponsor of the bill a little bit more slack. That's just a note moving forward because we've got a lot to get through this next month. All that being said,
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
5:01
Representative Alta, you're recognized to present house bill 1038 thank you mr chairman my bill house bill 1038 affects arkansas code 20-7-136 concerning the statewide fluoridation program you'll see on page 2 line 20 through 25 when i first introduced the bill i have many many many
constituents that asked me to carry this bill and my first bill was to exempt the city of fort smith their water system from this section of code and then I had the City Administrator and the Assistant City Administrator from Hot Springs come to me and asked me to add them to it so I did and the main reason I'm doing this is because the voters in both of those cities have rejected fluoridation twice it's been on the ballot twice and both cities have rejected it on the ballot
twice so the first question I have to you to think about is do we live in a free nation where the voters rule or do we live in a communist nation where we're instructed mandated and told to drink poison okay the first handout I have is this one if you would go over this with me I bear with me while I read the highlights the practice of water fluoridation has been controversial from day one since the 70s through the 90s European countries have reversed
their stance countries like Germany Sweden Netherlands Finland have discontinued fluoridation while France never started technically fluoride is can be poisonous this is why the FDA requires a poison warning on every tube of toothpaste if you'll read your tube of toothpaste you will see it says keep Keep out of reach of children. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.
I have another tube at home, it's a whitening, and it says if you swallow any of this, contact a poison control center immediately. So everybody knows that fluoride is poison. It produces stomach ailments, acute toxicities, skin rashes, this is fluorosis. of glucose metabolism this has all been proven the FDA has ordered toothpaste manufacturers to put this warning on there and in fact a tube of this size of bubblegum flavored toothpaste will kill a small child there's enough
fluoride in a toothpaste this big to kill a child there are over 20,000 23,000 reports a year in fluorosis resulting in hundreds of emergency room treatments perhaps the most important yet overlooked, is excessive ingestion of fluoride impacts blood glucose and insulin levels. This is from a study by Menoya, M-E-N-O-Y-O, in 2005. You guys can Google this if you want to.
Strikingly, this level is routinely exceeded by 5 to 10 percent of children use fluoride toothpaste, particularly those living in fluoridated communities. this finding raises the obvious question of whether the widespread spread use of ingestion of toothpaste fluoride toothpaste is contributing to the exacerbating or exacerbating the rising prevalence of diabetes in children an EPA official dr. William Hersey hirzy the current senior vice president of EPA
says if this stuff gets out into the air it's a pollutant if it gets into the it's a pollutant if it gets into the lake it's a pollutant but if it gets into your drinking water it's not a pollutant that's amazing there has to be a way better way to control this stuff adding to Hersey's findings concerns there are three recent findings two studies talk about the elevated level of lead in children's blood that's Masters and Copland in 1999 and 2000 and also quite
remarkable is a concession from the EPA that despite 50 years of water fluoridation the EPA has no chronic health studies on silico fluorides okay
next page there was a Scientific American article that reviewed two dozen studies
by Harvard University researchers it suggests that fluoride significantly significantly decreases the IQ of children under the guise of
preventing tooth decay. Children in high fluoride areas have significantly lower IQ than those who live in low fluoride areas. This is from the Harvard research scientist and and the results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment. Fluoride readily crosses the placenta they observe fluoride exposure to the developing brain which is more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature this article
published July the 20th of 2012 in the Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences also says fluoride seems to fit in with lead mercury and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain the author of this study was Philippe Grandjean the professor of environmental health at Harvard in this study we found significant dose response relation between fluoride levels and serum and children's IQ observed the fluoride net action network director Paul Connett
PhD this is the 24th study that has found this association but this study is stronger than the rest okay in principle it is added to the fluoride is added to treat people in what amounts to a mass medication of populations without lawfully required individual consent communism okay the scientific Americans Dan Fagan who's an award-winning environmental reporter says that in
In other nations, water fluoridation is rare and controversial, and the Scientific American study says concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine functions, especially in the thyroid, the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism, that a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposure with lower IQ. studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk
of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as elderly and diabetics. Stephen Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study, tracked 700 Iowa children for 16 years. Nine-year-old Iowa children who lived in communities where water was fluoridated were 50% more likely to have mild fluorosis than nine-year-old children living in non-fluoridated areas of the state. In 2005, a study conducted at Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.
New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between ages of 5 and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma, bone cancer, between the ages of 10 and 19, according to a London Observer article. Based on the findings of this study the respected environmental working group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the U.S. Government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer rates in the U.S. Because they have Skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life
In August of 2006 Chinese the Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children's liver and kidney functions here's some I'm on page three or four now fluoride is a waste facts about fluoride fluoride is a waste byproduct of the fertilizer and aluminum industry it's also a part two poison under UK Poisons Act 1972 the UAS United States Air Force major George R Jordan testified before an un-American
activities committee in the 50s that in his post as the US Soviet liaison officer the Soviets openly admitted to using fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient. Ninety-seven percent of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation due to known health risks. In Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg, the fluoridation was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject's will and therefore violated fundamental human rights. In November of 06, the American Dental Association advised the parents should avoid giving baby
fluoridated water. In the Journal of the American Dental Association, they confirmed that fluoride was a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies. In other words, young children have the highest risk of severe tooth damage from fluoride, especially those six months of age or younger, a time during which the children's blood-brain barriers have not fully formed. Even low ingestion levels cause the direct depositing of fluoride into the teeth, brain, and other bodily tissues and organs, which
besides causing fluorosis also causes disorders of the brain and nervous system, kidneys, and bones. In 2006, the National Research Council wrote that it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. They reduce IQ levels, and the fluoride intake causes cognitive damage. Harvard University says that they found that kidney disease is another hallmark of fluoride poisoning. In low levels, as far as one part per million, the amount added to most fluoridated water systems can cause kidney damage.
And this Chinese study found that children exposed to this slightly higher level had markers in their blood indicative of kidney damage. I'm almost through. The NRC has found that fluoride impairs proper thyroid function and debilitates the endocrine system. It is absorbed through the skin every time people wash their hands or take a shower in fluoridated water. There is simply no legitimate reason to fluoridate water.
Doing so forcibly medicates an entire population with carcinogenic chemical drugs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be glad to entertain
questions. All right. Thank you, Representative Altsus. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question I'd like to move
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
16:03
for immediate consideration I think we've all heard this before you know that okay that is
a tell you what I'm just going to note
a little I'm going to note Representative Valtis I would it is non-debatable so I can't recognize you I'm going to note a little trick I'm very happy I did this but I I'm gonna go ahead and recognize your motion I technically recognize you for question but it is it is it's a proper motion and it's non-debatable it does take two-thirds of a quorum to pass so members the question is the motion is
for immediate consideration on House bill 1038 how many are here Phil let me make clear we're voting on
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
16:59
the immediate consideration and not the bill that's right okay yes yes
absolutely uh so it takes two-thirds of a quorum to pass which would be nine based on attendance uh all in favor of many considerations say i'm all opposed no i'm going to rule that the motion failed can
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
17:19
i move that we limit the debate then
to 10 minutes uh yes you can uh
Representative Ferguson moved to limit debate, 10 minutes on each side. It's a simple majority, right? Okay, so the motion is to limit the debate, 10 minutes each side. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. Debate has been limited, 10 minutes. This, again, clock starts now for Representative Valtas' testimony, and then we'll also, his closing will be encompassed in the affirmative side.
Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Question. All right. You're recognized. My question
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
18:01
is, is why did you put the population of the cities in? I mean, we know it's Fort Smith and Hot Springs, like you said. But, I mean, in 10 years, are we going to have to come back and adjust the population figures because these cities now
Speaker 8
18:17
have crossed that population threshold? At the time that the bill passes, it locks
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
18:23
it in. So even when Fort Smith gets
Speaker 24
18:25
to be 300,000 folks, this would still apply to them?
Right. It's the time of the law. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Meeks. I don't think I had any other questions on the list. Members, any
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
18:42
other questions? Representative Malone. Question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, at the beginning of your statements, Representative Altus, this does only affect two cities. And you did say it earlier that, for instance, Fort Smith has had a vote by the
Chair
Unverified
18:58
people twice to fluoridate their water, and that vote has failed twice, correct?
Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you, Representative Malone. Members, Representative Mayberry, you're
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
19:11
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Valtus, I'll tell you that personally I think that this all ought to be a local decision statewide, but I do have a concern that that's not what this does I know that half my district is the Sardis Water Association which has had votes previously not to fluoridate its water and they're excluded from this bill and this looks
to be a very city specific bill that we're making statewide wouldn't you
Speaker 34
19:41
agree no thank you I'm just trying to exempt two
Speaker 35
19:46
cities members any other questions representative Ward thank you mr. chair represent Albert earlier I think that we
Speaker 36
19:56
learned that a lot of the larger water system in an act or in a chain with some of the smaller water system and if we
allow those largest system to actually not fluoridate their water and do you think it would have an effect on those other smaller water systems that probably want their water fluoridated. I'm not really
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
20:22
understanding your question, but like the city of Fort Smith, we sell water to Oklahoma. I mean, and so we're forcing Oklahoma to drink poison as soon as we get our fluoridation in effect. Mr. Chairman, is this counting on our 10 minutes? Yes, sir,
Chair
Unverified
20:40
it is okay okay representative Malone you're recognized thank you mr. chairman again this only affects two cities correct Fort Smith and hot springs so it really wouldn't affect any other water systems within the state correct as far as I can tell you know representative words question it wouldn't affect those smaller communities because it's directed at two cities right
exactly systems okay thank you members any other questions okay thank you for testimony representative altus we'll try to save a little balance for a close thank you
if you would like for him to present with you I'll go ahead and recognize him this is the first guy that signed up to speak okay well let me bet if y'all would step away here for a second we need to do of against first and then sir if you're on the list I'll recognize you to testify for after Okay, first on the list to sign up to speak against are various members or employees from the health department. Whoever you are, if you'd like to come up, identify yourselves, and you'll be recognized
Speaker 44
21:48
to testify against the bill. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. I'm Dr. Paul Halverson. I serve as the Director of the Arkansas Department of Health and your State Health Officer. And with all due respect to Representative Altus, we're here to oppose this bill. It's clear to scientists and public health officials across the world that fluoridation
of the public's water supply is a safe and effective public health strategy. Today to support that position, I want to introduce two of our senior scientific experts. First is Dr. Nathaniel Smith. Dr. Smith is board certified in infectious disease and internal medicine who serves as our deputy director for public health programs and has many years of experience both in clinical medicine as well as public health both here in the United States as well as abroad.
Also Dr. Brian Whitaker is with us who is our Chief of Dental Public Health. Dr. Whitaker is a dentist, he's an endodontist, a dental specialist, and serves as our Chief of Dental Health. And again, our position is that the science related to fluoridation is settled. This is about an exclusion to the state's law related to the implementation of fluoride
and we'd like to approach it from that
Speaker 46
23:36
perspective. Dr. Smith? Thank you. As most of you know, fluoride is naturally occurring in water, although at variable levels. The levels that are recommended for optimizing dental health, they've been found to be safe and effective and the body of scientific evidence for that is considerable and overwhelming. Obviously at higher levels some of the things that have been said are true, but that can
be said of something like oxygen as well. Oxygen at high levels is toxic, it's a poison, but we all need it to live. The communities in question, Hot Springs School District has 3,628 school children, and Fort Smith as well as Van Buren, which obtains its water from Fort Smith, have almost 20,000 children in public schools, and they would be adversely affected by not having appropriate
levels of fluoride in their water. I happen to grow up in a part of the world where the levels of fluoride in the water are naturally occurring were higher than those recommended levels. I've been told by my dentist that I have mild fluorosis, although you have to be a dentist with a magnifying glass to tell. I've never had a cavity at any point in my life. My wife, on the other hand, grew up in a part of the world where the levels of fluoride in the water were naturally lower than those recommended, and she has a mouthful of cavities despite good oral hygiene.
My hope is that our children and hopefully my grandchildren will have the benefit of good dental health not dependent on which community they happen to live in. Good public health shouldn't be a local public option when it comes to something like this. Children should have the benefit of good dental health for life and not have that dependent on, you know, a vocal members of a community who may not be well-informed.
MR. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Members, any
questions? Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Next on the list. Oh, yeah. Representative Altus, who is the gentleman sitting besides you? Okay. If you'll come up and you'll be recognized to speak for the bill.
Three minutes of this side has been used, balance of seven. Please keep in mind there's others signed up to testify, and we'd like to let
Speaker 50
26:29
Representative Altus close. Yes, sir. Thank you. ski, and I've worked in emergency medicine, sports medicine, cancer research, and spent 25 years in private practice in California as a health doctor with a Ph.D. I was asked to come here last night, and so Representative Altus did a very good job of covering a broad spectrum of the literature, but the statements made by the previous speakers
that are against the bill, the large body of scientific literature that they say supports water fluoridation has been completely discredited by both government and non-government scientists. And Representative Altus covered the fact that there's 22 industrialized nations representing over 2 billion people that do not fluoridate their water. And there's very good reason for that because they have evaluated the world medical and scientific literature and found it to be extremely harmful to human health. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency has come out with a position statement, and their
union is composed of 1,500 of the world's best doctors and scientists involved in environmental health, toxicologists, chemists, engineers, and attorneys. They voted on July 2, 1977, unanimously opposing fluoridation and to adopt a plan to ban fluoridation in the United States, they made the following public statement. Our members reviewed the evidence over the last 11 years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride and fluoridation in
cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children, which Representative Altus covered. As professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public are not served by the addition of this substance to the water supply. If artificial fluoridation of public water supplies causes cancer in man, as the published laboratory studies and epidemiological surveys indicate, and as judicial findings confirm,
then nobody should be surprised to see that it produces a host of other human ailments. We should be surprised to learn that dumping a carcinogen and mutagen in public drinking water has not only been accompanied by a devastating increase in cancer mortality, but may also reduce human intelligence. The end of fluoridation will take time, but not because time is necessary to develop essential scientific information. We already know enough to appreciate the enormity of the risk. We knew enough many years ago. But the end will finally arrive because, as Aristotle said at the beginning of the metaphysics,
men by nature desire to know. Ignorance cannot be perpetuated forever. The necessary legal and scientific reforms will come in the 21st century. Our descendants will look back on us and they will be amazed." That's an end of a quotation from the 1,500 member union of scientists. In this regard, Dr. Charles Gordon Haid, who was the president of the American Medical Association, made the following statement regarding water fluoridation after the AMA journal came out in 1943 against it, Dr. Haid made the following statement, quote,
I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water in this way is deplorable. No physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottle filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little as he wished, and yet the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that. The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable,
but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administrating mass medication to the consumer without regard to age or physical condition. I have a number of other quotes, but I realize I've got a time limit here, so I'll conclude my statement
with that. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. members any
questions okay thank you for your testimony next signed up to speak against the bill we have mr. edge show with Delta Dental thank you mr. chairman
Ed Choate
Unverified
30:57
members of the committee my name is Ed Choate I'm president CEO of Delta Dental and I have with me dr. Joe Thompson the state state surgeon general in 2011 And Delta Dental was asked to provide funding for the upfront capital costs for water systems who would be mandated to fluoridate their water if Act 197 were passed. We were asked to provide a half million dollars in funding because we were told that's what it would take to cover those costs for the 35 water systems that were affected by the
bill. We formed a grant review committee and after receiving the first six grants we determined that a half million dollars was not going to be enough to cover the cost so we went back to our foundation and received an additional commitment of up to six million dollars to cover those costs and while that's a lot of money it's very cost-effective given the value of fluoride in preventing cavities and the fact it would increase the number of Arkansans receiving fluoridated water from 61 to over 80 percent if Act 197 is effectively repealed by giving
cities the individual right to choose whether they will or won't fluoridate their water that cost-effectiveness comes into question so we must reluctantly remove our commitment for that six million dollars and instead evaluate each grant request on the facts and circumstances of each case this approach is not our preference and unfortunately it's not in the best interest of Arkansans especially those who have limited access to care and limited money to see dentists so with all due respect we request that you vote
Speaker 58
32:36
against this bill Mr. Chair Joe Thompson just to emphasize what I have shared with this committee before fluoride the science is overwhelmingly supportive of the low level of fluoride and the safety of fluoride in public drinking water and was one of the last century, the 20th century's 10 greatest public health achievements. It is as safe as many other things. Iron, for example, is toxic if you take too much of it, but you must have it to live with your red blood cells.
Oxygen is toxic, as Dr. Smith said, at high levels. At the levels that are required for fluoride, it has been proven to be safe. We have studied in Arkansas communities and communities that don't have fluoride their kids have twice as many cavities and you pay for it through our kids and it's just not fair to not protect the children of our state through a statewide requirement when the science is overwhelming thank you I'd like to continue the effort to safeguard our
children members any questions okay thank you for your testimony we only
have one well okay okay yeah we we have one more that's the last of the opposition we have one more person signed up to speak for and there's eight minutes remaining so dr. yeah I'm sorry two minutes remaining dr. Whithall if are you in the audience okay seems like he left so there's nobody else I was
wondering if the March of Dimes knew you were here okay sorry I didn't look at the bill numbers okay that that all the people signed up to testify on the legislation so there's two minutes remaining representative Altus would you like to close for your bill okay
up so two minutes remaining keep that in mind so representative Alta's can close but
mr. Clark Jordan you'll if you'll come to the end of the table you'll be
Speaker 62
35:04
recognized to speak for the bill Two minutes, so I will hit what is in my mind the most important
Speaker 63
35:10
aspect of all of this. At least it is to me. Maybe I'm crazy. Now, you've got to understand, and I'm sure you all do,
that only people like research scientists can know for certain whether fluoride is good or whether fluoride is bad. All the rest of us have to get the trickle-down information, and we have to judge based on common sense and what we really think the person is all about. I have done that by reading Paul Connick's book, which I recommend highly to all of you. A little too loud?
Okay, so I will get to what I have read. I'm not a research scientist. I'll get to what I have read and studied in depth, and that is this. What it is. That needs to be shouted from the rooftops. What it is and where it comes from. Mr. Al just hit on it slightly. I'll hit on it a little bit more with one minute left. It's hazardous industrial waste. But hydrofluorosilicic acid is the particular fluoride compound in this industrial waste.
But that's not the only thing. There are hundreds of other toxic chemicals in it that get dumped into our drinking water. If you can believe this. Now, if you don't believe it, don't take my advice. Go and find out for yourself what we're dumping into water, drinking water, bathing water, hazardous industrial waste. Number four on the hazard scale. That's the highest there is.
Now. Mr. Jordan, I'm sorry, but your two minutes has expired. Thank you. Thank you. No, sir. I'm
sorry, but debate was limited. I tried to make that clear. members you've heard testimony for against what's the pleasure of the committee representative Malone makes a motion to pass any testimony on the motion or any to any discussion on the motion okay all in favor say I'm any
opposed chair rules the nose have it representative I've learned my left lesson yeah two hands we're in a roll call mr. mr. price call the
Speaker 68
37:57
roll representative word representative Butch Wilkins representative Butch
Wilkins representative Perry representative Malone representative Hank Wilkins representative Hank Wilkins Representative letting. Representative love.
Representative love. Representative link. Representative Harris. Representative Ward law. Representative Ward law representative hammer. Representative Branscombe. Representative Meeks. Representative Mayberry.
Representative Overby. Representative Ritchie. Representative Walmart. Cripson DeFerguson, Vice Chair Murdoch, Chair Burroughs, no. Representative Alessis,
you failed to pass your bill by a vote of 749 against.
Thank you. Members, next, we have another special order for HB 1468 by Representative Hammer. Representative Hammer, if you'll join us at the end of the table, you will be recognized to present the bill.
okay members we're going to distribute a handout from representative hammer and give the room a little time to clear if you were here for the full ride for representative out this bill just feel free to step on out and take your conversations to the hall we're going to keep moving through our agenda Representative hammer you're recognized Thank mr. Thank mr. Chair. I have some
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
40:49
Folks that are going to give testimony that I've been that I've invited this morning Could I go ahead and
bite them for the sake of time to come to the table, please? Thank you.
regarding pulse ox and this is actually a bill that's being presented on behalf of several organizations that are in support of this bill but also I'd like to lay this before you just to show you that it's not only about the organizations but it's about the people because this is a stack of forms that have been completed by parents that are in support of this bill would like to ask that you would consider their voice in the matter as constituents that's represented from around state and I think that equates about 300 sheets of
paper of parents that are in favor of this bill so I ask that you would consider that I'm going to be brief as far as my opening comments and save it for the end and the closing because I think a lot of what is going to be convincing for you to vote in favor of this bill is going to be shared on behalf of the professionals and the people whose lives have been touched primarily because this is not in place now and had it been in place it would have spared a lot of unnecessary changes to people's lives. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask for the lady sitting next to me, young lady
sitting next to me. She is a parent who has a testimony that I'd like for the committee to hear. And then I have another parent that will, from a personal perspective, there would be two testimonies, and then there'll be individuals from associations and a physician to my right that would speak, if that's allowed. Yes, sir. That'll be fine. You're
Speaker 85
43:07
recognized. Thank you. hi I'm Pat Dyer I'm a registered nurse at Salama Memorial Hospital and there we
perform the new procedure for critical congenital heart defects we're a small hospital and we do a global charge at our hospital it's a very minimum cost for this to be performed it's non-invasive on the children and and We've been doing these screenings since March of 2012 when it was first produced as recommended. The importance of the screening is that some infants that are born with heart defects can appear healthy at first,
and then they're sent home before the defect is detected. It's estimated that around 280 infants with an unrecognized heart disease was discharged each year from newborn nurseries in the U.S. and the undiagnosed heart diseases may result in death within two to four weeks after the parents get them home the screening that we do is just a very minimum non-invasive we put this little probe on their right hand and their one of their feet and just read a difference in it it can identify some of these
infants before they show the condition that's allowing these infants to be seen by cardiologists to receive special care and treatment to prevent death or disability early in life. We at Saline and I'm sure the other hospitals that perform this, we believe that screening if it would just prevent one death in a
baby, it's worth it. That's all I have to say.
Chair
Unverified
44:42
Okay. Representative Hank Wilkins, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 88
44:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Representative Hammer, is there a cost estimate associated with this?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
44:52
I'm sorry. Yes, sir, there is, and we have a fiscal impact that will be either passed out or should be passed out and do have a fiscal impact to show the cost that would be associated
with this. If it's okay with you, Representative Wilkins, I'm going to let them finish testifying, and we'll go ahead and distribute out that fiscal impact and then get to questions after. That's fine. Mr. Chair, thank you. Thank
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
45:14
you, Mr. Chair. And one reason I wanted Pat to give her testimony first is because now you're going to hear from a parent that will bring a personal level to it,
And I would ask for her to introduce herself at this time, and she has a testimony she'd like to
Christy Rosenbaum
Unverified
45:29
share. My name is Christy Rosenbaum, and I'm from Nashville.
Speaker 96
45:33
And as I read my son's story, I just ask that you keep in mind that we are currently at Children's Hospital, and he is still fighting for his life, and that at any moment I could get a phone call that his condition has changed. on january the 23rd i gave birth to a precious baby boy who weighed five pounds and seven ounces
we named him kane i stayed three nights at the hospital and he was there with me they released him with a clean bill of health and we went home at his and when we got home he wasn't eating good he wasn't going to the bathroom good he didn't cry all he did was sleep I'd have to force him to eat and so at his one week doctor's appointment I took him they listened to him and checked him over and said everything was fine and
when I went back home after the doctor told us it's just jaundiced feed him every two hours and you know it'll go away and he'll perk up a couple days went on and 11 days old I was concerned with him not eating anymore so I I took him to a hospital ER, and when we got there, his pulse ox level was 90%. So they rushed him to a trauma room, and they began poking him to get blood.
They performed a spinal tap to see if it was spinal meningitis, and it came back negative. They performed a CT scan, which showed that he had an enlarged heart. At this point, the ER doctor told me that they had contacted Children's and were en route with the jet to fly him to Children's to be seen by the cardio team. While he was still in the ER in Texarkana, his O2 sat kept dropping to 75%, so when the Children's trauma team arrived, they intubated him to breathe for him
because he could no longer maintain it. They started him on a medicine called prostaglandin to keep his heart pumping until he got to Children's. They really didn't expect him to make the flight to Children's, but he did. When we got to Children's, I met with a cardiologist who told us he had what's called hypoplastic left heart syndrome, meaning the left side of his heart did not form in utero. the night that he
the doctor told us I just remember thinking how was this missed in my ultrasound how was this missed at the hospital how did I get sent home with a baby that was sick if they had told us I'm sorry after the cardiologist told us what heart defect he had. He told us that it should have been caught at the hospital, and had he had the Pulse Ox
test, it would have been caught. The cardiologist explained to us that Kane would need three open heart surgeries, and that most babies with hypoplastic left heart syndrome do not survive past 10 days old, and Kane was 11 days old. They said that this defect occurred in utero and there's nothing that I could have done about it. It was that he had the defect before I even knew I was pregnant.
So after a few nights staying and getting him strong enough for his first open heart surgery, the time came for his heart surgery and he did well with that. And then a few days later I noticed that he started having seizures. And they did a bunch of tests and said that he had had two strokes probably the night that I took him to the ER and he was in cardiogenic shock.
And the neurologist told me that the strokes could have been prevented if the defect was caught sooner. And from the damage, they tell me that he may not speak, he may not, or that he may not speak and he may have right side of weakness and some paralysis. I did not follow my script, but just I want you to know that we are at Children's right now and he's still very sick and that most of his issues that he's having even today
right now could have been avoided if the pulse ox test had been done before we left the hospital he could have had the surgery he needed in the first few days of his life to prevent the strokes and I wouldn't have gone home expecting to live a normal life with a healthy baby instead of being here we're going to be here for a long time he's got to have a lot of surgeries and it's just a roller coaster ride that some of it could have been prevented
if we had this mandatory bull stocks testing done. So please consider this. Okay. Thank you for your
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
51:01
testimony. Thank you. I'd like, with the Chair's permission, to have the second parent come up to give her testimony, if that's agreed.
Speaker 102
51:17
That'll be fine. Thank you. Stacey. My name is Stacy Cornwell. My daughter Emma was born in 2008 with a heart defect. The hospital that we were at, they actually start out, my husband actually has a congenital heart defect.
And so while I was pregnant, we were tested, had a level two ultrasound to check for a heart defect. That came back negative. They said the heart was fine. So when we had her, we were not expecting to have a
Stacy Cornwell
Unverified
51:47
heart defect. The hospital we were at, my in-laws, because of my husband having the heart defect, they
Speaker 102
51:53
knew the signs of maybe a heart baby. And so when she was born, they realized that she wasn't breathing. However, the hospital felt that it was because she was premature.
I had her at 34 weeks, and so they just kept thinking it was premature as far as with her breathing. The next morning, when she still wasn't breathing properly, my husband asked them to do a pulse ox test on her at a day old, and when they did, her pulse ox was at 80%. At that point, we asked them to do an echo, and the echo determined that she did indeed have a heart defect,
and she has total anomal pulmonary venous return, which you cannot. It's hard to find in an ultrasound because it's on the backside of the heart. And babies, we were lucky because they caught it early. We went to Children's at a day old, had surgery at nine days old, and it is completely corrected. We do still see a cardiologist every two years, but she is four years old now, and she is perfect. We don't foresee any more procedures in the future.
And so I just feel that we were very lucky to have caught it early. But the only reason why we caught it is because we had it in the family, and so we knew what the signs were as far as, you know, she was pink. She wasn't blue, which normally heart babies are, have blue tint to them. She looked healthy. It was just her breathing. It was very labored. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the testimony.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
53:41
Representative Hammer, will you take some questions? I'll take some questions, or Dr. Whit Hall is prepared to speak next. It can add some validity.
However, the chair directs. Let's save Mr. Hall. Well, let's get some questions out of the way and let Dr. Hall speak for the bill when we go through the testimony, if that's okay. Sure. Thank you. We do have some people signed up to speak against. We'll keep a little balance there coming down the stretch. Okay. Representative Hank
Wilkins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 88
54:12
Thank you, Representative Hammer, for this important piece of legislation. With diagnosis at the proper time and I guess procedures can sometimes help and save the lives of these babies, is that not right? I would say any test could help be an
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:34
indicator if that answers your question. But are there not also medical
Speaker 88
54:42
procedures that can be done when the diagnosis is there?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
54:48
that can save the life of the child. Oh, yes. There can be procedures that are done at the time of diagnosis. I think the bigger question is at what point are you going to diagnose and why wouldn't you want to use a simple, inexpensive test to determine the need for possible procedures, especially given the magnitude of cost that follows if you wait until after the fact. I mean, if a test such as this could be done and it would help indicate as early as possible, of which this now is considered the fifth screening test to help assess babies' welfare,
much like we get blood pressure tests as adults, then, yes, there's procedures that can correct anything, but why would you want to have to wait until a procedure if you could do a simple test as now these parents are having to deal with this and an expense to
Speaker 88
55:41
our system as well as to their personal insurance? All right. You answered my next three questions. Thank you. I'm almost finished. But the fiscal impact appears to me to be minimal compared to what can be saved in overall costs.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
55:57
Is that a fair assessment? Yes, sir. And I'm not sure if you – I see the green sheets, but just for the benefit of those who don't have the green sheets in their possession, the revenue impact is estimated, and that's a big word, estimated, to be $85,000. I bet it, I would venture, that it probably cost a significant amount just to make that med flight from the hospital in the outline area to the hospital here that could have been easily preventable. So the ongoing cost is far greater than the $85,000, sir.
Speaker 88
56:29
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I have a motion. Okay.
Speaker 111
56:34
Thank you. Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 4
56:38
I guess my question is, is if this is such an important
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
56:43
test, why are we having to mandate it? Why don't the hospitals and the birthing facilities just automatically do it? I'm going to give my answer, but then I think somebody
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
56:54
from the hospital association will be to the microphone in a little bit, and maybe the good physician to the right can shed some light on that.
But I would also want to inform, as was spoken to a minute ago by our nurse from Saline Memorial, that a lot of the hospitals, over half the hospitals, do this now. But it's like, I'm sorry. Oh, they do, okay. They voluntarily do it because they recognize the valuable test that it is to identify things earlier. But it's like anything else that we have to deal with as lawmakers. I think sometimes we're put in a position that when we hear the evidence, we make the decision to say this is important enough that you will do it measured against the evidence and the facts.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
57:38
And those hospitals that currently do it, they do it regardless of whether a person has insurance? I mean, I guess it would be covered under
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
57:46
Medicaid or private insurance either way. Well, the cost nationwide is about $10 a test. In Arkansas, it averages $5 a test. So from talking to my CEO of the hospital I work for, Saline Memorial Hospital, the one that I, you know, that I work for is, you know, that's just part of the service being a facility that recognizes the valuable, you know, asset. Now, the other thing is, if push ever gets to shove down the road, we don't want hospitals, me personally, I'm speaking in favor of the bill here,
I want hospitals to know that this has been deemed as an important enough test that it will be part of their protocol so they can't start backing out of doing it. Good answer. Thank you.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
58:30
Thank you. Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hammer, first of all, I want to congratulate you for bringing this bill here. As you know, I was working on a similar piece of legislation when I found out that you were working on this, and that's why I asked to come on as a co-sponsor for it. I'd also like to commend each of the ladies who are here to speak to their personal stories.
Thank you very much for bringing this to us. Representative Hammer, I think you briefly touched on this, but can you just elaborate just a little bit with regards to the number of hospitals that are already doing this and the fact that it is a relatively simple and not costly procedure that can save babies' lives or
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
59:13
children's lives. As of February 19th of this year, there are 20 states that have introduced this legislation.
There are another nine outside the 20 that have already enacted legislation to this effect, and then there are two that were signed into by executive order. So I think those numbers speak to the fact that it is being recognized around the nation as well as a letter from the national level that this test is the fifth test to be provided to give the babies the best quality.
Speaker 114
59:53
Thank you, Representative Harris. You okay? Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 117
1:00:26
okay there's a doctor and a cardiologist in the room just want to testify
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:00:30
on behalf of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a little – that will be fine, but I have sitting to my right-hand side here Dr. Whithall, and there is – and maybe this is Dr. Brian Abel coming up behind me, is it? It would be – I'm not sure if he's speaking in favor or against the bill. I just wanted to make sure we have an opportunity for Dr. Whithall here to be able to maybe speak to it and be available to the committee to ask technical questions about the procedure because I think he can provide that, and I can't.
Speaker 117
1:01:02
So at the chair's direction, please. Just one second. Okay, I recognize Dr. Whithall, excuse me, to come
Richard Whithall
Unverified
1:01:17
and speak for the bill. Thank you, sir. Thank
Speaker 124
1:01:25
you very much. Okay. My name is Richard Whithall. I'm a baby doctor at UAMS in Arkansas Children's Hospital, and I know some of these committee members, Mr. Womack over here, and it's a pleasure to be here,
and I'm very honored to represent the March of Dimes. Thank you very much. This is a test that we have done at our institution for more or less the last year. The test at our institution, we have picked up some children that have critical congenital heart disease that we would not have otherwise been able to pick up, and I can speak to you from personal experience with that. But the reason that we cannot do that is that when a baby is in the womb, there is a blood vessel called a duct that should stay open
that allows blood to circumvent the lungs. And usually after birth for the first few days, that blood vessel stays open. As long as that blood vessel stays open, babies do fine. And it really is not possible oftentimes for us to be able to recognize and diagnose critical congenital heart disease the heart disease that these parents are referring to is a small left heart which is the main pumping chamber of the heart that goes to the body as long as that blood vessel stays open
it's really impossible to recognize that and once that blood vessel closes it often does so very rapidly and when that occurs babies are oftentimes get in what we call extremis which means that they can deteriorate very rapidly which happened apparently in this one case and lead to very severe neurological brain problems as well as heart problems and problems with all of the organs in the body that are dependent on blood so that is why that occurs the cost of the test
at our institution is approximately three and a half to four dollars the pulse ox probe costs $8 and we can recycle it and get a little more than four back so that's where the cost comes from the sensitivity which means that the number of tests that are that are positive or the specificity the number of tests that are positive that end up not being a very serious problem are really less than 1% so if this test is positive it's a very serious problem
From that, we go on to get an echocardiogram, which is a test that we can actually look at and diagnose the specific congenital heart lesion. Dr. Ebel over here is much more adept at that than I am. And from there, then we can offer treatment. And even with babies that have a poor pumping left chamber, Most of the time, these babies do quite well with modern surgical techniques.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. Any questions, members? Representative Ferguson. I just had a – first I wanted to say,
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
1:04:31
like Representative Mayberry, I wish I had thought to bring this bill. It's a great bill. My sister-in-law is a NICU nurse, and it's a very noninvasive test. and a lot of times kids go home from the hospital and die two days later because they didn't know they had a defect. I'm also glad that Representative Hammer brought this as a mandate from the health department
because my question for you is do you not agree that there are mandates that are so important from the health department that they shouldn't be under local control?
Speaker 60
1:05:06
Zing. All right. You don't have to answer. I'll answer the question. I'm just preparing my response in a careful manner,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:05:15
if you don't mind, please. There are some things that impact our lifestyle. There are some things that impact our life. This impacts our life. Very well done.
Members, any other questions for the doctor? Okay. If not, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. We also have Mr. Robert Breck with the Department of Health signed up to speak against. I noticed Dr. Howerson was kind enough to slip out about two minutes ago, but you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. You did good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:05:53
My name is Robert Breck with the Health Department.
We are not opposed to the bill. As a matter of fact, you're looking at somebody who had a congenital heart problem when he was a baby and nearly died. I have a personal interest in this. Along with that, Dr. Bob West, who retired from the health department, came to me before he retired and asked me to work on this and asked for this to get done because we do think it's very important. And we've negotiated in good faith with people on how to do this. Our problem with the bill are the requirements that are placed upon the Department of Health.
If you'll look on page 2, section D4, or I'm sorry, page 3, section D4, line 28, you've heard testimony that this is a simple test. I'm told that all hospitals in Arkansas but two perform this test. I was told by Dr. West's simple test. I've heard that over and over, and I believe it is. This puts a requirement upon the health department that upon a request by any birthing facility,
we would have to go to their facility and train them on how to do this test. That's an open-ended requirement that we don't think is necessary. We don't, the health department, we don't regulate medical personnel, and we don't train them how to do a medical test. And it is a simple test. We think people can figure this out. but hospitals are already doing it, we respectfully ask that that subsection D be removed.
The other potential problem is the bill requires electronic submission of the test results. Currently there's not a system in place for that to occur. We're working on a system now that electronic submissions of other items such as the newborn infant screening program for hearing, each newborn also has to have a hearing test. That is submitted to the health department as well, along with a blood spot is submitted to the health department where we do 28 genetic tests.
We don't have an electronic system at this time. We're working on it. We can only commit that we hope we have it in place within two years. We would take paper submissions tomorrow. There is a mandate in the law, and there's no, it doesn't say when funds are available. It doesn't give a date certain. It just says the department shall develop this electronic submission system. And we're committed to do that, but we don't know how long it will take. We hope we have it in place within two years. So those are our concerns about the bill. The object of the underlying bill we're totally for is just a matter of the fiscal impact
and how we're going to provide that. Thank you.
okay thank you for the testimony any questions for mr. Breck okay representative link you're recognized first off with all due respect and
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:08:54
props to our people in BLR do you feel like that this fiscal impact we have in front of us included transportation and such it would take to do the training and the changes over to electronic or do you think that possibly our fiscal impact didn't include that well
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:09:14
we were asked that question actually from your
Your staff, she contacted me late yesterday and asked, we actually gave a very low figure for how much we think it would cost us to provide this training because we don't think anybody's going to ask for it. Other than if a hospital wanted to ask for it, they would not have to submit this data to the health department until we provided that training. I'm not saying they would do that, but we don't think they're going to ask for the training. We don't think it's necessary, but the open-ended mandate in the bill is troubling.
I mean, we did try to add that in, but if every hospital asked for the training, it wouldn't be hard to see where the $85,000 would not
cover that. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Breck, do you remember what the general revenue carry forward was in the last fiscal year for the Department of Health? No, I do not. And for members of the committee, that's general revenue that's funded to the Department of Health that is unspent and then recouped by the legislature.
I don't remember the exact number, but I know it was above $5 million, and
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:10:25
I'm thinking maybe closer to... I believe that the monies that we gave back to the general revenue monies that we gave back was one penny. It was one penny. Now, we do have funds that those funds carry over, but as far as general revenue that we returned, I was told it was one penny.
I might go back. We'll get the answer because it may have been the previous fiscal year, but I think
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:10:51
it's closer to $5 million. And I would just say it isn't as if we can't come up with the money to do this program, but then there I can't tell you how many different programs and how many different items we've been, you know, people have come to us who want us to do programs. We would like to accommodate all of those. We're looking at budget cuts from CDC. We know we're going to get those. We're looking at sequestration cuts. Most of our money is federal money. We're looking
at potentially, you know, losing people and still trying to provide the services that we currently provide. We would love to be able to say yes to every good idea out there. With this particular bill, we just don't think it's necessary. I believe that the nurse testified from Saline County it was a simple test. All of us have had a pulse ox sensor on our finger. I think that's what we're talking about here. I don't see a need for the health department to take on training people how to do medical tests when it's not something we do.
Representative Hammer, could I ask you what the purpose is for requiring the Department of Health to provide the
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:12:01
training? I'd like to answer that question but I think we can be enlightened if you'd allow Jody Ann from the Hospital Association come and sit down and share a few things and
Speaker 60
1:12:11
it may address some of those questions if that's
alright. Okay that'd be fine. If you'll join us and say
Speaker 137
1:12:20
your name and association you'll be recognized. Hi I'm Jody Ann Shred I represent the Arkansas Hospital Association. The reason for the training most of our hospitals do this now. This
This is done by physician order or physicians ask the CNAs to do it. So sometimes you need training to make things consistent. We do agree that not every hospital will need any kind of assistance. We actually don't foresee someone requesting it. However, if the standard of care changes over time or the way the test is performed changes over time, we'd like the opportunity to request that of a body that can teach us all in a consistent manner how to do that. Okay.
Representative Link, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:13:01
Would those standards change through statute or through rules? It's my understanding that standard of
Speaker 137
1:13:08
care for physicians, and I am not a physician, changes over the course of time through things like guidelines issued by American Academy of Pediatrics and other well-known bodies. I know you've got some folks who are very familiar with. The legislative
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:13:22
body really has nothing to do with those changes, or we don't react to those changes and we're not asked to react to those changes in general that's
correct okay thank you representative meeks okay members any other questions okay so so if i'm summarizing representative hammer the reason for the involvement of the department of health is for consistency and training uh and providing that to the hospitals who may need it to ensure that
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:14:00
appropriate way? I would say that would be a fair answer, and that's the term mandate sometimes has a negative overtone,
and I understand that, but you've got to weigh out the consequences of what's being involved here and what's being dealt with here. And there are times I think that we need to step in and say this is going to get done because this is what ought to be done, and this is one of those times. And so
in answer to your question, yes. Okay. That sounds – I'm being kind of flu today, and that's okay. It's getting into the session. But that sounds like a good close for the bill. I don't think there's anybody else signed up to speak for or against. So, members, thank you, Mr. Brack and Ms. Tripp, for your testimony.
Members, do you have any other questions? Representative Hammer, are you satisfied with your closing? Only I'd
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:14:47
say this statement. The congenital heart defects are the number one killer of infants with birth defects. I think that says it all. Okay. Representative Hank
Wilkins, you were recognized for a motion.
Speaker 88
1:15:00
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly am a conservative, and I don't believe in spending the state's money if we can help it. But then when it's something important, we ought to do that.
Therefore, I move to pass. Members, you have a motion to pass. Any discussion on the
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
1:15:20
motion? Okay, Representative Link, you're recognized. I do, I obviously have no problem with this bill and the intent of this bill. I do have a problem with the mandate that we just discussed, and I, you know, just have, just want to voice that issue that I have that problem with that mandate, no problem with this bill or the intention, or the money we're spending on this bill. I'm just concerned about that later mandate coming up. I don't think it's necessary to be in there.
Okay, members, any other discussion? I like discussing motions. I think it's good. Okay. If not, there's a motion. Do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Chair rules the ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:15:59
you. I think I have one more. If
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:16:02
you'd like me to stay here while Robert's in the room, I don't think it's going to be as lengthy as the last one, if you'd like. Let me
ask you, is it non-controversial? In my opinion. That's a dumb question.
I tell you what. Hey, Representative Hammer, I will tell you, I feel a little, let me do this. I've told Representative Bell that we could run a bill today because he has a couple people here that would like to testify from out of state. Can we do that one first, ask everybody to hold, because I think we can do it fast and come back to yours afterwards? If I'm in the
Speaker 60
1:16:38
room, that'll be fine. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Bell, if you'll go to the end of the table, you'll be recognized to
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:16:50
present SB. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.
This bill did pass the Senate 35-0. It has been generally non-controversial. I appreciate it. If, you know, we have any questions, I
should be able to address them. Bottom line on Senate Bill 533 is a few years ago, I believe back in 2006, the state adopted some changes to get in line with federal law and, in the process, inadvertently didn't include camps, private camps, that were exempted under federal law in that requirement.
It appears to have been inadvertent. We're trying to make a technical correction to bring us in line with the federal law and allow a lot of our jobs that are out in our rural communities around the state to remain in place. I have several folks here who are willing to testify if we get really deep in questions, any interest of time that's all I'll have to say unless you all
have more questions okay members any questions from the committee representative letting you're recognized for question motion at the proper
time okay all right would you like to have a couple people from a come up briefly and just talk
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
1:18:00
about the bill if the committee so desires that's fine in the interest of time that's not necessary if you all are ready to
proceed blessed are the brief for they shall be invited back. Representative Letting, you're recognized for a motion. Motion do pass. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All in the opposed? Congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Appreciate it. All right, Representative Hammer, thanks for accommodating there. If you'll join us back at the end of the table, you'll be recognized to present the bill.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:18:33
If you'll tell us the bill number, please. 1492 Can I have Robert sit at the end of the table with us? Yeah Y'all hold hands, make us all feel good I'd rather not, sir Thank you I'll make you feel good Political sense There is an amendment that should be passed out With this bill It was 1492.
Yes, sir. It's involving shaking baby
Speaker 45
1:19:24
syndrome. I'm not going to run that one.
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
1:20:02
When the chair directs, I'm ready, sir. You're recognized. Thank you. Basically what this bill does is currently the Department of Health is able to distribute materials with regards
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:09
to the issue of shaking baby, which, as you know in the news, is becoming a greater issue for our society to have to deal with. And what this bill would do is open up the opportunity that if there are groups who would like to bring materials to the Department of Health to be approved by the Department of Health and want to distribute those materials at no cost to the Department of Health, this would be the mechanism for them to be able to do that.
So there will be no fiscal impact to the Department of Health. It will open up a door for opportunities for agencies or for entities that would like to address that issue and provide some very positive material to parents to know how to deal with it and how to help prevent it. And that's basically what the nuts and the bolts of the bill are. And the reason you have the amendment is because the way the bill was originally drafted didn't arrive at that end result. And working with Robert, we were able to get to this point with that amendment.
Okay. Thank you, members. Let's adopt the amendment first, if that's okay. We'll entertain a motion. Representative Branskill moves adoption of the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Amendment's adopted. You've heard the presentation. Mr. Breck, did you want to add anything? MR. Only that it's such a pleasure to
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:21:25
come up and support Representative Hammer's bill. MR. All right. Thank
you. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
1:21:36
I think I see this, but I want to make sure that for clarification purposes that the Department does still have a review process over those materials to ensure accuracy, legitimacy, so forth. MR. Yes.
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:21:50
in the last session, there was a shaken baby bill that was passed at that time, so we're already involved in that. We're very committed to that type of program, and we think this is a good thing to
Speaker 4
1:22:05
do. Thank you. All right. Representative Meeks.
Was this going to require you any extra personnel to have to because it says you've got to update the website and,
Speaker 113
1:22:15
I guess, approve material? I mean, is it going to... No.
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:22:19
As I mentioned, in the last session, There was a bill that was passed, Senator Malone sponsored, right now we do provide shaken baby educational materials to all the hospitals that they give to mothers as they leave the hospital. I think the focus of this is to try to get that information to a broader range of people besides just the mother when she leaves, because the person who does that shaking, you know,
could be the husband, boyfriend, babysitter, whomever. That's the point. But we will not have to add any new personnel, and we're happy with this bill. Okay. Thank you. thank you members
any other questions okay anybody in the audience would like to speak for or against okay if not representative Malone did you have a motion okay you recognize promotion motion do pass as amended as amended thank you any discussion on the motion all in favor say I'm any opposed
congratulations you've passed your bill thank you thank you sure members any is there anybody else here that would like to run a bill okay I'm not going to read through the agenda because it's too long but again note that as of Tuesday it will not be so if you want to keep a bill on an act on the active calendar be get on it because we're going to clean it up note the special orders coming up on Tuesday representative meets HB 1568 and then also Senator Irvin's bills on
on Thursday of next week. No other business to come before the committee. We'll stand adjourn until Tuesday.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative John Burris Chair
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Denny Altes
Unverified
Representative Deborah Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 24
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 34
Speaker 35
Speaker 36
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Speaker 50
Ed Choate
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 63
Speaker 68
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 88
Christy Rosenbaum
Unverified
Speaker 96
Representative Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 102
Stacy Cornwell
Unverified
Speaker 111
Speaker 4
Speaker 114
Speaker 117
Richard Whithall
Unverified
Speaker 124
Robert Breck
Unverified
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Speaker 137
Representative Nate Bell
Unverified
Speaker 45
Speaker 113